LONDON — Democratic wins across the U.S. brought a brief rush of excitement to Britain’s left-wing establishment last week — but they also contained warnings for Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government.

Labour insiders privately cheered the midterm results, interpreting the outcome as a damning verdict on Donald Trump’s politics and a win for Democrats’ unifying strategy of focusing on living standards, despite ideological differences across their slate of candidates.

It’s left Burnham’s followers cautiously optimistic about his approach so far as prime minister, which has included incremental measures to lower costs, such as reducing food tariffs and offering money off energy bills.

A Labour MP, granted anonymity like others in this article to speak frankly, said their own engagement with Democratic New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s team had hammered home “the politics of trying.”

“If people think you’re not even trying, which obviously is what they thought about Trump, then you’re just going to get blown away,” they said. By making small adjustments, the MP argued, Burnham has begun to “develop a coherent argument — which is actually voters have to see you trying on the cost of living.”

Yet beyond this apparent vindication of the PM’s basic strategy, members of his party see clear warning signs for the incumbent British government in the U.S. political shift. An administration only just coming out of a dire stretch in public opinion polls, they worry, could take the wrong lessons from the Dems’ triumph across the pond if they don’t heed the deep anti-incumbent sentiment that drove it.

Reasons to be fearful

Burnham has badged his fledgling administration as a “cost of living government” since he replaced Keir Starmer at the top of Labour earlier this year.

Yet he has faced criticism from some quarters that a government-wide budget unveiled last month lacked real ambition — and now the pressure is on to deliver before a general election, due by 2029.

Claire Ainsley, a former adviser to Starmer who works for the Progressive Policy Institute think tank on both sides of the Atlantic, told POLITICO that, despite arguments about the future direction of the Democratic Party, “what they’ve all had in common is a real focus on affordability.”

“They’ve really focused on bread-and-butter issues for everyday Americans, and clearly that’s the path to be building and hopefully winning in 2028,” she said.

Ainsley highlighted striking moves by a host of prominent Democratic politicians, including Mamdani, who has offered childcare support to New Yorkers, and New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill — who declared “a state of emergency” on utility bills. Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger has targeted the cost of prescriptions.

“You’ve still got people who are worried here and wouldn’t necessarily say the cost of living is being relieved,” Ainsley warned. “You’ve got interest rates going up and there are lots of warning signs on our dashboard.”

Adam Terry, executive director of the Future Governance Forum think tank, argued likewise that Burnham’s action on the “little things” was part of the answer — but that he has not yet tackled “the big structural questions, namely: why is the economy so sluggish?”

That need to provide deeper solutions to Britain’s woes only raises the stakes for Burnham’s promised ten-year plan and his broader strategy for rewiring the British state, Terry said.

The same Labour MP quoted at the top of the piece — while broadly positive about Burnham’s impact so far — said: “It’s not a coincidence that basically every government in Britain since Brexit has failed usually within 18 months — and I would include in that Keir Starmer’s. Clearly systemic change is definitely required.”

Deborah Mattinson, a Labour member of the House of Lords and pollster who has worked in both the U.S. and U.K., cautioned progressives against believing the age of Trump-style politics is over, “because until things that encourage Trumpism are fixed, it won’t happen.

She added that in the U.S. — and in Germany and France, too — “working people feel the contract that they made with the state has fallen down.”

“The U.K. needs to be really mindful that if you don’t fix those fundamental grievances that people have, then you continue to be in a bind,” Mattinson added.

Up against it

Even those at the top of Labour sense that the PM is up against it if he is to buck the anti-incumbency trend demonstrated by the punishment of Republicans right across the United States.

A senior Labour aide observed that the midterm results strengthened the Democrats as they begin to target the White House in 2028 — but in the meantime they face a similar dilemma of delivery as Burnham.

No.10 Downing Street knows it needs to improve people’s lives, the aide said — but it remains “very difficult” to pull one lever that makes a substantial difference without upsetting financial markets.

Burnham has already been quick to draw a direct line between the U.S. electoral shift and politics closer to home. “I can’t get people’s cost of living pressures down until the conflict in the Middle East is resolved,” he said last week — while urging world leaders to “unite” around efforts to wind down the war.

Here, too, the prime minister may be testing the limits of his own country’s ability to shift the diplomatic dial — while few expect a calmer international picture in which Burnham can really bear down on costs.

Britain will stick to a steady drumbeat of quiet diplomacy for the rest of the year, two people inside government said, including talks with G7 and G20 partners, ongoing contact with Gulf allies, and a bid to maximize the U.K.’s G20 presidency starting in January. 

But a minister in Burnham’s government predicted that when it comes to international relations, and especially military action, Trump’s election drubbing “will not make much difference” to his mindset. 

Anxiety in London over Trump’s next move has certainly not been quelled by initial post-election ripples within the White House, either. Ministers and aides are watching nervously for further news of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s future — generally seen as a reliable interlocutor with the U.K. — while one serving British diplomat said Stephen Miller’s installation as Trump’s chief of staff represented a “red flag.” 

The senior party official quoted above said: “The U.S.’s relationship with every single country in the world has just been thrown into a level of uncertainty and fluidity.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre is already unpopular with Donald Trump, who blames his government for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, and recently dismissed Norway as a “shithouse country.” 

Now Støre is casting doubt on the U.S. president’s bullish prediction that a “big, beautiful” peace deal is close to being signed to end nearly five years of Russia’s full-scale war with Ukraine. 

In an interview with POLITICO ahead of the restart of talks in Abu Dhabi, Støre gave a sober assessment of Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s mindset and the chances of an imminent ceasefire. 

And as the White House touts plans to overhaul the established security order in Europe, Støre bluntly warned that the continent’s defenses must not become a bargaining chip in the negotiation to end the war in Ukraine.

“I would be cautious,” Støre said, when asked what he expected to come out of the latest talks scheduled for the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi is a stepping stone, and one output of it should be a follow-up quite soon after.”

According to Støre, the Abu Dhabi agenda will potentially include talks about a ceasefire for the Black Sea to allow grain to be safely transported, a ceasefire on energy infrastructure, a front-line freeze in the conflict, and other “confidence building measures” such as prisoner swaps. There has also been work on the question of security guarantees to ensure Putin does not attack again, he said.

Negotiating teams from Moscow and Kyiv are due to sit down with the United States in Abu Dhabi on Nov. 10-11. It is the first three-way meeting the sides have had since February, and comes after a month of intensifying diplomacy and increasingly impatient demands from Trump to deliver a deal. 

Norway’s leader has found himself at the center of the storm more than once in that time. Working with his close friend and regional ally, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Støre tried to rescue the faltering peace process last month by hosting a meeting with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Oslo. 

That got Ukraine and America back on the same page and prepared the ground for the Abu Dhabi discussion. But a day after the Oslo meeting, Witkoff was in St. Petersburg praising Putin to his face as a “humanitarian,” a statement that horrified many of Ukraine’s European allies. 

Støre said he is too diplomatic to reveal how the remark made him feel. But he added: “It would not have been part of my vocabulary.”

Given Witkoff’s pivotal role in the negotiations, as well as Trump’s own recent declaration that Russia has been “fine” in Ukraine, does Støre trust these individuals as guardians of a fair peace process for Ukraine? Should Europe trust them, or not? 

For all his tact and experience as a foreign minister, the 66-year-old Norwegian’s reply is not a straightforward yes. “I trust that the U.S. is seeking a way to end this war,” he said. 

Hotline to the Kremlin

On Oct. 27, Støre and Stubb took matters into their own hands. Rather than wait for the U.S. to negotiate a deal with Putin that would have vast ramifications for Europe, they picked up the phone to call the Kremlin directly. 

It was a rare outreach from pro-Ukraine leaders to Putin, who has been frozen out by Europe since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. Their 90-minute call stunned and dismayed some of the Nordics’ neighbors in countries such as Denmark and Latvia, who believed Europe should continue to isolate the Russian aggressor.

Støre rejected that idea and defended their decision to open up a line of communication directly to the Kremlin. “Let’s admit it. He is not isolated,” he said. “The only voice reaching Moscow comes from Washington.”

While Norway and Finland have good relations with the American negotiators, the war is happening in Europe, he said. “Living month by month … thinking that this war will end by Europe not talking to Moscow, I think, is an illusion … We believe that there should be European voices reaching Putin, with the message of why and how we support Ukraine.” 

Rational. Not a peacemaker

Having spoken to Putin, how would Støre characterize his state of mind? Did he seem rational in the conversation?

“I would describe it as professional. I would describe it as rational,” he said. “It was a conversation where we agreed the principles — we would not interrupt, we will keep [to] statements. His arguments were perfectly clearly transmitted.”

Some reports suggested that Putin used the call to lecture the two Nordic leaders on Slavic history as his justification for the war, an impression the Norwegian wants to correct: “I just have to say, you know, I was present. He didn’t.”

Does Støre believe Putin wants peace? “Well, if he had wanted peace, there would have been no war at the outset. If he had wanted peace during these five years, when he sees that his country is regressing, that neighboring countries are becoming members of NATO, that his people are being killed, and all these terrible things, the war would have ended. So that is one side to that.”

But at the same time, “the fact that he picks up that phone” to talk “I think that signals, at least that there’s a readiness to sit down.” And while Støre has not seen signs “so far” that Putin is genuinely open to a deal, sending a team to Abu Dhabi and being responsible for “not delivering anything” also has “a price.”  

Later this week, European leaders are due to debate who should represent them in Ukraine negotiations when they meet for an informal summit in Dublin. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is particularly frustrated that the EU has so far failed to make a plan for how to make sure its voice is fully heard when decisions are made. 

Støre said he had followed the debate about whether somebody should be “talking on behalf of a larger group” in Europe — “and I think there should be.”

It could be one individual, or a different arrangement, he said. Crucially, Europe needs to decide on its core collective messages and goals and then appoint a person or people to deliver those to Trump and Putin, he said. Increasingly, Støre said he had been looking to the so-called E3 to play this role — Europe’s biggest three economic powers, Germany, France and the U.K.

Whoever ends up speaking for European interests, one urgent task facing the region is how to stop Trump and Putin carving up a new security plan, raising fears in Europe over cuts to the U.S. troop presence, or weakening NATO’s role — a longtime goal of Russia’s leader. 

Last week, Trump and his team suggested the U.S. was working on a major overhaul of European security that the president said might involve “the whole of Europe.” 

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said the goal was “to develop practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all sides.”

But rolling the future of America’s role in European security into a negotiation about ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not acceptable to Norway, or Støre says, to other Nordic-Baltic countries. 

“Any issues relating to European architecture on security will have to be dealt with after the end of the war,” Støre said. “Russia keeps floating the ideas they had in the end of [2021] about where there could be NATO and where there could not be NATO. That is not for Russia to decide. This has nothing to do with this point in the negotiations.” 

In private, some European officials are resigned to the fact that Trump’s recurrent bashing of NATO allies has already weakened the effectiveness of the alliance as a deterrent against Russian aggression.

Støre insisted NATO remains in good shape. “We can discuss whether this or that statement helps,” he said. “I think sometimes it’s hard to say yes, they do help.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage blamed Donald Trump’s midterms catastrophe on broken anti-foreign intervention promises Thursday, branding his decision to launch a war with Iran as “bizarre.”

The U.S. president’s right-wing ally in Britain echoed other high-profile conservative figures in lamenting the price-spiking conflict and warned against a fresh campaign of attacks in the Middle East.

Farage has long considered Trump a personal friend, but has come under pressure to distance himself from the U.S. president, who is deeply unpopular in the U.K. 

The Reform leader has been more critical against a backdrop of global economic woes triggered by the war waged against Tehran by America and Israel.

Farage, leader of the insurgent right-wing Reform UK party, told reporters after a defense speech in London that he wouldn’t have supported a drawn-out conflict with Iran. He said it was “bizarre” that Trump, of all people, took such action, considering he took power on a pledge to avoid endless foreign wars.

Asked about the biggest lesson he took from the midterms carnage for the Republicans, Farage said: “Keep your promises.”

He praised Trump’s “very good” track record of staying faithful to the electorate during his first term, but said, “He broke a promise — that was no more foreign wars.”

“We’re eight months in, and the resultant rise in gas and diesel prices, more than anything else, is what did them in,” Farage said.

He later told broadcasters that he worries the U.S. president will “continue aggressively attacking Iran” now that he has lost Congress.

Farage was initially supportive after Trump launched strikes in February. He urged the U.K. government to “back the Americans in this vital fight against Iran!”

But within two weeks he changed his tune. He subsequently urged ministers not to “get involved directly in another foreign war.”

Senior figures in Reform UK have been trying to distance themselves from Trump in the wake of MAGA’s midterm drubbing at the hands of the Democrats.

One high-ranking adviser, granted anonymity to discuss transatlantic relations, said the party would continue building “good relations” with senior Republicans like JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

“Reform already has good relations with multiple Republicans, and that process will continue,” they added.

Others argued for greater network building with right-wing movements in Europe.

“I’ve never been a huge fan of Mr. Trump,” said one official. “He does speak for a particular slice of American society, but in practical terms what happens on the continent is somewhat more important,” the official added, pointing to the rise of right-wing parties in France, Italy and Spain.

“Given we have a PM that is committed on salami slicing us back into the EU,” they added. “Personally, I think that’s more important than America.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s midterm election losses haven’t helped the U.K. economy — yet.

The Bank of England’s nine-member Monetary Policy Committee announced on Thursday it has overwhelmingly voted to increase interest rates to 4% from 3.75%, the first time since August 2023 to combat rising prices driven by the war in Iran.

Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve and European Central Bank, the Bank of England has been reluctant to raise rates for fear of denting the British economy.

Until now, Governor Andrew Bailey and other MPC members have preferred to wait and see whether higher energy prices spilled over more broadly.

But the Bank was forced to increase rates after U.K. inflation came in at 3.5% in September, while the economy posted better-than-expected growth figures — raising the risk prices could take off.

The MPC on Wednesday voted 8-to-1 to raise rates, arguing the energy shock since the war began has built “sufficient” inflation pressures to justify a hike.

The dissenting vote from Catherine Mann was for a larger increase of 0.5 percentage points.

But Bailey made no secret of the fact that the future health of the U.K.’s economy depends on what the U.S. does in Iran.

“Today’s increase shouldn’t be seen as the first in an inevitable long sequence of hikes,” Bailey said.

“But, unless the conflict in the Middle East is resolved, neither does it seem likely to be the last increase.”

The Bank projected inflation would pick up to nearly 5% by the second quarter of 2027, higher than its previous forecast, with greater spillover into wages and other prices.

Under an adverse scenario, in which prices stay higher for longer and the conflict in the Middle East continues to flare, inflation would hit 6.2% in the third quarter of 2027.

Thursday’s decision, which comes a week after Chancellor John Healey delivered his first budget under the specter of Brits paying the highest energy prices in three years, will further squeeze struggling U.K. households and businesses already hit with higher energy bills and mortgage rates.

The tougher financing backdrop could hurt the Burnham government’s promises to tackle the cost of living. Yet rampant inflation would also undercut that pledge.

Still, the Bank’s top brass also pushed back on market expectations that rates could by hiked to 4.75% or 5% in 2027 — which could help bring down decades-high government borrowing costs.

The Trump factor

The decision comes as the rout of Trump’s Republican Party at the U.S. midterm elections on Tuesday raised the prospect of a peace deal in the Middle East.

A thaw in the conflict could bring down fuel prices by easing pressure on oil supplies and improve the cost-of-living picture for U.K. households.

There were reports Trump could respond to his party’s losses by embarking on a bombing campaign in the Middle East, but the U.S. president appeared to accept on Wednesday that higher petrol prices affected his popularity and struck a more conciliatory tone on the prospect of peace negotiations. 

U.S. Vice-President JD Vance blamed the Iran war for the electoral losses. And U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Wednesday that the elections create an opportunity to focus on the cost of living.

Oil prices fell sharply on Wednesday, amid expectations Democrats could also limit Trump’s funding for the conflict. The possibility of a ceasefire could yet be subject to Trump’s whims.

Regardless, U.K. consumers will feel the pinch through a rise in the energy price cap in January. 

Even if falling oil prices persist over the next few weeks, the price cap is likely to rise substantially because of a lag in the way it is calculated. 

The Bank forecast the cap will hit £2,150 in the first quarter of 2027. Food price increases, which have so far been muted, could hit 4.75% by mid-2027 as companies pass through higher costs.

Healey’s budget will knock 0.25 percentage points off inflation by the second quarter of next year, the Bank said, while tighter fiscal policy to bring down the deficit would likely detract from growth in the medium term.

WARSAW — Poland’s political crisis deepened on Tuesday as nationalist President Karol Nawrocki launched a bitter attack on pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk amid a furor over the politicization of judges at the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

In increasingly heated exchanges, Nawrocki accused Tusk of using the court dispute for an illegal power grab, while Tusk defended his actions as vital to preserving the rule of law in the EU’s sixth-largest economy.

The long-running but highly charged judicial dispute dates back more than a decade and centers on the political appointment of judges at the top court by the previous administration of the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party that was in power until 2023.

Tusk’s government and the European Commission have insisted the court must be overhauled to conform with EU norms on impartiality, and on Friday suspended the court’s president and his deputy.

On Tuesday, eight judges elected by the current ruling majority led by Tusk convened the court and declared they had sufficient numbers to resume its long-stalled work.

Hitting back, Nawrocki used the televised opening of a National Security Council meeting, attended by Tusk and other political leaders, to attack the prime minister. Tusk was not given a chance to respond while the cameras were on.

“Full responsibility for every police officer outside the tribunal, for all the illegal actions, including suspending judges and issuing unlawful orders, lies with one man who is present in this room — Prime Minister Donald Tusk,” Nawrocki said, referring to Friday’s confrontations in front of the tribunal.

“I expect [the prime minister] to rein in his government’s ambitions and put an end to the illegal actions of his representatives inside the Constitutional Tribunal,” Nawrocki added.

Earlier, Tusk had accused Nawrocki of escalating the conflict and called on him to end his opposition to the judges elected by parliament.

“The president has a chance, and I hope he takes it, to stop attacking lawfully elected tribunal judges and allow them to work,” Tusk said before a Cabinet meeting.

Tusk also accused Moscow of exploiting Poland’s political turmoil and urged politicians not to become “useful idiots” as the squabble over the court’s fate intensifies.

As the National Security Council meeting ended, Tusk reiterated his main points on the tribunal but adopted a more conciliatory tone, offering Nawrocki a one-on-one meeting to “think about how to reduce tension.”

But he also said he was pleased that the “situation was stabilizing,” alluding to the fait accompli of the tribunal having resumed work. 

The feud over the tribunal is hardening Poland’s political divisions ahead of the 2027 parliamentary election, bringing a previously divided array of factions on the nationalist right into closer alignment against Tusk. For the prime minister, the crisis also serves as an opportunity to consolidate the voter base ahead of the election.

The eight judges elected by the current parliamentary majority held a general assembly Tuesday afternoon under Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, the judge who assumed control of the court Friday. Nawrocki and the right-wing camp do not recognize her authority.

The president also keeps refusing to swear in five of the eight judges. Instead, they took their oaths in the parliament in a ceremony that Nawrocki contends was null and void.

The eight voted to recognize themselves as a quorum, arguing that only 12 of the court’s 15 judges were eligible to participate after Korwin-Piotrowska temporarily suspended PiS-linked Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański. A third PiS-era appointee, Jarosław Wyrembak, occupied an improperly filled seat.

That reduced the required two-thirds quorum from 10 to eight, although Święczkowski and his political allies rejected his suspension and the quorum calculation.

The judges unanimously approved the tribunal’s draft budget for 2027 and drew names for disciplinary panels to consider proceedings against Święczkowski and Sochański.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will host talks on Wednesday with representatives from the United States, Ukraine and key European allies on Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and economic future, Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho confirmed Tuesday.

The meeting will bring together officials from France, Germany, the U.K., NATO and the World Bank, alongside representatives from Washington, Kyiv and the EU.

An EU official, granted anonymity to speak freely, told POLITICO that the discussions would cover security guarantees for Ukraine, economic support for reconstruction and other issues related to the country’s future.

The meeting follows discussions held last month in Miami and Oslo, involving largely the same group of participants. Pinho said Wednesday’s gathering would build on the talks in Miami, which were aimed at securing a lasting and sustainable peace in Ukraine.

The EU will be represented by national security advisers and other senior officials, she said, without identifying specific participants. In the previous meetings, the EU was represented by Ursula von der Leyen’s head of staff, Bjoern Seibert.

Pinho also declined to confirm who would attend from the American side, following questions about the possible participation of U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff.

“I cannot, not yet. We’ll have to wait a bit for that piece of information,” she said when asked to identify the U.S. participants.

Geleakte Anmerkungen in einer Interview-Freigabe setzen die Berliner Linke weiter unter Druck. Wahlgewinnerin Elif Eralp fürchtet einen Terror-Sympathisanten und Teile der eigenen Reihen. Cedric Looks analysiert, wie der Pro-Palästina-Flügel den anstehenden Parteitag kapern will und ob die Entscheidung über einen Ausschluss der umstrittenen Abgeordneten Vanessa Emde noch kommt oder immer weiter verschoben wird.

Der Rückzug von EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde erwischt Europa auf dem falschen Fuß. Für Kanzler Friedrich Merz bedeutet das eine doppelte Belastungsprobe, weil er sich nun nicht nur mit der Nachfolge für Steinmeier beschäftige, sondern auch mit dem französischen Präsidenten Emmanuel Macron über den wichtigsten Finanzposten einigen muss. Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnet ein, warum Bundesbank-Chef Joachim Nagel dabei wohl nur Außenseiterchancen hat.

Drohen in Deutschland bald französische Verhältnisse? Im 200-Sekunden-Interview warnt der hessische Innenminister Roman Poseck vor einer Eskalation der bundesweiten „Gen Z regelt“-Proteste am Wochenende. Er erklärt, wie ein massives Polizeiaufgebot in Frankfurt am Main verhindern soll, dass Linksextremisten die Demonstrationen für Zerstörung und Plünderungen missbrauchen.

Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.

Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Ein verlässlicher Partner für die Medienbranche: Dass YouTube als digitale Infrastruktur ein wichtiger Motor für Medienhäuser ist und Redaktionen nachhaltig stärkt, belegt eine Studie von Oxford Economics im Auftrag von YouTube: Das kreative Ökosystem von YouTube unterstützte 2025 in Deutschland über 29.000 Arbeitsplätze (Vollzeitäquivalent). Hier klicken und mehr erfahren zum Beitrag von YouTube zur Medienindustrie.**

Ein rein berufliches Frauenproblem bringt den Kanzler in Bedrängnis. Zwar stößt die Aussicht auf die erste Bundespräsidentin im kommenden Jahr auf breite Zustimmung, doch die historische Personalie entwickelt sich zur politischen Hängepartie.Friedrich Merz droht die Kontrolle über die Debatte um die richtige Kandidatin zu entgleiten. Dabei drängt die Zeit massiv vor der Wahl Ende Januar, sodass plötzlich wieder völlig offen ist, ob am Ende wirklich eine Frau oder doch ein Mann antritt.

Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert die hitzige Diskussion um das höchste Staatsamt. Er beleuchtet das strategische Dilemma der Akteure und den wachsenden Druck vor der nahenden Entscheidung.

Während der außenpolitische Fokus auf der Asienreise des Kanzlers liegt, ist die SPD-Entwicklungsministerin Reem Alabali Radovan im Libanon unterwegs. Carlotta Diederich von POLITICO begleitet sie und ordnet ein, welche Auswirkungen die Wahl in Israel auf den blutigen Konflikt im Süden haben könnte und wie Deutschland versucht, seine humanitäre Rolle in diesem Teil des Nahost-Konflikts versucht einzunehmen.

Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.

Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Ein verlässlicher Partner für die Medienbranche: Dass YouTube als digitale Infrastruktur ein wichtiger Motor für Medienhäuser ist und Redaktionen nachhaltig stärkt, belegt eine Studie von Oxford Economics im Auftrag von YouTube: Das kreative Ökosystem von YouTube unterstützte 2025 in Deutschland über 29.000 Arbeitsplätze (Vollzeitäquivalent). Hier klicken und mehr erfahren zum Beitrag von YouTube zur Medienindustrie.**

We live in an era where wars are fought not just on battlefields, but also on our screens, in our minds and through the narratives we are led to believe. Narratives are influencing perception while missiles destroy infrastructure. What happens when the war for truth becomes more dangerous than the actual battle itself? Who’s controlling the narrative?

When wars end, the fighting over what they meant begins: who won, who was to blame and who can be trusted to keep the peace. These questions are settled less on the battlefield than on screens, in feeds and in group chats. For a Middle East emerging from the war that began on February 28, that contest may decide whether any new security order holds.

The region is now asking what comes after deterrence. That question brought policymakers, military leaders and researchers from the United States, Europe, Asia and the Gulf to the TRENDS 6^th Annual Conference, held in Abu Dhabi and organized by TRENDS Global, in collaboration with its global offices. The answer cannot be measured only in missiles and alliances. Information resilience should be treated as security infrastructure, planned and funded like air defense, not managed as public relations.

What happens when the war for truth becomes more dangerous than the actual battle itself?

The struggle over perception can now matter as much as events on the ground. That is no longer hyperbole. In any crisis today, governments, media outlets, political movements and non-state groups compete in real time to define what is happening. Disinformation, coordinated propaganda and now content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) mean a false account can reach millions before an official one is drafted.

As former BBC correspondent Karen Allen put it at the conference, “Now in an instant, I’m able to influence millions of people,” and algorithm manipulation is what we are increasingly seeing.

This year’s war showed how real that is. Within days of the first U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, an AI-generated video of Dubai’s Burj Khalifa on fire, with crowds fleeing, was viewed tens of millions of times, according to BBC Verify. Fabricated images of damaged U.S. facilities in the Gulf spread just as fast, some posted by Iranian state-linked outlets. UAE Minister of State Noura Al Kaabi later described the attacks on the country as coming “from the sky and behind our screens.” Her government’s answer was to treat “fake news and misinformation as a security threat.”

A more damaging false story was not a single video. It was the idea that the Gulf was a party to the war. The UAE did not want this war and said so. On March 3, Minister of State Reem Al Hashimy said the UAE did not “seek to expand the circle of confrontation,” that it had “repeatedly confirmed” its territory could not be used for any military operation against Iran, and that “returning to the negotiating table is the only rational way forward.” The attacks continued anyway. Reuters reported, citing UAE defense figures, that 186 ballistic missiles and 812 drones were fired at the country in the first days of the conflict.

Information resilience should be treated as security infrastructure, planned and funded like air defense, not managed as public relations.

Tehran sought to blur that record, framing strikes on Gulf cities as retaliation against American aggression. Its foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told NBC News that Iran had “not attacked our neighbors,” only “American bases,” and called the hotels hit in Dubai “collateral damage.” Countering that narrative does not require propaganda of our own. It requires putting the record in front of the world quickly and repeatedly: the UAE’s public calls for restraint before the war, its refusal to let its territory be used against Iran, and the hundreds of missiles and drones fired at it, most of which it shot down. Facts published fast, through verified channels, in Arabic, English and Farsi, are harder to bury than corrections issued too late.

Even after a war ends, the threats do not disappear; they simply take different forms. Ceasefires and reconstruction depend on public trust. If populations come to believe that the peace is a betrayal, or that a neighbor cannot be trusted, no deterrence framework or security pact will survive contact with domestic politics. Spoilers understand this. Their cheapest weapon is a story.

Seen from the Gulf, the lesson of recent years is that speed and credibility beat silence. Crisis communication is not a side function of security. When official channels inform the public quickly, consistently and honestly, rumors have less room to grow. When they hesitate, someone else fills the gap.

None of this is simple. Governments everywhere are still working out where countering disinformation ends and controlling speech begins, and that debate should stay open. But the common ground is wider than it looks: a society cannot be secure if it cannot tell what is true.

The harder test comes now. After a war, influence campaigns shift from shock to slow erosion: relitigating who was to blame, questioning whether Gulf governments can protect their people, and setting neighbors and communities against each other. Young connected audiences are the main target. They are also the best defense.

Protecting our societies from that influence does not mean closing them. It means official channels fast and credible enough that people turn to them first. It means platforms held to clear rules on labeling AI-generated conflict content, as X began to do in March. And it means a generation of young Emiratis and Gulf citizens equipped to verify what they see and able to tell the region’s story themselves rather than leaving it to others.

The harder test comes now. After a war, influence campaigns shift from shock to slow erosion.

This is not only a Gulf problem. The campaigns aimed at audiences in the Gulf also shape how Washington and Brussels understand the region. The UAE and its partners already work closely on defense and intelligence. Detecting and exposing cross-border influence operations belongs on that shared agenda as a joint effort between governments, platforms and researchers.

Diplomacy, investment, and deterrence will rebuild the region’s security. Whether that security holds will depend on something harder to measure: what people across the region believe about each other, and about who protects them. For the UAE, winning that argument with facts is not public relations. It is part of keeping the country safe.

---

Najla Al Midfa is an Emirati researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory, a company under TRENDS Group. Her research focuses on geopolitics, international relations, economic diplomacy and regional security, with a particular interest in the UAE’s foreign policy and strategic partnerships. She holds a master’s degree in Global Affairs and Diplomatic Leadership from the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, where her thesis examined the UAE’s economic diplomacy through its Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement strategy.

---

Sources

• Sixth Annual TRENDS Conference 2026 kicks off on October 12 — WAM (Emirates News Agency), September 2026
• TRENDS 6th Annual Conference 2026 — Sustainable Security: programme and speakers — TRENDS Research & Advisory
• AI-generated Iran war videos surge as creators use new tech to cash in — BBC Verify, March 7, 2026
• Factbox: Iranian missiles and drones fired at Gulf countries — Reuters (republished by Al-Monitor), March 3, 2026
• X suspends revenue sharing for undisclosed AI war videos — AFP, March 3, 2026
• UAE urges the US, Israel and Iran to return to the negotiating table — Euronews, March 4, 2026
• Fake news treated as security threat during Iran war, says UAE minister — The National, September 15, 2026
• NBC News, “Iran’s foreign minister denies seeking war with neighbors,” March 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/irans-foreign-minister-denies-seeking-war-neighbors-rcna261954

KYIV — With another bitter winter of fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war ahead, diplomatic activity is ramping back up in a fresh attempt to close in on a ceasefire and eventually a final peace accord.

Under renewed pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, Kyiv and Moscow are preparing to send negotiating teams to Abu Dhabi for a three-way meeting with American officials to explore the potential for agreement. The meeting is penciled in for Nov. 10. 

But many questions about the process remain, including whether Europe will have a seat at the table when key decisions are taken — and who should fill it. Based on remarks from key leaders, and conversations with European officials granted anonymity because the talks are sensitive, POLITICO breaks down what’s under discussion for an agreement and what could get in the way.

What will they discuss? 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the agenda for Abu Dhabi should first include initial steps toward de-escalation, such as prisoner swaps and ceasefires on energy infrastructure and for the Black Sea. There should also be a discussion among the technical negotiating teams of what format a future three-way meeting between leaders — Trump, Zelenskyy and Russia’s Vladimir Putin — should take, he told reporters this week.

When it comes to a final deal, one overriding question for Ukraine is what form of security guarantees it will get from Europe and the U.S., or potentially NATO. Zelenskyy won’t want to accept anything he believes could leave Ukraine vulnerable to a future attack from Russia. 

Putin is also likely to raise the need for security guarantees — for Russia — including limiting or potentially reversing NATO’s presence in the neighborhood. 

Then there’s the question of territory. Zelenskyy’s view is that marking out any boundaries, temporarily or permanently, is something that can only be discussed at leader level. “No one else has the authority to do so,” he said Tuesday. 

Zelenskyy said during previous sets of negotiations over the past year, “as a compromise,” that Ukraine had been prepared to discuss the idea of a demilitarized “buffer zone” on both sides of the contact line in the Donbas region.

Similar ideas were proposed for other parts of Ukraine. Zelenskyy said his negotiators discussed these questions again with the Americans in recent weeks. “We are ready to discuss the issue of territories because the Russians keep wanting to discuss it and make it part of the agenda,” he said. But this would need to be at a leader-level meeting. 

Europe has a role 

European leaders are adamant that they must be included in final negotiations, not least because it is they who are are now providing the vast bulk of financial and military support to Ukraine. Trump ended American aid in 2025.

Zelenskyy and U.S. officials accept that European governments will likely need to be involved in discussions about security guarantees — mainly because any peacekeeping forces deployed to Ukraine would be dominated by European troops.

The Coalition of the Willing, a loose alliance of more than 30 countries led by France, the U.K. and Germany, put together detailed proposals in coordination with the U.S. almost a year ago. Ukraine is also interested in exploring bilateral security guarantees with the U.S., a discussion that would not need to involve European officials.

Plans for rebuilding Ukraine and nurturing its economic revival would also have to involve Europe, Zelenskyy said. “We cannot envision such a, so to speak, ‘Marshall Plan’ without Europe.”

But Europe doesn’t know who should speak for it 

Trump’s renewed interest in Ukraine also resurfaced some sore questions for European governments: Who should represent them when it comes to decision time? And should they even be talking to Putin at all? 

With no clarity emerging from Brussels, some leaders have taken matters into their own hands. On Tuesday, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a 90-minute call with Putin, urging him to end the war. It went down badly with several European governments, including Denmark, Italy, Sweden and Lithuania. One frustrated diplomat said: “There are too many middle-aged men who want to end up in the history books having solved this war.”

Russia has said the Stubb-Støre call achieved nothing of substance and the war will likely “escalate.” By some accounts, Putin used much of the time on the phone lecturing the Nordic leaders on regional history. 

One problem in identifying a lead negotiator is that the European countries with a stake in the talks are not only in the EU — the U.K. and Norway, for example, are both outside the bloc. Without clarity of leadership, European interests risk being sidelined when the talking gets serious. 

It all comes down to Trump 

One critical unknown factor in the mix is how long Trump’s attention will stay on Ukraine.

After the U.S. and Israel launched a war with Iran in the spring, progress on Ukraine stalled for months, only to return this fall as Trump sought to mitigate the impact of the Middle East conflict. A new escalation in the Iran war risks sidelining the negotiations all over again. 

The U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff held talks with Zelenskyy, Stubb and Støre in Oslo on Oct. 20. Witkoff then went to St. Petersburg to meet Putin the next day. There was supposed to be a follow-up meeting in Brussels this week in preparation for negotiations in Abu Dhabi — but the Americans postponed the talks, apparently due to developments in the Middle East. 

“The meeting in Abu Dhabi now depends on the American side,” Zelenskyy said Tuesday. At a press conference Wednesday, he added: “We very much hope that the escalatory processes in the Middle East — which are currently the subject of so much discussion — will not interfere.”

Putin can wait 

After their Kremlin call, Stubb and Støre apparently told Zelenskyy they felt Putin was serious about the Abu Dhabi opportunity. But in public and private, diplomats and political leaders in Europe are deeply skeptical that Putin is at all serious about an imminent path to peace.

Despite the Kremlin insisting he is on board, European diplomats believe the Russian leader is just playing for time in the hope that Ukraine weakens over a winter of attacks on its energy system, and Europe — perhaps with the far-right Marine Le Pen in charge of France — gets tired of paying for the war and gives up next year. 

That’s why EU officials know they cannot pin their hopes on peace and need to redouble their financial support and military aid for Ukraine, while tightening sanctions on Russia. EU leaders will discuss the issue of securing funds for Ukraine’s war effort at their summit in Brussels scheduled for November 26.

Nicholas Vinocur in Brussels contributed to this report.

LONDON — Andy Burnham became Britain’s prime minister 100 days ago on a pledge to end 40 years of neoliberalism. His first budget announced he wouldn’t do that on the front page.

Wednesday’s 150-page red book was titled “breathing space for today, fresh hope for the future”, a confession, with true British modesty, that it was a stepping stone to bigger pledges downstream.

Burnham’s top finance minister, Chancellor John Healey, unveiled 98 changes, including help for most households’ energy bills, which are due to spike this winter because of Donald Trump’s war with Iran, and a £10 billion defense package to support Ukraine.

Many of the tax tweaks were limited and technical, including an 8% cut to tariffs on soy milk. Healey’s ambition was reined in by surging global oil prices and a political choice by his boss not to blow the doors off yet.

Burnham has reviews on the creaking welfare system, devolving power to the regions and a “10-year plan” all coming before Christmas. Only then can he grind out the numbers for next year’s spending review.

The Labour MP Darren Jones, who served in the Treasury until Burnham arrived in July, called it a “steady-as-she-goes budget” that was to be expected. Many Labour MPs were happy, cheering measures for their area and pointing toward a bigger bang later on. Industry lobby groups could grasp onto something in their area of expertise.

But with U.K. growth struggling, others were less generous. Joe Shalam of the center-right Centre for Social Justice think tank called it the “fudge-it budget.” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch asked: “Is that it?”

Perhaps the trickiest response for Burnham was from Mainstream, the left-wing campaign group that helped propel him to the Labour leadership this year. “Ending 40 years of neoliberalism can only be delivered by radical action,” read a statement by the group’s interim council.

POLITICO looks at five other takeaways from Wednesday’s budget.

1) We’re in the holding pen

The chancellor’s big bazooka was to slap a much-anticipated tax rise on banks — but he surprised many by saying it will last only 15 months. It will raise less than £1 billion in its peak year.

It wasn’t the only temporary measure Healey unveiled on Wednesday. He extended existing cuts to fuel duty, a tax cut on household energy bills and a £2 cap on bus fares, but only until 2027. They will all need to be reviewed again before his next annual budget.

Likewise, some of Healey’s spending plans thin out after a few years, which suggests they may need topping up later. This applies even to the areas closest to Burnham’s heart. Budget documents suggest support to end rough sleeping will total £1.1 billion in the two years from April 2027 but only £270 million in the three years after that.

There were plenty of changes, of course, such as to writing-down allowances, property income taxes and tax on savings. Whitehall will have to find more administration cuts while tax inspectors hunt down another £3.2 billion a year. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a non-partisan economic think tank, called it all a “hodgepodge” of “fiddly measures” that would do little to affect growth.

Many of the more fundamental decisions were kicked down the road. Healey has committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035, but will only spell out how to fund it in a spending review at some point in 2027. Major reforms to the welfare system — spending on which is still rocketing — will only be decided after two reports by the Labour grandees Stephen Timms and Alan Milburn are published in November.

Healey published a “fiscal devolution roadmap” that spelled out a path to handing regional mayors full control of the business rates raised in their areas by the end of the decade, but this has an element of wait-and-see too.

Healey had a narrative for his cautious approach. “I decided on an early budget to give the country a bit of breathing space and to provide stability and direction in the face of speculation,” he told MPs Wednesday. “We’ll continue to map out that direction for Britain through the prime minister’s 10-year plan and the spending review.”

This is not the Burnham who complained Britain was “in hock to the bond markets” last year.

2) Everything is terrible, so blame the White House.

Burnham and Healey can blame Trump — up to a point.

The chancellor said the headwinds that once faced Britain are now “global economic storms,” fueled above all by the U.S. conflict with Iran. “We did not want this war,” Healey told MPs.

Journalists spent Wednesday trawling through the usual gloomy parade of numbers about the U.K. economy produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Britain’s projected growth in 2027 was cut from 1.6% to 1% (though Treasury officials insisted GDP per person will rise overall by the end of the decade).

Healey chose to leave himself with a smaller fiscal buffer than his predecessor Rachel Reeves, telling MPs he had used it to “absorb the impact of the Iran war.” He also raised net taxes by £7 billion a year, though this was far less than the £26 billion in Reeves’ last budget.

But the situation is so volatile that these numbers, based on market energy prices in mid-August, are probably already out of date. The OBR’s “severe shock scenario” had oil prices peaking at around $115 a barrel in the first half of 2027. They already hit that level this week.

Healey insisted that Britain is doing well in the circumstances; his ministers all point to an International Monetary Fund prediction that the U.K.’s deficit will be the lowest in the G7 by 2029.

Opposition parties, however, paint a picture of a nation where everything is just getting gloomier. The tax take was already on course to rise to a record high; Healey broke that record again on Wednesday. (It is now due to reach 38.6% of GDP.) Britain’s spending on debt interest has almost tripled since 2020.

3) Defense spending is still a big, big headache

Healey resigned as defense secretary under former Prime Minister Keir Starmer in June to protest the lack of military spending — but now faces mounting unanswered questions about his own plans.

Healey did two big new things on defense spending on Wednesday. First, he confirmed an open secret in Westminster: he plans to reach 3% of GDP by 2030 — on a path to NATO’s 3.5% by 2035 — but repeated that the details of how he’ll pay for it will only be spelled out in next year’s spending review.

Secondly and more significantly, he outlined his plan to plug a ​​£1.8 billion-a-year gap in Starmer’s defense investment plan — but provided only scant details. 

The Treasury said it will be paid for by shaving 1% off each Whitehall department’s capital budget in the coming years. However, those departments have not yet worked out what they will cut; that is a problem for another day. These questions will dog Healey for the next year.

At least one person was delighted: Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian president said the chancellor “made my day” with a £10 billion package of economic and military support to Kyiv. Part of the package needed special sign-off by ministers because civil servants warned they could not guarantee it would provide value for money.

4) There was something to make Labour MPs happy

Much of what Healey did unveil appeared to be aimed at preserving the “Burnham bounce” in the polls and with his own MPs. 

The chancellor called it a “budget for the working people of Britain” and Treasury analysis says it was redistributive, handing the biggest boost to the poorest households (albeit only raising their incomes by 0.6%).

Central to this was Healey’s closest thing to a “rabbit out of the hat” — a £100-per-household cash payment to people living in homes below a certain value this winter. One Labour MP enthused that the criteria for the payment (which Treasury officials say will capture 88% of the poorest households) was “absolutely brilliant” because it will capture working households and those on benefits at the same time.

There was another £1.5 billion for social and affordable housing, a “covenant” to govern new AI data centers and changes to mileage rates for self-employed workers. Burnham has prided himself on being a grassroots politician; it was a grassroots package.

How much voters will notice is another question. The IFS warned the package of “breathing space” measures was still “relatively small.” It could be swallowed by a rise in annual energy bills in January — predictions of which have recently ranged from £276 to £469.

The OBR warned there has been “virtually no growth” in real household disposable income per person over the last decade or so, and predicted “no real earnings growth in 2027” despite Burnham and Healey’s efforts to help.

5) MPs won’t stop chattering about an election

Burnham only has to call an election by mid-2029 and keeps trying to snuff out talk of going earlier — but every prime minister does this until they don’t.

His MPs were studying the budget Wednesday to work out if it makes an early general election more or less likely. It’s fair to say they couldn’t agree.

On the one hand, this cautious budget of temporary measures might suggest Burnham — who needs his own mandate for more radical changes to the electoral system or Britain’s relationship with the EU — is holding out for the country’s backing.

Others would say a cautious stepping-stone budget is hardly the eye-catching approach you would take if you were about to sell yourself to voters. Growth is set to be slow next year; Burnham needs time to turn the economy round and show he can change things.

Burnham told journalists on Wednesday: “I don’t know how many times I’ve done this now, but yes, I can rule out calling a general election in the next 12 months.” The speculation will continue anyway.

Esther Webber, Emilio Casalicchio, Sam Blewett and Charlie Cooper contributed reporting.

CORRECTION: This article was updated on Oct. 29 to better reflect the Centre for Social Justice’s ideological stance.

Spain and Slovenia are still undecided about whether to compete in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest, after they boycotted this year’s edition over Israel’s participation.

The European Broadcasting Union, which organizes Eurovision, announced Wednesday that national broadcasters from 36 countries would take part in next May’s contest, which will take place in Burgas in eastern Bulgaria.

Five countries staged an unprecedented boycott of the 2026 contest due to Israel’s war in Gaza — sparked by the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel — and the resulting humanitarian crisis it triggered.

Ireland, the Netherlands and Iceland are again boycotting the 2027 competition but Spain and Slovenia “have not yet decided” whether they will compete, the EBU said. The Union has given both broadcasters until December to confirm their participation “in recognition of the complexity of the matter.”

The song contest has been embroiled in controversy in recent years over Israel’s participation. The EBU changed its rules earlier this year to block countries involved in armed conflict or any other “sensitive geopolitical situation” from hosting the annual competition, after Israel almost won in 2025 and 2026. The winning country typically hosts the following year’s event.

Canada is a new addition to the contest for 2027, while North Macedonia will return after a four-year absence. Czechia will not take part in next year’s contest for financial reasons.