BRUSSELS — The EU is closing in on adding Iran’s feared paramilitary forces to its list of terrorist organizations in response to a brutal crackdown on protests, after France dropped its opposition to the move. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be added to the list if it secures support at a meeting of the bloc’s foreign affairs ministers in Brussels on Thursday, where they are set to impose other sanctions on the Iranian regime. If added to the list, the branch of the Iranian military would be in the same category as al Qaeda and Daesh. Several countries, including France and Italy, had opposed the move, arguing it would close the limited diplomatic channels with Tehran. However, France, which was the staunchest opponent of the terror designation, on Wednesday evening dropped its opposition, the Elysée Palace told POLITICO. Earlier, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that “it is essential to combat the impunity of the perpetrators of this bloody repression.” Rome changed camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of the Iranian crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the move, according to a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group would require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 countries. The latest footage leaking out of Tehran of the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries, said Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel, “so hopefully we will see some movement” on the Revolutionary Guard terror designation at Thursday’s meeting. “At least it will be something that’s on the table.” The exact number of those killed in the crackdown is difficult to confirm due to an internet blackout, but estimates start at around 6,000 and could be much higher, he said. Before dropping its opposition, Paris had cautioned that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group may harm French interests and undercut the leverage it could use to try to rein in the theocratic government. For European countries with embassies in Tehran, one EU diplomat said, the Revolutionary Guard would be “among the main interlocutors” with the regime, so banning contact with its personnel would be difficult to manage. The diplomat was granted anonymity to speak freely. According to Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, the Revolutionary Guard “is the state within the state.” He added: “They are integrated into the highest parts of the regime and involved in many of the things the West cares about; the nuclear program, the missiles, Iran’s regional activities.” One of the arguments against putting the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list was fear of potential reprisals. Iran has repeatedly used a strategy of arresting Europeans to use as bargaining chips in international diplomacy, including former EU official Johan Floderus, who was released from the notorious Evin Prison in 2024. Paris has secured the release from Evin of two of its nationals — Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris — who are now under house arrest at the French Embassy in Tehran. “We need to send a strong signal,” van Weel said. The Revolutionary Guard “is the glue and the backbone holding this regime together, directing most of the violence, being in charge of most of the economic activity, whilst the rest of the country is in poverty, so I think it’s a key enabler of the atrocities that we’ve seen happening not only in Iran but also in the region,” he added. Separately, ministers meeting Thursday are expected to approve asset freezes and visa bans on 21 Iranian individuals and entities over the human rights violations, and a further 10 over Tehran’s supply of weapons to Russia for its war on Ukraine. The U.S. designated the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and has repeatedly pressed the EU to follow suit. U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. “Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” Trump said, referring to the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro. He added that he hoped Tehran would “Come to the Table” to negotiate a deal to abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions. Clea Caulcutt contributed to this article.

President Donald Trump amped up pressure on Iran on Wednesday, highlighting a “massive Armada” recently deployed to the region to force Tehran to the bargaining table over a deal that would end its nuclear weapons program. The president’s social media post is the latest show of force in the international arena for a White House emboldened by a successful military operation in Caracas, Venezuela. “It is a larger fleet, headed by the great Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, than that sent to Venezuela,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Like with Venezuela, it is, ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.” The president has taken a hard line on Iran — whose leadership has been rocked by nationwide protests in recent weeks — since returning to the White House last year. In June, Trump authorized strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer,” later claiming that he had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear program. In recent weeks, the president has advocated for “new leadership” in Iran and threatened to use force when the regime responded with violence to the protests. But experts caution that Trump may have fewer viable military options than in Venezuela, where American forces captured authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro from his bedroom and flew him to the U.S. to face narco-trafficking charges. “Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS – one that is good for all parties,” he said. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence! As I told Iran once before, MAKE A DEAL! They didn’t, and there was ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ a major destruction of Iran.” “The next attack will be far worse!,” he continued. “Don’t make that happen again.” Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations linked Trump’s threat to previous American incursions in the Middle East. “Last time the U.S. blundered into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it squandered over $7 trillion and lost more than 7,000 American lives,” the mission wrote on X. “Iran stands ready for dialogue based on mutual respect and interests—BUT IF PUSHED, IT WILL DEFEND ITSELF AND RESPOND LIKE NEVER BEFORE!”

Mark T. Kimmitt is a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. Despite the stern face portrayed on Iran’s government television, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is facing the most significant challenge to his legitimacy since assuming power in 1989. Indeed, the view from the supreme leader’s office Beit-e Rahbari must be quite parlous, with security forces gunning down peaceful protestors who took to the streets amid a collapsing economy, inflation out of control and a water catastrophe unseen in modern times. On top of that looms the threat of U.S. President Donald Trump, and the knowledge that Israel would be happy to assist in any move Washington might make. Even Khamenei’s recent outreach toward the U.S. — a tried-and-true method to buy time and diminish expectations — doesn’t seem to be working this time. But the ayatollah isn’t delusional, and must surely recognize he needs a lifeline. I believe he would do well to take one, and that Trump would do well to make such an offer. The recent U.S. operation in Venezuela is perhaps instructive here. The U.S. isn’t seeking a change in the Venezuelan regime, merely a change in its behavior, and is prepared to maintain the status quo. However, unlike the vague threat of drugs, sanctions-busting oil sales or longstanding Chavismo in America’s backyard, the threats from Iran are specific, existential and have been consistent over the years. A deal on those threats — Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, its missile program and its vast destabilizing proxy network — will be the terms of any perpetuation of the regime. And it must also include forgiveness for the protestors, protection of the right to peaceful future demonstrations, and the transparent prosecution of those responsible for killing unarmed civilians. For the U.S., airstrikes against key regime targets should be considered, as without a kinetic demonstration of resolve, the regime may believe it can withstand Washington’s rhetorical pressure. Strikes would also be an opportunity to bring the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary Basij elements responsible for the killing of thousands of protestors to justice, and to again hit missile and nuclear targets still recovering from the blows they took back in June. But airstrikes also come with two major risks. The first is casualties and prisoners: Iran’s regime has a long history of hostage-taking, from the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 to the U.S. hostages incarcerated today. The risk of American troops rotting in Evin Prison is one Washington will want to avoid. Second, airstrikes risk retaliation on U.S. bases within range of Iran’s vast rocket, missile and terrorist networks. The June 2025 attack on Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar is a clear sign that Iran is able and willing to fire on the U.S., and in the current scenario a larger response and casualties should be expected. Now let’s look at the terms of a possible deal. Before anything else, Iran’s nuclear weapons development program must cease. Despite all the talks, deals and commitments over the years, Iran has been able to evade a system of inspection, verification and penalties to ensure it lives up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This must be the unequivocal baseline of any lifeline to the regime and a precondition for any further discussions. Next, the Iranian missile development program must also cease. For years, Iran has continued to produce long-range rockets and missiles at scale and proliferate them across the region. This allowed the Houthis to block the Red Sea and Hezbollah and Hamas to threaten and attack Israel, and it equipped the sanctioned Hashd factions in Iraq to attack U.S. units and threaten the elected government. So, again, any possible deal must call for inspection, verification and punitive actions in instances of violation. Lastly, the cancerous regional proxy network that Iran has armed, trained and equipped for a decade must be cut off from the country’s financial and military support. It must also be delinked from extrajudicial governance in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. These proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — have been defeated and deterred from continued activity since Oct. 7, 2024, but only for the moment. Without any formal termination of support, they will undoubtedly return. Once again, the message to Iran must be to break with the proxies or face punitive action. Without concrete movement on these three elements, Khamenei and his regime face a bleak future. Donald Trump has told Iranian protestors that “help is on the way.” | Dingena Mol/EPA But even if this set of conditions is offered, expect the regime to react in its normal manner: delay, deflect, deny — diplomatic tools that have been successfully used by brilliant Iranian negotiators over the years. This stratagem must be quickly brushed aside by America’s interlocutors, who won’t be there to please or appease but to impose. In short, such an offer from the U.S. would mean a perpetuation of the regime, relief from sanctions, help with runaway inflation, and assistance in facing a climate catastrophe. But it would also come at a cost and with a choice — for Khamenei, either a lifeline or a noose. In all of this, the Iranian leader would do well to consider Trump’s first term, when the U.S. took the feared Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani off the battlefield with a drone in 2020, as well as his ongoing second term, particularly the 12-day war of 2025 and the recent apprehension of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces. There’s plenty of room in Maduro’s wing at the Brooklyn Detention Center for IRGC Deputy Commander-in-Chief Ahmad Vahidi and his accomplice Esmail Qaani, or side by side with Soleimani. Moreover, Iran has yet to rebuild its air-defense network after its disembowelment last year, and it still has hundreds of military and infrastructure targets that U.S., Israeli and other coalition pilots are ready to attack. Khamenei would also do well to remember that even if the protest is put down by killings, its underlying causes — inflation, sclerotic social norms and crippling water rationing — will remain. Trump has told Iranian protestors that “help is on the way” — and that could be interpreted as an offer to the regime as well. But Khamenei must accept he faces a U.S. president who is willing to ignore decades of diplomatic niceties and one-sided concessions in favor of finishing the job of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. One can only hope wisdom carries the day at Beit-e Rahbari, and that finally this time is different.

CAMP VIKING, Norway — In the deep snow of the Arctic mountains, Britain’s Royal Marines are readying for war with Russia. The elite troops are introduced to the wilderness by camping in the snow in temperatures below minus 20C. They finish by jumping through ice holes and shouting their name, rank and number before they can be pulled out of the water. Then they roll in the snow, drink a tot of rum, and toast King Charles III. Britain’s extreme weather training in this area dates to the Cold War, but Camp Viking — its facility in Skjold, northern Norway — is new and growing. It opened in 2023 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is due to reach a peak of 1,500 personnel this spring, followed by 2,000 next year. Britain is “effectively doubling” the number of its Royal Marines in Norway over three years, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told POLITICO in an interview. Exercises mirror missions the troops would conduct if NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense was triggered — reflecting the reality that “we are no longer at peace,” Brigadier Jaimie Norman, commander of the U.K. Commando Forces, told Cooper and her Norwegian counterpart Espen Barth Eide on a visit to the site Thursday. “We see ourselves on a continuum that has war on one end to peace on the other, and we are somewhere on that continuum.” Yet this is only one hemisphere of the Arctic. On the other, U.S. President Donald Trump is stoking a very different crisis by pushing for ownership of Greenland. The risks that link the two regions — which have shipping lanes busier than ever with Russian and Chinese vessels as the polar ice caps melt — are similar, albeit less immediate for Greenland than Norway. Yet Greenland is consuming huge global bandwidth. It is little wonder that Eide, greeting Cooper after he spent two days in Ukraine, lamented that they could not focus more on Ukraine and “less on other things.” Trump has left them with no other choice. FIRE UP THE ‘ARCTIC SENTRY’ Cooper and Eide’s response is to publicly back the idea of an “Arctic Sentry” NATO mission, a military co-operation that would aim to counter Russian threats — while reassuring Trump of Europe’s commitment to the region. Details of the mission — including the number of troops it would involve and whether it would comprise land, sea or air deployments — remain hazy. It could mean that exercises like those in northern Norway are deployed in Greenland too, as well as the shipping lanes around them. Lanes in northern Europe have seen a rise in shadow fleets carrying sanctioned oil and alleged sabotage of communications cables. Yvette Cooper’s message to Trump, and everyone else, was to insist there is no real division between the eastern and western Arctic. | Stefan Rousseau/Getty Images But as with so many issues, they have yet to discover whether Trump will take heed. Cooper’s intervention came one day after U.S. Vice President JD Vance met Danish and Greenlandic representatives at the White House amid growing tensions over Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland. Cooper’s message to Trump, and everyone else, was to insist there is no real division between the eastern and western Arctic. “The security of the Arctic is all linked,” she said — citing Russia’s northern fleet, shadow fleet, oil tankers, non-military assets, spy ships and threats to undersea cables.  “Look at the map of the Arctic and where you have the sea channels,” she added. “You can’t look at any one bit of Arctic security on its own, because the whole point of the Arctic security is it has an impact on our transatlantic security as a whole. “Some of the Russian threat is through its Northern Fleet and into the Atlantic. That is a transatlantic threat. That is something where clearly you can’t simply revert to Europe’s defense on its own.” Yet in parts of Britain and Europe, there are plenty of people who fear Trump is asking Europe to do exactly that. European allies have long pushed the U.S. president to nail down commitments to Ukraine. A mere hint of this frustration is visible in Eide. He was keen to point out that the risk to his end of the Arctic is more immediate. “Just to the east of our eastern border, you come to the Kola Peninsula and Murmansk,” he said, standing on a snowy outcrop. “That region has the largest conglomeration of nuclear weapons in the world — and particularly, the second strike capability of Russia is there. They need access to the open oceans, and in a wartime situation, we don’t want them to have that access.” He added: “If there is a crisis, this area will immediately be a center of gravity because of the importance of the nuclear capabilities of Russia, the submarine base and so on. It will go from low tension to being in the midst of it in a very short time. That’s why we need to plan for rapid reinforcement, for rapid stepping up, and also to have a constant military pressure presence in this area.”  Managing this Trump reassurance is a tricky balance. Rachel Ellehus, director general of the non-partisan foreign affairs think tank RUSI and a former U.S. representative at NATO, said: “You want to signal solidarity and presence and engagement, and send a message that Europe is stepping up for this alleged Russian and Chinese threat in and around Greenland.  “But you don’t want to kind of stick your finger in the eye of the United States or signal that you’re looking for some sort of confrontation.” Perhaps for this reason, Ellehus suggested NATO itself is holding back. “The one voice that has been quite silent is that of NATO,” she said. “It’s quite odd that Mark Rutte has not issued a secretary general statement expressing solidarity with Denmark and underscoring that any security concerns that the United States might have could legitimately be addressed through the NATO alliance, because both Denmark and Greenland are members of their territories covered by the Article Five guarantee. “I think it does have consequences in terms of the credibility of the alliance, and I think we could see an intensification of the practice whereby allies are turning to bilateral or regional relationships, score and meet their security to meet their security needs, rather than relying on multinational alliances like NATO.” A NEW ERA A reminder of how fast multilateralism is changing hangs on the library wall in the quaint, pink and white British embassy in Helsinki. The photo, dated July 1975, shows British Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the embassy garden with U.S. President Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and others on the cusp of signing the Helsinki Accords. The agreement, emphasizing the rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity, was part of a drumbeat toward the end of the Cold War. Britain’s extreme weather training in this area dates to the Cold War, but Camp Viking — its facility in Skjold, northern Norway — is new and growing. | Ben Dance / FCDO Across the street in Helsinki is the fortress-like embassy of the U.S. — where Trump is one of those calling the shots on territorial integrity these days. As well as his designs on Greenland, the president recently said NATO “would not be an effective force or deterrent” without American military power and said he did not need international law. Britain and many of its allies are loath to accept any suggestion of any cracks in the alliance. Asked by POLITICO if NATO was in crisis, Finland’s Foreign Minister Elisa Valtonen insisted: “NATO is stronger than it’s ever been.” Cooper, too, said NATO is “extremely strong” — and argued that those who describe his administration as a destabilising force are being too simplistic. She pointed to the presence of Marco Rubio, a more traditional Republican than Trump who Europeans have found easier to work with than the president, along with work on security guarantees for Ukraine, collaboration on “Five Eyes” intelligence and the plan for Gaza, much of which was led by the U.S. “Of course, everyone can see this administration operates in a different way,” she said, but “in every discussion I’ve had with … Rubio, there has always been a really strong commitment to NATO.” The Gaza plan, she added pointedly, “was actually drawing on international law, the UN framework.” But one U.K. official, not authorized to speak publicly, said there were three schools of thought about Trump’s comments on Greenland. The first is the president’s stated aim that he is concerned about security threats to the Arctic; the second is that he is seeking business opportunities there. And then “there is one school of thought that ultimately, he just wants to take it … he just wants to make America bigger,” they said.

KYIV — Russia’s relentless assault killed at least 2,500 civilians and injured 12,000 in Ukraine last year, according to a new report published this week. Those figures made it the deadliest year for Ukraine’s civilian population since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission said. The U.N. monitors included only deaths and injuries they were able to verify, noting the total dead and injured toll in 2025 was still 31 percent higher than in 2024, and 70 percent higher than in 2023. The vast majority of casualties, around 97 percent, occurred in Ukraine-controlled territory due to attacks launched by Russian armed forces. Russia’s army increased its efforts to capture Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions in 2025, with the campaign resulting in the killing and injuring of civilians, destruction of infrastructure and new waves of displacement. The aggression continues as Russian leader Vladimir Putin brushes off U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war. More than 9,000 people were injured in 2025 in frontline areas, with the elderly most affected. Civilian casualties by short-range drones increased by 120 percent last year, with 577 people killed and more than 3000 injured by FPV drone attacks, compared to 226 killed and 1,528 injured in 2024.  Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vasilii Nebendzia denied that Russia ever targets civilians, blaming Ukrainian air defense for the death toll during the U.N. Security Council meeting on Monday.   Russia attacked Ukraine with more than 20 different missiles and 293 killer drones on Monday night, killing four and injuring six people in Kharkiv alone, said local governor Oleh Synehubov.  The Kremlin has bombarded Ukraine’s energy system during freezing temperatures, leaving hundreds of thousands of families without heating and electricity. “Every such strike against life is a reminder that support for Ukraine cannot be stopped. Missiles for air defense systems are needed every day, and especially during winter,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday. “The world can respond to this Russian terror with new assistance packages for Ukraine. We expect the acceleration of deliveries already agreed with America and Europe. Russia must come to learn that cold will not help it win the war,” Zelenskyy added.

Moscow said its military launched a “massive strike” against Ukraine overnight, including a nuclear-capable missile, calling the attack retaliation for an unverified claim of a Ukrainian assault on a residence belonging to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Oreshnik ballistic missile struck the Lviv region, near the eastern border of the EU and NATO, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote in a post on X, saying the strike represents “a grave threat to the security on the European continent.” The strike marks only the second known combat use of the hypersonic Oreshnik missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, following its first firing against the Ukrainian region of Dnipro in November 2024. The strike on the Lviv region was part of a wider Russian barrage across Ukraine. Russia’s defense ministry said the assault was retaliation for an alleged Ukrainian attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29 — a claim that Kyiv has denied. “It is absurd that Russia attempts to justify this strike with a fake ‘Putin residence attack’ that never happened,” Ukraine’s Sybiha said on X. “This is further proof that Moscow does not need real reasons for its terror and war.” Ukraine’s Western Air Command said in a Facebook post that the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was traveling at approximately 13,000 kilometers per hour, with social media reports indicating the strike occurred only minutes after air-raid sirens sounded. The Lviv regional military administration said specialists conducted on-site tests and laboratory analyses following the strike. “The radiation background is within normal limits,” they said, adding that no harmful substances were detected in the air. Sybiha announced that Ukraine will be calling for an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting in response to the strike. “Such a launch near the borders of the EU and NATO is a serious threat to security on the European continent and a test for the transatlantic community,” Sybiha wrote. “We demand a decisive response to Russia’s reckless actions.”

PALM BEACH, Florida — U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that he would back an Israeli attack on Iran if it rebuilds its nuclear capabilities, vowing that “we will knock the hell out of them.” Ahead of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Palm Beach estate, Trump said he heard Iran is trying to grow its ballistic missiles program. “Now I hear that Iran is trying to build up again. And if they are, we’re going to have to knock them down,” he said alongside Netanyahu. “We’ll knock the hell out of them, but hopefully that’s not happening.” The president added that he heard Iran wants to make a deal, but said he supports an Israeli attack if either ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons programs continue. “If they will continue with the missiles, yes. The nuclear, fast,” Trump said. Trump ordered a U.S. military strike on Iranian nuclear sites in June, after which he said the country’s capabilities were “totally obliterated.” The Israeli prime minister met with Trump on Monday to discuss the growing threat from Iran, as well as the ceasefire in Gaza. Ahead of his sit-down with Netanyahu, he also endorsed the idea of a pardon for the prime minister from Israeli President Isaac Herzog. “I think he will, how do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero,” Trump said. “I spoke to the president, he told me it’s on the way.” Netanyahu is in the middle of a corruption trial and has requested that Herzog grant him a preemptive pardon before any conviction. Netanyahu is the second foreign leader to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in a week’s time — he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday, where he expressed optimism that they were on the precipice of a deal to end the war with Russia.

PARIS — The military recruitment center across from the Eiffel Tower, in the posh 7th district’s historic École Militaire, is filled with promotional posters for the armed forces. In the lobby, I met 26-year-old Charlotte, who currently works in marketing for a private company but is considering joining the French army. “The geopolitical context is inspiring me to sign up and serve, using my skills,” she told me. “I’m sometimes wondering why I am doing marketing when I could be a linguist in the army or an intelligence agency.” The geopolitical context she’s referring to is obvious to everyone in France, which has been at the forefront of Europe’s efforts to cope with the changing U.S. attitude toward its NATO and EU allies. Charlotte, who I agreed to identify by her first name to protect her privacy, told me that she studied Russian and recognizes that Europeans need to become more “sovereign” because they cannot rely on U.S. President Donald Trump to defend the continent against Russia. And she’s ready to help. Trump continues to antagonize the United States’ traditional European allies, deriding them as he did in an interview with POLITICO earlier this month as “weak” and a “decaying group of nations.” And for its part, France wants to prove him wrong. Like many other European nations, France sees Russia has a growing threat to the continent. So it is preparing to defend itself against what the country’s chief of defense staff, Gen. Fabien Mandon, called a “violent test” from Russia in the next three to four years that it would need to counter without much, if any, help from Washington. To do that, France is boosting military spending, increasing weapons production and doubling the reserve forces. As of next year, France will also reintroduce voluntary military service for young adults, primarily 18- and 19-year-olds. The goal is to enroll 3,000 new recruits next summer, 10,000 in 2030 and 50,000 in 2035. These defense efforts come as most of Europe’s nations are having to rethink their security posture in the most meaningful way since the Cold War ended. The challenge is even higher as it’s becoming increasingly clear they can no longer rely on the United States as a primary security provider. Successive U.S. presidents — including Barack Obama and Joe Biden — have warned over the past decade that Washington would eventually have to focus on the Indo-Pacific region instead of Europe, but the Trump administration has already matched those words with action. That is putting the spotlight on France, the EU’s only nuclear power and a country with independent weapons makers that has long warned the continent should become more autonomous in areas such as technology and defense. According to Guillaume Lagane, an expert on defense policy and a teacher at the Sciences Po public research university, the way France and Germany, the EU’s largest countries, respond in the coming months and years will determine whether other European countries will turn to them for Europe’s defense or try to retain bilateral ties with Washington at the expense of EU and NATO unity. “If France and Germany propose credible options, European countries may hesitate, otherwise they will not,” he said. “If only the American guarantee is credible, they will do everything they can to buy it.” To come across as a credible leader, he added, France could look into stationing nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets in Germany or Poland; compensate for the capability gaps potentially left behind by the U.S.; and replace U.S. soldiers who are leaving Europe with French troops. They are going to need a lot of Charlottes. In Paris’ corridors of power, the French elite has always known this moment would come. “We’re neither surprised, in shock or in denial,” a high-ranking French defense official told me in an interview. “Our first short-term test is Ukraine. We Europeans must organize ourselves to face this reality and adapt without being caught off guard.” For the past week, I’ve been talking to French and European officials in Paris and elsewhere to gauge how they are metabolizing the antagonism from Washington. In many cases, I agreed to withhold their names so they could speak more candidly at a moment of high tension with the United States and among European allies. France’s distrust of America dates back to 1956, when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower forced it and Britain to back down from a military intervention to regain control of the Suez Canal from Egypt, leaving Paris feeling betrayed and humiliated. Since then, unlike most other European countries, France’s defense policy has been based on the assumption that the U.S. is not a reliable ally and that the Western European nation should be able to defend itself on its own if need be. The memory of the Suez incident contributed to former French President Charles de Gaulle’s decision to leave NATO and develop its own nuclear program. Now, European capitals — who until now have been reluctant to think about the continent’s security architecture without the U.S. — are starting to increasingly realize France might have been right all along. “There is a kind of intellectual validation of the French position, which recognizes that interests do not always converge between allies and that the U.S. involvement in European security was the result of an alignment that was not eternal,” said Élie Tenenbaum, director of the Paris-based IFRI security studies center. Since Trump came back to power in January, the clues of Washington’s disengagement from — if not disdain of — Europe have been hard to ignore. Trump’s disparaging comments about Europe earlier this month came only a few days after a U.S. National Security Strategy made thinly-veiled calls for regime change in European countries. A leaked longer version of the document openly says the U.S. should pull Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland away from the EU. In the months leading up to the strategy’s release, the Trump administration has repeatedly cast doubt on America’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense pact, Article 5 of the NATO charter, and announced a U.S. troop reduction from frontline state Romania. Even more strikingly, the U.S. threatened to annex Greenland by force and is cozying up to Russia, including in peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. Less than one year after Trump returned to the White House, influential German voices — in one of Europe’s most transatlanticist countries — are no longer looking at Washington as an ally. Denmark’s military intelligence service has now classified the U.S. as a security risk. In this context, smaller European nations expect the larger ones to step up. “We need the bigger countries to lead the way,” a European defense official from a mid-size nation emphasized in a private briefing. “France has been consistent on that for quite some time, Germany is also important. It’s always helpful if they lead by example.” A Paris-based European diplomat echoed that call for French leadership: “We need Macron to take the initiative [on European defense], who else is going to do it if not France?” Another European official said France could become a “political and military hub,” adding that Paris is ready to lead together with other capitals such as London, Berlin, Rome and Warsaw. Since the war in Ukraine started in 2022, Paris has pivoted to Europe and reinvested in NATO. For decades, Paris had neglected the alliance — rejoining its integrated military command only in 2009 — and focused mainly on faraway lands such as the African Sahel region, from which the French military ultimately had to withdraw after a series of coups d’état. Now, France is leading a multinational NATO battlegroup in Romania, has beefed up its military footprint in Estonia and is in talks to deploy soldiers in Finland. For frontline states, having a nuclear power present on their soil remains a crucial deterrent against Russia. In a first test for Europe’s ability to think about its own security without the U.S., Paris — otherwise a laggard in terms of military aid to Kyiv — has set up alongside London a so-called coalition of the willing to plan security guarantees for post-war Ukraine. That’s a significant step in European-led defense planning and France’s leadership role has been welcomed in European capitals. However, many of them are still reluctant to deploy military assets to Ukraine without American backing. While the French elite has seen this moment coming, not everyone in France is on board, at least not yet. At this year’s Congress of France’s mayors — an influential gathering held annually in Paris — Mandon told the country’s local elected officials to ready their constituents for a potential war against Russia in the coming years. Standing on a white, round platform in front of French and EU flags, he warned them that France is in danger unless it’s prepared to sacrifice. “If our country falters because it is not prepared to accept losing its children …[or] … to suffer economically because priorities will go to defense production,” he said, “If we are not prepared for that, then we are at risk. But I think we have the moral fortitude.” About 24 hours later, that was all the country was talking about. Far-right and far-left parties alike accused Mandon of war-mongering and overstepping. It’s not up to him to speak to the mayors, they argued; his job is to follow political orders. Even in Emmanuel Macron’s camp, lawmakers privately admitted the general’s wording was ill-advised, even if the message was valid. Eventually, the French president publicly backed him. France’s moment to demonstrate leadership is arriving at a challenging time for Europe’s heavyweight. “If you’re right too early, then you’re wrong,” a high-ranking French military officer told me. Macron’s ill-fated decision to call for a snap election in 2024 has embroiled the country in a political crisis that is still unresolved, and the far-right, NATO-skeptic, EU-skeptic National Rally is on the rise and could come to power as soon as 2027. “Intellectually, we are mentally equipped to understand what is happening in terms of burden shifting, but we don’t really have the means to lead the way at the European level,” said IFRI’s Tenenbaum, adding that Germany is currently in a better position to do so. “French leadership makes sense, it is logical given our relative weight, experience, and capabilities, and European countries recognize this, but there is a mismatch between words and deeds,” he added. Even as Macron pledged more defense spending, it’s very unlikely that France’s fragmented National Assembly will pass the 2026 budget by Dec. 31. The French president said France’s military expenditures will increase by €6.7 billion next year, bringing the country’s total defense spending to more than €57.1 billion. In comparison, German lawmakers this week greenlit €50 billion in weaponry procurement — Germany’s military expenditures are expected to reach more than €82 billion next year. “There will be a new balance between France and Germany in the coming years,” said a third Paris-based European diplomat. Since Macron’s snap election in 2024, European embassies in Paris monitor France’s political situation like milk on the stove — especially in the run-up to a presidential election in 2027 where the far-right National Rally is currently leading the polls. While Germany and the U.K. could also see nationalists come to power, their next general elections aren’t scheduled before 2029. Paris-based European diplomats speaking to POLITICO have compared a presidency by National Rally leaders Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella to Trump’s return to the White House in terms of changes for France’s security and defense policy. Just a day after Macron pledged that France would join a multinational force to enforce peace in Ukraine if a deal is signed with Russia, Bardella, leader of the National Rally, reaffirmed his party’s opposition to sending French troops. Marine Le Pen confirmed in September she would leave NATO’s integrated command if she’s elected president. A second high-ranking French military officer downplayed that pledge, arguing top French military brass would be able to convince her otherwise. However, he conceded, the National Rally’s refusal to send boots on the ground in Ukraine would “become a problem” for the coalition of the willing. Le Pen also vowed to completely overturn Macron’s offer to have a discussion with European countries about how France’s nuclear deterrent could contribute to the bloc’s security. In a bid to show leadership, the French president is currently engaging with some nations to talk about the role French nukes could play to deter Russia beyond the French borders. Asked whether she’d be open to storing French nuclear weapons in Poland and Germany (something even Macron hasn’t suggested), she replied: “Give me a break. It’s an absolute no, because nuclear power belongs to the French.” Some European countries want to do as much as possible with Macron now, in anticipation of a potential drastic policy change in 2027. Others are concerned about France’s political future, worrying how a leadership change could affect Paris’ commitments. According to an influential French lawmaker who works on defense policy, Poland’s recent decision to award a submarine contract to Sweden instead of France was partly driven by concerns in Warsaw about France’s political future. “The instability of French political life is frightening. Poland is scared to death of Bardella,” the lawmaker said. Countries such as Romania continue to see France as a crucial security provider and would welcome more troops to compensate for the outgoing U.S. soldiers. But officials from the southeastern European country know there could be an expiration date to Paris’ involvement. “There is an election in two years’ time, Macron’s successor will be less inclined to have troops outside of France,” one of them told me. Amid the uncertainty, the French military will continue to try to strengthen the ranks of its armed forces and attract young people like Charlotte. She is still deciding whether she actually wants to join, and regardless of who’s elected president in 2027, the geopolitical environment is unlikely to improve. “It is very important that our generation is aware and knows how to serve their country,” she said.

Sprawling defense legislation set for a vote as soon as this week would place new restrictions on reducing troop levels in Europe, a bipartisan rebuke of Trump administration moves that lawmakers fear would limit U.S. commitments on the continent. A just-released compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act — which puts Congress’ stamp on Pentagon programs and policy each year — has been in the works for months. The measure stands in stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy, which sharply criticizes European allies and suggests the continent is in cultural decline. Lawmakers also endorsed a slight increase in the Pentagon budget with a price tag that is $8 billion more than Trump requested. And it would repeal decades-old Middle East war powers, a small win for lawmakers who’ve been fighting to reclaim a sliver of Congress’ war-declaring prerogatives. The final bill is the result of weeks of negotiations between House and Senate leadership in both parties, heads of the Armed Services panels and the White House. The measure had been slowed in recent days by talks on issues unrelated to defense, including a major Senate-backed housing package and greater scrutiny of U.S. investment in China. The defense bill typically passes with broad bipartisan support. Speaker Mike Johnson will likely need to win back some Democrats who opposed the House GOP’s hard-right initial bill in September. And the speaker will have to contend with fellow Republicans upset that their priorities weren’t included. But both House and Senate-passed defense bills reflected bipartisan concerns that the Trump administration would seek to significantly reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. Both measures included language that imposes requirements the Pentagon must meet before trimming military personnel levels on the continent below certain thresholds. Republicans, led by Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), broke with the Trump administration, arguing that troop reductions — such as a recent decision to remove a rotational Army brigade from Romania — would invite aggression from Russia. The final bill blocks the Pentagon from reducing the number of troops permanently stationed or deployed to Europe below 76,000 for longer than 45 days until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the head of U.S. European Command certify to Congress that doing so is in U.S. national security interests and that NATO allies were consulted. They would also need to provide assessments of that decision’s impact. The legislation applies the same conditions to restrict the U.S. from vacating the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a role that the U.S. officer who leads European Command chief has held simultaneously for decades. Negotiators included similar limitations on reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula below 28,500, a provision originally approved by the Senate. Lawmakers agreed to a slight increase to the bill’s budget topline, reflecting some momentum on Capitol Hill for more military spending. The final agreement recommends an $8 billion hike to Trump’s $893 billion flat national defense budget, for a total of roughly $901 billion for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons development and other national security programs. The House-passed defense bill matched Trump’s budget request while the Senate bill proposed a $32 billion boost. Republicans separately approved a $150 billion multi-year boost for the Pentagon through their party-line tax cut and spending megabill earlier this year. Regardless of the signal the topline budget agreement sends, the defense policy bill does not allocate any money to the Pentagon. Lawmakers must still pass annual defense spending legislation to fund Pentagon programs. House Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) described the agreement as a “placeholder” that would allow lawmakers to finish the NDAA, while congressional appropriators continue their talks on a separate full-year Pentagon funding measure. A House Republican leadership aide who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss details of the bill ahead of its release, said the revised topline is a “fiscally responsible increase that meets our defense needs.” The bill also would repeal a pair of old laws that authorize military action in the Middle East, including 2002 legislation that preceded the invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War. Those repeals were included in both the House and Senate defense bills as bipartisan support for scrubbing the old laws — which critics contend could be abused by a president — overcame opposition from some top Republicans. Repealing those decades-old measures is a win for critics of expansive presidential war powers, who argued the measures aren’t needed anymore. They point to the potential for abuses — citing Trump’s use of the 2002 Iraq authorization to partly justify a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. A second House GOP leadership aide said the repeal of the two Iraq authorizations won’t impact Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief. But the repeal is ultimately a minor win for lawmakers seeking to reclaim congressional power. The 2001 post-9/11 authorization that undergirds much of the U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world remains on the books. And the bill is silent on Trump’s ongoing campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean. Many lawmakers — including some Republicans — have questioned the administration’s legal justification for the lethal strikes. The final bill also doesn’t include an expansion of coverage for in-vitro fertilization and other fertility services for military families under the Tricare health system. The provision, backed by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and others, was included in both Senate and House bills before it was dropped. Johnson reportedly was seeking to remove the provision, which similarly was left out of last year’s bill.

The Kremlin hit back Thursday at a European aerospace chief in a feud over tactical nuclear weapons.  The board chair of Airbus, René Obermann, called Wednesday on Europe to develop tactical nuclear weapons to deter Russia’s arsenal in Kaliningrad, sparking a response from Moscow, which is no stranger to nuclear saber-rattling. “Kaliningrad is an integral part of Russia,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists, adding, “of course, Russia will do everything necessary to provide its security, stability, and predictability today, and tomorrow.” Responding to Obermann, Peskov said: “Unfortunately, some allow such provocative statements, and call for further steps … to escalate tension.” Russia’s heavily militarized semi-exclave of Kaliningrad is located on the Baltic Sea, bordered by Lithuania and Poland, and is home to 1 million residents. According to a German Council on Foreign Relations memo, Russia deploys “numerous nuclear weapons” in the Kaliningrad region.  Moscow has engaged in veiled nuclear threats against the West since it launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while both the U.S. and Russia have recently considered plans for further nuclear weapons testing.