LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stressed since the start of the U.S. and Israeli-led war in Iran that Britain will only contribute to defensive operations, including limiting the U.S. use of British airbases, saying: “We have learned the lessons of Iraq.” The problem as the war continues into its third week is that Starmer is now getting low marks from key allies in the Gulf for how he’s applied those lessons, according to senior military figures and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO. That has left London scrambling to deploy sufficient resources and show that it can provide adequate defensive support in the region as well as protect British assets, including its sovereign bases in Cyprus.  Three people familiar with operational and planning strategies, granted anonymity to speak frankly about sensitive matters, said the U.K. had bungled defensive decision-making and failed to send the necessary resources to the area at the time of the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.   Chief of the Defense Staff Richard Knighton has taken flak over delays in deploying HMS Dragon, a guided missile destroyer, to the Mediterranean for more than a week after the war started. But one former military commander familiar with conversations in government about the U.K. response said the greater fault lay in a risk-averse stance from Starmer as well as his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Defense Secretary John Healey, whose fears over a domestic backlash to being embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East hobbled the U.K.’s thinking about how to support allies in the Gulf. “No. 10 was determined to downplay any risk or perception of us getting involved and now the government is playing catch-up,” the former commander said. “And that means we are showing up late.” Others POLITICO spoke with said the failure to deploy maritime assets — especially in minesweeper expertise and air defense — has shaken states ranging from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates with longstanding close defense ties to the U.K. This perceived lapse has left Britain on the back foot both in its deployment of assets and in diplomatic relations with partners, visible in the U.K.’s concerted effort last week to demonstrate support for Gulf countries facing retaliatory strikes from Iran, as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper travelled to Saudi Arabia. The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems.  The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems. And there are mounting signs that Starmer and Healey have understood the extent of sore feelings among allies and are seeking to assuage any tensions with Gulf allies as well as with the U.S.  In a social post on Sunday, the Ministry of Defense highlighted U.K. Typhoon and F-35 jets flying over Bahrain for the first time in “defense of British interests” and Britain’s role in air protection over the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Cyprus. Christian Turner, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, also issued a video over the weekend noting that British pilots have spent “over 300 hours in the skies above the Middle East shooting down Iranian drones and missiles” as well as drawing attention to the U.S. use of U.K. bases and sharing of intelligence.  “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the UAE. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” A Downing Street spokesperson declined to comment further, referring inquiries to the Ministry of Defense.  But a government official, granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on the record, insisted Starmer and Healey had “followed all military recommendations presented to them throughout the build-up” and hit out at “armchair generals who aren’t seeing the intelligence and information that our military see every day.” Yet a person with knowledge of deployment decisions said that close allies of the U.K. were “deeply disappointed” by the lack of preparation. “There had been knowledge of the preparations for U.S. action on Iran on a large scale from around Christmas and the U.K. had visibility on that,” this person said. “But the response was wholly inadequate.” If a full array of options had been considered, according to this person, a submarine presence from the Royal Navy might have been sent to the region as a deterrent under the terms of Operation Kipion, a long-standing umbrella for British security, intelligence gathering and deterrence to the Gulf. One area of concern has been the decommissioning of ships, some of which were moved for servicing and routine upgrades in recent weeks.  HMS Middleton, which was based in Bahrain, arrived back in Britain on March 1 — the day after the U.S. and Israel opened their attack — for maintenance and a technological upgrade. The vessel, ⁠which is more than 40 years old, was no longer certified to sail, according to the MOD. The U.K.’s only mine-hunting ship was brought back to Britain to save money just as strikes began, according to The Times.  Healey told reporters this week he was still considering “additional options” for protecting the Strait of Hormuz.  The former commander was frustrated by a gap between the prime minister and Healey’s robust language about Britain’s need for war-readiness and the reality of its actions.  “We have the prime minister and defense secretary talking about ‘preparing the nation for war’ on a running basis, which is ironic, as we and our allies ended up not deploying deterrent force and taking a week to deploy a major warship to defend Cyprus in good time to show our strong  defensive intentions,” this person said. A senior Gulf diplomat said the U.K.’s early response to the conflict fell short of what Gulf partners expected given Britain’s longstanding military ties in the region. There were “a lot of phone calls,” the diplomat said, but not much in the way of “serious support.” John Foreman, a former deputy head of the Combined Maritime Forces in Bahrain, said Starmer’s cautious approach was bound to cause continued problems as the conflict continues, particularly amid rising focus on protecting the Strait of Hormuz. “Wiser, less cautious heads would have got ahead of the game,” Foreman said. “It comes from Starmer ultimately and the tone of his government. It’s too late for Powell to be asking for options on the eve of war — and for Healey to still be pondering options now.”

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.

ATHENS — Greece ordered the deployment of a military force to Cyprus following drone incursions on the Mediterranean island that have for the first time dragged an EU member state into the three-day-old U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Two frigates and a pair of F-16 fighter jets will be deployed immediately, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias said on Monday. “Following the unprovoked attacks on the territory of Cyprus, Greece will … contribute in every possible way to the defense of the Republic of Cyprus in order to address the threats and illegal actions taking place on its territory,” Dendias said in an address on Monday. The move comes after a Shahed-type unmanned aerial vehicle hit Britain’s Royal Air Force base at Akrotiri in Cyprus overnight, while more drone strikes targeting the base were “successfully intercepted” during the day, according to Cypriot government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis. While the source of the drone strike is so far unconfirmed, a senior commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened intensified missile strikes on Cyprus, alleging an increased U.S. military presence on the island. “The Americans have moved most of their aircraft to Cyprus. We will launch missiles at Cyprus with such intensity that the Americans will be forced to leave the island,” General Sardar Jabbari was quoted on Monday as saying by Khabar Fouri, an Iranian Telegram news channel. It’s the first time one of the U.K. bases on Cyprus has been hit since a rocket attack by Libyan ⁠militants in 1986. While the bases are regarded as British sovereign territory, Cyprus is an EU member, and currently holds the bloc’s rotating presidency. An EU ministerial meeting that was set to take place in Cyprus on Monday and Tuesday was postponed after the drone strike. Greece said it is dispatching to Cyprus the Belharra-class frigate Kimon and a second frigate equipped with the Kentauros anti-drone system. A pair of F-16 fighter jets will also be deployed. Dendias along with General Dimitrios Choupis, chief of Greece’s armed forces, will be on the island on Tuesday to better coordinate the stance of the two allies. Akrotiri, located on a peninsula on the southern tip of Cyprus, southwest of the coastal city of Limassol, is one of the two bases Britain has maintained in its former colony since independence in 1960. It has been used in the past for military operations in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. The overnight strike, which caused limited damage and no casualties, came shortly after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would allow the United States to use U.K. military bases to “destroy [Iranian] missiles at source.” After confirming the drone strike, Cyprus President Nicos Christodoulides said in a televised address on Monday: “I want ⁠to be clear: Our country ‌does not ⁠participate in any way and does not intend to be part of any military operation.” Christodoulides briefed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the attack. Von der Leyen later stressed that Cyprus — and thus the EU — was not the intended target of the drone strike. “While the Republic of Cyprus was not the target, let me be clear: we stand collectively, firmly and unequivocally with our member states in the face of any threat,” von der Leyen said in a post on X. Also, earlier in the day, a passenger terminal at Paphos airport was temporarily evacuated after a suspicious object was detected on radar. Residents of the nearby villages of Timi, Anarita and Mandria were instructed to avoid “unnecessary movements.” Paphos is a coastal city in southwest Cyprus, some 56 kilometers from the Akrotiri base.  Cypriot media also reported smoke rising near the other British airbase at Dhekelia, located on the island’s southeast coast. The U.K. Foreign Office has updated its travel guidance for Cyprus, warning British nationals of a heightened risk of regional tension during the U.S.-led war against Iran.

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of ten patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU health and budgetary policy. It calls for sustained EU funding and political commitment to renew and strengthen Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in the upcoming 2028–34 budget cycle, and urges integration of medical nutrition into EU cancer policy frameworks. The article explicitly addresses EU leaders and institutions, advocating policy and funding decisions to close gaps in cancer care across Member States. More information here.

America’s ambassadors in Europe are targeting just one person with their charm offensive: President Donald Trump. Everyone else — including key U.S. allies — can expect little charm and plenty of offense.  The American president’s friends, fellow real estate developers and political donors who have been awarded EU ambassadorships during Trump’s second term are ruffling feathers in their host capitals.  Their coarser style of diplomacy — America’s answer to China’s wolf warriors, who also relished defying convention and skewering their hosts — is not a bug in the system. It is the new system.  For Trump’s envoys, “the target audience is always one person. One person only,” said Eric Rubin, the former head of the American Foreign Service Association who served as ambassador to Bulgaria during Trump’s first term. The feelings of their hosts are incidental to the key tasks: courting Trump’s attention and approval — and shifting the center of European politics sharply toward the right.  The two most conspicuous envoys riling European governments are Charles Kushner in Paris and Tom Rose in Warsaw. When Charles Kushner decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace but wrote it in the Wall Street Journal. | Julien De Rosa/AFP via Getty Images Rose tagged Trump twice in a post announcing he was severing ties to the speaker of Poland’s parliament, Włodzimierz Czarzasty, over “outrageous and unprovoked insults.” Czarzasty had said that Trump did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize.  When Kushner, the ambassador to Paris who is father-in-law to Trump’s eldest daughter, decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace, nor to Le Monde. He wrote it in the Wall Street Journal.   Last week the relationship soured further after the U.S. embassy in Paris offered pointed political commentary during the aftermath of the killing of a far-right activist. Kushner further angered the French by ignoring a summons to the foreign ministry, before a “frank and amicable” phone call smoothed things over, according to the U.S. mission in Paris on Monday.   U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Bill White, who describes the president as a friend, set three Trump-friendly priorities for embassy staff for 2026, according to two people with knowledge of the internal dynamics at the mission. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to protect their jobs or relationships.  Fully in line with Trump’s emphasis in his State of the Union address on commemorating the 1776 declaration of independence, White insisted on big parties to to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary. He also hosted a February screening for a film about first lady Melania Trump and has prioritized media appearances that will keep him on the president’s radar. Similarly keen to keep a high profile on the channels Trump favors, NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker, widely viewed as one of Trump’s least abrasive ambassadors in Europe, prefers to appear on Fox News and Newsmax above other media. Visitors to the residence of the U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg Stacey Feinberg, who was a close friend of the slain rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, will find red MAGA hats adorning the furniture, according to photos shared with POLITICO.   Multiple U.S. embassies in Europe and the State Department either declined to comment for this article or did not respond. UNDIPLOMATIC CORPS U.S. diplomats stepping on European toes is nothing new. During Trump’s first term ambassadors Richard Grenell in Berlin and Gordon Sondland in Brussels kicked hard against diplomatic norms. While Joe Biden’s man in Hungary David Pressman repeatedly criticized the government of Viktor Orbán. Nor is it unusual for the U.S. to hand plum European posts to big donors and other political appointees, rather than career diplomats. But State Department officials, former and current, complain these latest breaches of diplomatic behavior go a step further and undermine American interests and relationships nurtured for over two centuries.  “If you refuse to go to a meeting when summoned so you can work on improving the relationship, why are you even there? It’s childish, it’s embarrassing, and it drops any pretense you’re there to help your country,” one U.S. diplomat said.   “I mean, frankly, it’s rude,” a former senior State Department official added.  In the past, policy decisions and public statements would be carefully calibrated and run through multiple departments via the National Security Council and the huge State Department bureaucracy.   That process has largely been replaced by freelancing ambassadors communicating with a small group of political appointees in the White House, said Rubin.   “This is the first time in certainly our history, but probably in modern history, where a big power is attempting to conduct diplomacy without diplomats and without experts and without analysts,” he said.  The marching orders for every flashpoint involving U.S. ambassadors can be found in the lines of the National Security Strategy, published in December. It set American diplomats the task of “cultivating resistance” to the path set by Europe’s current set of leaders and celebrated the rise of “patriotic” far right parties, seen as aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement.  It takes two to have a diplomatic fight, however, and not all European countries have taken the bait.  U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens has “key themes he is keen to speak on” including energy and free speech, according to one U.S. official, and is “not afraid to speak his mind.” He voiced many of those during a dinner speech while standing within arms reach of British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy in November. These interventions have raised eyebrows inside the British establishment, but so far the U.K. government has soaked up the punches.  In Greece too, Kimberly Guilfoyle the former fiancée of Trump’s son Donald Jr., has charmed and bemused in equal measure. Despite goading the Greeks over the sale of the port of Piraeus to China, her relations with her hosts in Athens are, in her telling, exceptionally rosy.   “We see each other probably three or four times a week,” she said of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during an event last week. The same went for multiple government ministers, she added. “They always take the call. It doesn’t matter if it’s the weekend, they will come over if we meet at my house, they show up.”  Esther Webber contributed reporting from London, Nektaria Stamouli from Athens and Victor Jack from Brussels.

MUNICH — Sen. Thom Tillis shot back at comments made by fellow Republican Lindsey Graham on Saturday, voicing frustration with the South Carolina senator’s dismissal of Greenland’s sovereignty. The disagreement over President Donald Trump’s threat to seize the Danish territory boiled over at the annual summit here, starting with Graham’s comment Friday, “who gives a shit who owns Greenland? I don’t.” Appearing at the conference on Saturday, Tillis, without naming Graham directly, responded, “who gives a shit about who owns Greenland? The 85,000 indigenous people in Greenland give a shit about who owns Greenland. And at the end of the day, we need to show respect.” Sen. Tillis: Greenlanders ‘give a shit’ about who owns GreenlandShare The comments reflect the divide in Congress — and the Republican Party — over Trump’s gambit, which for the moment appears to have stalled. The president has threatened to use force to take ownership of the island, which already houses U.S. troops and a radar installation. The threat roiled the NATO alliance, with some American allies warning any moves by the U.S. to take control of the island would permanently rupture the alliance. While Trump ultimately backed down — amid strong objections from several GOP lawmakers — the standoff has forced allies to reckon with an American president who cares little for traditional notions of power and cooperation. “Our nation was founded on rejecting bullies,” Tillis said. “I think it’s in our DNA whether we want to believe it or not. Every once in a while, the rhetoric gets a little bit hot. We get a little bit cowboy-ish, but at the end of the day, the collective consciousness of the American people do not like bullies.”

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.

The world has been rewired. The post-war order is fragmenting, public pessimism has reached crisis levels, and the gap between elite and public opinion is wider than ever. The FGS Global Radar 2026 — drawing on 175 interviews with senior leaders and polling nearly 20,000 people across 27 democracies — maps the new terrain. For leaders gathering in Davos this week, understanding it is critical. Via FGS Global Previous Radar reports were defined by volatility and uncertainty. These remain constants. But in 2026, the shape of the world is now more clearly defined — and the question for leaders is whether they can see it clearly enough to navigate it. A rewired world The multilateral consensus in place since World War II — guided by international institutions and liberal democracies — is being rewritten. Those institutions are weakening, with strongman leaders increasingly calling the shots within their own spheres of influence. > The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with > transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared > values. As one expert put it: “The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared values.” The United States and China are now in fierce, direct competition for dominance — across trade, technology and an emerging space race. Gray zone conflict will be common. The rest of the world is having to align accordingly, navigating constantly shifting sands. For those gathering in Davos, the implications are stark. We are shifting from “What are our shared principles?” to “What can you do for me?” As another expert observed: “America doesn’t have anyone’s back anymore.” Our polling finds that seven in 10 people want their country to be more assertive of national interests, even if this creates friction with others. Nationalist sentiment is ascending. And Europe? “If Trump and Xi are talking, Europe isn’t even at the table.” The elite-public divide This year’s Radar report reveals something leaders at Davos must confront directly: a profound and widening gap between elite opinion and public sentiment. Ideas widely favored by leaders — letting artificial intelligence flourish, cutting spending, incentivizing entrepreneurs — are roundly opposed by voters. More troubling still, the public is susceptible to populist claims that difficult trade-offs don’t need to be made. In our poll, most people agreed: “There are clear and easy solutions to the big challenges facing the country, if only we had better political leaders.” > We are shifting from ‘What are our shared principles?’ to ‘What can you do for > me?’ We are living in a K-shaped world. The winners are high-income earners and technology industries. Those on lower incomes and in traditional sectors are struggling. Most people across the 27 countries polled expect to be worse off next year; only those on high incomes believe they will be better off. The cost of living remains the most important issue across generations and political affiliations. This feeds directly into attitudes on tax. Large majorities want more of the burden borne by business and the wealthy. Sixty-four percent support a wealth tax. These are not fringe positions — they are mainstream sentiment across developed democracies. The generational divide compounds the problem. Fifty-four percent of 18-34 year olds believe too much support goes to the elderly. Fifty percent of over-55s think too much goes to the young. Each generation feels the other is getting a better deal. And across all age groups, 73 percent believe life will be harder for the next generation. Pessimism at crisis levels Public confidence has been eroding for years. But the mood has now intensified to a crisis point. Across all 27 countries polled, 76 percent say their country feels divided. Sixty-eight percent believe their political system is failing and needs fundamental reform. Sixty-two percent feel their national identity is disappearing. > Pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may > not be sustainable. To be clear: pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may not be sustainable. It is fueling political instability and populism. Systems and governments that appear analog in a digital world, and fail to deliver better outcomes, will increasingly be challenged. Trust in traditional institutions continues to collapse. Sixty-one percent believe mainstream media have their own agenda and cannot be trusted. The hierarchy of trust is stark: medical doctors at 85 percent, big business at 41 percent, ChatGPT at 34 percent and politicians at just 22 percent. Perhaps most striking: 47 percent of people report feeling disconnected from society. When presented with the Matrix dilemma — a choice between blissful ignorance and complex reality — a quarter chose ignorance. Among Gen Z, it rises to over a third. Disengagement is becoming a generational norm. Europe’s pivotal moment For European leaders, the report offers both warning and opportunity. Our polling finds overwhelming support — 70-80 percent — in every EU country for major reform and stronger control of national borders. The Draghi and Letta reports are seen as offering the most coherent reform roadmap in years, but implementation is stuck at just 11 percent. As one expert noted: “Things are bad — but not so bad people are willing to be pushed through a pain barrier.” That may not remain true for long. What leaders must do The Radar concludes with a clear message: in a rewired world, long-term strategy matters more than ever. “If you haven’t got a strategy, you’re lost,” said one leader we interviewed. But strategy alone is not enough. The next most cited quality was agility — the ability to move fast and adapt. One compelling analogy: leaders need satellite navigation. Be clear on your destination, but flexible on how you get there. “You need a North Star, but like a GPS, you’re going to have to re-route — roadworks, delays, traffic jams.” Authenticity emerged as essential. “Authenticity by definition is infinitely durable. You are what you are.” And finally, storytelling: “Social media divides us, hates complexity, kills concentration. Nothing sticks. Leaders must repeat their message relentlessly.” Strategy. Agility. Authenticity. Storytelling. These are what 2026 demands. Download the full FGS Global Radar 2026 report here: https://fgsglobal.com/radar.

Poland scrambled fighter jets and placed its air defense systems on heightened alert overnight as Moscow launched one of its heaviest air assaults on Ukraine in recent weeks.  The Russian attack sent shockwaves across NATO’s eastern flank just a day before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is due to meet U.S. President Donald Trump to discuss a newly revised peace proposal. Poland’s Operational Command posted Saturday on X that military aviation operations were launched in Polish airspace “in connection with the activity of long-range aviation of the Russian Federation carrying out strikes on the territory of Ukraine.”  Fighter jets were scrambled and ground-based air defense and radar reconnaissance systems were put on readiness as a preventive measure to protect Polish airspace. The move came as Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with nearly 500 drones — many of them Iranian-designed Shaheds — and around 40 missiles, including Kinzhal hypersonic weapons, according to Ukrainian authorities. “Another Russian attack is still ongoing,” Zelenskyy wrote on X at mid-morning Saturday, saying the primary target was Kyiv, where energy facilities and civilian infrastructure were hit. He said residential buildings were damaged and rescue teams were searching for people trapped under rubble, while electricity and heating were cut in parts of the capital amid freezing temperatures. Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said at least one person was killed and more than 20 others were injured in Kyiv, with multiple civilian sites damaged and search-and-rescue operations continuing. Zelenskyy said the barrage underscored Russian President Vladimir Putin’s lack of seriousness about ending the war. “Russian representatives engage in lengthy talks, but in reality, Kinzhals and Shaheds speak for them,” Zelenskyy wrote. The attack came one day before Zelenskyy is expected to meet Trump in Florida to present a revised 20-point peace plan, including proposals on security guarantees and territorial arrangements, talks Trump has publicly framed as contingent on his approval. Several hours later, Poland’s military said the air operation had ended and that no violation of Polish airspace had been detected.

DUBLIN — Neutral and poorly armed Ireland — long viewed as “Europe’s blind spot” — announced Thursday it will spend €1.7 billion on improved military equipment, capabilities and facilities to deter drones and potential Russian sabotage of undersea cables. The five-year plan, published as Defense Minister Helen McEntee visited the Curragh army base near Dublin,  aims in part to reassure European allies that their leaders will be safe from attack when Ireland — a non-NATO member largely dependent on neighboring Britain for its security — hosts key EU summits in the second half of next year. McEntee said Ireland intends to buy and deploy €19 million in counter-drone technology “as soon as possible, not least because of the upcoming European presidency.” Ireland’s higher military spending — representing a 55 percent increase from previous commitments — comes barely a week after a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy exposed Ireland’s inability to secure its own seas and skies. Five unmarked drones buzzed an Irish naval vessel supposed to be guarding the flight path of Zelenskyy’s plane shortly after the Ukrainian leader touched down at Dublin Airport. The Irish ship didn’t fire at the drones, which eventually disappeared. Irish authorities have been unable to identify their source, but suspect that they were operated from an unidentified ship later spotted in European Space Agency satellite footage. The Russian embassy in Dublin denied any involvement. Ireland’s navy has just eight ships, but sufficient crews to operate only two at a time, even though the country has vast territorial waters containing critical undersea infrastructure and pipelines that supply three-fourths of Ireland’s natural gas. The country has no fighter jets and no military-grade radar and sonar. Some but not all of those critical gaps will be plugged by 2028, McEntee pledged. She said Ireland would roll out military-grade radar starting next year, buy sonar systems for the navy, and acquire up to a dozen helicopters, including four already ordered from Airbus. The army would upgrade its Swiss-made fleet of 80 Piranha III armored vehicles and develop drone and anti-drone units. The air force’s fixed-wing aircraft will be replaced by 2030 — probably by what would be Ireland’s first wing of combat fighters. Thursday’s announcement coincided with publication of an independent assessment of Ireland’s rising security vulnerabilities on land, sea and air. The report, coauthored by the Dublin-based think tank IIEA and analysts at Deloitte, found that U.S. multinationals operating in Ireland were at risk of cyberattacks and espionage by Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence agents operating in the country.