LONDON — Two people have been arrested after trying to get into the Faslane naval base, where the U.K.’s nuclear submarines are based. A 34-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman were detained after attempting to enter the base at around 5 p.m. on Thursday, Police Scotland said in a statement. A Royal Navy spokesperson acknowledged the arrests and said: “As the matter is subject to an ongoing investigation, we will not comment further.” The Press Association has reported that the man arrested is Iranian. Faslane is one of the U.K.’s largest and most sensitive military sites, and is not open to the public. While it is not known what the pair’s motive was, the incident comes amid heightened concerns about hostile activity from Iran in Britain. Faslane is home to all of the Navy’s nuclear submarines, including the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines which carry Trident nuclear missiles. The site is protected by Ministry of Defence Police and Royal Marine Commandos, which were scrambled to their highest alert yesterday, according to the Sun.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Offiziell geht es um 75 Jahre diplomatische Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Kanada, tatsächlich aber um eine strategische Entscheidung mit weitreichenden Folgen: Kanada will bis zu zwölf neue U-Boote beschaffen. Im Rennen ist auch ein deutsch-norwegisches Modell – und damit ein möglicher sicherheitspolitischer Schulterschluss im Nordatlantik und in der Arktis. Im Gespräch mit Generalinspekteur Carsten Breuer und der Oberbefehlshaberin der kanadischen Streitkräfte Jennie Carignan wird deutlich, worum es wirklich geht: militärische Interoperabilität, dauerhafte Präsenz und Abschreckung in einer Region, die durch neue Seewege und geopolitische Konkurrenz immer wichtiger wird. Deutschland und Kanada stehen dabei bereits gemeinsam an der NATO-Ostflanke – in Litauen und Lettland. Doch die strategische Planung geht längst darüber hinaus: Sicherheit wird global gedacht, von Europa über den Indopazifik bis in die Arktis. Ein möglicher U-Boot-Deal wäre deshalb mehr als ein Exportgeschäft. Er wäre ein Signal für engere Zusammenarbeit, mehr militärische Verzahnung – und für eine NATO, die sich neu ausrichtet. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Zwischen Kyjiw und Budapest droht der endgültige Bruch. Während Viktor Orbán im Europäischen Rat womöglich kommende Woche die Freigabe von 90 Milliarden Euro an EU-Hilfen blockiert, bezeichnet Wolodymyr Selenskyj ihn ⁠im Exklusiv-Interview mit POLITICO⁠ als „Verbündeten Russlands“. Gordon Repinski berichtet von der aufgeladenen Stimmung im Präsidentenpalast und analysiert gemeinsam mit Rixa Fürsen, wie Selenskyjs „Plan B“ aussieht, um das ungarische Veto zu umgehen. Kanzler Friedrich Merz ist derweil am nördlichen Polarkreis. Begleitet von Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius geht es in Norwegen um weit mehr als nur diplomatische Höflichkeit. Zwischen NATO-Übungen und dem Besuch eines Weltraumbahnhofs stehen ein U-Boot-Deal mit Kanada sowie die europäische Unabhängigkeit in der Satellitentechnik auf der Agenda. Hans von der Burchard begleitet den Kanzler auf dieser Reise und ordnet ein, ob Norwegen als wichtigster Energielieferant gerade jetzt eine Lebensversicherung für die deutsche Wirtschaftswende sein könnte. Deutschland gibt Teile der strategischen Ölreserve frei und führt eine tägliche Preis-Obergrenze an den Tankstellen ein. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Justiz- und Verbraucherschutzministerin Stefanie Hubig (SPD), was die Preisobergrenze bringen soll und ob deutschen Autofahrern bei anhaltender Krise im Nahen Osten bald doch mit einer echten Preisbremse geholfen wird. 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Amazon: Unabhängige Verkaufspartner stehen heute für über 60 % aller bei Amazon verkauften Produkte. Ein Beispiel ist Alphatrail aus Regensburg: Michael und sein Team haben ihre Leidenschaft in ein erfolgreich wachsendes Unternehmen verwandelt. Über Amazon bietet Alphatrail Radsport-Fans in ganz Europa erstklassige Ausrüstung und Zubehör. Sie sind eines von rund 47.000 deutschen kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen bei Amazon. Erfahren Sie mehr darüber auf AboutAmazon.de.**

Top Pentagon officials on Wednesday suggested that the Iran war could extend into a longer conflict — saying the fighting is “far from over” — even as they declined to explain what ultimate victory might look like. The warnings from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine about an enduring conflict were the first from military officials, and they underscored President Donald Trump’s predictions over the past several days that the campaign could last for weeks. And, in keeping with the president, neither Hegseth nor Caine outlined what an end to the conflict might look like, as the war entered its fifth day amid continued air assaults by Israeli and American forces and sporadic missile reprisals from Iran. “We’ve only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities,” Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday. That statement echoed Trump, who said Monday that “we haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.” The campaign, which kicked off Saturday with joint American and Israeli airstrikes, has seen thousands of bombs dropped on Iranian targets, eliminating most of its air defenses and hitting missile launchers and elements of Tehran’s defense manufacturing capabilities. The strikes, Caine said, have reduced Iran’s ability to launch missiles and drones at targets throughout the Gulf region. Over the past 24 hours, Iran’s ballistic missile launches have fallen by 23 percent from the first day of the war, while one-way attack drone shots are down 73 percent, according to Caine. Still, Iran has managed to penetrate U.S. defenses. Six U.S. Army Reserve soldiers were killed in Kuwait on Sunday by an Iranian Shahed drone that struck a tactical operations center that was not fully protected against aerial threats. The strike underscored the threat that small, cheap drones present to American forces in the region, as they normally fly below traditional radar systems and can be launched in large groups that can be difficult to fully defeat. Iranian drones have also killed Israeli civilians, hit apartment buildings throughout the Gulf region and slammed into the headquarters of the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Caine acknowledged those losses Wednesday but said the air campaign inside Iran will intensify: “We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces.” The general declined to comment on the possibility of American ground troops entering the fight at some point, however. The U.S. has expanded the geography of the war, sinking an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka on Wednesday with a torpedo launched by a submarine, the first time an American sub has torpedoed an enemy ship since World War II. Hegseth also signaled that the American sphere of influence in the region continues to grow, saying that “more bombers and more fighters are arriving just today,” and will begin dropping larger 500 pound, 1000 pound and 2000 pound precision munitions, presumably to target Iranian weapons storage sites and its nuclear program, which are buried deep underground. U.S. forces have expended thousands of munitions and air defense interceptors in the conflict already, from ship-launched Tomahawk missiles to air-to-ground missiles, and replacing those weapons will be costly. Some top lawmakers have said Congress is already talking about a supplemental spending bill to cover the war’s costs, amid warnings that the U.S. is running short of key munitions, including interceptors designed to protect against Iranian missiles. Hegseth flatly denied that the U.S. would be running short of munitions, again following Trump’s lead in saying the U.S. enjoys a “nearly unlimited stockpile” of weapons to draw from.

PARIS — Far-right leader Jordan Bardella pushed back against President Emmanuel Macron’s plans to make France’s nuclear doctrine more European in an interview Friday. “What I dispute in this dialogue [with European countries] is that we are wrong to think that deterrence is only nuclear; it is primarily conventional, and here again we have missions in Eastern Europe that must be maintained,” the National Rally’s president told TV news channel LCI, referring to French troop presence in Romania and Estonia and air policing missions in the Baltics. “As members of NATO and the EU, we have a duty to provide mutual assistance,” he added. Bardella acknowledged that France’s nuclear doctrine has always foreseen that the country’s vital interests do not stop at the French borders. “When it comes to nuclear power, I defend principles, and those principles are that there can be no sharing, no co-financing, and no co-decision-making on the nuclear button,” the MEP also said. The Elysée Palace has always stressed that any decision to launch a nuclear weapon would remain with the French president. The National Rally, historically skeptical of engagement with both NATO and the European Union, is leading early polls for next year’s pivotal presidential election. If longtime leader Marine Le Pen’s appeal to shorten or overturn her five-year election ban related to embezzlement charges is unsuccessful, the 30-year-old Bardella will likely run in her place. Bardella’s remarks come a few days ahead of a landmark speech Macron is set to deliver on how France’s nuclear weapons can contribute to Europe’s security. Paris has been in talks with European capitals such as Berlin, Stockholm and Warsaw over how French nukes could help the continent deter Russian President Vladimir Putin. Alongside the United Kingdom, France is one of two Western European nuclear powers. Its arsenal is both airborne and seaborne, with at least one submarine patrolling the seas at all times. When asked whether the National Rally would be open to bringing back a land-based nuclear deterrent — a capacity that France has abandoned after the Cold War — Bardella replied: “It could be part of the debate.” During the interview, Bardella also reiterated his party’s pledge to leave NATO’s integrated command if it came to power. Bardella’s comments come across as more nuanced than other members of the National Rally. “If Mr. Macron thinks he can give France’s nuclear weapons to the EU, he will face impeachment proceedings for treason,” said Philippe Olivier, another MEP from the far-right party and a close adviser to Le Pen.

PARIS — With only 14 months left in power, President Emmanuel Macron is now in a race against the clock to chart how France can wield the full force of its nuclear arsenal to guarantee Europe’s security more widely. Much will boil down to whether he makes concrete commitments in a landmark speech on France’s atomic strategy on Monday, to be delivered from the Atlantic peninsula where the country’s nuclear submarines are based. After decades sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella, European governments — particularly in Berlin and Warsaw — are increasingly warming to the idea that Paris could use Western Europe’s largest atomic arsenal to play a bigger role in safeguarding the continent’s security. They will be paying close attention to how far Macron goes in Monday’s speech. With the war in Ukraine entering its fifth year and fears about U.S. President Donald Trump’s reliability as an ally, they will want pledges of action rather than the president’s traditional rhetoric. Their big question, however, will be how much of a new European atomic architecture Macron can realistically lock in, with the NATO-skeptic, far-right opposition National Rally party of Marine Le Pen leading in early polls ahead of the 2027 presidential election. European officials, military officers and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO for this article said they hoped he proposes something substantive. One senior EU government official said they had “great hopes,” while a European military officer expected “a major change.” The speech will lay out whether Macron is willing to do something that the National Rally will find hard to unwind. Only the most far-reaching moves — deploying nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets in European nations, for example, or stationing French nuclear warheads outside the country — would prove difficult for the next French president to reverse without weakening France’s credibility. “It would appear that the president has a genuine desire to commit France to something that the National Rally would not be able to overturn if it came to power,” said Florian Galleri, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who specializes in nuclear deterrence. However, he conceded, “under political or economic constraints, the speech may be much more cautious, even deliberately vague.”  France has long suggested its roughly 300 warheads could play a bigger role in a wider European security strategy, but Germany, with more developed transatlantic instincts, has traditionally been warier. That’s changing, though, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month opened the door to German forces operating with French and British nuclear weapons. There are also concerns that some countries could decide to go it alone: Polish President Karol Nawrocki said earlier this month that his country should start developing nuclear defenses to face the threat from Moscow. FRENCH-LED EUROPEAN DETERRENT Elysée officials declined to predict what Macron would say, but options include an increase in France’s nuclear warheads, and the participation of European countries in France’s flagship Poker exercise that simulates a nuclear raid. European lawmakers have told POLITICO they would like to see French nuclear-capable fighter jets stationed in other countries.  The expectation is that Macron “will confirm nuclear deterrence is and will remain one of France’s priorities, and also that France is continuing to invest” in its arsenal, Estonia’s Undersecretary for Defence Policy Tuuli Duneton told POLITICO.  Alongside the U.K., France is one of two Western European nuclear powers. Its arsenal is both airborne and seaborne, with at least one submarine patrolling the seas at all times. | Alexis Rosenfeld/Getty Images However, French officials have one clear red line: Any decision to launch a nuclear strike would remain in Paris. “At the end of the day, who would be able to push the button? Only France. That’s also what makes the conversation complicated,” said a second European military officer.   Alongside the U.K., France is one of two Western European nuclear powers. Its arsenal is both airborne and seaborne, with at least one submarine patrolling the seas at all times. Unlike the U.K., Paris is not part of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, although French presidents have always stressed that France’s vital national interests have a European dimension.  Paris’ push to discuss how French nuclear weapons could contribute to the continent’s security wasn’t always welcome among European leaders — but Trump’s return to the White House has changed that calculus, including in countries such as Poland and Sweden.  Germany’s about-face has been the most striking. Berlin was once among the capitals most opposed to such talks, and is now openly confirming discussions with France. But there are definite difficulties if the umbrella is expanded on a country-by-country basis. A senior German official told POLITICO that Berlin would not foot the bill for an arsenal fully controlled by the French.  A NATO official also cautioned that limiting France’s defensive circle to specific EU countries could send the wrong signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin and expose the rest — a concern Merz himself raised at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. “We … will not allow zones of differing security levels to develop in Europe,” he said. SHADOW OF 2027 Crucially, Macron’s nuclear speech comes just 14 months before he leaves office. “We need to understand how sustainable France’s commitment is,” a European defense official stressed.  All eyes are on the National Rally. The far-right party’s leaders have openly spoken against Macron’s nuclear dialogue with European allies. The party is internally divided over its stance toward Russia, and believes in pulling out of NATO’s integrated command structure. While Le Pen has stressed that “nuclear power belongs to the French,” her protégé Jordan Bardella — the current favorite for the presidency after Macron — has struck a more open tone, insisting that the defense of French interests “does not stop at [French] borders.” He has not, however, endorsed Macron’s outreach on the nuclear umbrella.  European governments — particularly in Berlin and Warsaw — are increasingly warming to the idea that Paris could use Western Europe’s largest atomic arsenal to play a bigger role in safeguarding the continent’s security. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images The prospect of a National Rally win next year is creating “a credibility problem for the French offer,” a European diplomat conceded.  Some European capitals, along with some EU officials in Brussels, are already factoring that in. That’s especially true in Germany, where some German officials and lawmakers are already working under the assumption that the next French president will be Le Pen or Bardella, several French and European officials told POLITICO.  Jacopo Barigazzi reported from Brussels. Victor Jack contributed to this report.

OTTAWA — Defense Minister David McGuinty says rising global uncertainty is driving a surge of Canadians to enlist in the military. “Applications are up because Canadians want to serve,” McGuinty said Tuesday at an announcement about increasing and upgrading the stockpile of housing on military bases. He said in the past eight months, there has been a 13 percent increase in new recruits to the Canadian Armed Forces. “They’re very engaged in the project called ‘Canada’ right now. I think they want to make sure that Canada remains a secure and sovereign country.” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is pouring tens of billions of dollars into its military following President Donald Trump’s economic attacks and threats to annex Canada as “the 51st state,” as well as his complaints about Canada and other NATO allies free-riding on U.S. coattails. Canada is set to meet the previous NATO spending target of 2 percent of GDP in the coming months. It has pledged that by 2035, Canada will meet the 5 percent benchmark Trump foisted on the alliance last year. Ottawa recently launched its new Defense Industrial Strategy that aims to create 125,000 jobs as part of a “Buy Canadian” push to increase the proportion of military purchases away from the United States to other allies. Canada is planning major military hardware purchases, such as a new fleet of 12 non-nuclear submarines, dozens of fighter jets and new warships, with a focus on securing the country’s vast and largely undefended Arctic. That has also meant a 20 percent pay raise for military personnel, along with a commitment to improving living conditions at military bases. The incentives are aimed at boosting the sagging levels of military personnel and addressing poor recruitment and retention that has created a shortfall in both rank-and-file soldiers and pilots needed to fly the next generation of fighter jets. Before the recent recruitment increase, the Forces were about 15,000 people short of the 71,500 needed to meet regular strength requirement. On Tuesday, McGuinty rolled out the second phase of a military housing strategy that is part of a plan to build 7,500 new military housing units across Canada. McGuinty said military members at 13 bases across the country that he has visited have stressed the need for better housing. In response, he said the government is making the largest investment in military housing since the end of the Second World War. “When they have stability at home, they are better equipped to meet the security challenges of today and the ones we know are coming tomorrow,” McGuinty said. McGuinty said more details are coming soon about measures to increase housing and infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic, including specifics around the C$2.67 billion plan to create a series of Northern Operational Support Hubs in the Far North. The Arctic focus is part of Carney’s broader “build baby, build” strategy that ties increased defense industrial production to bolstering the Canadian economy against Trump’s economic aggression toward Canada — threats that have ranged from punitive tariffs to threatening to choke off the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a key trade crossing between the two countries. Carney has created a Major Projects Office to expedite the creation of energy and infrastructure construction, including roads, buildings and airstrips that could have both civilian and military uses. The plan requires consulting with First Nations, including the Inuit people of Canada in the North. “We’re marrying not only our defense requirements, operational requirements, with our Major Projects Office priorities, with the priorities of the Inuit, with the priorities of different governments,” McGuinty said.

LONDON — Keir Starmer confirmed Monday he will seek to accelerate defense spending as he tries to resolve a deadlock over budgets for key military programs. The British prime minister last year pledged to spend 2.6 percent of GDP on defense by 2027, and 3 percent by the end of the next parliament in 2034. Ministers are now considering accelerating those plans to hit 3 percent by 2029, as first reported by the BBC and backed up by two government officials. Asked about the BBC report, Starmer told journalists: “Over the weekend, I was making the argument at the Munich Security Conference that we, the U.K. and Europe, need to step up when it comes to defense and security.” He added: “That means on defense spending, we need to go faster.” Two defense insiders, one serving and one former official, told POLITICO the change in approach was prompted by negotiations over the long-delayed Defence Investment Plan (DIP), which are at a crunch point. Whitehall officials have set out which programs will need to be cut or delayed without new money, according to the two insiders. This is prompting fresh alarm in No. 10 Downing Street at the gap between key defense requirements and the funding available. The plan is expected to protect billions of pounds for the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent, the GCAP fighter jet program and the AUKUS submarine pact, placing a severe squeeze on the rest of the Ministry of Defence budget. However, bringing forward higher defense spending would pose a serious dilemma for the Treasury, which has already introduced cuts to overseas aid in order to make longer-term pledges. The DIP was originally due to land last fall, then promised by the end of 2025, but is still the subject of internal government wrangling. It’s caught in a standoff between the Treasury and the MOD, which The Times reported centers on a £28 billion shortfall in the plan.

MUNICH, Germany — French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday called on Europeans to become stronger — and on the U.S. to show some respect. “A stronger Europe would be a better friend for its allies,” the French president told a packed hall at the Munich Security Conference. “Europe has to become a geopolitical power. We have to accelerate and deliver all the components of a geopolitical power: defense, technologies and de-risking from all the big powers.” “I don’t talk about France or Germany becoming a geopolitical power, but Europe as a whole,” he said. The French president has consistently called on Europeans to be more independent, popularizing the term “strategic autonomy” since entering office in 2017. Macron hammered that idea home in Munich, attending the conference for the first time since 2023. Prior to the conference, a person close to the president said France hopes that Europeans will continue pushing for more independence from the U.S., even if Trump’s threat to annex Greenland has abated for now. “We mustn’t let the momentum fade,” the aide said, nothing that in past crises such as Trump’s Oval Office ambush of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, European outrage quickly waned following calming words from Washington.  In clear rebuke of last year’s bruising attack on Europe by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Macron on Friday painted a positive picture of the continent, rejecting accusations that EU countries are stifling free speech with digital regulations. Instead, he argued that social media and online platforms, mostly American-owned, are amplifying foreign interference and disinformation that is undermining democracy. In a sign of the importance he placed on the Munich event, he was accompanied by Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, Deputy Defense Minister Alice Rufo and Deputy Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad. NUCLEAR UMBRELLA Macron also teased a much-anticipated speech on France’s nuclear doctrine, which is expected in the coming weeks. POLITICO first reported the address would take place in Brest, where French nuclear submarines are stationed.  Europe needs to rebuild a new defense architecture, and that includes nuclear deterrence, especially now that the New START treaty limiting the American and Russian arsenals has expired, the French president said. Earlier on Friday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed that talks were ongoing with Paris about how France’s nuclear weapons could contribute to Europe’s security. Pressed about Merz’s comments, Macron said he will provide more “details” in his upcoming speech. France and some European countries are looking to see “how we can articulate our national doctrine with special cooperation, common security interest, this is what we’re doing for the first time in history [with Germany],” Macron told the audience. Despite multiple reports, including by POLITICO, that the Future Combat Air System is at a dead end, Macron said he still “believed” in the fighter jet project with Germany and Spain. Earlier this week, Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius struck a much less enthusiastic tone. A defense official also told POLITICO on Friday that Airbus, one of the project’s main contractors, was weighing participation in the rival Global Combat Air Programme led by Italy, the U.K. and Japan. Macron also backed more promising European defense industrial cooperations, such as a project to jointly develop deep precision strike capabilities known as ELSA with a group of European countries including Germany and Poland, and another one called JEWEL with Germany about early-warning systems to track missiles.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Jordyn Dahl contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — NATO is beefing up its Arctic presence in a move designed less to deter Russia than it is to deter Donald Trump. As the alliance rushes to increase its activities in the Arctic ahead of a defense ministers’ summit in Brussels on Thursday, diplomats and experts said the effort is mostly a rebranding exercise aimed at mollifying the U.S. president — in response to a largely exaggerated threat. POLITICO spoke to 13 NATO diplomats, alliance officials and military analysts, some of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about sensitive matters. They pointed to a significant shift inside NATO toward the region thanks to intense U.S. pressure prompted by Trump’s threats to annex the island, but one that is primarily driven by politics rather than immediate military necessity. With NATO officially framing its new “Arctic Sentry” mission as critical, the diplomatic effort shows the intention by U.S. allies to keep Washington onside amid concerns that failing to appease Trump on Greenland could be disastrous.  “In the face of Russia’s increased military activity and China’s growing interest in the high north it was crucial that we do more,” NATO chief Mark Rutte told reporters on Wednesday. Trump’s Greenland threat in January was a breaking point for many European countries, cementing their view of the U.S. as a permanently unreliable ally. The issue hangs over this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, where U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with many allied leaders.  Experts say any security fears are largely overblown, with NATO more than capable of handling Russia in the Arctic. “I hope they will just rebrand some ongoing activity,” said Karsten Friis, a research professor and Arctic security expert at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. “If there’s a lot of manpower … especially if it’s in Greenland, then it will come up expensive.”  “The threat is more hypothetical than real,” acknowledged one NATO diplomat, who added the initiative has a clear “symbolic and communications aspect to it.” A Public First poll conducted for POLITICO across five countries found that a majority of people in the U.S., Canada, France, the U.K. and Germany said Trump was serious about his effort to take over Greenland, with most saying he was doing so to gain natural resources and to increase U.S. control of the Arctic. Only a minority felt he was motivated by any threat from Russia and China. IDLE THREAT After repeatedly refusing to rule out the use of force to take Greenland, the U.S. president finally walked back his campaign to acquire the Danish territory last month. The climbdown was helped by a pledge from Rutte and allies that NATO would take Arctic security more seriously.  But experts remain deeply skeptical about the military need for such a venture. After repeatedly refusing to rule out the use of force to take Greenland, U.S. President Donald Trump finally walked back his campaign to acquire the Danish territory last month. | Shawn Thew/EPA “I do not think that NATO has a capability gap in the Arctic … the United States has the ability to deploy its capabilities to Greenland to defend the alliance,” said Matthew Hickey, an analyst and former official at the U.S. government-affiliated Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies. With the U.S. able to dispatch “thousands” of troops to Greenland from Alaska “within 12 to 24 hours” and experience operating in the region from its biannual Ice Exercises, “it’s really more of a communication gap,” he said. Washington has cited various future threats to the Arctic island: Moscow’s outsized icebreaker fleet and its hypersonic missiles that could one day fly over Greenland undetected, growing Russian and Chinese collaboration and thawing sea ice opening up new shipping routes for suspicious vessels.  But in practice, “the threat hasn’t changed since the Cold War,” said Friis, the professor.  The U.S. can easily upgrade its early-warning missile radar system in Greenland, he argued, while melting ice will only boost the very marginal commercial shipping route in the Northern Sea Route near Russia — nowhere near Greenland. Icebreakers have few military uses and and are easy to track, Friis added. Chinese and Russian collaboration in the Arctic, meanwhile, will remain “largely symbolic,” said Marc Lanteigne, a political science professor and China expert at the Arctic University of Norway, as Moscow is “nervous” of Beijing’s long-term designs on the region and is unlikely to grant it extended access. If there is a threat, it’s in the European Arctic. There, Russia’s Northern Fleet based in the Kola Peninsula includes six operational nuclear-armed submarines, according to Ståle Ulriksen, a university lecturer at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy. Even so, Russia is “significantly outmatched” by NATO, said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank. Since its full-scale war against Ukraine, Moscow has lost two of the three brigades that had been stationed in the far north, with their replacements expected to take “half a decade or more” to train. Meanwhile, Norway, Germany, Denmark and the U.K. are all buying Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft to better surveil the region. Sweden and Finland both joined NATO as a result of Russia’s war, further beefing up the alliance’s Arctic muscle. As a result, an additional Arctic mission focused on Greenland looks “a bit pointless,” said Ulriksen, the military expert. However, the official alliance line is that this is a needed force projection. A NATO official told POLITICO the initiative “will further strengthen NATO’s posture in the Arctic,” including with joint exercises  “involving tens of thousands of personnel and the equipment … to operate successfully in Arctic conditions.” POLAR PROBLEMS Initially, the Arctic Sentry mission will bring existing exercises such as the Danish-led Arctic Endurance in Greenland under the auspices of NATO’s Joint Command in Virginia. Eventually, it could mean dispatching planes and maritime patrols, according to two NATO diplomats, or setting up a permanent command. The Trump climbdown on Greenland was helped by a pledge from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and allies that NATO would take Arctic security more seriously. | EPA Inside the alliance, the thinking is also that the mission could provide an early-warning signal to Russia and China to stay clear of Greenland in future, the NATO diplomats said, in particular if the Arctic island decides to become independent, and then decides to leave NATO (something its leaders insist won’t happen). “If Greenland were to become independent, you have … a country [that] would become therefore outside of NATO and could be subject to influence from our adversaries,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said Tuesday. An alliance mission should therefore “make sure we know who is there and or who is transiting through there,” he told POLITICO. In fact, some further measures could be helpful, said Kaushal, the naval analyst, deploying more unmanned surface vessels to keep track of Russian submarines and filling the shortage of sonar operators at sea. But a standing maritime presence in the Arctic would be “entirely superfluous” and even dangerous, Kaushal said. “That places vessels potentially in very difficult climates near Russian-held territory, where the only support infrastructure is Russian.” The U.S. currently has about 150 troops at the Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland. Both Denmark and Greenland have stressed they are open to the U.S. stationing more forces on the island under existing arrangements. However, basing more troops in Greenland would be wasteful, according to Rose Gottemoeller, a former NATO deputy secretary-general and U.S. under secretary of defense. “Permanent deployments are expensive and not warranted by the current circumstances.” Nevertheless, for some allies, forking out cash and equipment is a fair trade to prevent the alliance from collapsing. “Perhaps it’s not … the best way to use the limited resources we have,” said a fourth NATO diplomat, but “letting the alliance disintegrate is the alternative.” “If the price to pay is sending two ships to Greenland and 500 troops to do occasional joint exercises, then perhaps it’s worth it.” Jacopo Barigazzi and Chris Lunday contributed reporting.