Donald Trump has repeated his threat to pull the US out of Nato, after Britain and other allies refused to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Dismissing the alliance as a “paper tiger”, he told The Telegraph’s Washington correspondent that the idea of removing America from the defence treaty had now gone “beyond reconsideration”.

“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine,” Trump said. “And we would always have been there for them”. But, in an apparent misunderstanding of the limits of the alliance, the US president believes that, in the Iran conflict, “they weren’t there for us”.

What would it mean for Nato?

Nato, formed by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 by 12 founding countries, does not have its own army. Instead, member states pledged to provide collective defence and security. The US is Nato’s largest single military power, as well as funding 62% of its spending, so American withdrawal would dramatically weaken the alliance. Without Washington’s military might behind it, Article 5 – the treaty clause that states that an armed attack against one or more members will be considered an attack against all – would lose credibility .

Trump’s recent threats will further encourage Canada and the European member states in their efforts to rely less on the US for security – a shift that is a boon to their own domestic defence industries.

What would leaving Nato mean for the US?

The US would save money, both by ending its contribution to Nato spending and by no longer maintaining a presence in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. But it would also lose access to many military bases around the world, meaning the US Navy would have to “operate closer to America’s shores”, and US bombers would no longer be able to “reach targets halfway around the world”, said Modern Diplomacy. More broadly, the shift away from US global leadership would accelerate, with America increasingly divorced from an international framework.

Buyers for US arms could also dry up, as America’s former allies seek to re-arm elsewhere. The US spends more on its own military than any other country but that wouldn’t be enough to keep all its arms manufacturers afloat. Without crucial foreign sales, hundreds of thousands of US jobs would be at risk.

What would the process actually look like?

Leaving Nato wouldn’t be easy for the US because a 2024 law prohibits the president from doing so without the approval of a two-thirds Senate majority or an act of Congress. Even if all Republicans in the Senate voted for it, Trump would still need at least 14 Democrats to join them, and it’s unlikely he would even get unanimity from Republicans: Thom Tillis, Republican co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, has already warned that leaving Nato would be an “enormous, enormous risk”.

Given the political obstacles, most Nato observers don’t think Trump will try to withdraw, “despite his obvious displeasure at alliance leaders”, said The Times. But he could use an executive order to suspend US participation, and eke that suspension out while legal challenges are mounted.

But, even without leaving, Trump could still “cause irreparable damage” to the alliance, said UnHerd. He could ignore an Article 5 request, withhold intelligence from Nato partners, cancel weapons deliveries, and limit the export of security-related technologies.

Donald Trump’s call for an international coalition to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz has been met with a muted response. Japan and Australia have definitively ruled out sending support and escort vessels, and Keir Starmer has said the UK “will not be drawn into the wider war”.

With the US-Israeli war against Iran now entering its third week, Tehran has effectively closed the waterway through which a fifth of all the world’s oil and gas passes. Trump first demanded the help of China, France, Japan, South Korea and the UK but he then extended the invitation on Truth Social to all “the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait”. Yet, despite threatening to cancel a planned trip to China unless Beijing offers support, and warning Nato that it faces a “very bad future” if it fails to come to Washington’s aid, his demands seem “to have fallen on deaf ears”, said Reuters.

What did the commentators say?

European governments in particular “have reacted cautiously to Trump’s persistent pressure to help him reopen the strait”, said Milena Wälde on Politico. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said he was “very sceptical” that widening the EU’s naval mission to the Strait of Hormuz “would provide greater security”.

Even if Trump is able to secure an international coalition, his “biggest hurdle” in any attempt to reopen the strait will be “interoperability”: “that’s the ability of crews to work together or with different units and different doctrine when basic communication would be an issue”, maritime security expert Alexandru Hudisteanu told Al Jazeera. There is also the challenging geography of the strait, which is only 31 miles wide at its entrance and exit, and narrows to 20 miles at one point. It is a “very unforgiving” environment to sail through, especially with “wartime threats”, such as mines or “unmanned systems that could damage or destroy ships”.

With growing unease in the US about the war and its economic impact on ordinary citizens, Trump has been forced to change tack in recent days. Having launched his campaign with Israel without consulting other allies, he clearly now needs other countries “to join a war that not only hasn’t been won, but is spreading and escalating out of control – and that the US is arguably losing”, said The Independent’s editorial board.

What next?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that the strait is not open to vessels belonging to the US and its allies. But Tehran has “signalled it is considering allowing Chinese-linked ships through”, said The Telegraph – a move that would “spare Iran’s strategic ally the economic pain of the war, while doubling down on the impact felt by the West”.

EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels today to discuss ways of keeping the strait open. But any military assistance provided by European nations, including the UK, must come with “a say in US decision-making”, and a “demand that Operation Epic Fury be de-escalated before it becomes Operation Epic Disaster”, said The Independent. “This is a rare moment when medium-sized powers such as Britain, France and Japan can exercise some leverage on the White House; they must make full use of it.”

“Vladimir Putin has not achieved his goals,” said a defiant Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a televised address marking the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The February 2022 invasion was meant to be a “short and successful military operation” that would “force Kyiv back into Moscow’s orbit” and “overturn the entire post-Cold War security architecture in Europe”, said the BBC’s Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg. “It didn’t go to plan”, leaving Russia with an ever-mounting cost.

What did the commentators say?

As the conflict enters its fifth year, Russian victory seems as far away as ever and it has little to show for its estimated 1.2 million casualties, according to Seth G. Jones and Riley McCabe at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. The average pace of Russia’s progress has sometimes been as little as 15 metres per day, “slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century”.

Russia’s economy is finally starting to teeter. It faces a huge shortfall in oil revenues and has been forced to sell gold reserves to cover its budget deficit.

The West has always believed that domestic discontent as a result of the ongoing sanctions would “persuade Putin to abandon the war”, said Peter Rutland and Elizaveta Gaufman on The Conversation. This, in turn, was “based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract” that offers Russians stability and income in exchange for loyalty.

But this approach “tends to downplay the role of ideology”, which has been successfully exploited by the Kremlin to spin the war as an existential threat and maintain support for the president, according to data from Statista.

This narrative has also been deployed externally, towards Russia’s opponents. The idea emanating from the Kremlin that Ukraine’s front line faces “imminent collapse” is “an effort to coerce the West and Ukraine into capitulating to Russian demands that Russia cannot secure itself militarily”, said the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. This is a “false narrative”.

The West should “stop buying into Moscow’s bluff that Russia is invincible” and “use the Kremlin’s weaknesses and double down on its support for Ukraine to bring about real negotiations to end the war”, said Jana Kobzova and Leo Litra for the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The notion that ‘time is on the Russian side’ betrays a lack of strategic patience and, even more importantly, squandered opportunities to exploit Moscow’s growing structural vulnerabilities.”

What next?

“Standard economic theory suggests that deteriorating conditions should push the Kremlin towards negotiations on ending the war,” said The Economist. “A rational actor facing mounting costs seeks an exit.”

Yet there is little sign that Putin has any intention of yielding on his push for the “capitulation” of Ukraine, Russian political scientist Tatiana Stanovaya told The I Paper. If no peace deal can be struck, the war could even “escalate further”, with the possible involvement of China a “growing factor”, as well as fears of a “new nuclear race”, said The i Paper.

Russia can “probably continue waging war for the foreseeable future”, said The Economist, but every additional year “raises systemic risk: of fiscal crisis, of institutional breakdown, of damage so severe that no post-war policy can repair it”.

So the question for Western allies is “what kind of Russia will emerge” when its appetite for war finally fades, “and whether anyone has a plan for what comes next”.

J.D. Vance opened last year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC) with an attack on the US’ European allies, stunning the world’s biggest defence summit.

In the year since, Donald Trump has published the new US national security strategy, which outlined the desire for “strategic stability” with Russia and accused European leaders of “civilisational erasure” – a document praised by the Kremlin. The president shook the foundations of the Nato alliance with his threats to seize Greenland, imposed tariffs on friend and foe alike, and undermined Europe’s defence of Ukraine.

Ahead of this year’s conference, opened today by Germany's chancellor Friedrich Merz, a report prepared by the MSC warns that the era of depending on the US is nearing the end. “Europe has come to the painful realisation that it needs to be more assertive and more militarily independent from an authoritarian US administration that no longer shares a commitment to liberal democratic norms and values,” it said.

What did the commentators say?

The MSC report “sets the scene for an all-out ideological confrontation with the Trump White House”, said The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour. The president’s remarks disparaging European Nato soldiers who fought alongside the US in Afghanistan caused “deep offence” among Europe’s military leaders. The MSC report also accuses Trump of having “a lust for destruction and of siding with Vladimir Putin”.

There are also “strong suspicions” that Germany’s hard-right Alternative for Germany was only invited to the MSC following “pressure from the Trump administration”, said The Telegraph’s Berlin correspondent James Rothwell. The AfD was banned from the conference for two years for its “pro-Kremlin views”. Its attendance has “caused a furore” and there are fears the party will “use the summit as an opportunity to spy” – possibly for Russia.

Sergej Sumlenny, co-founder of the European Resilience Initiative Centre, a security think tank, has urged guests to “keep quiet about state secrets in the presence of AfD members” because whatever “sensitive topics” you’re talking about “stands a chance of making it back to Moscow”.

This year, Marco Rubio will be leading the US delegation. The “generally more restrained and tad more diplomatic” secretary of state is unlikely to emulate Vance’s “daylight throttling” of last year, said Politico’s Jamie Dettmer. But even if he does, Europeans are “becoming almost inured to Trumpian jolts”.

The focus in Munich will therefore be on “the practical steps necessary to de-risk” from the US, reduce reliance on its technology and military, and “forge a much more independent” path with the Canadians, who are “now honorary Europeans”. Basically, this MSC will be about how Europeans “can stand on their own two feet”.

But Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte spoke for many in the highly divided, deeply gloomy bloc: if EU lawmakers think they can do without the US, “keep on dreaming”, he said. “You can’t.”

The “unquestioned assumption of transatlantic cooperation” that always underpinned the MSC has been “upended”, but Europe’s dependence on US military support “will take years to undo”, said Reuters. It will also leave the continent “vulnerable”.

Plus Europe–US security ties have been damaged, but “they have not disintegrated”, said the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner. “We still benefit enormously from our security and military and intelligence relationship with America,” said Alex Younger, former chief of MI6.

Ultimately, this MSC should “provide some answers on where the transatlantic alliance is heading”, said Gardner. “They just may not necessarily be what Europe wants to hear.”

What next?

On arriving in Munich, Rubio struck a “warmer tone” than Vance managed last year, said Reuters. But the Trump administration’s direction remains clear: Rubio’s next stops in Europe are Hungary and Slovakia. Washington has “hinted”, said Politico, “that it could assist ideologically allied European parties”, such as the nationalist regimes of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary or Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s Smer.

“In an era of wrecking-ball politics, those who simply stand by are at constant risk of entombment,” the MSC report argues. Relying on “sterile communiqués, predictable conferences, and cautious diplomacy” is doomed to failure. “Effectively pushing back against the demolition men requires much more political courage and innovative thought. The actors defending international rules and institutions need to be just as bold as the actors who seek to destroy them.”

Those who “oppose the politics of destruction” have to “become bold builders themselves”. “Too much is at stake. In fact, everything is at stake.”

A “rupture” in the world order — this declaration from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney last week was more than a criticism of President Donald Trump’s recent elbow-throwing on the global stage. To many observers, it was a eulogy for the age of American preeminence.

The world is “witnessing the self-immolation of a superpower” via Trump’s trade wars and territorial aggressiveness, said Garrett M. Graff at Wired. “The old order is not coming back,” Carney said in Switzerland. That speech, along with America’s European allies drawing a red line against Trump’s designs on Greenland, will likely “someday be seen as heralding the official end” of the American-led world order that has been in place since the end of World War II, said Graff.

It’s rare to see a nation “so thoroughly set about consciously dismantling its core sources of national strength and influence” as the U.S. president has by alienating America’s longtime friends over Greenland, said Graff. “This is the end of the world as we have known it for 80 years.”

Dismantling the West?

Trump is abandoning the “traditional foundations of U.S. influence,” said Joschka Fischer, the former German vice chancellor, at Project Syndicate. The U.S. ended WWII as the “principal victor in both the European and Pacific theaters,” then went on to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. But now, European countries that have been “friends and allies for eight decades” are being portrayed as “adversaries” by the White House. As a result, Trump has “effectively dismantled the transatlantic West.”

“It’s over,” said David French at The New York Times. Carney’s assertion that the American order has been ruptured might “seem bracing and perhaps even premature,” but it's correct. Europe and Canada have little choice but to back away from American leadership and band together for security and defense arrangements. Trumpists may think “we’ll no longer be exploited by freeloading allies,” but it raises the question: “How does engineering enmity with some of the most prosperous nations in the world guarantee American prosperity?”

The president is “catalyzing a new world order,” said Noah Rothman at the National Review. The way he’s doing so is damaging to American interests and “diminishing our own influence” over what comes next. Canada just struck a new trade deal with China, showing “Carney is serious” about reorienting his country away from American influence. “Perhaps other NATO members will follow his lead.”

Looking ahead, and away

The U.S. remains “globally influential and will continue to matter,” said Timothy Garton Ash and his colleagues at the European Council on Foreign Relations. But few observers expect the U.S. to “gain in influence” going forward, and world leaders are looking ahead and away from American leadership. It’s a “wicked challenge” for Europe to wean itself from U.S. power, John Thornhill said at the Financial Times, but there’s no choice. “Thanks, Donald, Europe will take it from here.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered a long, winding speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he repeatedly criticized several heads of state in the audience and reiterated his demand that Denmark hand over its self-ruling territory Greenland. But by the end of the day, Trump announced that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had “formed the framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland,” and he dropped his threatened tariffs on European allies who opposed his effort to seize the large Arctic island.

Who said what

Trump’s “about-face followed days of back-channel conversations” with advisers and European leaders, The Wall Street Journal said. For the leaders in Davos, only “four words” in Trump’s “otherwise fiery” speech really mattered, CNN said: “I won’t use force.” Trump’s “retreat” on seizing Greenland was the “latest head-spinning twist” in this saga, The Washington Post said, but he “offered few details” on his deal framework.

One possible off-ramp, suggested by Rutte at NATO meetings, involved giving the U.S. “some sovereignty over small pockets of Greenland for military bases,” The New York Times said. One official “compared the concept to the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus, which are regarded as British territory.”

Trump’s “backpedaling” on tariffs and forcibly taking Greenland was a relief to the Europeans, Politico said. But his “continued heckling of allies as ‘ungrateful’ for not simply giving the U.S. ‘ownership and title’ of what he said was just ‘a piece of ice’ did little to reverse” the “deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies” that the U.S. can no longer be considered a “reliable ally.”

What next?

Yesterday “encapsulated” Trump’s “second-term approach to global power and policymaking,” the Times said: “alternating between coercing and humiliating once-close allies in the pursuit of a goal that he appears to see as a critical piece of his legacy.” European officials said Trump’s “sudden shift in tone doesn’t resolve the dispute but helps defuse an open rift between allies as they work to sort out their differences in private,” Reuters said.

Nato is mulling a joint operation to defend the Arctic from future Russian and Chinese aggression – and to neutralise US ambition.

Britain, Germany and France have discussed a possible “Arctic Sentry” mission, echoing two similar Nato initiatives launched last year: Baltic Sentry (in response to underseas cable sabotage) and Eastern Sentry (following Russian drone incursions). This would be in addition to Denmark’s “Operation Arctic Endurance” in Nuuk where Britain, Canada and 10 other European nations have already sent a handful of troops to join that reconnaissance force in the Greenland capital.

The hope is to placate Donald Trump, who has repeatedly used claims of a growing threat of Russian and Chinese ships to justify his desire to seize Greenland. But whether a Nato mission could feasibly protect the mineral-rich Arctic – or whether the threat is as severe as the president claims – is a different question altogether.

What did the commentators say?

Nato should “double down” on Arctic security and “do what we’ve done in other areas”, said Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. The Arctic is “the gateway for Russia’s Northern Fleet to be able to threaten” the UK, Europe, the US and Canada, she told the BBC while visiting British forces in northern Norway. “Transatlantic security depends on our Arctic security.”

She envisages the mission as covering “the high north”, including Greenland, Iceland, Finland and the increasingly busy shipping lanes. It would look like “coordinated exercises, operations and intelligence sharing”, she said, similar to the ongoing Baltic and Eastern Sentry missions.

Those are “considered big successes”, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). While the waters around Greenland “aren’t full of Russian and Chinese ships right now, that could change as Arctic ice melts and new sea lanes open up”.

Russian and Chinese vessels aren’t out there “studying the seals and the polar bears”, said Nato’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Alexus Grynkewich. But there are “many practical obstacles” to an Arctic Sentry operation, said RFE/RL. Nato has only about 40 ice-breaker vessels in total – fewer than Russia. Hundreds of such ships would be needed “to cover such a vast area”. Apart from Nordic countries and Canada, there are few troops with experience of operating “in harsh Arctic conditions”.

The Baltic Sentry and Eastern Sentry were also “formulated to tackle specific threats”, said The Telegraph. In the case of Greenland, the threats “are not as clear-cut”. Germany has “floated the idea of sending at least 5,000 troops” to Greenland, effectively a “tripwire” to stall a Russian or Chinese invasion.

But that wouldn’t “significantly contribute to regional security”, because any threat to Greenland is “unlikely to be a ground invasion”. Mass deployment would also “suck vast resources away from other priorities”, such as a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine or protecting Nato’s eastern flank from Russia. It “would simply be seen as a costly public relations project” designed to placate Trump. He “appears obsessed with the purported presence of Russian and Chinese ships” near the island. Security experts do not agree.

Indeed, there’s “hardly any military activity” by Russia and China in Greenland, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, told Politico.

Seven of the eight Arctic countries that are Nato members (Russia is the eighth) are cooperating more and more; the fact that other countries are “becoming more interested is a good thing”, Eide said. But the focus is “still more on Russia’s live threat to the European high north than a future threat to Greenland”.

What next?

One potential Arctic Sentry scenario could be “Europeans handling air and sea surveillance” of what is known as the GIUK gap – the area between Greenland and Ireland/the UK – while the US “increases its troop presence in Greenland”, said RFE/RL. The 1951 treaty between the US and Denmark that allows unlimited US presence on the island is still valid. Denmark would have to consent, but that is “likely to be given”.

The EU is also considering using a rearmament scheme to build a continental ice-breaker to deploy to the region alongside Nato warships, according to The Telegraph. But the most likely Arctic Sentry scenario would “focus on the intelligence aspect of security”, which is seen as “a vital way of securing the Arctic”.

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is “expected to put some security proposals” to Trump: a “toolbox” of ideas on how European nations could protect Greenland. Talks on Arctic Sentry are “at the earliest stages of planning”, but hopefully “at least one of the proposals will be enough” to deter Trump.

President Donald Trump has never made a secret of his disdain for NATO. But his insistence that the United States take possession of Greenland from Denmark is poised to kill the alliance outright.

Trump’s insistence on obtaining Greenland has longtime U.S. allies “outraged,” and his “escalating aggression” is “thrusting NATO into crisis,” said Axios. Europe’s NATO members “must make it clear that the limit has been reached,” said German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil to reporters on Monday. His comment came after a letter from Trump to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was made public, doubling down on the president’s demands. Global security is impossible “unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” Trump said.

That leaves NATO facing its “worst-ever crisis,” said CNN’s Stephen Collinson. World peace is threatened by the potential “fracturing of its most powerful military alliance.”

Crisis could damage US security

“The western order we once knew is history,” said Timothy Garton Ash at The Guardian. That is true even if Trump gives up his threats to possibly take Greenland by force. His overall approach to geopolitics is “closer to that of Putin than it is to that of any U.S. president since 1945.” Europeans would do well not to worry about “existing structures and alliances” and instead “seek a wider range of partners, pragmatically, from issue to issue.” That’s because it is clear that Trump is “going to get more extreme and unpredictable.”

Trump’s “swaggering campaign” to obtain Greenland is creating a crisis that “could damage American security for decades,” said David Ignatius at The Washington Post. The Arctic is strategically important, but the pressure campaign is unnecessary: The U.S. “already has a military base in Pituffik” where it has permission to “add an unlimited number of troops.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that the U.S. effort could wreck NATO. “Could the president really be so reckless that he would risk undoing America’s strongest alliance?”

The controversy has “added to existing strains” within NATO, said the National Review editorial board. Trump is right to want to enhance American security in the region. The White House approach is “crass, clumsy and counterproductive.” NATO has “served this country so well” for many years. It would be easy to take Greenland by force, but the cost “militarily, economically and politically” would be ruinous.

Can a deal be done?

There is still a chance a deal can be made that “leaves NATO and the transatlantic alliance intact” despite the rising tensions, said Daniel Fried at Atlantic Council. Pressure from both Congress and European allies will be needed, but American security in the Arctic will be “better achieved by working with Denmark and NATO allies, not against them.”

Just 17% of Americans support taking Greenland, said Reuters, and “substantial majorities” of both Democrats and Republicans say they oppose using the military to make it happen. Trump may be escalating tensions, but the “appetite for conflict” is low among American voters.

Keir Starmer has called the threat of further US tariffs on Europe “completely wrong” and “not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance”. But, as he played down talk of retaliatory tariffs and stopped short of criticising Donald Trump personally, he continues to walk a difficult tightrope between the Europe and the US.

The prime minister held an emergency press conference this morning, following a weekend of diplomatic turmoil as Trump ramped up the pressure on the UK, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden by threatening to impose 25% tariffs if they continue to oppose his proposed takeover of Greenland.

“There is a principle here that cannot be set aside because it goes to the heart of how stable and trusted international cooperation works,” Starmer said. Any decision about the future status of Greenland “belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone”.

The PM’s tactic has always been to pursue “calm discussion” in the face of “the crash and noise of Trump’s second term”, said James Heale in The Spectator. Once again, he “just has to hope that speaking softly in private will mean more than sounding off in public”.

What did the commentators say?

In spite of their “obvious differences”, Starmer has “invested huge political capital and personal energy in building a personal connection” with Trump, said Amanda Akass on Sky News. This has, his supporters argue, protected the UK from the worst excesses of the Trump administration and been crucial in keeping the president onside with Ukraine.

It was a “shrewd” move to position himself as Trump’s “most dependable and closest ally”, said Tom Harris in The Telegraph. But now that the US president’s expansionist global ambitions have stretched to include “the enforced purchase” of Greenland, this “carefully cultivated relationship” has become “an embarrassment”.

Having “assured voters” that the special relationship was “as strong as ever”, Starmer has “had to accept that, when push comes to shove, America lumps Britain with the EU” – and that is “painful”, said The Economist. Worse, said Harris in The Telegraph, the man who was “once seen as the conduit between Trump and Europe” is now “regarded with suspicion by both the White House and Brussels”.

Starmer’s “secret hope”, said ITV’s Robert Peston, is that moderate Republicans “will be so shocked by Trump’s attempted demolition of the so-called special relationship with the UK that they will urge the President to think again”. But “that may be naive”. If there is one thing we know about Trump, it’s that he “doesn’t respond well to being told he is wrong, even by his friends”.

What next?

These are “unprecedented developments and the options open to European powers are limited”, said the BBC’s Chris Mason.

For those European leaders who want to “send a warning to America, the simplest response is trade retaliation”, said The Economist. But while Germany has thrown its weight behind Emmanuel Macron’s call to consider a “trade bazooka”, Starmer has so far maintained a less confrontational stance, saying today that a trade war was in “nobody’s interest”.

That said, in the face of widespread international and domestic anger at Trump’s threat to take over Greenland and punish Nato allies who get in his way, there’s no doubt that Britain’s PM is now taking a stronger line with the US. It is “hardly a ‘Love Actually’ moment of brave UK defiance in the face of a domineering US president”, said Sky’s Akass, “but Keir Starmer has clearly decided it’s time to start pushing back”.

“Nobody in Greenland takes such an absurd scenario seriously.” That was the assessment of James Meek, in the London Review of Books last April, when discussing with the island’s inhabitants the possibility of a US marine-led invasion.

Of course, in the wake of the US special forces operation in Venezuela and Donald Trump’s desire to claim Greenland for the US, that “absurd scenario” may look a little less absurd.

While an invasion of territory that belongs to a Nato ally might be too outrageous, even for Trump, economic coercion appears a more likely route. To that end US officials “have discussed sending lump sum payments to Greenlanders as part of a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the US”, said Reuters.

But for those who live in Greenland, there remains a strong desire for self-determination. “We are not for sale” and “we will not be annexed”, Jess Berthelsen, chair of SIK, Greenland’s national trade union confederation, told The Guardian. “We will determine our own future, and we will continue to work with Denmark and the United States.”

What did the commentators say?

Greenlanders “are taking it in their stride”, said Sky News’ international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn. “They are getting used to Donald Trump's advances on their country” and a “very small minority welcomes them”.

"He will come. He has decided, you know. Nobody can change his mind,” Jorgen Boassen, one of the island’s most fervent Trump supporters, told Waghorn. “I can feel that. But I think it’s not bad. It’s a new opportunity for us."

The vast majority of islanders, though, reject the US attempt to annex their land. When Trump first said he wanted to buy Greenland, “I asked many local people what they thought. I didn’t hear a single person say it would be a good idea then, and I am still waiting”, said Dennis Lehtonen, who has lived in Greenland for the past three years, in The Independent.

While feelings towards Denmark “are generally less hostile than those directed at the United States, many people here remain angry at being treated as inferiors”, said Lehtonen. “Most people here hope Greenland will eventually become independent.”

Aleqatsiaq Peary, a 42-year-old Inuit hunter from the remote northerly town of Qaanaaq, “seemed unfazed” by the prospect of US ownership, said the BBC. “It would be switching from one master to another, from one occupier to another,” he said. “We are a colony under Denmark. We are already losing a lot from being under the Danish government.”

It’s for that reason perhaps that the leader of Greenland’s main opposition party this week said Copenhagen should get out of the way and allow Greenland to come to an arrangement directly with the US.

“We encourage our current [Greenlandic] government actually to have a dialogue with the US government without Denmark,” said Pele Broberg, the leader of Naleraq, according to Reuters. “Because Denmark is antagonising both Greenland and the US with their mediation.” Naleraq won 25% of the national vote last year, doubling its number of seats.

What next?

The Trump administration has stressed its intention has always been to buy Greenland from Denmark, while insisting that a military intervention remains an option too.

For Masaana Egede, editor of Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, the rhetoric from the US is pushing a binary choice that no one in Greenland agrees with. “We really have to try to avoid getting the story going to a place where it’s Greenland that has to decide between the US and Denmark, because that is not the choice that the Greenlandic people want.”

There remains hope, though, as well that the threat from Trump will be a unifying force on the island.

“For years, I’ve felt that Denmark has struggled to show a balanced picture of Greenland,” Greenlander Josepha Kuitse Kunak Thomsen told LBC. But now “I’ve seen people in Denmark speak up and show support for Greenland in a visible way,” she said. “That matters. It makes me believe we’ll come through this in a better place.”

The UK and France have agreed to deploy troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia, as part of a broader package of security guarantees aimed at preventing a repeat of Vladimir Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago.

After talks in Paris, Keir Starmer said both countries will, in the event of a ceasefire, “establish military hubs across Ukraine” and build protected weapon facilities “to support Ukraine’s defensive needs”.

Their agreement – along with wider security guarantees from the Coalition of the Willing – has the backing of the Trump administration. Volodymyr Zelenskyy called it a “huge step forward”. But Russia has previously rejected any idea of a “reassurance force” in Ukraine.

What did the commentators say?

The announcement from Starmer and Emmanuel Macron is “not a magic wand”, said Bel Trew in The Independent. “But it is a key moment.” France and Britain have, according to Zelenskyy, already “worked out in detail” the “force deployment”, including numbers, weapons components required.

Perhaps to reassure a wary French public, Macron said that “these are not forces that will be engaged in combat” but rather deployed “away from the contact line” to provide the necessary “reassurance”.

“This does seem at first glance to be a well-developed framework for ending the conflict in Ukraine,” said Eliot Wilson in The Spectator. But one of the most “obvious problems” is that “it is not at all clear that the UK and France have the military resources available to do what they say”.

There are “deep divisions” over increased defence spending in France and “the British army is the smallest it has been since the 1790s”. About 7,500 UK personnel are already deployed internationally and “resources for our leadership of the Nato Multinational Battlegroup in Estonia are stretched”. Given this, “where will we find ‘boots on the ground’ for Ukraine?”

Then there is the lack of public appetite for a prolonged military intervention overseas. On this, Starmer “begins from a stronger position than almost any of his counterparts” in the EU, said George Eaton in The New Statesman. UK voters are “among the most pro-Ukraine in Europe”: a recent YouGov poll of voters in six European countries found 56% of Brits support sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, compared to 40% in France and Italy and 36% in Poland. That “speaks to the strength of this consensus – albeit one yet to be tested by events”.

What next?

Of all the wider security guarantees agreed in Paris, the “binding commitment to support Ukraine in the case of future armed attack” is the one most “riddled with questions”, said Euronews. Each Coalition of the Willing government “would have to convince their parliaments, many of which are paralysed by political deadlock, to agree to an exceptionally consequential commitment”.

Then there is Putin, who has shown “no sign” that he is “willing to countenance any of this”, said Politico. This week’s potentially game-changing breakthrough does, however, “thrust the ball further into his court”.

Any US attempt to seize control of Greenland by force would be the end of Nato and “post-Second World War security”, Denmark’s prime minister has said.

Mette Frederiksen issued her warning as Donald Trump reiterated his desire to take control of the semi-autonomous Danish territory, saying “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security”.

European leaders, including Keir Starmer, have issued a joint statement saying that “it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”. But the “mildness” of their words “illustrates the bind Europe finds itself in”, said Politico. The fear of “potential retaliation from Trump on trade or Ukraine if he perceives harm to US interests” means Europe has “mostly pulled its punches in responding to his sabre-rattling”.

Nato is also walking a “fine line to avoid antagonising the US president”. But, while many Nato countries have, up till now, “brushed off an all-out Greenland incursion as implausible, Trump’s comments are beginning to stir anxiety – and defiance – within the alliance”.

What did the commentators say?

Since Trump returned to office and made his designs on the island clear, Greenlanders and Danes have been imagining scenarios in which the US succeeds in annexing the territory. Trump could go for “force, coercion, or an attempt to buy off the local population of about 56,000 people with the promise of cutting them in on future mining deals”, said Shane Harris, Isaac Stanley-Becker and Jonathan Lemire in The Atlantic. In fact, “because neither Denmark nor its European allies possess the military force to prevent the US from taking the island”, all it may take in practice is a Truth Social post announcing that Greenland is now an American “protectorate”. Given America’s status as Nato’s leading military and financial guarantor, such a development would “paralyse” the alliance.

Few, if any, expect a Venezuela-style raid on Greenland, said Sam Ashworth-Hayes in The Telegraph, because the US “has no need to” fire shots in anger. If Trump “really wants the territory”, he “can apply deeply painful leverage until he gets his way”.

Denmark – and Europe – “have few cards to play in the world of might-makes-right that Trump is ushering in”, said Marc Champion on Bloomberg. Their “entire economic and security postures” have been built “around the rules and alliance-based order that the US created for its friends” after the Second World War. “Now they’re too dependent on US arms to resist as he tears it down, with a strong assist from the likes of Vladimir Putin.”

Today Starmer joined other European leaders for a “coalition of the willing” summit at France’s Elysée Palace, during which “Europe will again seek US security guarantees for Ukraine”, said George Eaton in The New Statesman. For those wondering why Europe has been so cautious in their criticism of Trump’s Greenland claims, here is a “key part of the answer”.

What next?

I would wager that Trump will use his leverage “to get what he wants in Greenland through some means short of outright annexation”, said The Telegraph’s Ashworth-Hayes. He could look to trade America’s continued support with Europe’s eastern defence for a greater US security presence in the Arctic. In this case, “the diplomatic side will be smoothed over” but “the fault-lines will still exist”.

There is a belated acceptance in European capitals that they need to be less reliant on Washington. At the same time, there is still some wishful thinking that Trump’s new-found expansionism is a temporary aberration. “We know who our allies no longer are. It’s just we are still hoping we are wrong and the problem will go away,” a senior EU official told the Financial Times. “We know what needs to be done, we just need to bloody do it.”

“Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem,” Polish prime minister Donald Tusk posted on X. “Unless something has changed.”

Tusk was reacting to the new US National Security Strategy, which has landed in European capitals at the weekend “like a bucket of cold water”, said The Wall Street Journal. Hailed by Russia as aligning “in many ways” with “our vision”, the explosive 30-page document criticises the “unrealistic expectations” of “European officials” backing Ukraine. It also castigates the EU for “censorship of free speech”, praises the “growing influence of patriotic” political parties, and warns of the “civilizational erasure” of Europe.

Signalling a more isolationist approach to Donald Trump’s foreign policy, the document declares “the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over”.

What did the commentators say?

This “grenade” of a policy paper will have stunned European leaders by revealing “the depth of ideological vehemence within the White House”, said Ishaan Tharoor in The Washington Post.

The “pointed criticisms” of Europe, cast as “tough love advice”, stand in marked contrast to the document’s “approach to traditional US rivals”, said Daniel Michaels, David Luhnow and Max Colchester in The Wall Street Journal. Russia “isn’t mentioned a single time as a possible threat to US interests” and China, North Korea and the Middle East receive surprisingly little attention.

European leaders should “assume that the traditional trans-Atlantic relationship is dead,” Katja Bego from the Chatham House think tank told the paper. It’s “the mother of all wake-up calls for Europe”, historian Timothy Garton Ash added. “It essentially declares outright opposition to the European Union. It’s J.D. Vance’s notorious speech in Munich but on steroids and as official US policy.”

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has sought to downplay European concerns, conceding that “some” of the US criticism is “true”. Europe “has been underestimating its own power towards Russia,” she told a panel at the Doha Forum in Qatar this weekend. “We should be more self-confident.”

What next?

Since Trump’s return to the White House, “European leaders have kept up a remarkable performance of remaining calm amid his provocations, so far avoiding an open conflict that would sever transatlantic relations entirely”, said Tim Ross on Politico. But for centrists like Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, “the new Trump doctrine poses a challenge so existential that they may be forced to confront it head-on”.

But there’s a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Trump’s document. “By underplaying – and refraining from even referencing – the conventional threat Russia poses to transatlantic security”, it does nothing to “empower those nations that are working to take on greater defence responsibilities”, said Torrey Taussig, a director at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, on Atlantic Council.

Instead, this strategy paper “seeks to embolden” Europe’s “nationalist and populist parties”, who would probably “cut defence budgets and downplay the conventional threats”. In this sense, the document is an “own goal that undermines the administration’s stated objectives” of “shifting the burden of defence onto the shoulders of European allies”.

The latest Ukraine peace talks with Vladimir Putin have failed again to make a breakthrough, and Europe has begun to think the unthinkable. In the face of Russia’s increasing cyberattacks, sabotage and violations of its airspace, it’s making plans to be more aggressive – economically and militarily.

The European Commission is moving ahead with plans to further fund Ukraine, either with a loan based on Russia’s frozen assets or a loan based on common borrowing. And, with Russian “drones and agents unleashing attacks across Nato countries”, Europe is “doing what would have seemed outlandish just a few years ago”, said Politico. It’s “planning how to hit back”.

What did the commentators say?

Russian “hybrid attacks” on European countries – GPS jamming, drone-buzzing, election interference, ship or aircraft incursions – have been going on for years “but the sheer scale and frequency” right now is “unprecedented”, said Victor Jack and Laura Kayali on Politico. Such an aggressive testing of Europe’s limits has prompted calls for a step up in response, with ideas ranging from “joint offensive cyber operations” to “surprise Nato-led military exercises”.

Many diplomats – “particularly those from eastern European countries” – have “urged Nato to stop being merely reactive”, said Richard Milne in the Financial Times. We are thinking of “being more aggressive or more proactive”, Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of Nato’s military committee, told Milne. “A pre-emptive strike” could even be considered a “defensive action”. The Russian foreign ministry swiftly called Dragone’s comments “extremely irresponsible” and a sign that Nato is “moving towards escalation”.

Nato has successfully countered hybrid attacks before. Its Baltic Sentry ship and air patrols stopped the cutting of undersea cables in 2023 and 2024 “by vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet”, said the FT’s Milne. But there are “still worries in the alliance” about such measures.

Putin “may see the EU and Nato as rivals or even enemies” but Europe “does not want war with a nuclear-armed Russia”, said Jack and Kayali in Politico. “It has to figure out how to respond in a way that deters Moscow but does not cross any Kremlin red lines that could lead to open warfare”.

“The ratcheting up of the Ukraine conflict into what is perceived as a European war is already well underway,” said Laura Tingle on ABC News. Though Putin has called it “laughable” that Russia could attack Europe, it’s “no laughing matter to a host of European political and military leaders”. The discourse “is all getting very alarming (or alarmist, depending on your perspective)”. It’s clear that “something has now been unleashed in Europe which is going to be hard to put back in the bottle”.

What next?

“Europe’s efforts to rearm” have publicly “moved into overdrive” but “behind the headlines lies a more uneven reality”, said Anna Conkling in the Brussels-based The Parliament magazine. Europe is still “split between countries rapidly expanding their militaries and those still constrained by years of underinvestment and fiscal fragility”.

Some states are powering ahead, while “others drag their feet”, risking a “two-speed defence model“ that could leave Europe “dangerously exposed”. This means “the buy-in of the largest countries” is “all the more important for Europe’s defence to reach a critical mass”.

Emmanuel Macron has said a new voluntary national service programme in France, announced today, is not about “sending our youth to Ukraine” to fight.

The growing realisation that Russian aggression could “easily spill into Europe” has put “intense pressure” on countries across the continent to “quickly expand the ranks of full-time soldiers and reservists that shrank during the post-Cold War peace”, said The New York Times.

“Yet the question of how to recruit hundreds of thousands of service members is prompting fierce and soul-searching debates.”

What did the commentators say?

France’s new national service plan “stops short” of full conscription, said France 24. Lasting 10 months, with volunteers paid for their service, it is “expected to start modestly”, recruiting 2,000 to 3,000 people in the first year, before “ramping up” with a long-term goal of 50,000 per year.

“Some countries in Europe already have a form of a conscription”, said The Times, notably those “closest to Russian borders” such as Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania. But the war in Ukraine, and the so-called “grey zone” activities carried out by the Kremlin such as drone incursions into Nato airspace, “have reignited the debate across the continent”.

In Poland, “plans are under way for every man to go through military training”, said The New York Times, as the government aims to more than double the size of its army to 500,000. In the hope of also growing its fighting force from 70,000 to 200,000 by 2030, Denmark recently expanded its military conscription programme to include women turning 18 who are entered into a conscription lottery. Croatia has gone further, voting in October to reintroduce compulsory military service, which was suspended in 2008.

Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, this month opted for a “new military service” made up initially of a volunteer force that mirrors a system used in Sweden, where a questionnaire is sent out to all 18-year-olds. Conscription, which ended in 2011, “is not compulsory under the new rules but this model does include the potential for that”, said DW.

It marks the “first unmistakable shift in German security policy for a generation”, said Henry Donovan in The Spectator. Far from being an “overreaction” as some claim, “it is the minimum a serious country does when confronted with the concrete possibility of war on its own continent”.

Britain should also “pay close attention”. Up to now the UK government has ruled out reintroducing conscription (which was abolished in 1960) to boost its number of military personnel, instead favouring a recruitment drive by the Ministry of Defence.

What next?

Security and defence analysts, as well as Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have warned that Russia could be ready to expand its war into Europe within the next five years.

Even with countries vowing to “do a better job of attracting volunteers to fulfil national targets and commitments to Nato”, the “outlook for meeting targets is dim”, said The New York Times. “Retention rates remain low in many countries, reserve schemes are uneven and recruitment has dwindled in ageing societies with low unemployment,” the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a European think tank, concluded in a recent report.

The problem is that less than a third of EU citizens appear willing to fight for their country in a war, according to a 2024 poll by Gallup.

“Even if conscription would help address issues with military recruitment, in many countries it could be socially and politically controversial to the point that it reinforces polarisation, leads to backlash or social/political unrest, and undermines the wider security benefits that could be gained from it,” Linda Slapakova, from research institute RAND Europe, told Euronews.

This view was summed up by France’s chief of the defence staff, General Fabien Mandon, last week. While France has the economic and demographic power to defeat Moscow, it lacked the “spirit” in society to stand up to the threat, he said. “If our country falters because it is not prepared to accept – let’s be honest – to lose its children, to suffer economically because defence production will take precedence, then we are at risk.”

As Europe ramps up defence spending in the face of the growing threat posed by Russia, states on Nato’s eastern flank are turning to a more unusual line of defence: bogs.

“Water has played a role in defensive strategy for millennia,” said the Financial Times. Germanic tribes used peatland to defeat the Romans, while Holland mastered strategic flooding to ward off invasion by Spain and France. The great Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz thought that bogs were among “the strongest lines of defence”.

‘Let nature fight for you’

This was shown to devastating effect in 2022 when, in a desperate bid to stop the Russian army’s advance on Kyiv, Ukrainian authorities decided to blow up a massive Soviet-era dam to the north of the capital that had long contained the Irpin River.

The “desperate gamble” paid off, said The Telegraph, flooding a long-lost wetland basin and turning the land into “an almighty, impassable swamp that helped shield the city as Russian tanks languished in thick, black sludge. The drastic measure sent a message: let nature fight for you in war. Countries along Nato’s frontier took note.”

By chance, “most of the European Union’s peatlands are located on Nato’s border with Russia and Belarus”, said Defence 24. They stretch from the Finnish Arctic, through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, across the Suwalki Gap – judged by many to be the most likely point of attack in a future Russian confrontation with Nato – and on to eastern Poland.

Finland has already begun a bog-restoration pilot close to its border with Russia, while Poland plans to revive and expand peatland and forests as part of its £1.9 billion East Shield fortification.

“If there are natural stops on the border such as swamps or bogs or lakes… then that helps us,” said Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal.

‘Fusing defence and climate’

Restoring bogs and wetlands along Nato’s eastern flank would be “relatively cheap and straightforward” and fuse “two European priorities that increasingly compete for attention and funding: defence and climate”, said Politico.

Bogs store a huge amount of CO2 and, when drained, release carbon into the atmosphere, fuelling global warming. The problem is particularly acute in Europe, which has seen over half its bogs lost or converted to farmland. Wary of the environmental impact, the EU has set a goal of reviving 30% of degraded peatlands by 2030.

The problem up until now has been securing funding for this. “At a time when Europe focuses on security and resources are allocated to defence”, scientists hope that “acknowledging the military significance of bogs will accelerate their renaturation and secure unprecedented financial resources”, said Defence 24.

“There are not many things that environmental activists and defence officials agree on and here we find great common ground,” Finnish MP Pauli Aalto-Setälä told The Telegraph.

“Russia is at war with Europe,” said Ivo Daalder on Politico. It has been attacking Ukraine for over a decade now, “with increasing ferocity since its full-scale invasion in 2022”. Now, though, it is increasingly waging a “wider war”. Until recently, European nations have preferred to see Moscow’s operations – “the assassinations, cyberattacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns” as falling into “a grey zone beneath the level of armed conflict”.

But over the past month, its escalating incursions have become hard to ignore. Russian drones have been launched at Poland and Romania. Fighter jets have invaded Estonian airspace. Russian aircraft have buzzed a German frigate in the Baltic. Unidentified drones have brought Danish airports to a standstill. Europe’s leaders are slowly starting to recognise the reality. “We are not at war,” said Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, this week, “but we are no longer at peace either.”

‘Systematic disruption’

“Russia’s aim is to sow division,” said Edward Lucas in The Times. It is in “some difficulty” in Ukraine. Its offensive has stalled. Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries are causing fuel shortages and growing economic pain (VAT is set to rise). But instead of coming to the table, Vladimir Putin is “cranking up attacks on Ukraine’s European backers”. He hopes that “systematic disruption” will convince many Europeans that the price of helping Ukraine is too high. Sending jets into Nato airspace is designed “to plant corrosive, highly specific dilemmas in our minds”. Are we really willing to risk war with Russia over a sliver of northern Estonia? Would the US back up its Nato allies? Until it meets solid resistance, Russia “will seek to intimidate us”.

Still, it’s hard to calibrate the response, said Taz Ali in The Independent. It’s one thing for Poland, with its large air force, to promise to shoot down any Russian jet in its airspace. But are the Italian fighters patrolling the Baltic really going to call Putin’s bluff?

‘Invoking war’?

Russian subversion and sabotage certainly pose a threat, said Mark Galeotti in The Spectator. But is the situation “apocalyptic” enough to merit the word “war”? So far, the main costs to Europe’s nations have been “airport delays” and “essentially trivial Russian airspace violations”. The truth is that both Russian and Western leaders are “invoking war” for political ends.

In Russia, as the economic costs begin to mount, claiming that the nation is at war with Nato helps to make sacrifices more “palatable”. It’s the same story in the rest of Europe. It’s clear that Donald Trump expects Europeans to foot the bill for Ukraine’s conflict. The talk of war makes it easier to “accept the price to be paid”.

This month, Russian drones and fighter jets have encroached on the airspace of several Nato countries, including Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Estonia. And unidentified drone sightings have caused disruption at airports in Denmark.

These incursions, said Politico, raise “difficult questions” for the Nato alliance. Although “Moscow insists it’s done nothing wrong”, Poland has shot down some of the drones that flew over its skies, and several Nato nations are warning that “they’re ready to shoot down Russian aircraft entering their airspace”.

What did the commentators say?

The central question is whether or not it was Russia’s deliberate intention to breach Nato airspace. There is “no consensus view” on this among member states, said CNN, after speaking to “a dozen senior US and Western military, intelligence and diplomatic” officials. That puts the alliance in an “uncomfortable position”.

The Estonian incident – in which three MiG-31 fighter jets flew over the Baltic Sea for 12 minutes with their transponders off and without communicating with air traffic control – “appears hard to write off as a mistake”, said Archie Bland in The Guardian.

But there is a “fundamental difference” between Moscow’s and Nato’s rules of engagement, Charly Salonius-Pasternak, of the Helsinki-based Nordic West Office think tank, told Politico. “Russia has said they think they are in a military conflict” with the West but “we do not see it that way”. Nato’s parameters do not require the immediate use of force in response to an assumed incursion during peacetime. Nobody would “start World War Three because of this”, Ukrainian military analyst Mykola Bielieskov told the news site.

What next?

Nato’s response to “Russia’s reckless acts will continue to be robust”, said the North Atlantic Council. And the option of “shooting down a Russian jet that is intruding on our airspace is on the table”, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen yesterday. On the sidelines of this week’s UN General Assembly in New York, Donald Trump said he believed this is an option Nato countries should take.

But even shooting down Russian drones could be a challenge, said Yasir Atalan on Foreign Policy. The West will find it hard to do so “at a sustainable cost”. The price of scrambling fighter jets or deploying expensive missiles is much, much higher than what Russia is spending on each drone. Nato countries will need to follow Ukraine in finding “cheaper options, such as interceptor drones and energy lasers”, if they intend to withstand “large-scale drone attacks”.

Days after Polish and Nato forces scrambled to shoot down Russian drones that had flown into Poland’s airspace, Russian troops gathered in neighbouring Belarus for largescale war games; Indian and Iranian troops also participated. The Zapad 2025 exercises included a simulated nuclear strike. Although they were billed as defensive, analysts said they were designed to intimidate Europe.

In total, 19 drones crossed into Poland last Wednesday. Moscow’s allies claimed that they had strayed there accidentally, but days later, another Russian drone violated Romanian airspace. Warsaw said the incursion was a test of Nato’s defensive capabilities, and invoked Article 4, which brings a threat to the attention of its council. Nato then launched an operation to bolster its eastern flank. Donald Trump said he would impose tougher sanctions on Russia – but only if all Nato members stop buying Russian oil and gas and slap heavy tariffs on China.

‘Chinks in the alliance’s armour’

The sheer scale of the incursion into Poland makes it clear that this was a “calculated escalation” by Vladimir Putin”, said The Daily Telegraph. Emboldened by Trump’s indulgence, he wanted to see if Nato had the resolve to respond. Poland has painful recent experience of invasion and occupation, said The Independent. So its PM Donald Tusk’s warning that the prospect of conflict in Europe is “closer than at any time since the Second World War”, has to be taken seriously: this was the first time in Nato’s history that its member states have had to directly attack Russian forces, albeit unmanned ones.

Fortunately, for all Trump’s vacillations, Nato was still strong enough to answer the call. Yet there are “chinks in the alliance’s armour”, said The Times. Two of its members, Hungary and Slovakia, are “virtual allies of Russia”. And the leader of the US, its most powerful member, treats the Ukraine War as a “business opportunity”. Trump is making European nations buy US weapons to give to Kyiv; now he’s trying to stop them buying Russian gas, to boost sales of US liquefied natural gas.

Warning shots

Ever since Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Western strategists have been asking who the Kremlin would target next, said Mark Almond in the Daily Mail. The consensus was that “small, militarily weak nations on Russia’s border”, such as Latvia or Estonia, would be the target. Yet instead, Putin picked Poland, a country which spends nearly 5% of its GDP on defence – the highest share of any Nato member – and has the third-largest standing army in the alliance, after the US and Turkey.

Does this suggest we are “teetering on the edge of World War Three”? These warning shorts certainly expose our weaknesses, said Edward Lucas in The Times. “The US insists (rightly) that Europe must take the lead in standing up to Russia.” But without it, there is nothing like a unified European alliance. Political stances vary wildly, while even supportive nations, such as France, Spain and Belgium, flinch at the risk and the cost.

Trump’s ‘latest wheeze’

Europe’s Nato powers have more than enough air power to keep the Russians out, said Hamish de Bretton-Gordon in The Daily Telegraph. But they should go further, by establishing a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. This would save thousands of lives; and as a display of power, it could be the “catalyst to get Putin around the negotiating table”.

Nonsense, said Jennifer Kavanagh on UnHerd. Ukraine – in dire straits militarily – has an interest in exaggerating the Russian threat to Europe, to scare the continent into giving more aid. Instead of responding in a bellicose fashion, and risking a wider war, Western leaders should tamp down their rhetoric and “double down on diplomacy”.

Unfortunately, any diplomatic efforts are liable to be scuppered by Trump, said Jason Corcoran in The Moscow Times. His “latest wheeze” – promising to ramp up sanctions on Russia if Nato imposes tariffs of 50% to 100% on Chinese imports – is a “cynical stalling tactic”. He knows that this would be economic suicide for Europe. He is letting Moscow “off the hook, granting Putin much-needed breathing room as the war rages on”.

India’s participation in the Zapad war games, led by the highly respected Kumaon Regiment, has “raised eyebrows” amid signs that the US may be losing a “key ally” in Asia, says Lorraine Mallinder on Al Jazeera. But despite recent tensions over US tariffs, Trump confirmed last week that India and the US were continuing negotiations. Denmark announced on Wednesday that it would buy long-range precision missiles and drones, for the first time, to combat the threat from Russia. “Russia is testing us,” said Danish PM Mette Frederiksen.

Poland has spent the past several years watching anxiously as its neighbor, Ukraine, fends off an invasion by Russia. But following an incursion into Polish airspace on Wednesday by what Prime Minister Donald Tusk described as a “huge number of Russian drones,” Warsaw has taken the rare step to invoke Article 4 of the NATO charter.

The measure calls for member nations to “consult together” and determine if the “territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.” If so, the group can then invoke NATO’s Article 5, which calls for a unified and potentially armed response.

What did the commentators say?

The drone incursion into Polish airspace has “thrust NATO’s collective defense principles into the spotlight,” said Al Jazeera. While Poland is “not quite” ready to invoke Article 5, beginning Article 4 consultations is a “political precursor” to any militarized deliberations. But, said former United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller to NPR, Articles 4 and 5 are “separate,” and Poland's move is “not necessarily, by any means, a prelude” to a military response. Invoking Article 4 has “traditionally” been a way for member nations to “gather together quickly. The message is one of urgency.”

Russia’s “provocation” was designed to “check the mechanism of operation within NATO and our ability to react,” said Polish President Karol Nawrocki, per CNN. “Thank you, because we passed all these tests.”

Although Russia has denied responsibility for the drone incursions, the “violation last night is not an isolated incident,” said NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Wednesday. As the ”most serious European airspace violation by Russia since the war began,” said European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on X, “indications suggest it was intentional, not accidental.”

But Russian drones and missiles have “strayed into Polish territory” over the past few years “with no consequence,” said The Atlantic. By failing to “prepare properly for immediate threats, much less future war,” the NATO member states have demonstrated a “constant weakness,” which has in turn “emboldened Putin” by reinforcing the notion that affiliate countries have “no idea how to look after their own security.” Although the fewer than two dozen drones that breached Polish airspace were ultimately neutralized — the first time a NATO member state is “known to have fired shots in the war,” Reuters said — the incident offers “little reason for confidence” in NATO’s odds “if faced with 600 drones and missiles on a single night,” said The Atlantic.

What next?

Tusk has “pledged to push ahead” with what he called the Polish military's “great modernization program” this week, The Associated Press said. This is particularly with eyes toward the expected first delivery of U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, which are “part of a support package of 32 aircraft that was finalized five years ago,” said Foreign Policy. Dutch-piloted F-35 jets were among the NATO forces dispatched to take down the Russian drones over Poland. But, the incident has also “brought questions about the wisdom of using advanced fighter jets” against “relatively cheap drones,” said the AP.

There is meanwhile “no time limit on how long” the Article 4 consultations should last, Reuters said. The language of the rule is “flexible enough” that it allows each member nation to determine “how far to go in responding” to an attack.

Shortly after the drone attack, Poland closed its border with Russian ally Belarus, where the Russian military is conducting “Zapad” training exercises that are “very aggressive from a military doctrine perspective,” said Tusk. The closure is expected to remain in effect through early December, with Poland also sending 40,000 troops to the border region.

The “way ahead for NATO is clear,” said Foreign Policy. It must “immediately provide Ukraine with long-range strike weapons” capable of hitting targets in deep Russia, as well as “dramatically upgrade its own defenses along its eastern border.”

There is little precedent if NATO does ultimately invoke Article 5. That cornerstone of the group’s mutual assistance pact has only been “activated once before,” Reuters said, “on behalf of the United States, in response to the September 11, 2001, hijacked-plane attacks.”

What happened

Poland said early Wednesday that its military had shot down Russian drones that flew into its territory, prompting the closure or suspension of flights at Warsaw’s Chopin Airport and three smaller airports. Polish airspace was “violated by a huge number of Russian drones,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on social media. “Those drones that posed a direct threat were shot down” by Polish and NATO fighter jets. Poland’s military command called the incursion “an act of aggression.”

Who said what

Poland’s downing of Russian drones, during Moscow’s latest massive overnight aerial assault on neighboring Ukraine, was the first time a NATO member “has fired shots in the war,” Reuters said. It “feels like an escalation by Moscow — testing the West’s response,” BBC Eastern Europe correspondent Sarah Rainsford said. Lone Russian drones had crossed into NATO airspace previously, but this bunch “didn’t just stray into Poland. They went deep enough for even Warsaw airport to be closed.”

The incursion “occurred at a time of heightened tension,” as Russia and Belarus prepare for joint military exercises across the Polish border, The Wall Street Journal said. It also “comes at an especially sensitive time diplomatically,” Politico said, as President Donald Trump weighs “whether there is any genuine prospect of a peace deal with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.”

What next?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Russia’s “repeated violations of NATO airspace” offered “fair warning” that Putin “is testing our resolve to protect Poland and the Baltic nations,” and it “cannot be ignored.” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said Russia “attacking NATO ally Poland” was an “act of war” that Trump should respond to with sanctions “that will bankrupt the Russian war machine.”

President Donald Trump has long accused other NATO countries of being freeloaders, relying on the United States to provide the bulk of Europe's defense. Now those countries have pledged to ramp up their spending amid fears of an American pullout.

NATO leaders agreed to an "ambitious spending goal" at this week's summit, said The New York Times. They set a 2035 target of 5% of each country's national income on defense needs like "troops, weapons, shells and missiles." That more than doubles the current 2% goal, which is a "win for Trump." Some countries "may never reach these targets," though. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain said his country would spend "no more, no less" than 2.1% of its GDP on defense, and small countries like Slovakia and Belgium said the 5% goal will "be impossible to meet."

Most European countries "can ill-afford to spend 5%" on defense, said Reuters. The new goal will force some "unpalatable sacrifices" to domestic spending budgets as governments shift spending from butter to guns, and it will also require some "creative accounting" to classify current spending as defense-related. NATO allies agreed to the goal, however, as they worried about Trump's threats to pull America out of the alliance. That will likely leave European countries with a "less generous" welfare state, said Bruegel think tank fellow Guntram Wolff.

What did the commentators say?

Trump is "right that Europe needs to do more," The Washington Post said in an editorial. NATO is the "most effective, powerful and vital military alliance" in world history, but America cannot "bear a disproportionate share" of the cost. And while the U.S. commitment "should remain ironclad," Europe needs to take up more of the burden so that Washington can "make major investments" to confront the rise of China. It should be worth it to Europe: NATO is "worth fighting, and spending, to preserve."

NATO's 5% goal "misses the mark," Todd Harrison said at The Hill. Setting an "arbitrary target" for defense spending is "bad policy for both the alliance and America." The target "puts the budget ahead of strategy" and makes defense spending "subject to the whims" of the business cycle. A better approach would start with determining NATO's actual defensive needs and setting budget goals from there. The amount of spending is important, "but how we spend it is even more important."

What next?

"Key questions" still hover over NATO despite the American president's "big win," said CNN. Trump declined to offer a "full-throated endorsement" of NATO's commitment to collective self-defense that would obligate the United States to come to Europe's aid in the event of a Russian attack. America is "committed to being their friends, and I'm committed to helping them," Trump said. NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte is satisfied. The U.S. is , said Rutte, "totally committed to NATO."

What happened

President Donald Trump Wednesday reversed course on his longstanding skepticism of NATO, hailing the trans-Atlantic military alliance as "not a rip-off" at a summit in the Netherlands. Member nations pledged to increase their military budgets to 5% of GDP in the coming decade, rectifying a longtime complaint by Trump. Spain declined to commit to the NATO spending goals, however, prompting Trump to threaten Madrid with "twice as much" tariffs.

Who said what

Trump's "fit of pique" against Spain was the exception to "what was otherwise a cheerful victory lap" for the famously NATO-adverse leader, Politico said. Even if the NATO countries "spend unevenly," The New York Times said, the ultimate result of yesterday's agreement should be a "very large increase in Europe's military spending."

Trump's "full-throated endorsement of NATO and its defense mission" was also the "payoff of a major effort by other NATO members to flatter him," The Washington Post said. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's "charm offensive" included a night in a Dutch royal palace, CNN said, plus "kowtowing" praise and a "jokey aside" about Trump's Iran-Israel F-bomb: "Daddy  has to sometimes use strong language." And there was a "growing sense" Rutte had "pulled off a diplomatic masterstroke."

"I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing," Trump said during an hourlong press conference in The Hague. "But I left here a little bit different."

What next?

As "political theater," the summit "won over its intended audience: Trump," Reuters said. But most NATO members "can ill-afford to spend 5% of output on defense," so expect some "creative accounting" along with "unpalatable sacrifices in national budgets." This is "where the rubber hits the road," Rachel Rizzo, a European defense expert at the Atlantic Council, told the Times. With the U.S. signaling a pullback from Europe, NATO nations must show their defense spending can "translate into hard military capabilities" soon.

"Daddy has to sometimes use strong language."

That was the Nato's Secretary General Mark Rutte's assessment of Donald Trump's expletive-laden criticism yesterday of Israel and Iran, with Rutte's obsequious language a hallmark of today's Nato summit where the US president was pandered to at every turn, but at what cost?

It was an "extraordinary spectacle" at the summit, Lewis Goodall posted on X. Trump isn't being treated by Rutte and fellow world leaders now as a partner or equal, "but rather a sort of world king with themselves relegated as courtiers".

What did the commentators say?

Nato leaders were "flattering, toadying, buying into Trump's frequent nonsenses and half-truths and treating him as something different than before, because he is", said Goodall. "It's reflective of their weakness, and Trump's strength."

In one sense it appears to have worked, with Donald Trump telling ​​reporters "we're with them all the way" when it comes to Article 5, despite earlier casting doubt on his commitment to the alliance's mutual defence guarantees.

Rutte "designed this summit around Trump", said BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. To "flatter him" he has managed to build consensus amongst members for "massive hikes in defence spending, to show that Europeans would now take more responsibility for their own security".

On the big takeaway from the summit – the commitment for Nato countries to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 – Trump can rightly claim victory.

On this, at least, he is correct that "Europe needs to become more self-sufficient", said The Washington Post. Though the US commitment to the alliance "should remain iron-clad, Washington must also make major investments in other theatres", as the recent strike on Iran and rising threat of China has shown.

What next?

But for all of Trump's chutzpah the biggest issue facing Nato – Ukraine – remains unresolved. In the final declaration of the summit, there is no mention of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

It is telling that, unlike previous summits, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was also not invited to the closed-door leaders' session.

The lack of further concrete commitments will no doubt be "disappointing" for Ukraine, Jamie Shea, a former Nato spokesperson and deputy assistant secretary general, told The Guardian, "especially as most allies would have wanted much stronger language on support, the open door for Ukraine's Nato membership and a clearer path on sanctions against Russia".

What the last week has shown "is we're living in a world where the truly special relationship America has under Trump isn't with Nato, it's with Israel", said Goodall. While there is "no doubt Trump would defend Israel when it's under threat", there cannot be the same certainty about Europe.

Keir Starmer has finally unveiled his long-awaited Strategic Defence Review but there are already questions about how much it will really achieve, and when.

The 130-page report of the review, led by former Nato secretary general Lord Robertson, sets out the UK's defence strategy for the next decade. It calls for a move to a "war-fighting readiness" and the creation of a "defence dividend", using security investment to drive growth. Facilitating this will be a move to a "New Hybrid Navy", combining aircraft, drones, warships and 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines, a "10-times more lethal army" and a "next generation RAF", among a host of other recommendations.

It is a "plan for transformation", Defence Secretary John Healey told MPs, but its critics are already asking where the money will be found to back up its lofty rhetoric.

What did the commentators say?

The review is "systematic and detailed, but it remains an exercise in tightly bounded ambition", said The Guardian's editorial board. "It speaks of daily cyberattacks and undersea sabotage but proposes no systemic institutional overhaul or acute surge in resilience."

Among its "provisos" are its "terms of reference, which were extraordinarily restrictive", said The Spectator. This meant that those leading the review "were not able to consider the future of the nuclear deterrent; the pre-eminence of Nato in the UK's defence policy planning; any aspect of military or financial assistance to Ukraine; the UK's commitments in the Indo-Pacific, the Gulf and the Middle East, or significant examination of spending levels and requirements". While "not a bad document", it is a "disappointing one" that fails to set out a "clear strategic purpose and narrative".

Given Britain's ever-growing security concerns, the review "should be about more than missiles and missions", said The Guardian. "It must also be about whether the country can keep the lights on, the gas flowing, the internet up and the truth intact. This review sees the threats, but not yet the system needed to confront them. In that gap lies the peril."

What next?

This is the first defence review since 1989 not to recommend a cut to the armed forces and it has already been "overshadowed by a row over money", said The Independent.

The government has committed to raising defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% by 2027, with the "ambition" to go to 3% by the end of the next parliament. The failure of the PM and his defence secretary to commit fully to the 3% increase "is not only infuriating but disturbing", and raises serious questions about whether the review "is of any value at all", said The Times' editorial board.

The "problem with this evasion" is that it "does the opposite of deterring potential adversaries. The Russians know all about Potemkin villages and they can spot a Potemkin defence policy."

With Donald Trump already calling for member states to go beyond 3% of GDP spending on defence, the defence review will "not cut the mustard" when it comes to deterring Russian aggression, Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, told Times Radio. "It's like saying to Adolf Hitler, 'Please don't attack us till 1946 because we're not going to be ready.'"

The Arctic is "fast becoming an area of intense focus for geopolitical competition", said Foreign Secretary David Lammy during his recent visit to the region.

Russia has long eyed control over the Arctic for its military and economic significance. During Lammy's visit to Norway and Iceland, he observed joint military exercises between the UK and Norway – a show of strength from Western allies in what is becoming an increasingly important strategic area.

Who owns the Arctic?

While no country owns the Arctic itself, there are eight countries whose territory extends into the Arctic Circle: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, the US, Finland, Sweden and Iceland.

These countries are members of the Arctic Council, which acts as a forum for cooperation in the region, although Moscow has largely been sidelined since the invasion of Ukraine. None of them is able to stake a claim to the area, but they can operate in their respective exclusive economic zones, which extend 200 nautical miles from their coastlines. Within this radius, they are able to extract natural resources, fish and build offshore energy infrastructure, among other things.

Why is the region so important?

The Arctic is a frontier between Russia and Nato nations; in particular, it's the only direct boundary between the US and Russia – the maritime border through the Bering Strait – making control of the Arctic strategically important for both nations.

Its global significance, however, goes far beyond just military worth. The Arctic is sought-after for its shipping routes and wealth of natural resources. Climate change is warming the area and could, in time, make it possible for ships to pass directly over the North Pole.

That is a particular attraction to both Russia and China, who could significantly cut down the distance their ships need to travel for international trade. Beijing has, in recent years, declared itself a "near-Arctic state", said Modern Diplomacy, and laid out plans for a Polar Silk Road that passes through the Arctic.

The area also holds vast quantities of untapped natural resources, including oil and gas, making it an alluring prospect for the world's superpowers.

Why is interest intensifying now?

In the next five years, the Arctic region is likely to warm 3.5 times faster than the rest of the world, according to the UN's World Meteorological Organization. That means more routes are opening up for trade and military vessels, and more natural resources are becoming accessible as the ice melts.

Nato allies are also acutely aware of the threat posed by Russian aggression, and the strategic importance of not allowing military control of the Arctic to fall into Vladimir Putin's hands, giving him access to the North Atlantic.

Klaus Dodds, geopolitics professor at Royal Holloway, told Sky News that less sea ice in the Arctic will likely attract "heightened commercial and military activity by third parties that are not allies of the UK, primarily Russia and China".

With the US no longer a "reliable ally", Russia will "continue to target critical infrastructure in the North Atlantic and European Arctic – all of which may be ever more accessible".

What is the UK doing in the Arctic?

Since it invaded Ukraine, Moscow has increased its presence in the Arctic, "further heightening the risk of confrontation", said Lammy, which is why the UK is taking "action to deter threats".

That action has included naval patrols alongside Norwegian ships, as well as a new AI monitoring scheme in conjunction with Iceland that can detect hostile state activity, said The Telegraph.

The Foreign Office said it has already used sanctions to prevent a Turkish-built Russian floating dock, which could be used to repair its nuclear icebreaker fleet in the Arctic, from being towed to its destination, leaving it floating in the Mediterranean.

Today Europe commemorates the 80th anniversary of what is known as Victory in Europe (VE Day): the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of the Second World War.

It was so named to "reflect the fact that US and British troops fought on in the Pacific" until the defeat of Japan in August 1945, said The Telegraph.

But Donald Trump has announced that the US would "strip any mention of Europe" from its celebration. The president said VE Day would be known in the US as "Victory Day for World War Two" and "appeared to downplay the role of European forces in defeating Nazism".

His second presidency has been marked by his undermining of Nato, the alliance formed to provide security in the aftermath of the war, as well as his administration's denigration of European allies and his punitive trade tariffs on the EU. Continent-wide rearmament and bolstering of defence spending suggest Europe fears a future without the protection of its once strongest ally. As European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said last month: "The West no longer exists."

What did the commentators say?

There was a "moving ceremony" in Normandy last year to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day, said Roger Cohen in The New York Times. It was a "celebration of the ironclad alliance" between Europe and the US, and their "shared resolve" to defend Ukraine. I never imagined "so much so dear to so many could unravel so fast".

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has been "absolved of responsibility for the war he started" by the US president – a "perennial coddler of autocrats". Trump has "taken a wrecking ball to the postwar order".

The rhetoric from Washington is becoming "increasingly feisty", said The Associated Press. Europeans "fear the break-up of the transatlantic bonds that were a core of global politics for almost a century".

A YouGov poll in March suggested that most Western Europeans view Trump as a threat to peace and security in Europe. "The naive belief that the Americans will, by definition, always be an ally – once and for all, that is gone," said Hendrik Vos, European studies professor at Ghent University.

Naive is right, said Katya Adler, Europe editor of the BBC. True, the US gave Europe "post-war security guarantees", but the founding of Nato wasn't "American altruism"; it was "a marriage of convenience". The US was worried about the spread of communism. By "swooping in" to help Europe, it gained "a geostrategic foothold on the Soviet Union's doorstep". Now, it no longer sees Russia as a threat.

Plus, not all of Europe benefited from that marriage. Unlike Western Europe, much of Central and Eastern Europe emerged from Nazi occupation only to "end up under communist regimes – whether they liked it or not".

And despite "countless" analyses painting Trump as "the slayer-in-chief of decades-old common values", the US withdrawal from Europe long predates him. It has viewed China as "strategic threat number one" for some time, concentrating foreign policy on Asia during the two previous administrations.

Despite "all the European hand wringing", there is also recognition that, 80 years after the original VE Day, it is "high time" it takes responsibility for its own defence. And in that, some see "potential".

What next?

Denzil Davidson, a former Foreign Office and No. 10 adviser, told Politico that the lack of support from Trump could offer "a serious opportunity" for Britain to step up in Europe, suggesting greater alignment.

Overall, Europe is "not waiting" for Trump's "next swerve", said Cohen in The New York Times. Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and France's President Emmanuel Macron are seeking independence from Washington. The Franco-German alliance has "always been the engine" of the EU. "If it kicks into overdrive, the rearmament of Europe, as a military power but also as a guardian of the values for which America fought in World War II, seems plausible over the medium term."

And despite the "current mood of pessimism", it is important to remember that the hopes on 8 May 1945 for a better world have "largely been fulfilled", said The Times. The allied forces "saved the free world from a savage tyranny". "Neither the sacrifices of the dead nor the optimism of the survivors were in vain."

The UK has announced a further £450 million of military support for Ukraine after Kyiv claimed that Russia's much-anticipated "spring offensive" has already begun.

Moscow is increasing its attacks around the border regions of Sumy and Kharkiv, said Ukraine's top military commander Oleksandr Syrsky, and this renewed fighting could have a significant influence on the outcome of the war.

What did the commentators say?

Analysts, including the UK's Ministry of Defence, said that Russia's "rate of advance" has been "in steady decline" over the "challenging" winter months. It has gone down from about 730 square kilometres captured in November to just 143 in March, said CNN.

But the arrival of spring can make it easier to advance because the ground hardens, so armoured vehicles and soldiers can move more easily.

Moscow's latest attacks on Sumy "might entail a real effort to occupy the area", said The Economist, or they might just be "a relentless series of attacks aimed at tying down Ukrainian troops and creating a buffer zone".

It's thought "these assaults" are "part of a spring offensive by Russia", said the BBC, and Kyiv believes Moscow is "preparing for a major renewed assault", with tens of thousands of troops thought to have "gathered along the border".

Moving into the region of Dnipropetrovsk would be "a significant moment", said CNN, because Russian troops haven't yet "set foot there" so it would be the first new Ukrainian region to come under "part-Russian occupation" since the early weeks of the conflict. Putin could use the area as a "useful bargaining chip" in future negotiations.

Despite the "downbeat assessments", it's "important to keep some perspective" because the amount of territory Russia is capturing "remains small". But Putin's recent conscription drive and Moscow's ongoing "aerial onslaught" point "more to a campaign of attrition" than any plan to "stop" the fighting.

As for the ceasefire, it's "frayed to the point of collapse", said Radio Free Europe. Kyiv and Moscow are both continuing daily attacks, "utilising scores of drones and powerful missiles".

What next?

This is "the critical year for the war in Ukraine, and this is the critical moment", said John Healey, the UK's defence secretary this morning. He was addressing members of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, an alliance of about 50 countries that have supported Kyiv, at Nato's headquarters in Brussels. "We stand with you in the fight and we stand with you in the peace," Healey told Ukraine.

The "whole idea" of the Western allies' latest moves is to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position" and so "pile the pressure" on Putin to accelerate the "currently slow-moving" talks on a ceasefire, said Politico – "though that hasn't worked out so far".

Vice President J.D. Vance went to Greenland last week to "make the case for a U.S. takeover," said Clarissa-Jan Lim in MSNBC.com, and was met with a "frosty reception." Vance joined his wife, Usha, for a daylong visit to a U.S. military base, which came amid President Trump's calls for the U.S. to annex the self-governing Danish territory. In a press conference there, Vance said Greenlanders would fare "a lot better" under "the United States' security umbrella" than under Denmark's, and admonished Denmark for "underinvesting" in the territory. But it was a message few seemed interested in hearing. What had been planned as a three-day trip by Usha Vance was dialed back after an "uproar among local officials" and residents; Greenland Prime Minister Mute B. Egede called the visit a "provocation" and declined to meet with U.S. officials. But Trump only doubled down, saying "we have to have Greenland" and refusing to rule out the use of military force.

It's a remarkable turn of events, said Walter Russell Mead in The Wall Street Journal. For anyone who believes U.S. foreign policy should be guided by partnerships with allies, "respect for international law, and due regard for ethics," Trump's threats toward a NATO ally are "a political absurdity and a moral monstrosity." He risks "blowing up" both NATO and the "framework of international laws and norms" that has guided the post-war era. And for what? Trump says U.S. control of Greenland is key to national security, but Denmark has made clear it is open to the U.S. basing additional forces there. The Vance visit, which included national security adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, underscored Trump's "territorial ambitions," said David E. Sanger in The New York Times. Over it hung a mystery: "How far Trump is willing to go to achieve his goal."

Don't underestimate the threat here, said Nick Catoggio in The Dispatch. There's a temptation to believe Trump is making chess moves, and that his ulterior aim is to seek expanded access to the island, or signal to NATO that "limiting Russian and Chinese access to the Atlantic" must be a higher priority. But over and over we've seen that failing to take Trump at face value is a mistake. He's telling us that nothing short of annexing Greenland will do, and by now we should understand: "When he says he's going to do something crazy, believe him."

British military chiefs will head to Ukraine within days to advance plans for a peacekeeping force.

Keir Starmer has laid out plans for a "coalition of the willing": a UK/French-led mission of multiple nations that would uphold a potential ceasefire deal with Russia. That coalition is "ready to operationalise" a peacekeeping force if a deal is agreed, Starmer said yesterday, after hosting military officials in London all week.

Emmanuel Macron also hosted leaders from about 30 countries in Paris yesterday to firm up what this "coalition of the willing" could do. And in a "change in language", said The i Paper, the French president said after the meeting that a "reassurance force" from several European nations would be positioned in "strategic towns" and bases in Ukraine to "act as a deterrent against potential Russian aggression". And "question marks remain" over whether the US will provide vital security guarantees for such a force.

What did the commentators say?

Starmer's "moral clarity on support for Kyiv" has "contributed to a sense of European solidarity" in the face of US retreat, said The Independent.

But that doesn't erase the "very real complexities" of this nascent plan. It's not clear which countries would commit troops – the EU has its own "disagreements and shadings of commitment, from Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia at one end, to France at the other". Italy isn't expected to take part; Giorgia Meloni described deploying European troops to Ukraine as "risky, complex and ineffective". The "mismatch" between Nato's European members and a potential EU force also "needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency".

"If you are talking about deploying troops to Ukraine, it is almost like they have joined Nato already," said Lord West, former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff. "I don't think Russia will be very happy about this," he told The i Paper.

Indeed, the plan has already attracted "open hostility" in Moscow, said Con Coughlin, The Telegraph's defence editor. And the Russian president's "dismissive attitude" to ceasefire proposals so far has exposed the coalition's "utter vacuity". One of Vladimir Putin's "key demands" to Donald Trump was for a "total ban on all international aid to Ukraine" – which would surely include peacekeepers. It is "almost inconceivable" that Europe could deploy a force to Ukraine without Russian agreement.

Starmer "got ahead of himself with talk of boots on the ground", a UK military source told The Telegraph. That's why we now hear more about "jets and vessels" – air and sea support – which don't need to be based in Ukraine. This is "all political theatre".

But air and sea support would still require US intelligence and cover, and there is "no indication of that being on offer", said Andrew Marr in The New Statesman. This "seemingly independent" European plan "leans entirely" on Washington, where it is also being "derided". Putting 10,000 Western troops into Ukraine would "pretty much involve the entire British army" – which is "smaller than the US Marine Corps" – and could provoke direct confrontation with Russia, which would be "disastrous" for our depleted forces. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff called the coalition "a posture and a pose".

What next?

US officials have been holding talks with Russian and Ukrainian representatives in Saudi Arabia, aimed at progress towards a 30-day ceasefire. The White House has set a target date of 20 April: Easter Sunday in both Western and Orthodox churches. It is not "remotely possible" for a plan of support for Ukraine to be drawn up in that time, one senior Army source told The Telegraph.

Starmer has pledged to give MPs a vote on deploying British peacekeepers to Ukraine "on a long-term basis". He also suggested that Putin should be given a deadline to sign a deal, accusing the Russian president of "playing games and playing for time".

But the Kremlin has also said "time and time again" that Russia will not sign any deal that would allow Nato troops inside Ukraine, said Marr. Yesterday, Russia's foreign ministry claimed France and the UK were "hatching plans for military intervention in Ukraine" under the guise of a peacekeeping mission. "Our country stands categorically against this scenario," said spokesperson Maria Zakharova, "which risks a direct confrontation between Russia and Nato."

Independence – and how to achieve it – is focusing the minds of European leaders, as they contemplate breaking away from their decades-long reliance on the US for security.

The once unshakeable belief that the US would honour its Nato commitments and come to the continent's collective defence has meant Britain, and other European nations, had become "increasingly dependent on the US to organise, manage and execute" military operations, said The Times. A taste of the second Trump presidency "leaves that expectation in tatters".

What did the commentators say?

In mere weeks, Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance have "spirited away confidence in the US defence umbrella that has sheltered Western Europe since 1945", said James Fennell at the US think-tank Center for European Policy Analysis, but the "US realignment" away from Europe and "towards the Asia-Pacific" has actually been "telegraphed for a decade". UK and EU political leaders have simply preferred "to disbelieve these signals because they could not bring themselves to contemplate the evaporation of the basic assumptions" to which "Nato's defences are anchored".

The UK's reliance on the US in both military and intelligence matters has opened it up to particular "vulnerabilities", said George Monbiot in The Guardian. The two countries work together on a "wide range of joint intelligence programmes" but, effectively, the much larger US National Security Agency uses Britain's GCHQ "as a subcontractor".

Likewise with the British Army, which will "dip below 70,000 this year" and, as such, "relies on the US for key enablers, such as communications, logistics, personnel, command, engineering and medical treatment", said The Times' Larisa Brown. On multinational exercises, it is "unable to communicate with its Nato counterparts without the US providing communications equipment", an army source told the paper.

Europe, as a whole, "lacks military transport and logistics chains", said Lorne Cook at The Associated Press. And, while "the continent's combined armies total around 2 million personnel", few "can be effectively deployed". Without US back-up, "Europe could need 300,000 troops" to deter Russia, according to estimates from the Brussels-based Bruegel think-tank. The recent proposal of a peacekeeping force in Ukraine involved fewer than 30,000 European troops on the ground, backed by air and sea power, but "finding even that many poses a challenge".

What next?

European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen has said that, at an emergency meeting of EU leaders on Thursday, she will present a "comprehensive plan" to urgently "re-arm Europe". She said member states must be given "more fiscal space to do a surge in defence spending".

Europe "can build up most of the critical defence enablers needed to deter or defeat Russia without US support within five years – provided the political will to invest is there", said Defense News, after a survey of security researchers and experts.

As for Britain – which now has an additional £6.5 billion a year to spend on the armed services – much will depend on the outcome of the government's strategic defence review, which expected in the spring or summer. In it, "there will be a clear focus" on "pouring more money into UK sovereign defence capabilities", said The Times.

"Disentangling from the US will be difficult and expensive", said The Guardian's Monbiot. But "failing to do so could carry a far higher price".

"Centuries" after it was last one of the world's great powers, Poland's "winged hussars are back", said The Economist. And not just back, said The Parliament, reporting on the country celebrating last year's Armed Forces Day with a display that said "its military is better trained and equipped than at any other time in the country's history".

Over the last few years, Poland has become one of the key military players in Nato, allocating 4.12% of its GDP to defence in 2024 – twice the organisation's target and more than the US. It aims to boost that to 4.7% this year.

In addition, it has grown its armed forces from being the ninth-biggest in Nato in 2014 to third today, doubling the number of personnel and tripling its spending in real terms to $35 billion. Out of its European allies, only Britain, France and Germany spend more.

Add in strong economic growth and "Poland is poised to become a key player in Europe", said Alexandre Massaux on The Conversation.

How is Poland growing its military strength?

Since the introduction of the Homeland Defence Act in 2022, Warsaw has bought "hundreds" of tanks, howitzers and rocket systems, said The Economist. "Pride of place" was an estimated $60 billion worth of equipment bought from the US, including 96 helicopters and the revolutionary Integrated Battle Command System, which allows different types of radars, missile launchers and defence systems to work together.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk aims to go further and is building an "East Shield" to protect its eastern border. Scheduled to be completed and operational by 2028, it features anti-tank fortifications and physical barriers to defend the frontier and control movement.

In addition, the country last year joined the European Sky Shield Initiative, a plan to create advanced air defence systems across the continent to deliver a united response against aggression. Tusk likened the project to Israel's "Iron Dome" and said events in the Middle East had shown how "essential" such systems were, said The Telegraph.

Military personnel numbers have also grown since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, especially in the last few years. From around 99,000 a decade ago, they hit 116,200 in 2020 before jumping to an estimated 216,000 today. The only countries ahead of them in numbers are the US and Turkey, said the independent Notes from Poland.

What is driving Poland's military growth?

There is one clear reason, said The Parliament: "Russia’s unprovoked invasion of neighbouring Ukraine in February 2022."

Poland shares a border with both Belarus, a close Russian ally, and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, leaving it potentially vulnerable. A month after Moscow launched its attack, the Polish government passed the Homeland Defence Act expanding its armed forces.

"Poland must have armed forces adequate to the situation we are facing today – forces that will be able to repel an attack and that will be strong enough to prevent an attack," said the then deputy prime minister Jarosław Kaczyński.

Warsaw's relationship with the US has also played a key part, said Politico. Politicians "hope" that their military spending spree will make an impression on Donald Trump, who has frequently called for greater defence spending from Nato. "It’s kind of an insurance policy," Defence Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz told the site.

In addition, said the Chatham House think tank, Poland – "much like the rest of Europe" – is having to prepare for the possibility that Chinese action in the Indo-Pacific region could see the US downsize its presence in Europe.

If that were to happen, Europe could find itself with a leadership vacuum that may cause France and Germany to look towards creating a separate European army, said The Jamestown Foundation. That could lead to Warsaw deciding it needs to create its own coalition with its neighbours – a "mini 'NATO of the willing'" with a European country, not the US, at its head.

"America is under new management," said the BBC's Jeremy Bowen. And Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "is joining a growing list of US allies who are finding that the world according to Donald Trump is a colder, more uncertain and potentially more dangerous place for them".

It must have been unsettling for Zelenskyy to learn of Trump's abrupt move to welcome Russia's President Vladimir Putin "back to international diplomacy with a 90-minute phone call", said Bowen. Worse still is the implication that Trump, who rang Zelenskyy after he spoke to Putin, regards him "at best, as a junior adjunct to any peace talks" over ending Russia's war against Ukraine.

As Zelenskyy heads to the Munich Security Conference today, he will push to rally Ukraine's allies. But he faces a tough meeting with US Vice President J.D. Vance. The American message is clear: "Ukraine is losing and must face reality." But Zelenskyy will argue that "victory is still possible – with the right support".

What did the commentators say?

With Trump appearing now to capitulate to the Kremlin, this year's Munich conference "seems set to mirror the disastrous conference of 1938, where the continent stood blind in the face of Hitler’s duplicity", said former defence secretary Ben Wallace in The Telegraph.

With Ukraine's Nato accession "firmly off the table", at least according to the US, there is "no guarantee that Putin will not return to wrest yet more territory" from Ukraine. Neville Chamberlain famously proclaimed "peace for our time" after appeasing Hitler in 1938. What he got was war. "The same fate awaits the West," said Wallace, "if it fails to stand strong now."

The so-called rules-based international order "is in danger of crumbling" as the security conference begins, said the BBC's Frank Gardner. Initially, "Nato, the EU and the West in general reached an extraordinary level of unity" to back Ukraine and ensure Putin’s invasion failed. "Not any more." Trump has "pulled the rug" from under Ukraine after US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is "not realistic".

Yet "many in Ukraine would welcome a ceasefire", said Lawrence Freedman in the Financial Times. Bruised after three years of war, Ukraine "could use a respite to build up its armed forces and revive its economy". A ceasefire "does not require, as the Russians expect, that it abandon hopes of recovering its lost territory forever," nor has the US asked Ukraine to capitulate to the Kremlin's demands to concede more land, disarm or change its regime.

What next?

A "bad peace deal" would "compound the damage that Russia’s invasion has already done to the current international security architecture", said Ihor Smeshko, a former head of Ukraine’s intelligence and security services, on the Atlantic Council. Ukraine must receive "credible long-term security guarantees" that the Russian invasion can never be repeated. "Failure to do so will set the stage for a new era of geopolitical lawlessness that will be felt far beyond the violated borders of Ukraine."

On the sidelines of the Munich conference, Vance acknowledged that European allies should be involved in any peace talks. "Sure they should. Of course," he said.

President Donald Trump has once again turned his eye toward Ukraine — this time not to extract political dirt on an opponent but instead in the hopes of ending the war between Kyiv and Russia that has left Europe in its most precarious geopolitical position since the Cold War. Trump's latest overture to Moscow has stunned many; not only has the U.S. opened negotiations with Russia, but according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Ukraine will ultimately not regain all of its lost territory. On top of that, the U.S. will not support Ukraine's bid to join NATO as a bulwark against future Russian invasions.

Outside of Ukraine, nowhere has the shock of Trump's unilateral overtures to Russia been felt more acutely than among the leaders of NATO and European Union countries. Those leaders fear that they will be left on the outside looking in as the fate of their continent is seemingly decided without their input and at their expense.

What did the commentators say?

Appearing at a joint press conference at NATO headquarters on Thursday, "Europe's defense ministers had one common message," the BBC said: there can be "no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine and Europe at the table too." The question, ultimately, is to "what extent the U.S. is listening" given the "tangible sense that Europe's leaders have been caught by surprise."

European countries want a "central role in peace talks" between Russia and Ukraine because any settlement to the war that has lasted for three years to their east will have "ramifications for their own security," said Reuters. In particular, European leaders say Washington has "made clear" that it expects their countries to provide "security guarantees for any peace deal," which could include deploying troops from their own militaries.

With peace talks looming and the American position stated, Europeans "need to respond," said former NATO Assistant Secretary General Camille Grand to The New York Times. One path is for the Europeans to say, "'Oh my god, we can't do this without you Americans,' and add to the Trump perception that they are useless and security free-riders." Alternately, they can "counter Trump's restrictive terms" and say that while they're ready to contribute, "these are our conditions to do it."

That second option seems to be at the heart of U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey's response this week. "We heard [Hegseth's] call for European nations to step up," Healey said at NATO headquarters in Brussels. "We are, and we will." At the same time, Healey "underlined" Ukraine's ultimate entry into the defense organization, said The Associated Press.

What next?

Member states may individually grumble and protest their apparent exclusion, but NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has publicly "downplayed concerns" that European nations and Ukraine are being "sidelined" from negotiations, said Politico. For Rutte, the "essential element" of any negotiation is to avoid a repeat of previous negotiations that "failed to stop Russia's decade-long aggression" and ultimately led to the 2022 invasion.

One challenge facing NATO and the European Union is that it "struggles to speak with one voice and present a united vision," the BBC said. At the same time, the EU wonders "whether the U.S. is listening to them, or even reading their communiques."

Despite the nations' various protestations and attempts to work within the framework presented by Hegseth and Trump, it's unclear "how much leverage the Europeans would have over the U.S." regarding Russia and negotiations over the future of Ukraine, said The New York Times. To that end, NATO has begun testing new methods to "rapidly deploy across eastern Europe — without direct U.S. assistance," Military.com said. This week's Steadfast Dart 2025 military exercises across Bulgaria, Romania and Greece are the "largest NATO operation planned this year" and do not include U.S. forces, as European nations "scramble to build greater military self-sufficiency" without American assistance.

Maybe you've heard of the "hybrid war" — Russian-sponsored attacks on European infrastructure, apparently designed to undermine support for Ukraine. Now the maritime equivalent is emerging: the "shadow fleet."

Finnish officials say a "Russia-affiliated vessel" named the Eagle S appears to have cut an undersea power line that runs between Finland and Estonia, said NPR. The tanker is suspected of being part of the shadow fleet, an armada of ships of "uncertain ownership" that has been used to help Russia evade oil sanctions. The Eagle S is registered in the Cook Islands but had "set off from Russia" the day before the line was severed. Russia is "stepping up pressure against the West," said Janne Riihelainen, a Finnish national security columnist.

The shadow fleet "threatens security and the environment, while funding Russia's war budget," Kaja Kallas, chief of foreign policy for the European Union, said to Politico. Four telecom cables — between Finland and Estonia, and Finland and Germany — were also damaged. In response, Finnish authorities have seized the Eagle S, while Estonian officials said they were stepping up naval patrols. NATO will also "enhance its military presence in the Baltic Sea," Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a social media post.

What is the shadow fleet?

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's Western allies imposed a price cap on Russian oil exports "aimed at limiting and controlling Russian revenues," Sergey Vakulenko said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Russia countered by using hundreds of aging off-the-books tankers owned "outside of the Western coalition." Ship owners busted for evading sanctions can be forced to "scrap the vessel," Vakulenko said. So it makes sense to use old tankers "with low residual value in order to limit the potential losses."

The fleet is designed to keep Russia's oil income flowing, but the idea of using it to "cause havoc may be proving irresistible to the Kremlin," Michael Schwirtz said at The New York Times. The Eagle S incident would be a "clear escalation by Russia in its conflict with the West." But it would be a natural extension of the low-level conflict taking place across Europe. Russia is "systematically conducting hybrid warfare against its neighboring NATO/EU countries," Estonian interior minister Lauri Läänemets said to the Times.

Can the fleet be stopped?

The shadow fleet is a "vexing challenge," said Elisabeth Braw at the Atlantic Council. The longer it operates and the larger it grows, the more it threatens the "functioning of the global maritime order." One option: Governments of seagoing nations should establish a "monitoring hub" to identify and monitor shadow fleet ships.

The EU has sanctioned 79 ships from the shadow fleet, said Business Insider. Those ships are "banned from accessing EU ports and services." The list could grow — German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is calling for expanded sanctions. Russia-connected ships are "damaging major undersea cables in the Baltic Sea almost every month," she said. The attack on the Finland-Estonia power line is an "urgent wake-up call for all of us."

What happened

New NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned Europe Thursday that Russia's Vladimir Putin wants to "wipe Ukraine off the map" and might come for other parts of Europe next. "It is time to shift to a wartime mindset," Rutte said at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels, in his first major speech since taking NATO's helm in October.

Who said what

Putin is "preparing for long-term confrontation" and "trying to crush our freedom and way of life," Rutte said. Russia is spending 7-8% of GDP on defense, he said, and European nations will have to spend "a lot more" than the NATO target of 2% to blunt Putin's expansionist aggression.

Putin, meanwhile, was "scrambling to save face" after his "humiliating loss" of influence in Syria, The Washington Post said. Russia's failure to save ally Bashar al-Assad's regime dealt a "stunning blow" to Putin's key goal of "forging Russia into a great world power competing globally with the United States."

What next?

President-elect Donald Trump reiterated Sunday that he would "absolutely" consider pulling the U.S. from NATO if America's military allies were not "paying their bills" or "treating us fairly." Rutte's reputation as a "Trump whisperer" is "a very big reason he was chosen as NATO secretary general," the BBC said.

After Ukraine fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles at military targets inside Russia last month, President Putin asserted his "right" to attack the UK and its Western allies in response. But the truth, said Simon Tisdall in The Observer, is that "Britain and its allies have been under constant Russian attack" for years. Using "sabotage, arson, deniable cyberattacks", disinformation and influence operations, Putin has menaced the West for its support of Ukraine. His "shadow war" on Nato members may be becoming more intensive and more dangerous, but it is long established. Putin's aim is to sow chaos, spread fear and division, and to disrupt military production.

Russia's "grey zone" warfare continues every day, said Edward Lucas in The Times. Last month, unidentified drones "buzzed" four US air force bases in Britain; another shadowed HMS Queen Elizabeth while it approached Hamburg. In the Baltic Sea – fast becoming a geopolitical hotspot – two vital data cables were severed last month, apparently by a Chinese-flagged merchant vessel with a Russian crew member. Closer to home, British intelligence suspects that Russia was behind recent bomb scares in London, said Guy Kelly in The Daily Telegraph. The same goes for an explosion at a weapons factory in Wales in April, and a spate of arson attacks across Europe. A young man from Croydon recently pleaded guilty to attacking a Ukrainian-linked business in east London in March in return for Russian money. "Little by little, day by day, Russia is testing the West's patience. The question now is whether we're going to do anything about it."

In recent days, UK officials have been sounding the alarm. The Labour minister Pat McFadden warned that Russia could "turn the lights off for millions of people" with a cyberattack. However, Russia's campaign seems carefully calibrated not to trigger a collective response from Nato, said Mark Galeotti in The Spectator. Rather, the Kremlin is slowly ratcheting up the pressure to see what it can get away with. The thing to remember is that Putin genuinely believes an "implacably Russophobic" West wants to dismember Russia, and is using Ukraine as a weapon in that fight. And it is certainly suffering as a result of the war and Western sanctions. As one hawkish Russian put it: "You try to crash our economy and then whine if you get hacked?" So what should we do? An official from one of the Baltic states told me: "We know the Russians. They will keep up the pressure so long as they think it's working." In other words: "keep calm and carry on".

Calin Georgescu is the EU and Nato's worst nightmare.

The 62-year-old agricultural engineer came from nowhere to win the first round of Romania's presidential election on Sunday, the far-right candidate leap-frogging more well-known figures from the left and right to win 22% of the vote. He will now face a run-off against the pro-Western, pro-Nato centrist Elena Lasconi on 8 December.

His win has already dealt a "major blow to the country's political establishment", said the Financial Times (FT), and sent shockwaves through Europe. If he prevails next month he will hold the most powerful office in Romania, with the right to nominate the prime minister, conduct coalition talks and have the last word on security and foreign policy matters in the strategically vital east European country.

'Putin of Romania'

In a TV interview in 2018, Georgescu called Russian President Vladimir Putin one of the few politicians in the world who is "a true leader". Three years later he described Nato's ballistic missile defence shield in Deveselu, southern Romania, as a "shame of diplomacy," claiming the military alliance would not defend any of its members against a Russian attack.

This has earned him a reputation as a pro-Russian politician, with local newspapers jokingly describing him as the "Putin of Romania". Georgescu was a member of the far-right nationalist Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), but left the party in 2022 amid criticism that his anti-Nato stance was harming its reputation.

While still a member of the AUR, Georgescu attracted "widespread condemnation for endorsing past Romanian far-right leaders", said the FT. He has called the pro-Nazi de facto Second World War dictator Ion Antonescu a "martyr" and described the pre-war leaders of the Christian-fascist Iron Guard movement as "heroes".

Like other far-right populist politicians such as the UK's Nigel Farage and France's Jordan Bardella, Georgescu is also "savvy with social media", said Radio Free Europe.

His TikTok account has gained 3.8 million likes with videos of himself attending church, doing judo, running on a track, and speaking on podcasts. Just days before the presidential election vote, Georgescu launched a TikTok campaign calling for an end to aid for Ukraine, "apparently striking a chord with voters".

A '2024 radical right-wing populist'

In the run-up to the election, Georgescu – who does not now belong to any political party – barely registered in national opinion polls and did not take part in TV debates.

But perhaps his win should not have come as such a surprise given he "in many ways fits the mould of the 2024 radical right-wing populist" that has triumphed again and again, said Politico. "He speaks plainly, shuns Western orthodoxy, is loathed by mainstream media, and is an EU- and Nato-sceptic."

"Today, a vote is a prayer for the nation," Georgescu wrote on Facebook on Sunday, summing up his appeal and those disillusioned voters he hoped to target. "I voted for the wronged, for the humiliated, for those who feel that they do not matter in this world… they are the ones that matter!"

Across a range of issues, "whatever the Romanian establishment stands for, he appears to be against it", said The Times. "He has argued that chemotherapy makes cancer patients sicker, that viruses are laboratory-engineered bio-weapons and that vaccines were designed to make children ill."

Georgescu is promising a "radical transformation" of Romania, said the BBC, creating a society "based on small-scale organic agriculture, Christian values, and national sovereignty".

Central to his appeal is his promise to "restore Romania’s dignity" and end subservience to the international organisations it belongs to, including Nato and the EU. Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr's recent presidential campaign in the US, "food policy has loomed large" in Georgescu's politics, said Politico, and he has called for the country to be more self-sufficient in both farm and energy output.

His surprise surge at the polls has raised "concerns about possible yet unproven interference" from foreign state actors such as Russia, said Politico. "He is the product of the vacuum [in Romanian politics] and likely Russian money," said Milan Nič, from the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Regardless of how he fares in next month's run-off, Georgescu's popularity is a "wakeup call" for the West, EU and Nato, he concluded – "one of many".

What happened

Ukraine fired U.S.-provided long-range missiles into Russia for the first time Tuesday, as Russian President Vladimir Putin officially lowered his country's threshold to use nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Europe said they were more concerned about Russia accelerating its hybrid warfare campaign against NATO countries.

President Joe Biden, who recently approved Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles inside Russian territory, also agreed Tuesday to provide Kyiv with "nonpersistent" anti-personnel land mines to defend its eastern flank.

Who said what

The U.S. said Ukraine fired seven or eight ATACMS missiles about 70 miles into Russia's Bryansk region early Tuesday, hitting an ammunition depot, and Russia shot down two. Ukraine said the missiles destroyed warehouses storing artillery shells, glide bombs and several kinds of missiles. Russia said it shot down five ATACMS and damaged a sixth.

As Russia threatened retaliation for the U.S. ATACMS, European countries suggested Russia orchestrated the disabling of undersea data cables between Sweden and Lithuania on Sunday and Finland and Germany on Monday. Western officials said Russia also plotted to firebomb U.S.-bound airplanes, sabotage military installations and instigate arson attacks in Europe.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain and the U.K. Tuesday jointly condemned "Moscow's escalating hybrid activities against NATO and EU countries." The "likely motive" behind such sabotage is to "spread panic, bind security resources, and increase pressure on Western governments by boosting political parties who are campaigning against the massive aid provided to Ukraine," The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

The U.S. mines should be "delivered soon," the BBC said. "Russia is attacking Ukrainian lines in the east with waves of troops, regardless of the casualties that they're suffering," one U.S. official said to The Washington Post. "These mines were made specifically to combat exactly this."

For 75 years, America has served as NATO's backbone. And NATO has backstopped Ukraine in its war against Russia. Kamala Harris says that commitment would remain if she becomes president.

Harris would be "steady on NATO," said Reuters. That stands in "sharp contrast" to Donald Trump's efforts to remake America's relationship with the military alliance. But Harris steadiness on NATO would continue the Biden administration's "staunch support" for the organization, Reuters said. And Harris has vowed to stand by Ukraine against Russia, which she has said is waging "barbaric and inhumane" war with its neighbor.

That support may only go so far. Harris has shied away from saying whether she would back Ukraine's bid to become a member of NATO, Bloomberg said. That's a question for the future, she told CBS' "60 Minutes." "Right now, we are supporting Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia's unprovoked aggression," she told the program. An anonymous aide later said Harris believes "Ukraine's future is in NATO," Bloomberg said.

NATO: Quiet continuity

"Europe can expect continuity from Kamala Harris," Jen Kirby said at Internationale Politik Quarterly. If Harris becomes president, America would "remain a strong supporter of NATO" — and remain committed to the organization's Article 5 requirement that an attack on one member be treated as an attack on all. (That provision is mostly seen as an American commitment to Europe's defense, though it was invoked after 9/11 to bring European countries into the fight against al-Qaida.) It is unclear, tbough, if voters care. "Foreign policy has not factored" into the campaign, Kirby said.

"Europe is far from the center of attention for the U.S. foreign policy set," said Politico. Neither Harris nor Tim Walz, her running mate, have talked much about NATO or Europe on the campaign trail. Europeans are anticipating changes, even if Harris wins, simply because U.S. leaders seem ready to pivot to China as a main focus. Europeans, said Lithuania's foreign minister, should "realize that America is and will be focused on [the] Indo-Pacific."

Ukraine: No surrender

Harris has also been steadfast in backing Ukraine. She has "slammed" proposals that Ukraine trade territory to Russia in exchange for peace, said The Associated Press. "They are proposals for surrender," she said at a September appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She warned that America's enemies would be emboldened if the country abandoned Ukraine and allowed Russian leader Vladimir Putin to win the war. "The United States supports Ukraine not out of charity but because it's in our strategic interest," she said.

"Events on the ground in Russia and Ukraine will also shape the future president's decisions," Angela Stent said for The Brookings Institution. While it appears that Harris' Ukraine policy would "represent continuity" with the Biden administration, it is likely that she would ask advisers to review that policy once in office. President Joe Biden has been reluctant to let Ukraine have some offensive weapon systems; Harris might be "more forward-looking" on the issue. One question about Ukraine must still be answered by American policymakers, Stent said: "No one in the White House has defined what winning or prevailing might mean."

Europe and Ukraine should "Trump-proof" their military spending by setting up a "Nato bank", according to a report by a German and UK think tank.

As the White House election looms, there is concern over how a Donald Trump presidency could affect defence spending in Europe. The report asks leaders to "actively consider" urgent measures, including a Nato bank, said The Guardian.

Trump trepidations

The authors of the joint report said that if Trump wins next month, he could quickly slash US defence spending in Europe, push for a peace deal in Ukraine that surrenders parts of its territory to Russia, and might even withdraw from Nato altogether.

They warn of the possible collapse of diplomatic communication between Washington and Europe, US withdrawal of troops and military assets from Europe, and new tariffs leading to the downfall of the World Trade Organization.

Trump's first term was "littered with withdrawn treaties, tariffs on allies and praise for authoritarian governments", said Sam Goodman, one of the report's authors. With that in mind, Europe must "practically and pre-emptively bolster European defence, security and resilience" against a second-term Trump presidency.

To do that, Nato countries should support the creation of an allied multilateral lending institution, or a Nato bank, said the think tanks. The bank would be funded with "initial subscriptions from Nato members in return for authorised capital stock".

A Nato bank could "save nations millions on essential equipment purchases, offer low interest rates on loans to alliance members and introduce a new line of financing with longer repayment timeframes", it said.

Saving millions

This isn't the first time a Nato bank has been proposed. Writing for the Financial Times last April, Robert Murray, a former head of innovation at Nato, argued that the alliance's "current strategy of pleading and arm-twisting allies to spend more is painfully inadequate". An "Allied Multilateral Lending Institution – in other words, a Nato Bank" – could be a "game-changer".

When Murray floated the idea of a "feasible model" in 2019, he suggested that the bank could "generate additional resources through interest earned on paid-in subscription capital", and he "conservatively modelled" the bank's balance sheet at about $300 billion.

But Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has told the international community to "stop worrying about a Trump presidency" and its implications for the war in Ukraine. Speaking during a visit to London, he insisted he is "absolutely convinced" that the US is involved in the conflict "because they understand" that "the whole of the US would be less secure if Putin would be successful in Ukraine".

Rutte's comments "could raise eyebrows in some European capitals", said Politico. Trump has recently criticised Washington's involvement in the war in Ukraine, saying the country is "stuck" and will be able to "get out" if he wins the election, said Kyiv Independent.

Europe is watching the 2024 presidential election closely, wondering how Donald Trump would handle the Ukraine War and the future of NATO in a second term.

Trump has promised he would "stop the war 24 hours after being elected," Angela Stent said at the Brookings Institution. Though he has "not shared any details" about how to stop the war or how to get Russia and Ukraine to negotiate, he has suggested that lifting Russian sanctions will be part of the deal. "What I'll do is I'll speak to one, I'll speak to the other, I'll get them together," Trump said during the September presidential debate. Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, has "been much more explicitly anti-Ukraine," Stent said, calling for an immediate end to U.S. military assistance to that country.

The former president kept NATO on its heels during his first presidency, and signs are he would do it again in a second term. In February, Trump said the United States would not defend NATO countries that don't meet their defense spending targets, according to The Associated Press. "Look, if they're not going to pay, we're not going to protect. OK?" Trump said at a rally.

Ukraine: 'It has to end'

Trump did meet with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy in September, said NBC News, promising again to end the war. "It has to end," Trump said. "At some point, it has to end." But when asked how he would work to end the war, he was once again short on details. It's "too early to say that," he said. Zelenskyy appears to be skeptical. "The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine's expense is unacceptable," the Ukrainian president said to The New Yorker.

Trump has held an "escalating political grudge" against Ukraine since early in his first presidency, believing that the country's leaders favored Democrats. Overall, he has pushed the GOP toward a "vision of a less interventionist" foreign policy, said The New York Times. It's a vision that is more reluctant to come to the aid of countries like Ukraine — and more open to authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin. His first administration "included Russia hawks," said the Times. "It is not clear" that would be the case in a second term.

NATO: A 'radical reorientation'

Many observers believe it's a "question of when, not whether" Trump would lead the United States out of NATO, Michael Hirsh said at Politico. But Trump is "unlikely to quit NATO outright." Instead, he would probably work for what one observer called a "radical reorientation" of NATO — continuing to keep the American nuclear umbrella over Europe but handing responsibility for the "bulk of infantry, armor, logistics and artillery" to the European allies, Hirsh said. Instead of being the "primary provider of combat power in Europe," said defense expert Dan Caldwell, who is linked to Trump's circle, the United States would be "somebody who provides support only in times of crisis."

That's why Europe should plan for a "post-America NATO" in a second Trump term, Phillips P. O'Brien and Edward Stringer said at Foreign Affairs. The alliance would be "mortally undermined" by even an "incomplete U.S. withdrawal." But without U.S. leadership, it's unclear which country would step forward. "There is no natural leader for the rest to converge upon."

Western relations with Russia are at their worst since the height of the Cold War. The invasion of Ukraine continues towards the end of its third year and Vladimir Putin has made numerous threats towards Nato allies about direct further escalation.

Despite the Russian president saying "hardly anyone is interested" in being "one step away from a full-scale World War Three" if Russia goes into direct conflict with Nato, the Western allies are preparing for the worst-case scenario.

How would Russia wage war on Nato?

Though Nato is keeping the eventuality of "an all-out war" in its thinking, there is greater expectation that Russia will deploy "less obvious techniques designed to undermine stability in the alliance's member countries", said Newsweek. These could include a "limited incursion" into nearby states or "hybrid warfare tactics to probe the alliance's conviction".

This hybrid warfare could target "energy infrastructure, computer networks or transport systems: the nerves and arteries of modern society", and it takes place "in nominal peacetime" via "spies, soldiers and hired thugs", said Edward Lucas in The Times. This is already happening, and some Nato allies are "ready to respond decisively" while others do nothing, "fearing confrontation and escalation".

Labour cabinet minister Pat McFadden said last month that Russia is ready to launch cyberattacks on Nato. The "threat is real" and "no-one should underestimate" how "destabilising and debilitating" it could be, he said.

Is Nato ready for war?

In terms of ground warfare, Russia is "in no shape to take on Nato" as the Ukraine war rumbles on, said Al Jazeera. Despite a rapid expansion in troop numbers and assistance from North Korea to keep pace with the demands of the invasion, the Kremlin is not equipped currently for an all-out war without a pause.

Last week, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the UK's chief of the defence staff, said: "There is only a remote chance of a significant direct attack or invasion by Russia on the United Kingdom. And that is the same for the whole of Nato." Moscow, he added, "knows the response would be overwhelming, whether conventional or nuclear".

If Russia were to attack a Nato ally without time to replenish its military then Nato "would quickly prevail in any conventional war" given the quality of its troops "in terms of training and equipment", said Al Jazeera.

But things may not be that straightforward. The allies' "readiness for such a clash lies in doubt" after so many "underfunded" post-Cold War years, said Kyiv Independent. Nato can still "pack a punch" and while it will have the "upper hand" over Russia, it will suffer heavy losses and faces "ammunition shortages, a fragmented defence industry, and insufficient air defence coverage". Holding such a large alliance together for the "long haul" of a protracted war is a huge challenge for Nato and US President-elect Donald Trump has previously lambasted Nato allies who "do not meet the defence spending benchmark".

Many Nato countries, particularly those in the Baltics and bordering Ukraine, including Poland, are already pouring more money into defence, but "western Europe is lagging behind", said Newsweek. There are indications that France, Germany and the UK are already pushing towards a higher percentage of GDP spent on defence, but those in the east are encouraging more urgency.

What could trigger a war?

Nato would declare war on Russia if one of its members was attacked, triggering the alliance's Article 5 mutual defence clause. This could happen in the case of a ground invasion by Russian forces, though the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, last month indicated that "Russia's acts of sabotage against western targets" could "eventually" push Nato to invoke Article 5, said The Guardian.

What could instigate a Russian declaration of war is unclear. Putin has made numerous threats and attempts to "draw red lines", which have been "repeatedly crossed" since the war began, said NBC News.

A full-scale declaration of war between Russia and Nato would be likely to pull in other countries and spread conflict. North Korea is already providing troops to Moscow in its Ukraine campaign, but a war with the West could see the "rise of a hostile axis", with China and Iran supporting Russia, said the Atlantic Council.

"Eyes open, move swiftly and keep your country in your thoughts."

That was the instruction given to soldiers of Ukraine's 82nd air assault brigade last week, said the Financial Times, as they prepared to launch the first ground invasion of Russia by a foreign army since the Second World War.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at the weekend that Kyiv wanted to "push the war on to the aggressor's territory" and put "pressure" on Russia to "restore justice". But more than a week after the operation was launched, said The Times, it remains "unclear what Ukraine’s ultimate ambitions are".

What did the commentators say?

There are three "non-mutually-exclusive answers", said National Review. First is an attempt by Ukraine to relieve pressure on its embattled eastern front. Second, that by taking control of Russian sovereign territory Kyiv will be "in a much stronger position" in any upcoming negotiations with Moscow. Finally, every war is "fundamentally a contest of both sides' willingness to continue fighting" and Ukrainians are reminding Russia that they won't back down.

German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters told DW: "It is possible the Ukrainian leadership wants to demonstrate to Russia, but above all to the West, that Ukraine is not at the end of its tether." Kyiv hopes the success of the incursion will boost the morale of Ukrainian troops "who have 'only' been defending their positions in a gruelling war of attrition for that last year-and-a-half", while demonstrating that "it's still able to win the war – with further shipments of Western weapons".

The Ukrainian army's advance into Russia has "profound implications for perceptions of the war", said Peter Dickinson, editor of the Atlantic Council's UkraineAlert service. It "directly challenges the widespread belief that Russia's invasion has reached a stalemate and can no longer be decided on the battlefield". Crucially, it also "exposes the emptiness of Vladimir Putin's red lines and the folly of the West's emphasis on escalation management".

For the first time since the Kharkiv counter-offensive in the autumn of 2022, Ukraine has "caught Russia by surprise", said The Times. Ukraine can never realistically hope to win a war of attrition and the incursion into Kursk could provide a "template for a new style of warfare, one that favours Ukraine better than the grinding losses of the past six months towards its east".

“Ukraine should never get into a slug match with Russia, because they'll lose," John Foreman, a former British military attaché in Moscow, told The Times. "They have to use superior tactics and morale to offset numerical superiority."

What next?

Vladimir Putin has called the takeover of hundreds of square miles of Russian territory by Ukrainian forces a "provocation", but his response so far has been surprisingly "uncertain and unsuccessful", said Tortoise.

It is still too early to tell whether the incursion will divert significant numbers of Russian troops away from the existing frontline in eastern Ukraine, but "what is clear" is that Kyiv has used weapons donated by Nato members on Russian territory, and the Russian leader has "not escalated".

"Russian territory that is internationally recognised is occupied and Putin did not [turn] to nukes and so on," the Ukrainian MP Olexiy Honcharenko said. "We are showing the world that the world should not be scared of escalation or the reaction of Putin."

Russian propagandists have adopted an "equally low-key approach", said Dickinson. Instead of attempting to rally the country, state media has reportedly received instructions to avoid stirring up the situation, "most definitely not the actions of a self-confident military superpower on the verge of a major escalation".

With the response from Moscow muted, Jen Spindel, assistant professor at the University of New Hampshire, told DW that Ukraine does not need to advance "particularly far" into Russian territory in order to achieve its goals.

"I don't think anyone wants to see this escalate to a conflict where Ukraine is sending troops toward Moscow, or flying drones or planes in that direction," she said. The further the Ukrainian army advances, the greater the risk that troops will be cut off from supply routes.

This kind of limited operation "may not be what ends the war", said National Review, but "symbolic operations sometimes need not be ultimately rational to be successful".  The Ukrainians have "rolled the dice" – and, for the moment, "stolen the initiative from the Russians". 

Zelenskyy's game is "paying off", said Tortoise, at least "for now".

In Keir Starmer's "first appearance on the world stage" as Prime Minister, at the Nato summit in Washington last week, he was keen to proclaim Britain as a "major" military power, said Con Coughlin in The Daily Telegraph. 

Starmer declared that security was his "first priority"; reiterated his firm support for Ukraine; and called on all Nato nations to increase their spending on defence from a minimum 2% of GDP, the current commitment, to 2.5%. 

"The only problem" with Starmer's otherwise laudable ambitions is that Britain's Armed Forces are currently "small and under-equipped", and that he and his new Defence Secretary, John Healey, seem to have "little idea when, if ever" their own government will actually meet that 2.5% target. 

Furthermore, there will be no extra spending in the near future: Labour is insisting that, before decisions are made, there must be a full strategic defence review, a process that could mean no decisions are taken until next year at the earliest.

Dwindling force

In the meantime, it is widely accepted that Britain's Armed Forces are in "crisis", said Larisa Brown in The Times. General Sir Patrick Sanders, the recently retired chief of the general staff, warned that they are so worn down that they could not defend the country if the worst happened, or even fight "a small war" abroad for more than a month. 

UK forces lack essentials, from supply trucks to electronic warfare systems. The RAF and the Royal Navy have overspent on planes and ships, so the Army has had to cut back. It is now less than 73,000 strong, its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, and it is "considered deficient" in important areas such as artillery and air defence. 

Earlier this year, the MPs' Public Accounts Committee warned that the gap between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget and the cost of meeting the UK's desired military capabilities has grown to at least £16.9bn, its largest-ever deficit. 

'Reset' required

Still, demanding that the new Government raise spending "within days of taking office" is wrong and "pointless", said The Guardian. Budgets are limited. Providers of all essential public services are "lobbying the Government with the strongest cases they can muster". 

And the strategic defence review is badly needed, said Edward Stringer in The Daily Telegraph. The MoD is in "a downward spiral of paying more to get less". The Ukraine War has been a wake-up call. Our "bonsai" peacetime forces, based on small amounts of top-of-the-range military equipment, would be hopeless in a sustained conflict. We need to build up supplies of artillery shells and other munitions, and to adapt to drone warfare. 

If we want a military that "our allies and foes will respect", a "fundamental reset" is needed.

What happened

NATO members have begun sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, the White House said Wednesday. The initial shipment of the American-made planes, long sought by Kyiv, are being transferred from Denmark and the Netherlands and "will be flying in the skies of Ukraine this summer," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said as NATO leaders met in Washington for a 75th anniversary summit.

Who said what

The high-tech fighter jets "bring just and lasting peace closer" and demonstrate that "terror must fail everywhere and at any time," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, thanking the NATO nations for planes.

The transfer, initially approved in May 2023, follows this week's deadly bombing of a Ukrainian children's hospital, an attack "some observers said was Russian President Vladimir Putin's message to the NATO alliance," Politico said. Conversely, The Washington Post said, the F-16 deliveries, combined with a separate announcement that powerful U.S. long-range missile systems will be deployed in Germany in 2026, "seemed designed in part to capture Russia's attention." The U.S. and its NATO allies have "steadily moved toward providing more advanced weapons to Ukraine" as its war with Russia drags into a third year, The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

Kyiv anticipates fielding at least "60 F-16s eventually," the Post said, "with a host of nations banding together to provide pilot training, weapons and logistical support."

What happened

President Joe Biden kicked off NATO's 75th anniversary summit on Tuesday with a speech lauding the Atlantic alliance and pledging new military aid to help Ukraine fend off Russia's invasion. He also surprised outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg by awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor.

Who said what

"There are no cost-free options with an aggressive Russia as a neighbor," Stoltenberg told the 32 NATO leaders. "Remember, the biggest cost and the greatest risk will be if Russia wins in Ukraine. We cannot let that happen."

Biden said the U.S. and several other NATO allies will be providing Ukraine with four more Patriot missile arrays and dozens of other air defense systems to protect cities from Russian bombardments like Monday's missile barrage that destroyed Kyiv's children's hospital. Vladimir Putin wants to "wipe Ukraine off the map," Biden said. "And we know Putin won't stop in Ukraine. But make no mistake, Ukraine can and will stop Putin."

Biden's "forceful speech" sought to "bolster confidence in both the alliance and his own political standing" after his "disastrous debate performance 12 days earlier," The New York Times said. "By all measures, he passed the test," speaking in a "strong voice, with few errors," though he used a teleprompter. Still, Reuters said, "some diplomats at the summit said the damage" from Biden's debate performance "was hard to erase."

What next?

Biden is meeting Wednesday with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. On Thursday, Biden will huddle with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and "hold a rare solo press conference," Reuters said, "also aimed at quieting concerns."

Keir Starmer faces a whirlwind of international diplomacy during his first two weeks in power as he seeks to build alliances on the world stage.

The new prime minister has barely moved in to 10 Downing Street and he is already flying to Washington today to attend a Nato summit, before he hosts European leaders in Oxford next week.

What did the commentators say?

Starmer and Joe Biden have spoken "warmly" about the importance of the "special relationship" between the two countries in their first call together, said The New York Times. Not since Barack Obama's first term, from 2009-13, have Britain and the US "both been in the hands of centre-left parties", although it could be a "brief era" with the presidential election looming. 

"That's not to say that British and American leaders from opposite parties can't work together." Obama issued a warning about Brexit at "the behest" of David Cameron, and Tony Blair "famously supported" George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

Trump and Starmer could even become "unlikely allies", said Oliver Duff on the i news site. Both men's teams realise they "may need to forge a new alliance in office, amidst global crises".

David Lammy, the foreign secretary, has previously described Trump as a "neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath", so he "may find that some of his earlier oratorical fury comes back to haunt him", said Eliot Wilson in The Spectator. But Lammy has been "meeting senior figures from the Republican Party in recent weeks", said Duff, in an effort to smooth relations between Labour and Trump's party.

Closer to home, Starmer is taking power at "a time of great strain" for France's President Emmanuel Macron, said Amelia Hadfield, a politics professor at the University of Surrey, on The Conversation. 

"Cynics could argue" that this would strengthen Starmer's hand should he seek a better deal with France on managing cross-channel migration. But Macron could be a valuable ally of the prime minister's in seeking to "regain influence in the European Union". 

Lammy is "understood to be particularly interested in realigning the UK with its historic connections with France", said Politics Home. The current uncertainty in France after the parliamentary elections makes Macron's relationship with the new prime minister "even more important" as he seeks support from various quarters.

Starmer has already built an alliance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by confirming that Britain's support for his military will continue. Relations with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu could be thornier, particularly if, as reported by The Guardian, Starmer drops a bid to delay the International Criminal Court reaching a decision on whether to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli PM over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

What next?

Starmer will be "mobbed" at the Nato summit this week, said Kim Darroch, who served as Britain's ambassador to Washington from 2016 to 2019, and "everyone will want to talk to him". His "remarkable" election victory might give him a "sheen of political stardust" with his fellow leaders, "for whom such victories have been in short supply" lately, said The New York Times.

But international relations are never easy and "tensions could emerge" at the gathering of Western leaders, said The Independent. The celebrations of an alliance that has lasted 75 years might be "overshadowed" by differences about levels of help for Ukraine and "when, or even whether" Ukraine might join Nato.

The following week Starmer will "play host" to 50 leaders at the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace. There, we can "expect to hear a lot of talk about improving relations", about "being a more reliable partner", and above all about "being more stable and predictable," foreign policy expert James Strong told Agence France-Presse.

Viktor Orbán arrived in Kyiv today, marking the first time the EU's most pro-Moscow leader has visited Ukraine since it was invaded by Russian forces over two years ago.

In what was widely described as a "surprise" trip, the Hungarian prime minister met Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other senior officials. Their discussions focused on the "possibilities for achieving peace, as well as current issues in Hungarian-Ukrainian bilateral relations", his spokesman Zoltan Kovacs said on X.

What did the commentators say?

Orbán's visit to Ukraine is a "rare gesture in a relationship that long been marred by tensions", said The Hill.

He is considered Russia's "closest EU ally" and has "routinely blocked, delayed or watered down" European efforts to extend assistance to Ukraine and to sanction Moscow over its war, "frustrating both Zelenskyy and other EU leaders".

Orbán is one of the few European leaders not to have visited Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022, but has controversially met Russian President Vladimir Putin during that time.

Their "close relationship" has "frequently come under scrutiny", said CNN, but their bond is "underpinned by both economic cooperation and some shared values".

Both leaders have enacted anti-LGBTQ policies and clamped down on freedom of speech in their respective countries. Hungary has supported Russia at the United Nations and rejected EU sanctions following Putin's aggression in Ukraine as early as 2014, after Russia illegally annexed Crimea.

Their face-to-face meeting in China last October left Western officials "seething", said The Guardian. In a written statement to the paper, the Czech president and former Nato general Petr Pavel said: "As it has been repeatedly shown, Putin does not meet European leaders with the aim of achieving peace in Ukraine."

Pavel went on: "He is only holding these meetings with the aim of breaking the unity of European countries and the entire democratic world. We should not fall for his tactics."

Budapest has justified its "hardline position" on Ukraine, said the Financial Times, in part by claiming Kyiv is failing to meet its demands in guaranteeing the rights of the country's Hungarian minority in the west of the country. This has been used by Orbán to repeatedly hold up EU accession talks with Ukraine. 

Behind the scenes, said Politico, Kyiv and Brussels have been engaged in "intensive diplomacy" with Budapest to address its concerns and guarantee legal protections for minorities in exchange for Orbán giving the green light to start the formal process for Kyiv to join the EU.

What next?

Orbán's visit to Kyiv comes a day after Hungary took over the six-month rotating EU presidency, a position that has "little real power but can be used to set the tone of the bloc's agenda", said The Hill.

Worried about Hungary's democratic record and positive stance towards Russia, EU lawmakers hurried through a new set of sanctions against Moscow and launched membership talks with Ukraine before Hungary assumed the presidency on 1 July.

Orbán is the "outlier" with regard to Europe's support for Ukraine in the war against Russia, and his opponents in the European Parliament expect "further clashes" over the issue with his Fidesz MEPs, said Monica Porter in The Spectator.

Diplomats are "worried" about how EU membership talks for Ukraine and Moldova will progress "now Hungary holds the presidency". While Orbán is in favour of admitting Moldova, he has stated categorically that Kyiv is not ready for membership, especially while the war is ongoing. "Time and again, Orbán has angered Western leaders by seeming to take Vladimir Putin’s side over Volodymyr Zelenskyy's", said Porter.

Nato members are due to meet in Washington next week to mark the 75th anniversary of the Western defence alliance, and the agenda is expected to be dominated by long-term planning on Ukraine and its eventual accession. This will be followed by a meeting of the European Political Community (EPC), a forum for 47 European countries from inside and outside the EU to discuss the continent's strategic challenges.

There is a strong likelihood Zelenskyy and Orbán will attend one or both of these high-level events. The Hungarian PM "may have had this in mind when timing this trip to Kyiv, ensuring that his first meeting with Ukraine's president since the start of the war was not in such a public and high-stakes diplomatic setting", said CNN.

The nuclear nightmares of the Cold War are back. The world's nine nuclear-armed nations — including the United States, Russia and China —  "spent a combined total of $91.4 billion on their arsenals in 2023," said The Associated Press, a surge of weapons building and modernization that makes international conflicts much more fraught with apocalyptic danger. "We have not seen nuclear weapons playing such a prominent role in international relations since the Cold War," said Wilfred Wan of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

That means a lot more saber-rattling. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is flexing the alliance's "nuclear muscles," Politico said, with suggestions it should deploy nuclear weapons more widely to deter threats from Russia, China and North Korea. The rise of China's nuclear program, he said, is particularly alarming. "NATO may face something that it has never faced before, and that is two nuclear-powered potential adversaries — China and Russia." A new arms race is on.

What did the commentators say?

"The U.S. needs more nukes," Hal Brands said at Bloomberg. President Joe Biden in 2021 briefly considered a "no first use" policy for America's nuclear arsenal, but "America's adversaries don't share the dream of a nuclear-free world." China doubled the size of its own arsenal in recent years, capable of striking at U.S. bases — and allies — in the Pacific. The U.S. has always prioritized a "nuclear advantage" over its rivals, said Brands. Building more weapons "is vital to the credibility of America's global defense posture."

"More warheads will not make us safer," Robert Rust said at the Union of Concerned Scientists blog. We already learned during the Cold War that "any quantitative advantage" the U.S. might gain by building more nukes "will inevitably evaporate." The other guys will catch up quickly. But it would be expensive — a problem when the U.S. defense budget already threatens to exceed $1 trillion a year. A new nuclear arms race "will have no winners, only losers."

What next?

Stoltenberg's comments drew backlash from Russia, Reuters said. "This is nothing but another escalation of tension," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. And NATO tried to walk back the notion that it might deploy nuclear arms more widely. "We have an ongoing modernization program to replace legacy weapons and aircraft," a spokesperson said. "Beyond that, there are no significant changes to our nuclear deterrent."

"Ideally, more aggressive U.S. diplomacy might bring China to the table for tripartite arms talks with Russia and the United States," said The Washington Post. But the prospects for such talks — or an agreement to put limits on a new arms race — "are dim." But Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don't show the same "flexibility or pragmatism" offered by predecessors like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, who started the U.S. and Russia on the path of reducing their nuclear stockpiles. Instead, China and Russia now seem to have a "desire for heightened geopolitical struggle." That's the dilemma the United States faces now. "Diplomacy takes two to tango, or, in this case, three."