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.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage insisted on Thursday he will meet Marine Le Pen “at some point in time” as the French presidential hopeful keeps the Reform UK leader waiting for a Paris visit.

The leader of the British right-wing insurgency had been hoping for a jaunt to France before the end of October — but has been kept waiting for now.

Reform had insisted he would meet the president of the far-right National Party before the end of the year — but four of her officials told POLITICO this is not on Le Pen’s schedule.

After a defense speech on Thursday, the Reform leader told reporters: “I haven’t met Le Pen for some years actually. But she’s going to win the next election.

“I will go meet her at some point in time.”

One Le Pen adviser, who like the others was speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive party relations, said earlier that “the costs and benefits” of a Farage meeting still needed weighing up.

Le Pen is the favorite to win the first round of France’s 2027 presidential elections — but the Reform leader has suffered a dip in the polls after a series of damaging allegations about his party.

A migration agreement that Farage unveiled early September with the National Rally’s second in command, Jordan Bardella, also created a backlash in France. 

Data is redefining modern defense operations. The ability to master and manage it is now a decisive factor in military victory or defeat. Few people know that better than Jean Charles Ellermann-Kingombe, assistant secretary general for cyber and digital transformation at NATO.

In a recent interview preceding NATO Edge 26, the Alliance’s annual defense innovation show, Ellermann-Kingombe is very clear on the kind of digital transformation effort it takes to get the right data into the hands of military leaders operating in high-pressure situations, at exactly the time and place they need it.

Data-sharing must be a core design principle, he says: “The bottleneck is often not technology, but permission: classification boundaries, national rules and trust decisions.” Once data is well managed, an even bigger opportunity arises to use AI as “an enabler of military effectiveness,” he says, assisting commanders and operators further.

He adds: “For NATO, the biggest difference AI can make is in decision advantage. Modern operations generate volumes of data that no human organisation can process unaided at the speed required. AI can help fuse information, detect patterns, support planning, prioritise scarce resources and accelerate staff processes, providing commanders with better insight, earlier warnings and more resilient options.”

As powerful as it is, AI can only reliably accelerate defense mission outcomes if it is built on vast, relevant and quality data. Data is the fuel that will power the shift to software-defined defense, an approach that delivers military capability through flexible, modular software rather than rigid, hardware-bound platforms.

THE CHALLENGES OF MASTERING DATA

Software-defined defense, AI and the challenge of mastering the data that powers both, will be hot topics for attendees at NATO Edge 26, due to be held in Izmir, Türkiye, in November and expected to attract over 3,000 participants and more than 270 technology partners, including Elastic.

We will be there because we know that many attendees will be looking to better understand what software-defined defense will demand of them in data management terms.

As powerful as it is, AI can only reliably accelerate defense mission outcomes if it is built on vast, relevant and quality data. Data is the fuel that will power the shift to software-defined defense.

Bringing data together from many intelligent systems and smart devices demands real rigor. After all, in order to make critical operational decisions, military personnel need to be able to see the big picture, quickly searching for information in both structured and unstructured data formats across a vast array of different systems.

Defense data naturally lives wherever operations happen — across land, sea, air, space and cyber domains — and is stored in different formats like images, audio transcripts, documents and geospatial, reaching across thousands of different mission systems.

These can include communications systems that keep troops connected in the field; systems used to manage artillery devices; reconnaissance systems; radar stations; and geographical information systems that support military leaders in tracking assets, planning missions and routes, and analyzing risks and threats, including potential ambush sites and minefields.

In order to make critical operational decisions, military personnel need to be able to see the big picture, quickly searching for information in both structured and unstructured data formats across a vast array of different systems.

On top of all this, organizations like NATO face an additional layer of complexity. Building a common operational picture across the digital environments of 32 member nations requires multi-intelligence fusion of massive volumes of data held in disparate systems, from legacy databases and classified networks to cloud platforms and security tools.

OPERATIONAL ADVANTAGE

Addressing these challenges means turning all this data into operational advantage and mission readiness, accelerating the ability of armed forces to respond to situations by increasing their situational awareness and decision speed.

The answer is a data mesh architecture. Rather than consolidating everything into a traditional data lake, a data mesh approach manages data where it originates and lives, without moving or duplicating it; so it can be searched, queried and analyzed from multiple access points across the entire environment, including allied partners such as NATO member nations. That is what turns scattered data into one unified operational picture with near real-time insights, and context, giving commanders the situational awareness and decision speed that mission-readiness depends on. In my view, it is the most flexible and scalable way to get there.

It also speaks directly to the permission bottleneck Ellermann-Kingombe describes. Because data stays under the control of the nation or system that owns it, access can be governed by policy at the source, with classification boundaries and national rules enforced where the data lives rather than negotiated away in a central repository.

Rather than consolidating everything into a traditional data lake, a data mesh approach manages data where it originates and lives, without moving or duplicating it.

A data mesh approach is sustainable because of its reliance on open standards. They enable defense organizations to connect systems that were never designed to work together, from legacy platforms to dispersed infrastructure, so data stays findable and can be effectively analyzed across the environment. Interoperability stops being a barrier as new partners and data sources join, and new tools can be integrated without rebuilding systems or making major investments. The architecture scales alongside the Alliance’s growth.

Without a unified view, the risk of losing operational advantage to adversaries extends from the battlefield into cyberspace. Zero Trust depends on connecting authentication logs, network traffic and application telemetry where they already sit, so that traditionally separate domains can be visualized and analyzed together. When a user accesses sensitive data, the system must verify not only who they are but also their device status, network path, and the time and location of access. If those checks are slow or impossible, threats can remain undetected and escalate through systems. A data mesh built on open standards connects the pillars of a Zero Trust architecture, allowing organizations to accelerate implementation without replacing the tools they already have.

When the manual efforts of military data analysts struggle to keep pace with the scale and speed of events on the ground, AI can work faster and more accurately.

The same logic is already visible in large government organizations: CISA’s new SIEM-as-a-Service platform uses open standards to give US federal civilian agencies a consistent approach to threat detection and response.

As AI’s value in supporting human decision-making becomes increasingly clear, a data mesh architecture provides the foundation to apply agentic AI capabilities holistically. It enables complex organizations to analyze the vast amounts of data their systems generate, find actionable correlations and separate signals from noise. When the manual efforts of military data analysts struggle to keep pace with the scale and speed of events on the ground, AI can work faster and more accurately. It also lets analysts ask questions across structured and unstructured data and rapidly receive answers grounded in reliable sources.

The numerous tech challenges facing the modern military calls for closer NATO-industry cooperation, and that’s why NATO Edge 26 is such an important event. All 32 sovereign member states that make up the Alliance use different systems, yet they rely on secure, trusted data-sharing with each other as the foundation for cooperating on military operations and sharing intelligence. It’s vital that they can turn to industry innovators to support their operational needs.

At a time of great geopolitical uncertainty, with data increasingly considered a primary defense asset, NATO members face growing pressure to turn it into operational advantage and readiness before adversaries do. We look forward to discussing how at NATO Edge 26.

---

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Elastic.
• The advertisement relates to NATO defence and digital policy and advocates for greater use of data-sharing, AI, interoperable systems and industry cooperation to strengthen military readiness and operational effectiveness.

More information here.

BRUSSELS — At least 15 European flights were targeted by bomb threats Thursday, following seven similar incidents earlier in the week in which authorities found no explosives.

Irish airline Aer Lingus reported that one of its flights from Dublin to Rome was diverted to an airport in France following a security threat.

The office of French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said that the plane landed safely in Évreux, northwest of Paris, and that the 157 people on board were taken to safety.

According to the BBC, two other flights were diverted Thursday following similar alerts: a Wizz Air plane from Milan to Warsaw, which was diverted to Vienna; and a Ryanair flight from London to Sofia, which was diverted to Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Finnish carrier Finnair said that two of its aircraft — both departing from Helsinki and bound for Rome and Vienna — faced “faced unfounded or hoax bomb threats” and were subject to police checks after landing. The plane bound for Rome was also escorted by Italian fighter jets.

“Unfortunately, air traffic is sometimes subject to threats, as we have seen this week, when also other airlines in Europe have faced hoax bomb threats,” said spokesperson Päivyt Tallqvist.

Another bomb threat affected a flight operated by LOT from Warsaw to Brussels Airport on Thursday morning. Airport spokesperson Ihsane Chioua Lekhli told Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad that police carried out searches and no further security measures were deemed necessary.

LOT said that another aircraft scheduled to fly from Warsaw to Paris “was stopped while taxiing and directed to a designated parking stand” before departure.

“The aircraft and all baggage underwent a security screening,” said the airline, which added that no hazardous items were found and that the flight departed with a replacement aircraft.

Italian news agency ANSA reported that two flights bound for Milan Malpensa Airport — an Aegean Airlines flight from Thessaloniki and a Ryanair flight from Porto — were also searched following bomb threats.

Two other Ryanair flights bound for Sofia — one from Copenhagen and the other from Madrid — were also reportedly targeted by bomb threats.

Czech police said on social media that four flights bound for Prague Airport were also threatened, but officers assessed “the severity of the threats as low.”

Ben Smith, CEO of Air France–KLM, said that the threats were happening “in a coordinated way.”

“I don’t think we’ve seen this before,” he said during a Thursday earnings call, but added that the airline group is not making any requests of governments. “We’re quite confident that we have in place what we need to ensure that it has minimal or no impact on our operations.”

EU Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said: “It is too early to draw conclusions on whether the reported incidents are linked.”

He added that the EU-level information sharing mechanism for aviation security has been activated. “We don’t have information yet whether this is a cyber attack,” he said.

EU Aviation Safety Agency spokesperson Janet Northcote said: “The immediate safety threat from individual hoax threats is low. However, the higher number of diversions places an additional strain on the system.”

Seven passenger aircraft were searched on Monday and Tuesday by authorities in Spain, Poland, Italy and Bulgaria following bomb threats. No explosives were found, but the alerts also led to the temporary closure of Warsaw Chopin Airport.

The risk of someone successfully smuggling a bomb aboard an airplane is low, said Jan-Arwed Richter, CEO of JACDEC, an aviation-safety analysis firm.

“Today there is hardly any thinkable way to get explosives aboard a commercial flight,” he said. “The last real bombing of a flight took place on Oct. 31, 2015 on a flight from Egypt to Russia because of security loopholes and personnel shortcomings that were rectified immediately.”

This article has been updated.

LONDON — Defense and worries about Russia rank among the top concerns of British voters, but Reform UK has spent more than two years without a dedicated spokesperson and still has no detailed military policy.

Without that, the right-wing party is on the back foot on policy to deter Moscow and has lacked a compelling alternative to the defense spending surge that is one of the Labour government’s biggest priorities. It has also encountered difficulties reaching out to the arms industry.

Now, Reform is moving to correct that. On Thursday, the party announced Angus MacIntyre as its new defense spokesperson. He will help the party develop a defense policy ahead of the next election.

“We want to come into government with a comprehensive program that we can deliver to the machine, rather than have a flimsy manifesto with a few headline commitments and ask them to work out how to deliver it,” a senior party official told POLITICO. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to discuss policy issues.

MacIntyre served in the military for 40 years and retired as a wing commander in the Royal Air Force last week to take up the role.

“Having someone of Angus’ stature and calibre speak for us on defence shows how seriously Reform UK takes protecting the interests of Britain’s military,” party leader Nigel Farage said ahead of the announcement.

MacIntyre blamed successive Conservative and Labour governments for underfunding the military.

“Neither can be trusted. Only Reform UK can fix and rebuild our armed forces,” he said in the statement.

But the announcement comes more than two years after the last election. Since then, the party surged in opinion polls, leading for many months before recently falling behind Labour after Andy Burnham became prime minister.

Senior party officials blamed the delay in setting out a defense policy on a desire to “get it right,” rather than put out piecemeal ideas which could be attacked by political opponents.

Farage’s Kremlin problem

The U.K.’s ongoing defense buildup is aimed at deterring Russia, which has created problems for Farage.

He has been haunted by comments made in 2014, when he said he “admired” Russian President Vladimir Putin as an “operator.” Farage has tried to distance himself from such statements by calling Putin “a very bad dude” and saying the U.K. should shoot down Russian jets in British airspace.

However, any attempt to put the party on a solidly pro-Ukraine footing has been mixed: he called Kyiv “corrupt” and has promised to review Britain’s military aid to Ukraine.

One British defense industry representative said Farage’s comments on Ukraine were unhelpful. “A lot of money for the defense industry does come from contracts with Ukraine, and it’s also that moral thing with the defense industry — they want to support Ukraine.”

Farage’s lack of success in distancing himself from his past pro-Putin and pro-Russia comments puts him at odds with many U.K. voters.

A YouGov poll last month found that Russia was by far the biggest threat for British voters, easily outpacing out-of-control AI.

Sophia Gaston, a British foreign policy researcher who wrote a report to be published Thursday on public attitudes to defense, said 83% of Reform backers favored more defense spending, higher than for any other party.

“While there has been a lot of attention on Nigel Farage’s somewhat mixed feelings towards Ukraine and NATO more generally, he must tread a careful line as that does not necessarily reflect the views of his voters, of whom 92% regard Russia as a threat to global peace,” she said.

“All in all, Reform voters remain Eurosceptic, Atlanticist, hawkish towards authoritarian nations, and in favour of a more defensive state,” said Gaston.

The policies Reform does have on defense are mainly skewed toward its core voter concerns — cracking down on immigration and boosting benefits for armed forces personnel.

These include calls to deploy the Royal Navy to combat small-boat crossings in the Channel, ending diversity initiatives in the armed forces and cadets, granting the armed forces immunity from prosecution for actions taken in combat operations and giving priority to veterans for social housing.

Reform backs increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 and NATO’s 3.5% target by 2035 — in line with the governing Labour Party. It says it would pay for the higher spending through £45 billion of cuts to other areas such as welfare.

While the party is still developing a comprehensive defense policy, Reform MP Danny Kruger this summer called for the U.K. to “become a great power once again.” He also spelled out the importance of NATO, defending the U.K. and a stronger response to Russian hybrid interference.

“That means moving from a regional heavyweight to being the leading economic, technological, diplomatic and security power in Europe,” he said.

He also called for “a total reform of procurement,” including possibly removing it from the Ministry of Defence.

Industry struggling to engage

The lack of a defense spokesperson has made it difficult for industry to engage with Reform.

“They don’t have any defense policy, and they’re therefore not asking any questions, and have no person to engage with,” said the defense industry representative. “Their only policy really on defense is: ‘Well, we want to spend more money, and we’re not going to tell you what and when, and also we want to get the woke out of the military.’”

Another defense sector representative underlined the negative signal sent by the party’s delay in appointing someone to oversee the issue.

“There has been nothing significant on defense which, in addition to a lack of defense spokesperson, is baffling given the geopolitical environment we are facing,” they said.

Following MacIntyre’s appointment, the party will now look to publish detailed policy documents on defense, as it has done in recent months on topics such as immigration and the economy.

Reform plans to build out its foreign policy team over the next year, said a senior Reform adviser.

Europe is feeling more than a little bit of schadenfreude.

In a stunning U.S. midterm election, Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as several governorships, winning big in Republican strongholds like South Carolina, Texas and even Kansas. While some races were yet to be called Wednesday morning, the result is a monumental rebuke of U.S. President Donald Trump.

For Europe, which has weathered Trump’s incessant verbal attacks and tariff threats for the last two years, it was a rare ray of hope in transatlantic politics — if not because Washington would become a more predictable partner, then at least because the U.S. president might be too distracted to focus his usual ire on Europeans.

European Parliament Vice President Sophie Wilmès, a former Belgian prime minister, heralded a “major shift in the balance of power in the U.S. Congress,” adding: “I hope it will lead to a calmer, more constructive relationship with Europe.”

It remains to be seen how Trump will shift his stance on Europe, if at all, with Congress no longer under his control. As president, he still retains many of the executive’s powers on foreign policy.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called the Democratic victory “historic” but cautioned against Europe expecting too much. “We will seek close contact with the Democrats,” he said Wednesday morning at the Berlin Security Conference. “But we do not know what the president will do after the election in the near future.”

Two senior EU figures — both regular Trump antagonists — couldn’t resist celebrating the result, though.

“American society voted against policies that only impoverish,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said. “Against hate. Against sexism. Against climate change denial and against the privileges of the elites.”

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski reshared his own tweet from June last year responding to Elon Musk, a key Trump ally. “See, big man, politics is harder than you thought,” he snarked.

Headache for Europe’s far right

For Europe’s ascendant far right, which has long balanced admiration for Trump with the reality that he is deeply unpopular across the continent, the midterms are an uncomfortable reminder of the political risks of being too closely associated with the U.S. president.

Jordan Bardella, leader of France’s National Rally (RN), was keen to chalk up Trump’s “unfavorable” result to his decision to go to war with Iran more than anything else.

“It’s the case that the U.S. intervention in Iran has had a very strong impact on the U.S. economy, but also on the European economy,” he said Wednesday morning.

Bardella added that the RN’s presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was still leading in the French polls ahead of next year’s election and insisted defeats for nationalist politicians in Brazil, Hungary and now the U.S. did not bode ill for his party’s chances.

But the cost-of-living crisis was top of American voters’ minds, according to polls. That’s also the case in European countries, from France to Spain to Greece, which are grappling with soaring rents and widespread anger at apparently impotent governments.

Marine Tondelier, leader of France’s Greens, said Trump had “made the United States the laughingstock of the world” and called the result a “warning for France” ahead of the presidential election in April.

“If our country brings the RN to power next year, it will meet the same tragic fate as the United States,” she said.

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker sought to downplay the prospect of a shift in Washington’s foreign policy following the midterm elections, insisting that the issues facing the U.S. and its European allies remained unchanged.

“The foreign policy of the United States has not changed,” Whitaker said, adding that “the issues that we’re facing as a country and as an alliance are the same.”

European markets, meanwhile, greeted the results with cautious optimism. Paris, London and Frankfurt opened slightly higher on Wednesday, following the Democrats’ sweeping victory.

Reality check for Trump

For all the celebrations, European officials were also quick to acknowledge that a Democratic-controlled Congress does not automatically translate into a more accommodating U.S. administration.

Trump retains considerable room to maneuver on foreign policy, including on the issues that have most strained transatlantic ties: European security, trade and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

France’s Economy Minister Roland Lescure noted Wednesday morning that while Trump would be “quite weakened” domestically, the “unpredictable” president remained “in charge of international policy.”

But a hostile Congress could make it harder for him to push through his domestic agenda, while opening the door to greater scrutiny of his administration.

“Voters have a habit of balancing power,” Finnish MEP Mika Aaltola said on X, “and now the president’s hands are more tied in domestic and foreign policy.”

Former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta was more emphatic.

“Europe is much stronger” thanks to the “blue wave,” he wrote on X.

Kathleen Van Brempt, vice-chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, shared a White House tweet predicting a Trump victory — and captioned it that it was, actually, America that won.

“And he lost,” she said.

Despite the ballot-box drubbing, Trump himself couldn’t resist a final shot at Europe, during an election night call with Fox News.

“You look at Europe, it’s dying. You look at what’s going on in France, what’s going on in Italy and all these other countries. I mean, they’re going through a terrible time. And they may not even survive, frankly,” he warned. “And we are thriving.”

BERLIN — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday pushed back against criticism that Berlin is putting its own arms industry ahead of European defense cooperation, arguing that other countries are doing exactly the same.

Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference, Pistorius was responding to Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, chair of the European Parliament’s defense committee, who accused Germany of remaining too focused on buying weapons from its own manufacturers instead of working with European partners.

“Everyone says, unanimously and every day, not just on Sundays, that we want more defense cooperation and more joint armament projects,” Pistorius said. “But when push comes to shove, every country says, just as unanimously, but each for itself: ‘My industry must not be left behind.’”

The dispute highlights a major problem for Europe’s defense ambitions. EU countries want to build stronger armed forces and buy more weapons together, but governments are also keen to protect jobs and factories at home.

The numbers show how difficult that cooperation remains. EU countries spent €115 billion on military equipment in 2025, but only 24% of that spending went toward joint purchases, according to the European Defence Agency.

Brussels wants that share to reach at least 40% by 2030. The EU has also launched the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program to encourage countries to buy arms together rather than separately.

But national interests continue to get in the way, with governments often reluctant to see major weapons contracts go to companies in other countries. Poland’s government said it wants 89% of the almost €44 billion it is getting in SAFE funds to be spent on domestic industries.

Pistorius defended that approach, saying governments also have a responsibility to protect their economies and industries.

“I would therefore reject the criticism in your question,” he told Strack-Zimmermann. “And if there is criticism to be made, it should not be directed at Germany, but at literally all Europeans with a defense industry.”

Bei den Midterms in den USA erobern die Demokraten das Repräsentantenhaus und auch ein Sieg im Senat ist wahrscheinlich. Donald Trump poltert bereits. Helge Fuhst, Vorsitzender der Chefredaktionen von POLITICO, Welt und Business Insider, berichtet direkt aus Washington über den Wahlschock für die Republikaner, die Auswirkungen in der Innen- und Außenpolitik und wie es jetzt mit Blick auf die Präsidentschaftswahl in zwei Jahren weitergeht.

Wenn Hacker nicht mehr auf Kraftwerke zielen, sondern Supermarkt-Kühlsysteme auf 50 Grad erhitzen, wird Cybersicherheit zum direkten Alltagsproblem. Tonnenweise verdorbene Lebensmittel in ganz Europa werfen eine drängende Frage auf: Stecken russische Akteure hinter dieser neuen Form der Sabotage? POLITICO-Expertin Anouk Schlung von „Technologie & KI am Morgen“ ordnet ein, warum bei diesen Angriffen klassische Lösegeldforderungen fehlen und wie sich die kritische Infrastruktur nun wappnen muss.

Während die Welt auf die US-Midterms blickt, wächst in Europa der Druck, sicherheitspolitisch auf eigenen Beinen zu stehen. Die Grünen-Co-Parteichefin Franziska Brantner wirbt auf ihrer Reise nach Litauen und dann nach Polen für eine europäische Verteidigungsunion und eine Koalition der Willigen bei der Rüstungsbeschaffung. Warum ausgerechnet wichtige Partner wie Polen bei gemeinsamen Waffenkäufen blockieren und wie Europa seine Abhängigkeit von den USA verringern kann, darum geht’s im 200-Sekunden-Interview mit ihr.

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

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.

BRUSSELS — U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham is better at talking to the public than Tony Blair, Wes Streeting asserts — and it’s a reason why a serious conversation about reversing Brexit could begin within weeks.

Speaking to POLITICO during a European swing through Brussels and Berlin on Monday, the British defense secretary said that while Blair was a “generational political leader,” the former Labour leader lacked Burnham’s “conversational style” which will be useful when helping discuss the “trauma” of Brexit.

Burnham, who inherited active discussions from his predecessor Keir Starmer about resetting Britain’s relationship with the EU, has said that he hopes Britain will rejoin the bloc within his lifetime. The British PM is 56.

Streeting — who has long been a pro-EU voice within his party — backed Burnham’s drive to reopen the conversation about membership.

He said the British public is “perfectly capable of engaging with complicated arguments, if they’ve got a political leader brave enough to have that conversation with them.”

“And I do think … he is an extraordinary political communicator,” the defense secretary said of Burnham. “And the way in which he has a conversation with the public is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

“Even Tony Blair, who was such a generational political leader with a gift for communication — he would confront the public with arguments — but I don’t think even Tony Blair had Andy Burnham’s conversational style, which the public warm to.”

Streeting reiterated that he is personally in favor of rejoining the EU: “My position on the EU was clear in 2016. It was clear when I had a tilt at the leadership, and I haven’t changed my view.”

However, he warned that renegotiating Britain’s relationship — including rejoining — would not be simple. “Leaving was a very complicated process, and rejoining would also be a very complicated process,” he added.

Officials from Britain and the European Union will meet for Brexit reset talks on Nov. 20 focused on a narrow set of cooperation areas rather than a broader rejoin push.

Streeting said that “around the summit” the U.K. government will start to have a conversation with the public and the European Commission over “if we were more ambitious about the relationship, what could that look like?”

“Once we’ve got a clearer view ourselves of what we really want, and the public have got a clearer sense of where they are, then I think we’re in the territory of thinking: ‘Okay, so what would we want in the next manifesto, is there consensus that could be reached even with other political parties?’”

Burnham’s pro-Europe push since becoming prime minister earlier this year has led to speculation that he will call an early general election to secure a mandate for the various long-running, complex and expensive policy problems he wants to tackle. 

“I think the only place that an early general election exists is in the speculation of column writers and the talking points of the Conservative Party’s leadership,” Streeting said, adding: “I don’t know how many more times Andy or members of the cabinet can say no early election before it sinks in.”

BERLIN — Britain has set a 2030 deadline for raising defense spending to 3% of GDP. Finding the money — and getting industry to deliver — will be the harder tests, U.K. Defence Secretary Wes Streeting told POLITICO.

U.K. Chancellor John Healey announced the target during last week’s budget, but faced criticism for not laying out how it would be funded. The government will set out next year how it plans to meet the 3% target by 2030 and its NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

On a Monday visit to Brussels and Berlin, Streeting said he has “total confidence” that the U.K. will hit the 2030 goal, adding: “We deliver on time and on target.”

The U.K. currently spends about 2.6% of GDP on defense. However, the defense budget has been bolstered in a bid to deter Russia, while other departments face cuts.

“I think I was probably the only Cabinet minister going into the budget who was in a position to confidently say that we’d be getting more,” Streeting said of last week’s announcement.

He said the commitment to higher spending “was an important message to send to industry and our allies, and our adversaries for that matter.” He also rejected accusations that the government has not laid out a clear path for higher spending.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that hitting the 2030 defense spending target would need an additional £11 billion in spending, and reaching the 2035 NATO goal “would require an even larger, and more sustained, increase.”

In last week’s announcement, the Treasury also established an Innovative Defence Financing Taskforce aimed at “maximising the contribution of private and international finance to UK defense.”

The idea is to figure out how to channel more private sector funds into defense, including with public-private partnerships.

However, Streeting said he was wary of defense turning to Private Finance Initiatives. Under PFI, private consortia design, build and maintain public infrastructure — such as schools, hospitals and roads — in exchange for decades of taxpayer-funded lease and service payments.

“I’m a big critic of PFI,” said Streeting, noting that Britain “learned the lessons on PFI a long time ago and so the private finance initiative is not something we would repeat.”

“But there are other ways of drawing in private finance which learn the right lessons and get a good return and good deal for everyone, and pass without controversy,” he added.

The defense buildup involves tighter cooperation with industry and also closer links with key allies like Germany.

Streeting met with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius in Berlin to discuss the two countries’ defense partnership. That included discussions on Germany potentially joining the British-Italian-Japanese Global Combat Air Programme to build sixth-generation fighter jets.

Germany has been casting about for a way to build advanced combat jets after its joint efforts with France collapsed earlier this year.

One option is to forge closer ties with GCAP, but some of the three existing members, including Japan, are worried that bringing in Germany could delay the project, which aims to bring the aircraft into service by 2035.

There is also concern that adding another member would dilute the amount of work being done by companies from the three original countries, something Streeting said he was aware of. German officials also worry that Germany would have too little influence over a program that is already underway. 

Streeting stressed that allowing in new GCAP members would have to be a “shared decision” with Italy and Japan, adding he was conscious of “some of the risks around timescales for delivery.”

Asked about potential delays to GCAP, Streeting said: “One of the things I’m keen to do is to try and accelerate the program and look right across the program delivery timetable which bits we can try and truncate.”

He added that the long development time for the GCAP project exemplified frustrations with the defense industry across a range of other programs that are “shared by defense ministers across NATO.”

The European defense industry is pressing for governments to issue long-term contracts, which would lower the risk they face in making large investments to set up new production.

“I think it reflects a legitimate peacetime business as usual, where industry leaders are keen to avoid famine and feasts. They want to sustain their production lines,” Streeting said, but added that companies therefore “do not go as fast or as productively as they possibly could.”

But the need to deter Russia and to continue supporting Ukraine means that caution should be jettisoned, he said.

“We are in a place of heightening threat, and so as the U.K. and our NATO allies are spending more and investing more in our capability, we need industry to step up and accelerate as well with us.”

Friedrich Merz steht vor einer heiklen Mission:
Der CDU-Chef trifft auf die Kreisvorsitzenden und damit auf die teils kritischsten offiziellen Stimmen seiner Partei. Nach schmerzhaften Wahlniederlagen prallen Hauptstadt-Blase und Parteibasis aufeinander. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert, wie viel Druck hinter verschlossenen Türen auf dem Kanzler lastet und ob er das Vertrauen der eigenen Leute zurückgewinnen kann.

Im 200-Sekunden-Interview macht Serap Güler, Kölner CDU-Kreisvorsitzende und Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt, klare Ansagen an die Parteispitze. Sie fordert eine bessere Kommunikation und eine unmissverständliche Haltung zur AfD. Ob die Basis wirklich noch bedingungslos hinter Merz und diesen Forderungen steht?

Auf dem diplomatischen Parkett rücken Berlin und London derweil wieder in den Fokus. Beim Antrittsbesuch des britischen Verteidigungsministers Wes Streeting bei Boris Pistorius geht es um weitreichende Rüstungsprojekte, darunter eine neue Langstreckenrakete zur Abschreckung Russlands. Chris Lunday ordnet ein, warum ausgerechnet Frankreich bei diesem Milliardenprojekt zum politischen Störfaktor werden könnte.

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

BRUSSELS — NATO countries are bracing for a worst-case scenario in the U.S. midterm elections Tuesday.

European allies fear a Republican loss could spur President Donald Trump to dramatically step up his attacks on the alliance, according to five NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive issue.

Their worry is that if he is restrained by Congress on domestic policy, Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, may seek to cement his legacy on foreign affairs, where he has a freer hand. That could mean pulling thousands more troops out of Europe, three of the diplomats said.

“Usually what happens to lame duck presidents is a mix of venting frustrations and adventurism in foreign policy,” said one senior European defense official. And attacking NATO “seems to be a consistent part of [the] Trump worldview.”

White House Assistant Press Secretary Olivia Wales told POLITICO that “President Trump has done more for NATO than anyone else,” citing his successes in securing agreements by allies to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, bolster U.S. military presence in Greenland, and efforts to end Russia’s all-out war in Ukraine.

Yet he “remains firm that our NATO allies should have been there for the United States” over the war in Iran, she said, adding: “The President will never settle for the West’s managed decline and will continue to unapologetically advance our interests at home and abroad.”

Democrats are widely expected to win the House of Representatives and potentially flip the Senate, while Trump’s personal approval ratings have fallen to his lowest on record.

The worries underscore growing transatlantic tensions after a U.S. cutoff of Starlink satellite services for Ukraine and a fresh rapprochement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin weeks before the midterms. Further attacks would deal a fresh blow to NATO, just as Russia steps up its sabotage campaign and so-called hybrid war across Europe.

“He could be very pissed off,” said one of the NATO diplomats. If so, “he’ll be very harsh.”

Forces, money and Ukraine

At the heart of the concerns is an upcoming review of U.S. forces in Europe, expected by December. If Trump is blocked from legislating domestically, he may seek to significantly increase the scope of that pullback to rally his MAGA base, three of the diplomats said. 

The president could also decide to tie continued American presence on the continent to Europe accepting a U.S.-backed peace deal in Ukraine, said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO official and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“There is a risk that all these things — the U.S. force posture review, Ukraine, European security order … somehow are treated as part of a much bigger deal with Putin,” she said, “creating a very dangerous situation for security in Europe.”

Trump could also move to cut U.S. contributions to the alliance’s common funding, limit the NATO-backed PURL arms-buying scheme for Ukraine, as well as deepen ties still further with Russia, the diplomats said.

A major electoral defeat for the Republicans could also spell big changes at the Pentagon, which would have knock-on effects for any plans currently being hatched in the building.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has become a deeply unpopular figure in Congress, given his refusal to provide regular briefings about budgets and operations to lawmakers, especially Democrats.

That unpopularity has led to speculation that Hegseth could be out after an electoral blowout for Trump, partially because a Democrat-led Congress would slap Hegseth with probes into his firing of dozens of generals and admirals with no cause, and the faltering war with Iran. Those hearings and investigations would hamstring Hegseth and his team, and could prove embarrassing for the administration.

If Hegseth does move on, there would be a transition period in the Pentagon which could push any decisions about moving U.S. troops out of Europe back by weeks or months.

In theory, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate would restrain Trump’s maneuverability even on foreign and defense issues, even if U.S. law currently imposes a minimum limit of 76,000 on troop presence in Europe. 

But “it is doubtful that at least the troop floors would stand up to legal scrutiny and in any case Trump has been very willing to ignore the courts,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank. “The Trump administration has regularly ignored funding guidance from Congress, spending money on activities the legislative branch has not authorized.”

If Trump decides to impose a more sprawling drawdown, Europe will have “the most trouble” replacing assets including electronic warfare capabilities, air defense systems, intelligence and reconnaissance support, aerial refueling, and some types of logistics, she said.

Other allies are more skeptical Trump would hammer NATO. “We have had speculations all the time about Trump … coming out of the NATO; this has not happened so far,” Montenegrin Defense Minister Dragan Krapović told POLITICO. “Congress is the one making the decision, the final decision about less troops in Europe.”

But “to make assumptions with a high probability of success needs an object of study that makes rational decisions,” said a sixth NATO diplomat. “I don’t think we are there with the current POTUS.”

NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment by POLITICO.

BERLIN — British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting arrives in Berlin on Monday to discuss closer military cooperation with Germany. But internal German defense ministry briefings seen by POLITICO show the two countries still face tough choices over how to work together.

The documents, prepared for internal talks with various defense companies ahead of Streeting’s visit, reveal how Britain and Germany intend to divide responsibility for developing two new types of missiles, the industrial competition taking shape and the technological challenges that remain.

The stakes extend well beyond their bilateral relationship. Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed gaps in Europe’s defenses, while uncertainty over America’s long-term military commitment has increased pressure on European governments to develop more of their own weapons.

Streeting will meet his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, as the countries discuss the development of long-range missiles together, even as Berlin weighs whether to join Britain’s next fighter-jet program or pursue a different European partnership.

“The defining test is not where every single component of a piece of kit or equipment was made,” Streeting said on Oct. 22 at the opening of a British artillery factory by German arms giant Rheinmetall. His message: Allies must prioritize delivering weapons over competing industrial interests.

Building Europe’s next missiles

At the heart of the partnership is a plan to develop weapons capable of hitting targets more than 2,000 kilometers away. Known as Deep Precision Strike, or DPS, the project aims to give European forces the ability to strike far behind enemy lines without relying on American missiles.

The internal briefings reveal how Britain and Germany intend to divide the work.

Britain will lead development of a missile designed to fly low and evade enemy radar, known as the High-End Cruise Missile. The first version is expected to be ready for military use in 2032.

Germany will take charge of a different weapon, designed to travel several times the speed of sound. A rocket would carry this so-called hypersonic glide vehicle high into the sky before releasing it toward its target. Berlin aims to have it ready for military use by 2035.

The two weapons are the centerpiece of the partnership, but Germany and Britain are also considering other ways to strengthen their long-range strike capabilities, the briefing shows.

For the two-part DPS project, the plans involve significant investment. Britain has committed £770 million over four years to the wider missile effort. Separate German budget material seen by POLITICO identifies more than €9 billion in future spending, although without a defined timeframe.

But agreeing which country leads each project is only part of the task. The countries must also decide which companies will develop the weapons.

Competition behind the cooperation

For the German-led hypersonic weapon, the ministry plans to have two companies develop competing experimental versions by 2029.

One is MBDA, Europe’s established missile manufacturer. The other is Hypersonica, a much smaller German-British startup. Their designs would be tested before Berlin decides how to proceed.

The competition could prove sensitive. According to the internal German briefing, the ministry anticipates that MBDA may worry its younger rival could benefit from technical knowledge gained during development and testing. 

Hypersonica, meanwhile, is already gaining experience through Nightfall, a British-funded project to develop missiles for Ukraine. According to the briefing, some of that work could help the startup develop a more advanced German-British weapon.

Another complication will be finding out what role France will play — if at all.

When Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Emmanuel Macron met in July, they agreed to explore cooperation with Britain on long-range weapons, specifically highlighting that ArianeGroup, the Franco-German rocket manufacturer, could play a role.

However, political agreement between European governments does not automatically settle industrial arrangements.

The ministry briefing says talks about involving ArianeGroup in developing a booster — the rocket component that would propel the hypersonic weapon into flight — proved difficult because of limited rights to use the technology. The document does not specify what those restrictions entail.

For Britain and Germany, the next step is to turn these plans into firm commitments. Officials have discussed initial agreements to advance the missile project before the end of the year, separate documents seen by POLITICO show, although it remains unclear whether any will be signed during Streeting’s visit.

Responding to POLITICO’s request, the German defense ministry declined to comment.

A difficult choice in the skies

While Britain and Germany are moving closer together on a missile partnership, their plans for building the next generation of fighter jets pose the question: Which countries does Berlin want as its long-term defense partners after its flagship fighter-jet project with France collapsed in June?

Britain has moved to fill that gap. During a visit to Berlin earlier this month, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham encouraged Chancellor Friedrich Merz to consider joining the advanced fighter program London is already developing with Italy and Japan, known as GCAP.

For Britain, German participation would help divide the enormous costs of developing a new fighter jet. For Berlin, it offers something beyond the aircraft itself: closer post-Brexit ties with Britain, a major European military power and key NATO ally, as well as a strategic partnership with Japan.

That diplomatic appeal matters as Europe takes on more responsibility for its own security amid uncertainty over America’s future commitment to the continent. 

But Germany’s defense ministry sees problems with the British offer.

“At present, cooperation with Sweden and Spain appears preferable,” one of the internal briefings states, pointing to a better match with Germany’s military needs rather than GCAP.

Officials also worry that Germany would have too little influence over a program in which Britain, Italy and Japan have already divided much of the development work among their companies. 

That leaves Berlin weighing the diplomatic benefits of joining Britain against the military and industrial advantages of starting over with different partners.

For Streeting, the visit to Berlin therefore comes at an important moment with unresolved issues. Britain and Germany are making tangible progress on missiles, but London has yet to convince Berlin that it should also become a partner in Britain’s next fighter jet.

Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure have left thousands of households without electricity, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday.

“Overnight alone, our energy infrastructure came under Russian attack in four regions: Dnipro, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, and Khmelnytskyi. Substations, transformers, and power lines that supply electricity to our people’s homes were targeted, Zelenskyy wrote on social media. 

“As of now, hundreds of thousands of families remain without power,” he added, noting that the “intensity of the strikes is extremely high.”

Zelenskyy’s comments came as Russian authorities reported a “massive” Ukrainian drone strike overnight on an industrial facility in the Nizhny Novgorod region.

“A massive drone attack occurred overnight and this morning in the Nizhny Novgorod region: more than a hundred drones were destroyed,” Gleb Nikitin, the region’s governor, wrote on Telegram on Sunday.

“According to preliminary reports, there were no casualties,” he said, adding that an industrial facility in the Kstovsky district sustained “significant damage.”

“During the restoration process, temporary power outages and reduced hot water and heating services are possible in certain sections of the utility networks supplying residential buildings,” he wrote.

Nikitin did not specify which industrial facility had been attacked. The NORSI oil refinery is located in the region.

On Friday, the local governor of Russia’s Samara region blamed Ukraine for an early morning drone attack that struck an oil refinery in Novokuibyshevsk city.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Kyiv agreed to pause strikes on Russian oil refineries until after the U.S. midterm elections on Nov. 3 under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump.

Ukraine paused drone strikes on Russian oil refineries for 72 hours when Trump announced an energy ceasefire in October, but the Kremlin continued to bombard Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

KOREAN DEMILITARIZED ZONE — Friedrich Merz ended his five-day trip to Asia on Friday reflecting on Europe’s past.

After visiting the blue barracks where the armistice that ended the Korean War was signed in 1953, in the Joint Security Area where North and South Korean troops stand face-to-face, the German chancellor addressed the obvious parallels between his country’s history and Korea’s present.

“Thoughts are running through my mind about how grateful we may be that in Germany we haven’t had to experience this for 36 years,” Merz said.

The remarks concluded a tour of Singapore, Japan and South Korea, where the chancellor was challenged by Asian capitals over security and trade cooperation — and often reminded of how the region’s turmoil are intertwined with Europe’s precarious moment.

‘Collective security’

One only has to look across the border. Shortly before Merz arrived in the demilitarized zone, North Korea fired about 10 short-range ballistic missiles toward the Sea of Japan. The chancellor’s greatest security concerns at home — Russia’s war against Ukraine and Moscow’s threat to Europe — are increasingly becoming problems in the Asia-Pacific region as well.

The fact that Pyongyang is able to launch so many ballistic missiles, testing and expanding its long-range strike capabilities, is directly linked to its cooperation with Russia. North Korea has been sending soldiers to the Russian front in Ukraine for two years and in return benefited from combat experience and technology transfers.

North Korean state television on Thursday showed leader Kim Jong Un with new military drones, including a potential stealth drone, underscoring the great strides the country is also making in drone development. These are serious security issues that other countries in the region, including Japan, cannot ignore.

Besides provocations from Pyongyang, there is China, which is not only becoming increasingly dominant in trade but also casting its eye toward Taiwan, making far-reaching territorial claims in the South China Sea and putting strong pressure on critics such as Japan. And there is Russia, which is forging close military ties with Beijing and carrying out joint bomber flights with the Chinese air force near the Japanese border.

“Russia’s war against Ukraine is ever-present here in the region,” Merz told reporters following his visit to the border. “There is no longer such a thing as unilateral security in the world, only collective security,” he added, underscoring his call to “work closely” with Japan, South Korea and Singapore “on security policy issues” and in the defense industry.

Middle power struggle

This German offer has generated considerable interest. Given Berlin’s position as Ukraine’s largest supporter, German defense companies are highly active in the war-torn country and cooperate with local manufacturers, giving them access to rapid technological developments. This makes them attractive to Asian partners who fear falling behind North Korea and China as they benefit from their cooperation with Russia.

The fact that the chancellor traveled with a large business delegation — the kind previously seen only on visits to China — underscores this focus. Among the companies were several defense firms, including aircraft manufacturer Airbus, air defense manufacturer Diehl Defense and drone specialist Quantum-Systems. Japan welcomed the cooperation, with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi speaking of a “premium partnership” with Germany.

Yet Merz’s trip was about more than defense deals. The chancellor used his visits to warn against violations of international law by Russia but also increasingly by China and the United States. “We are on the threshold of a new era,” he said in Tokyo. “We are witnessing how the major powers are pursuing a new policy and how international rules are eroding.”

His words echoed a similar warning issued by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier during a parallel trip to Beijing. “An order that was never perfect, but at least served as the foundation for international cooperation, is eroding. Lawlessness looms. I see this as a great danger for all of us,” said Steinmeier.

To counter this trend, Merz built on Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s proposal that “middle powers” should team up to better defend themselves in the face of unreliable major powers and toothless international organizations.

In speeches in Tokyo and Seoul, Merz proposed a “global political alliance for rules-based trade.” Medium-sized powers such as the EU, Asian nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the South American Mercosur trade bloc should “coordinate” and “act together” if others challenged international rules “or if economic pressure were to be exerted,” said the chancellor.

It’s a thinly veiled reference to Chinese threats to restrict access to rare earth metals and the tariff threats made by U.S. President Donald Trump. Merz also said the alliance could strengthen the World Trade Organization and seek to unblock the nomination of judges to the organization’s appellate body.

“Considerable concern” over Franco-German car deal

During his trip, however, Merz experienced firsthand just how difficult it is to put such an ambitious proposal into practice when special interests complicate an alliance of small and medium-sized powers.

This became most evident when the Asian countries issued a sharp protest over planned “Made in Europe” rules for the car industry. Under a proposal agreed by Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, Brussels would restrict subsidies for cars to vehicles produced inside the EU, Switzerland and the U.K., putting foreign manufacturers at a disadvantage.

In polite but direct terms, South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung told reporters he had “asked Merz for support so that Korea would be treated like the EU member states.” A similar complaint was voiced in Japan.

“That was, in fact, a topic that surprised me a bit, given the intensity with which it was presented,” Merz told reporters before returning to Germany on Friday evening. He admitted that the Franco-German proposal had “sparked considerable concern in the region — in Singapore, Japan, and Korea — that we may be facing a new wave of protectionism in Europe, that we are closing ourselves off from other countries.”

Merz vowed to take those complaints “very seriously” and raise them at the next EU leaders’ summit. Yet they are a sharp reminder of how much industry-specific details can hamper the implementation of his proposed broader alliance.

The chancellor’s trip also revealed challenges when it comes to security cooperation: A request for Japan to supply Patriot anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine fell flat. And it remains unclear whether Tokyo continues to contribute several billions to a new Ukraine loan next year, as Brussels hopes.

A Japanese diplomat, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, posed a different question to the German delegation: “How exactly will you help us if China attacks Taiwan?”

The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.

Deutschland befindet sich nicht im Krieg, aber auch nicht mehr im Frieden. Was passiert konkret, wenn das Land militärisch angegriffen wird? Dieser existenziellen Frage stellt sich Generalleutnant Alexander Sollfrank, Befehlshaber des Operativen Führungskommandos der Bundeswehr, im Gespräch mit Rixa Fürsen.

Ein konventioneller Überraschungsangriff gilt dank engmaschiger Überwachung als unwahrscheinlich, doch der hybride Schattenkrieg durch Sabotage und Spionage läuft bereits auf Hochtouren. Die Folge beleuchtet, wie der „Operationsplan Deutschland“ greift, wenn das Land im Ernstfall zur logistischen Drehscheibe für zehntausende NATO-Soldaten wird.

Der Verteidigungsfall betrifft längst nicht mehr nur das Militär. Die Analyse zeigt detailliert, wie zivile Behörden, Polizei und Bundeswehr im Krisenfall verzahnt agieren müssen, um eine glaubhafte Abschreckung aufzubauen und die europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur zu verteidigen.

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.**

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked the U.S. for approving the sale of Patriot interceptors but urged Washington to fast-track the delivery of the defensive missiles.

Zelenskyy praised the “strong decision” by the U.S. to approve the sale of 500 Patriot PAC-3 interceptors to counter Russian ballistic missiles — but said the years-long wait to deliver them was too long for Ukraine’s urgent needs.

“It has been stipulated that deliveries may begin ONLY IN A FEW YEARS,” Zelenskyy wrote in a Facebook post on Friday night.

“We are asking our American partners to find a solution for the time when there is a real danger and a real need to use PAC-3 interceptors,” he added.

Patriot interceptors are crucial for Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s ballistic missiles, amid fears that Moscow will ramp up its attacks on energy facilities to bring winter blackouts in Ukraine.

In the Facebook post, Zelenskyy said an immediate delivery of Patriot interceptors would allow Ukraine to defend its energy infrastructure during the winter season.

“Providing them to Ukraine right now – in the winter of 2026–2027 – and replenishing our partners’ arsenals LATER, in THE FOLLOWING YEARS” would be the right approach, Zelenskyy said.

The U.S. decision to sell the interceptors signals a thaw in relations between the White House and Kyiv after tensions escalated in recent months.

However, the White House said that it won’t pay for the Patriot interceptors. “The estimated total cost is $2.1 billion funded entirely by partners and allies,” a statement from the State Department said.

MONTREAL — Prime Minister Mark Carney wanted the landmark EU-Canada summit to be about much more than “nomenclature.” He got what he craved. 

Over a whirlwind 48 hours in Montreal, top officials from Brussels and Ottawa huddled to pursue agreements on critical minerals, super computers and defense cooperation.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa and Carney gathered as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to upend the global order and Chinese dominance of critical markets squeezes middle powers. 

Those challenges have pushed the EU and Canada into a rapidly developing partnership that eclipses anything attempted by Brussels with a non-member country since the bloc was formed. 

Here are all the key things POLITICO learned during the EU-Canada meetings. 

Carney finally embraced ‘associate membership’

Initially reluctant, the Canadian prime minister came around by the end of the summit to endorse von der Leyen’s controversial label for the global alliance the EU and Canada are building. 

Carney set a six-month deadline to firm up the ground rules of what “associate membership” is, trialing an induction process that could be a model for other non-European countries.

“With Canada becoming the European Union’s first associate member, in the coming months we will determine the full substance, scale and scope of this new form of membership,” he said Friday. 

Carney added he will meet periodically with von der Leyen to track progress, including a return trip for the College of European Commissioners to meet with their Canadian counterparts in March.

Got minerals

Both Canadian and EU officials are walking away from the summit with at least one major win: the framework agreement signed between the European Investment Bank and Canada that will open up the bloc’s lending arm to Canadian critical minerals crucial for future tech. 

That means batteries, circuit boards and semiconductors, which all require lithium, nickel, cobalt and other critical raw materials that, as of now, the EU is largely dependent on China to score.

The deal helps wean the Europeans off a politically volatile critical minerals dealer, for a more reliable Canadian supplier. 

The agreement does not immediately unlock funding for specific projects, but it supports pathways for future investments in Canadian mining and helps link the bloc’s supply chains with Canada’s.

Canada’s energy ambitions still point east

Critical minerals aren’t the only Canadian natural resource on the menu for Europeans. 

Carney has said he wants to make Canada an “energy superpower” and leverage huge stores of oil and liquefied natural gas in his country for export. The only problem: Most of it is in the western province of Alberta, far from Europe.

But the summit concluded with a commitment by both sides to a “long-term feasibility study” on exporting LNG to Europe via the east coast or Arctic ports closer to the bloc. 

“There’s also a huge opportunity in terms of bringing some of the fossils and gas from Canada to the EU,” said a Commission official, who was granted anonymity to talk about sensitive diplomatic negotiations. “The old infrastructure in Canada was built north-south for historical reasons, but now there is talk of starting to build east-west.”

Making nice with Washington? Don’t hold your breath.

As Europeans and Canadians preached deeper ties, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) was there doing damage control.

Welch, whose state is a little over an hour’s drive south of Montreal, spent Thursday reassuring business leaders that U.S. relations with Canada and beyond can, some day, get back to normal. When exactly, he couldn’t say for sure.

During his trip, Welch met with Quebec Chief Trade Negotiator Pascal Paradis, tourism industry leaders, businesses and manufacturers nailed by tariffs, and hit up a Eurasia Group lunch.

Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections could offer a waypoint to warmer relations. But Welch loaded his optimism about Democratic Party fortunes with caveats.

“I think we’ll be successful, but you’ll still have a president who abuses his authority and acts in arbitrary ways,” he said. “It’s not like I can give any assurance that things are going to change.” 

Unspoken in the communiqué: China

Canada and the EU pledged deeper cooperation on pumping more European money into the mining, production and refining of critical minerals, a response to China’s dominance of the global market for those minerals. But the final summit communiqué steers clear of naming specific countries. 

Canadian Defense Minister David McGuinty was more candid.

“China has been vacuuming up as many critical minerals as they can throughout the world, particularly in the African continent, cutting deals, usually infrastructure for critical mineral deals. That could be a soccer stadium, for example. It could be a light rail system,” McGuinty told POLITICO at the summit Friday.

“It turns out that Canada’s got a huge amount of critical minerals, and basically all 10 of the 10 critical minerals on the short list for NATO, which the United States is also aware of. We’re going to not only exploit, but we intend to move to transform,” he said.

The common language: Sovereignty

Outside the summit, many Montrealers were oblivious to the landmark meeting taking place in the city. Inside, the vibe was existential.

The trio of leaders — Carney, von der Leyen and Costa — invoked individual and collective sovereignty as reasons to pursue a closer alliance to weather “new storms” stoked by climate change, challenges to democratic norms and the weaponization of trade. Carney has notably claimed concerns about encroachment on Canada’s sovereignty as a reason to walk away from trade talks with the Trump administration. 

“Today is about sovereignty,” Carney said. “We’re building the industries and infrastructure that underwrite our collective security.”

Quebec wanted a seat at the table

The summit came to Montreal weeks after Quebec — the French-speaking province in Canada that hosted the summit — elected a separatist government. Quebec shares powers with Ottawa and had its own seat in the CETA trade talks with the EU over a decade ago; and it had sought a similar role at this summit. 

But Ottawa refused to let new Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon address the summit, so he boycotted it, complaining he was being asked to “serve shrimp cocktail.” 

Carney accused him of leaving “an empty chair.” It stayed empty, even though six former Quebec premiers came to dinner.

The Europeans did not escape unscathed. The Quebec press panned von der Leyen’s English-only speech on the opening day as a faux pas in Canada’s largest francophone metropolis. Commission Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera did little better, telling Radio-Canada in French that, for Brussels, summits like this are between national governments.

Bagel diplomacy

In a town where the original heated rivalry persists between two bagel shops, von der Leyen couldn’t resist picking a side with a photo-op at St-Viateur. 

Sorry Fairmount. 

LONDON — Andy Burnham will avoid making “arbitrary” cuts to Britain’s rising social security budget, a top Cabinet minister said Friday, as he defended days of mixed government messaging on welfare.

Defense Secretary Wes Streeting accused Labour’s opponents — and the Keir Starmer government he served in as health secretary — of not properly thinking through plans to reduce the welfare bill, leading to a collapse in political support.

Streeting told the BBC Today program: “I saw it, frankly, after the last general election, when we went too far too fast with an arbitrary figure to cut welfare and when people saw the detail of what that meant for disabled people in our country, the very same people who were saying we need to cut the welfare bill were saying ‘but not like that’.”

He said: “What I do understand from experience, and I’ve seen this experience borne out under both Conservative and Labour governments, is that when you put in place arbitrary targets to cut welfare without a thought-through plan to do so sustainably and responsibly, the plans fall apart.”

Spending on U.K. health and disability-related benefits has increased sharply since the Covid pandemic, with the bill for working-age disability benefits in England and Wales increasing from £14bn in 2020 to £25bn in 2026.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is leading a report into how to help the estimated one million young people not in employment or education. It is due to be published in November, and the government is also waiting on minister Stephen Timms to make recommendations on disability benefit reform.

A previous bid to reduce welfare under Starmer was scrapped after a revolt among Labour MPs. The row was seen as deeply damaging to Starmer’s authority and a sign that the leadership had lost touch with rank-and-file MPs.

Streeting’s comments came after an extended back-and-forth between ministers and journalists Thursday over whether Burnham’s government will lower welfare spending before the next general election.

Healey was asked by the BBC Thursday whether cuts to the welfare bill would be made before the next election.”There will be a reduction in the benefits bill, we’ll do that in a Labour way,” he said.

But Treasury officials tried to clarify that Healey had not put a date on reductions, with the chancellor telling Channel 4 News shortly afterwards: “It’s not correct to say that we are going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament because we’ve not set a timetable for that.”

Streeting said of welfare Friday: “We all agree we’ve got to bring it down, we’ve just got to do it in the right way.”

Tories leapt on the confusion yesterday to say Labour were “confused, unserious, and [had] no plan.”

Deputy Conservative Chairman Matt Vickers told GB News Friday morning that Healey had given “no answers” on welfare. He added: “The government’s priorities are completely wrong. We need to get in there, sort the ballooning welfare bill, and protect this country properly.”