Tag: DonaldTrump

The West faces a “crossroads in history,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared at a crucial summit in London on Sunday. The gathering aimed to shift control of negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine war away from the United States and establish a unified European approach, particularly as tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached a breaking point.

“This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act,” Starmer emphasized after an intense day of diplomacy in London, where European leaders worked to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine.

The urgency of the meeting, held at Lancaster House, escalated after U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. The encounter alarmed Western allies while seemingly benefiting Moscow. Zelensky and numerous European leaders attended the summit, a critical moment given the heightened anxieties surrounding the conflict.

Starmer revealed that he was collaborating with France and a select group of nations to develop a proposal to halt the hostilities, which would then be presented to the United States.

French President Emmanuel Macron outlined the framework of this initiative in an interview with Le Figaro, stating that France and the UK had suggested a one-month limited ceasefire in Ukraine.

The initial phase of this Franco-British alternative peace plan would enforce a temporary truce covering air, sea, and energy infrastructures, Macron explained to the French publication. The next stage, he added, would address ground forces. CNN sought comments from Downing Street regarding the proposal.

This initiative appears to rival the negotiation process Trump’s administration launched with Russia the previous month. It also acknowledges the possibility that direct negotiations between Trump and Zelensky could reignite tensions rather than resolve them.

Nevertheless, securing American backing remains essential. During a Sunday press conference, Starmer reinforced this notion, stressing that the U.S. was “not an unreliable ally.” His reassurance came after Trump’s heated dispute with Zelensky deeply unsettled European leaders.

Sunday’s summit aimed to reignite momentum in peace efforts that had been making progress throughout the week, only to collapse after Friday’s confrontation. The meeting underscored European unity, as multiple leaders pushed back against the perception that the continent was merely a spectator in the ongoing negotiations.

“In the end, a deal will have to involve Russia, of course it will, but we can’t approach this on the basis that Russia dictates the terms of any security guarantee before we’ve even got to a deal – otherwise, we won’t make any progress at all,” Starmer asserted.

The UK and France have been working to assemble a “coalition of the willing” that would deploy to Ukraine once an agreement is secured. “If a deal is done, it has to be a deal that is then defended,” Starmer said.

Zelensky commended the summit on social media platform X, stating, “Europe’s unity is at an exceptionally high level, one that has not been seen in a long time.” Separately, he asserted that any potential peace agreement should begin with a prisoner exchange “and the return of children.” This step, he argued, would “demonstrate Russia’s true intention for peace.”

Macron highlighted the advantages of the Franco-British ceasefire proposal, noting its straightforward monitoring process. “We know how to measure it,” he stated. “In the event of a ceasefire, it would be very difficult to verify that the front is respected.”

Macron, who Le Figaro reported had spoken with Trump on Friday, clarified that “no European troops” would be deployed to Ukraine “in the coming weeks.” The French newspaper also reported that Macron remained skeptical about any ceasefire agreement negotiated solely between the U.S. and Russia, arguing that he was “convinced that Vladimir Putin will seek to humiliate Ukraine.”

When asked whether he was aware of the proposal, Zelensky responded that he was “aware of everything” but did not explicitly state whether he supported the ceasefire plan.

‘Nobody Wants to See That’

Zelensky received a warm reception from Starmer on Saturday, a stark contrast to the tense welcome he experienced at the White House. Additionally, King Charles met with the Ukrainian leader at his Sandringham estate on Sunday.

The earlier confrontation between Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Zelensky, where they accused him of being ungrateful for American military aid and of risking “World War III” by resisting Russia’s invasion, cast a shadow over the weekend’s diplomatic efforts.

The episode encapsulated Europe’s worst fears. “Nobody wants to see that,” Starmer remarked to the BBC on Sunday. He disclosed that he immediately began reaching out to leaders after witnessing the heated exchange, adding, “My driving purpose has been to bridge this.”

Zelensky returned to Kyiv with more than just diplomatic assurances. On Saturday, Britain announced a plan to expedite$2.8 billion in loans to Ukraine. According to the UK government, the first installment of the funding would be released the following week.

In a Telegram post on Saturday, Zelensky stated, “The money will go toward the production of weapons in Ukraine. This is the fair way: the one who started the war should pay.” He further noted that “the loan will strengthen our defense capabilities.”

On Sunday, Starmer introduced another agreement permitting Ukraine to use £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in UK export finance to procure more than 5,000 advanced air defense missiles, which would be manufactured in Belfast.

‘A Once-in-a-Generation Moment’

“We gather here today because this is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe, and we all need to step up,” Starmer declared at the summit’s opening.

Downing Street outlined three primary objectives for the meeting: addressing Ukraine’s immediate requirements, securing a “lasting deal” to end the conflict, and formulating robust security guarantees.

“I hope you know that we are all with you and the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes, everyone around this table,” Starmer reassured Zelensky in his opening remarks.

The summit brought together key global figures, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and leaders from various European nations, along with representatives from the European Union and NATO.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasized the need for unity during her discussion with Starmer on Sunday, stressing that it is “very, very important that we avoid the risk that the West divides” over Ukraine.

Both Starmer and Meloni are expected to play crucial roles in advancing the peace process. Their established relationships with Trump may prove instrumental in persuading him to take European proposals seriously.

Europe finds itself in turmoil following a tense confrontation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. Reports indicate that the Trump administration is considering halting all military aid to Ukraine, raising concerns across European nations.

Norway, home to the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund valued at €1.7 trillion, has benefited from an estimated €109 billion in war-related profits due to surging gas prices in 2022 and 2023. Despite its vast financial resources, Norway has contributed only €3.35 billion to Ukraine’s war effort. This figure was strongly criticized by leading Swedish and Danish newspaper editors, who described the amount as “pathetic” and “reprehensible.” In comparison, Sweden and Denmark have donated €5.41 billion and €8.05 billion, respectively.

Liberal Party leader Guri Melby emphasized the need for increased contributions, stating on Saturday, “Norway is one of the few countries that has large amounts of money readily available, and we must therefore multiply our support for Ukraine immediately.”

Norway’s former Conservative Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, echoed the call for swift action. She urged a significant and rapid increase in aid, adding, “The government can safely assume there is will in Parliament to give more.”

In response to growing pressure, the Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party have requested an emergency parliamentary session. However, Euractiv reports that they are now awaiting a formal proposal from the government before proceeding further.

Meanwhile, Sylvi Listhaug, leader of the conservative Progress Party—Norway’s second-largest party according to recent polls—proposed increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. At present, Norway allocates approximately 2% of its GDP to defense.

The leader of the Green Party, which currently polls at 2.7%, took an even more ambitious stance, suggesting that Norway should commit €85.5 billion to support Ukraine.

A spokesperson from Norway’s foreign ministry defended the country’s contributions, asserting, “Norway is among the largest donors to Ukraine. We have so far committed at least NOK 167 billion (€14.7 billion) in support until 2030.” The spokesperson also emphasized the importance of long-term investments, noting that both Ukraine and NATO allies value the predictability of Norway’s assistance. “For 2025, based on a cross-party agreement in Norway’s parliament, we have so far pledged and allocated 35 billion NOK.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre assured that additional support measures are forthcoming. “We will present a proposal to increase Ukraine support for parliament soon,” he said. Støre is also set to participate in a meeting of European leaders in London tomorrow.

Calls to Utilize Sovereign Wealth Fund

Since 2001, Norway has adhered to a fiscal rule limiting annual withdrawals from its sovereign wealth fund to 4%, later reduced to 3%. This policy was established under the leadership of Jens Stoltenberg’s first cabinet and has enjoyed broad political backing. Stoltenberg, who previously served as NATO’s Secretary General, now holds the position of Norway’s finance minister, coinciding with renewed scrutiny of the budget rule.

Amid escalating security concerns, discussions on using the sovereign wealth fund to bolster European defense and support Ukraine have gained traction in Norway. One proposal suggests reallocating approximately €300 billion of the fund’s €450 billion in liquid bonds into European defense bonds, with the stipulation that the funds be used exclusively to enhance Europe’s defense capabilities.

On Friday, Solberg reinforced the argument for increased spending, stating that Norway must leverage its oil wealth to strengthen its own defense. Some of her party’s high-ranking members had previously advocated for tighter regulations on how the fund’s money should be allocated. “Peace is more important than shortsightedness and inflation,” she asserted.

However, Stoltenberg cautioned against altering the budgetary framework, warning on February 7, “It is a dangerous idea to break the budgetary rule to give more money to Ukraine.”

Norway’s Expansive Financial Resources

Despite adhering to its fiscal guidelines, Norway remains in a strong financial position to expand its aid commitments.

Sveinung Rotevatn, deputy chair and financial policy lead for the Liberal Party, revealed that a proposal currently under discussion in Norway’s Parliament, the Storting, aims to increase Ukraine support by an additional 100 billion Norwegian kroner this year. If approved, this would elevate Norway’s financial assistance to Ukraine for 2025 from €3 billion to €11.5 billion.

Norway’s Foreign Ministry declined to specify further details on potential increases in aid, instead referring to Prime Minister Støre’s recent statement on the matter.

Rotevatn underscored the urgency of the situation, declaring, “It has become unequivocally clear that all of Europe must shift gears in our support and policy towards Ukraine and to ensure security in Europe.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide reinforced this stance, asserting, “All other policies we pursue assume that we are a free and independent country and that we have a functioning international world order.”

As European nations grapple with the potential consequences of the U.S. withdrawing military support from Ukraine, Norway faces increasing pressure to step up its financial commitments. With vast sovereign wealth at its disposal, the question remains: Will Norway heed the calls for greater contributions, or will it continue to adhere to its longstanding fiscal restraints?

Even before the dramatic Oval Office confrontation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relations between the U.S. and Europe were growing increasingly strained.

Following Friday’s diplomatic breakdown between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vice President JD Vance, the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has endured for eight decades, appears uncertain.

In a striking rebuke to Trump, European leaders expressed their unwavering support for Zelenskyy. Trump had accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and “gambling with World War III” by continuing Ukraine’s resistance against Russia’s invasion.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelenskyy’s resolve, posting on X, “Zelenskyy’s dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President Zelenskyy. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace.”

Germany’s likely next leader, Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed his stance, emphasizing that “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” French President Emmanuel Macron also voiced strong support, stressing the importance of respecting the Ukrainians “fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children and for the security of Europe.”

Perhaps the most striking statement came from European Union foreign minister Kaja Kallas, who asserted, “Today it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

However, not everyone sided against Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban characterized the tense Oval Office meeting as “difficult” but commended Trump, saying he “stood bravely for peace.” Meanwhile, some observers argued that Zelenskyy escalated tensions unnecessarily by publicly challenging a far more powerful negotiating partner upon whom Ukraine heavily depends.

For Zelenskyy’s supporters, these European leaders’ strong backing reflects a belief that Ukraine’s struggle is not just a localized war but part of a broader hybrid conflict. They contend that Russia’s aggression extends beyond the battlefield, encompassing cyberattacks on Western democracies. They fear that granting Moscow a symbolic victory in Ukraine could embolden further expansionist moves. This concern is heightened by accusations that Trump is undermining the alliance by pressuring U.S. allies while fostering closer ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is widely regarded in Europe as a war criminal.

This growing unease explains why U.S.-Europe relations were fraying even before the recent diplomatic debacle. Over the past several weeks, there have been increasing indications that European powers are seeking greater autonomy from their long-standing reliance on Washington.

Following his center-right Christian Democratic Union party’s victory in Germany’s elections, Merz signaled a shift in priorities. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.,” he declared. He also questioned whether NATO’s upcoming June summit would maintain the alliance in its current form or require the rapid establishment of an independent European defense structure.

His remarks were particularly striking, given his traditionally pro-American stance. They suggested not only a willingness to boost defense spending—something Trump has long demanded—but also a desire for Europe to chart its own course. “I never thought I would have to say such a thing on a television program,” he admitted.

Yet, many questions remain about what this European military independence would entail. Would it require Europe to match U.S. defense spending within NATO? Leaders like Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have expressed no desire to reduce cooperation with Washington. Alternatively, would the U.S. gradually withdraw from its European commitments altogether?

Regardless of the approach, the challenges are immense. The U.S. military’s deep integration into Europe means that its removal would leave critical gaps in air defense, military satellites, and cyber capabilities. Sven Biscop, a director at the Brussels-based Egmont Institute, warned that such a shift would create “huge holes” in European security infrastructure.

Since World War II, the U.S. has provided military protection to Europe in exchange for influence across the continent. Unraveling this interdependence would require hundreds of billions of dollars—costs that would likely fall on European taxpayers already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and cuts to public services.

Last year, the European Union’s collective defense budget stood at $457 billion, far below the U.S. defense budget of $968 billion. Even Russia’s military spending, at $462 billion, surpassed that of the EU, despite Russia’s smaller economy. Since its invasion of Ukraine three years ago, Moscow has refocused its entire economy on military production.

Achieving full European military deterrence without U.S. support would take a minimum of five years, according to Luigi Scazzieri, assistant director at the London-based Centre for European Reform. “You can probably get something that fills a large part of the gap in two to three years—but only with a lot of urgency,” he added.

Despite these logistical hurdles, Merz’s statements reflect an acknowledgment that trans-Atlantic relations are entering a new phase. Sophia Besch, a senior Europe fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that the Trump administration “no longer acknowledges shared community of values, shared interests, and puts forward a very ‘great power competition’ view of the world, where Europe is a side player and Russia is an equal.”

Merz is not alone in his call for European self-reliance. Macron has long advocated for Europe to reduce its dependence on Washington. In response to Merz’s remarks, Macron declared, “We are experiencing a historic moment. It can lead to an unprecedented Franco-German agreement.”

Biscop believes that European leaders must act swiftly to organize this shift in defense strategy. He suggested forming a European “war Cabinet” to coordinate efforts, potentially including leaders such as Britain’s Starmer, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and the EU’s von der Leyen.

“They need agility and they need to move fast,” Biscop urged. “Even faster on Ukraine—because the Americans and Russians are already negotiating.”

As tensions between Washington and Europe continue to rise, the question remains whether Europe can truly break free from its historical reliance on U.S. military and economic support. For now, leaders across the continent appear determined to chart a new course—one that may redefine the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on the United States to “stand more firmly on our side” following what he described as a “tough dialogue” with former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Zelensky stated that Ukraine is prepared to finalize the U.S.-proposed minerals deal but stressed that Kyiv requires concrete security guarantees from Washington.

His remarks follow a heated exchange at the White House on Friday, during which Trump accused him of “gambling with World War Three.”

Meanwhile, the British government has confirmed that Prime Minister Keir Starmer will host Zelensky at Downing Street today. This meeting comes ahead of an important summit with European leaders set for Sunday.

How U.S. Media Outlets Are Reacting

American media outlets are actively covering the fallout from last night’s public diplomatic standoff between Zelensky and Trump.

Fox News ran the headline “‘World War III’ fears,” previewing an interview with Zelensky conducted by host Bret Baier. In the interview, Baier questioned whether Zelensky believed the relationship with Trump could be salvaged after the confrontation.

Bloomberg’s front page carried the headline: “President Zelensky’s blow-up with Trump leaves allies facing disaster.”

The Washington Post reported that the “fiery meeting” in the Oval Office had “upended Trump’s Russia-Ukraine peace deal.” Meanwhile, CNN focused on the global implications, running the headline: “Western leaders scramble to back Ukraine.”

MSNBC’s Anthony L. Fisher characterized the encounter as a disgraceful moment for the United States, writing, “Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Zelensky was a shameful moment for America.”

The New York Times framed the incident as emblematic of a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating that the meeting “points to Trump’s foreign policy revolution.”

Ukrainian Reactions: ‘Trump Looks Like a Partner for Russia’

The reaction in Ukraine has been swift, particularly from residents in Lviv, located in the western part of the country.

One local commented that Trump does not seem to be aligned with Ukraine’s interests, saying, “He looks like a partner for Russia.”

Another citizen expressed the need for greater European involvement, stating, “Europe should be much more active economically and in terms of military support.”

A third resident noted that he had low expectations ahead of Zelensky’s trip to Washington, suggesting that the recent developments have only reinforced doubts about U.S. commitment.

Observers have pointed out that the once-solid alliance between Ukraine and the U.S. appears to be fracturing, forcing European nations to step in and fill the gaps, particularly in terms of military aid.

The White House meeting itself has drawn mixed interpretations—some viewing it as a moment of necessary bluntness, while others see it as a display of arrogance.

Senator JD Vance’s involvement in the confrontation also stood out. Typically, vice presidents play a more restrained role in high-level diplomatic meetings, but Vance’s aggressive approach surprised many.

Zelensky, appearing visibly frustrated, engaged in the verbal sparring, escalating tensions further. “I’ve never seen anything like last night’s argument in the White House before,” an observer remarked. Some speculate that the confrontation was orchestrated to provoke the Ukrainian leader.

Moscow Watches as U.S.-Ukraine Tensions Rise

The Kremlin has taken a cautious approach in responding to the fallout from the White House meeting. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not commented on the situation, though analysts believe the confrontation played into Moscow’s hands.

During a meeting with Russian security officials, Putin acknowledged that Trump’s stance on Russia offers some “hope” but refrained from making any predictions about whether improved relations with Washington could influence the war in Ukraine.

Despite increased diplomatic engagement between Moscow and the White House, no concrete agreements have emerged, and there is no scheduled meeting between Trump and Putin.

For Russia, the optics of Trump and Vance confronting Zelensky serve as an unexpected strategic advantage. Nevertheless, while rhetoric may be shifting, the war in Ukraine persists, and fears over U.S. aid reductions have yet to materialize.

Putin appears to be treading carefully, ensuring that his comments do not alienate the Trump administration while also maintaining Russia’s longstanding adversarial stance toward the U.S.

A Devastating Visit for Ukraine

Regardless of whether Zelensky was intentionally provoked or should have handled the situation with greater diplomacy, the visit to Washington proved to be disastrous for Ukraine.

Many Ukrainians watching from Kyiv perceived the encounter as a moment of existential importance for their nation.

Yulia, a Kyiv resident, defended Zelensky’s approach, saying, “It was an emotional conversation, but I understand our president. Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic, but it was sincere. It’s about life, we want to live.”

Andriy, a 30-year-old local, criticized Trump and Vance’s conduct. “They were so rude,” he said. “They don’t respect the people of Ukraine.”

Dmytro, 26, voiced concerns that U.S. policy might be shifting in Russia’s favor. “It looks like Washington supports Russia,” he observed.

Inna Sovsun, a Ukrainian member of parliament, described the reaction in Kyiv as one of “shock.”

“It was difficult to watch a president who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world,” she said. “It’s painful.”

Moscow Declares Zelensky’s Trip a Failure

Russia has wasted no time in labeling Zelensky’s visit to Washington as a diplomatic disaster.

Maria Zakharova, the Kremlin’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, claimed the Ukrainian leader was “obsessed” with prolonging the war. She reiterated Moscow’s goals of “demilitarizing” Ukraine and permanently annexing occupied territories.

Zakharova also accused Zelensky of being a reckless instigator of global conflict. “With his outrageously rude behavior during his stay in Washington, Zelensky confirmed that he is the most dangerous threat to the world community as an irresponsible instigator of a major war,” she said.

She added that Kyiv and certain European capitals must recognize this reality if there is to be any hope for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Meanwhile, Putin remains silent on the Oval Office incident. While world leaders have weighed in, the Russian president has opted to observe developments from the sidelines.

However, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev did not hold back. Writing on social media, Medvedev said Zelensky had been “slapped down in the Oval Office” and urged Washington to halt military assistance to Ukraine.

Zelensky Calls for U.S. Support as the War Continues

Zelensky has reiterated his plea for stronger U.S. backing, emphasizing that Ukraine needs more than just diplomatic assurances.

Posting on X, he reaffirmed his willingness to sign a minerals deal with Trump but underscored the necessity of clear security commitments from Washington.

His remarks come in the wake of the contentious Oval Office meeting, where he faced sharp criticism from Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump has since characterized the encounter as a misstep for Zelensky, asserting that the Ukrainian leader “overplayed his hand with a weak set of cards.”

Following his Washington visit, Zelensky has arrived in London, where he is set to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Later, he will attend a European summit where Ukraine’s security and military aid will be key discussion points.

Meanwhile, the war rages on in Ukraine. The city of Kharkiv has suffered further casualties following a Russian drone attack, highlighting the ongoing devastation despite the political drama unfolding on the world stage.

European leaders have expressed strong support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky following his tense encounter with former U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House.

Leaders from Germany, France, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands took to social media to reaffirm their backing for Ukraine. Zelensky responded to each message, personally thanking them for their solidarity.

Zelensky has since traveled to London for a summit hosted by UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose government has emphasized its unwavering commitment to Ukraine, according to Downing Street.

The show of European unity follows a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Friday, where Trump told Zelensky to negotiate a settlement with Russia or risk losing U.S. support.

During the confrontation, Trump criticized Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for the military and political aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Trump warned him that failing to appreciate this assistance was akin to “gambling with World War Three.”

As international leaders reacted to the confrontation, social media was flooded with messages of support for Ukraine, including statements from the prime ministers of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Zelensky responded to each one with a simple but direct acknowledgment: “Thank you for your support.”

French President Emmanuel Macron strongly condemned Russia’s actions, stating, “There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago—and to keep doing so.”

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof reiterated the Netherlands’ commitment, writing, “We support Ukraine now more than ever. We want a lasting peace and an end to the war of aggression started by Russia. For Ukraine and its people, and for Europe.”

Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the Ukrainian people’s desire for peace, remarking, “No one wants peace more than the citizens of Ukraine.” His expected successor, Friedrich Merz, reinforced this stance, stating, “We stand with Ukraine” and emphasizing that the world “must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez kept his message straightforward: “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressed Zelensky and the Ukrainian people directly, stating, “Dear [Zelensky], dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelensky’s leadership, stating, “Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people.”

Beyond Europe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assured, “Canada will continue to stand with Ukraine and Ukrainians in achieving a just and lasting peace.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese echoed similar sentiments, writing, “Australia has proudly supported the brave people of Ukraine in their struggle to defend their sovereignty against the brutality of Russian aggression and in support of international law.”

Additional statements of support came from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia.

However, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán offered a different perspective, siding with Trump. He posted, “Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President @realDonaldTrump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!”

Following his confrontation with Trump, Zelensky left the White House earlier than expected. Nevertheless, he later expressed gratitude to Trump on social media, writing, “Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”

On Saturday, Zelensky took to the messaging platform Telegram to emphasize the significance of global attention on Ukraine. “It is very important for us that Ukraine is heard and that no one forgets about it, neither during the war nor after,” he wrote.

He added, “It is important for people in Ukraine to know that they are not alone, that their interests are represented in every country, in every corner of the world.”

In an interview with Fox News after his White House visit, Zelensky admitted that his dispute with Trump was “not good for both sides” but expressed hope that their working relationship could be repaired.

The tense encounter unfolded as the two leaders were set to sign an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals. However, the conversation took a turn when U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who was present in the meeting, suggested that the war needed to be concluded through diplomatic means.

Zelensky pushed back, asking, “What kind of diplomacy?” He referenced a 2019 ceasefire agreement negotiated before Russia’s full-scale invasion, a deal that took place while Moscow was still backing separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.

Vance, in response, accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and “litigating” the conflict in front of the media. The conversation grew increasingly tense as both sides interrupted each other.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has since called for an urgent summit between the U.S., Europe, and other allies to address the situation in Ukraine.

On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer is set to host critical talks at Downing Street, where European leaders will discuss potential strategies for enforcing a future peace agreement.

The UK Prime Minister believes that any lasting settlement will require U.S. military assets to play a role in monitoring and enforcing the terms. This could include intelligence-sharing, surveillance efforts, and possibly even air support to deter further aggression from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to meet at the White House on Friday following heated exchanges over peace negotiations and an unexpected shift in U.S. policy toward Vladimir Putin and Russia.

As the conflict nears its third anniversary, Trump has referred to Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” and a “modestly successful comedian,” while adopting a more accommodating stance toward Putin. Trump suggested that the U.S. would negotiate the terms of a settlement with Russia.

Zelenskyy, in response, accused Trump of being trapped in a “web of disinformation,” particularly after preliminary discussions between U.S. and Kremlin officials in Saudi Arabia. Trump also falsely claimed that Ukraine initiated the war, disregarding the fact that Russia launched the invasion.

The key issue at stake, which could influence the course of peace talks, is an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. Trump has framed this deal as a means to ensure that American taxpayers receive some form of reimbursement for the financial aid provided to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.

“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump stated on Thursday, emphasizing that the U.S. would be actively involved in extracting rare earth minerals in Ukraine. “It’ll be great for Ukraine. It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”

Zelenskyy, however, has presented the deal differently, viewing it primarily as a strategy to maintain U.S. support.

Although the agreement does not offer the security guarantees Zelenskyy deems essential for a lasting peace settlement, Trump administration officials argue that significant U.S. investment in Ukraine’s economy could function as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.

“I will meet with President Trump,” Zelenskyy stated on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”

Details of the Agreement

According to officials familiar with the discussions, the agreement involves U.S.-Ukraine collaboration in extracting valuable minerals and other natural resources from Ukrainian soil.

Unlike previous proposals, this version does not require Ukraine to allocate revenue from mineral sales to repay the U.S. $500 billion—an amount the Trump administration previously described as “payback” for the approximately $183 billion in aid provided to Ukraine, as reported by the U.S. special inspector general overseeing Ukrainian assistance.

Instead, the deal proposes the creation of a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The specifics regarding the management and operation of this fund will be determined through subsequent negotiations.

Much of the success of this initiative will depend on market forces.

“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.

“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they explained.

However, Ukrainian officials made some concessions. Initially, Kyiv sought firm security guarantees within the agreement, but the finalized framework lacks these provisions.

“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated.

Should the deal prove successful, they suggest that the U.S. may enhance its mineral security, but tangible benefits might not materialize for decades.

“Mining is a long-term effort—so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they noted.

Trump himself acknowledged the uncertainty.

“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he remarked on Thursday.

A Shift in Trump’s Rhetoric

After days of harsh criticism directed at Zelenskyy, Trump moderated his stance on Thursday.

When asked whether he still considered Zelenskyy a dictator—an assertion he made just over a week ago—Trump replied, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before quickly moving on.

Later in the day, Trump also commended Zelenskyy and Ukrainian forces for their resilience in combat.

“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” Trump acknowledged. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”

Ukrainian officials advocating for the mineral deal may view Trump’s softened rhetoric as validation of their argument—that signing the agreement could strengthen ties between Kyiv and the Trump administration, whereas delaying it might further strain Trump’s perception of Zelenskyy.

However, whether this positive shift in tone will endure remains uncertain.

“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”

Given Trump’s well-known impatience, some U.S. officials anticipate that slow progress on the deal could lead to frustration.

Additionally, any discord during Friday’s White House meeting could quickly sour Trump’s attitude toward Zelenskyy once again. While Trump is expected to emphasize the economic benefits of the agreement for the U.S., Zelenskyy is likely to push for additional security assurances.

Nonetheless, Trump projected optimism ahead of the meeting.

“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”

John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, believes that the very fact that the meeting is taking place is a positive development for Ukraine.

“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and U.S. officials were meeting in Riyadh,” Herbst said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”

Ongoing Peace Talks

While public attention has largely shifted to negotiations over the mineral deal, discussions aimed at ultimately resolving the war in Ukraine are continuing through separate diplomatic channels.

On Thursday, American and Russian officials convened in Istanbul for a six-hour meeting focused on expanding the staffing of their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously emphasized that such diplomatic expansion was necessary to facilitate cooperation, including efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Officials from both sides described the meeting’s outcome as favorable, predicting that a stronger diplomatic presence could pave the way for broader peace negotiations and a potential summit between Trump and Putin.

As European leaders push for U.S. security guarantees to enforce a truce in Ukraine, Trump has repeatedly asserted his confidence in Putin’s commitment to honoring a peace agreement.

“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.”

However, before meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump added an important qualifier.

“You know, look, it’s trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he remarked.

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stressed the importance of Trump maintaining a realistic perspective on Putin.

“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” May said.

“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin—about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” he added.

President Donald Trump voiced optimism that Russia’s war in Ukraine is approaching a resolution as he met with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday, marking the third anniversary of the invasion. However, Macron emphasized the importance of ensuring that any potential agreement with Moscow does not equate to Ukraine’s surrender.

The discussions took place amid significant uncertainty regarding the future of transatlantic relations, as Trump seeks to reshape American foreign policy. His approach has largely sidelined European leadership while he pursues a swift resolution to the conflict in Ukraine.

Although Trump and Macron displayed cordiality at the White House, their respective nations were engaged in a dispute at the United Nations over resolutions that labeled Russia as the aggressor in the war.

Addressing the broader conflict, Trump stated that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin would be open to the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine.

“Yeah, he will accept it,” Trump said to reporters. “I have asked him that question. Look, if we do this deal, he’s not looking for more war.”

Trump also expressed hope that the war could conclude within weeks. He suggested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would soon travel to the United States to finalize an agreement allowing America access to Ukraine’s essential minerals, which are crucial for advanced technology.

The economic deal Trump is promoting is intended to compensate for some of the $180 billion in U.S. aid that has been allocated to Kyiv since the war began. A portion of these funds has been utilized domestically to replenish aging weapons that were supplied to Ukraine.

“It looks like we’re getting very close,” Trump said regarding the minerals deal before his meeting with Macron. He indicated that Zelenskyy might visit Washington this week or next to sign the agreement.

Ukraine’s Security Considerations

Ukraine is also seeking long-term security assurances as part of any settlement. However, Trump did not specify whether the developing agreement would include such commitments from the United States. Instead, he remarked, “Europe is going to make sure nothing happens.”

A French official familiar with the discussions between Macron and Trump indicated that the U.S. president did not oppose the idea of American security guarantees in a potential peace agreement, though the specifics were still being negotiated. The official spoke anonymously, as they were not authorized to comment publicly.

During a joint press conference, Macron acknowledged that European nations must increase their defense efforts but warned against conceding too much to Russia.

“This peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine,” Macron asserted. “It must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees. This peace must allow for Ukrainian sovereignty.”

Macron had ceased direct communication with Putin after Russian forces carried out atrocities in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha early in the conflict. However, he stated that the situation had evolved and expressed hope that Trump’s engagement with Putin could lead to progress.

“Now, there is a big chance because there is a new U.S. administration, so this is a new context,” Macron said. “So there is good reason for President Trump to reengage with President Putin.”

Putin, however, stated on Monday that he had not discussed a detailed resolution to the conflict with Trump. Additionally, Russian and American negotiation teams had not delved into specifics when they met in Saudi Arabia last week.

Putin also mentioned that Russia was open to including European nations—who were initially excluded from the talks in Riyadh—in future peace negotiations.

A Shift in American Foreign Policy

The third anniversary of the war and the discussions at the White House occurred at a time of considerable unease in Europe. Trump’s administration has ushered in a drastic shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Trump has made bold territorial demands involving Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and the Panama Canal. Just over a month into his second term, his “America First” approach has raised concerns among diplomats and former government officials who previously viewed the United States as a pillar of global stability.

Despite occasional missteps, the United States’ military, economic, and diplomatic influence has defined the post-World War II era, particularly after the Soviet Union’s collapse ended the Cold War. Many fear that Trump’s strategy could dismantle these long-standing principles, including those that underpin the United Nations and other international institutions.

“The only conclusion you can draw is that 80 years of policy in standing up against aggressors has just been blown up without any sort of discussion or reflection,” said Ian Kelly, a former U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations and currently a professor at Northwestern University.

Meetings with European Leaders

Trump is set to meet with another key European leader, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, on Thursday.

His approach to Ukraine has unsettled European allies, particularly his repeated criticism of Zelenskyy for not engaging in negotiations to end the war. Trump has also pushed for Ukraine to sign an economic deal granting the U.S. access to its vital mineral resources, which are valuable to American aerospace, medical, and technology industries.

Initially, Zelenskyy resisted the proposal, citing the lack of security guarantees. On Sunday, he wrote on X that “we are making great progress” but insisted that “we want a good economic deal that will be part of a true security guarantee system for Ukraine.”

During a public dispute, Trump accused Zelenskyy of residing in a “Russian-made disinformation space” and labeled him a “dictator,” falsely asserting that Kyiv had instigated the war. In reality, Russia invaded its smaller, less-equipped neighbor in February 2022.

When asked on Monday whether he considered Putin a dictator as well, Trump declined to use the term, stating, “I don’t use those words lightly.”

Differences Among Allies

While Macron and Trump engaged in discussions, including a virtual meeting with fellow Group of Seven (G7) leaders, the United States diverged from its European allies at the United Nations. The U.S. refrained from endorsing resolutions that explicitly blamed Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

The United States ultimately abstained from voting on its own resolution after European countries, led by France, succeeded in amending it to explicitly identify Russia as the aggressor.

Before meeting with Trump, Macron emphasized that he would urge the U.S. president to recognize the shared interest of Americans and Europeans in not appearing weak in front of Putin.

“It’s not you, it’s not your trademark, it’s not in your interest,” Macron said. “How can you then be credible in the face of China if you’re weak in the face of Putin?”

Despite this stance, Trump has indicated his desire for Russia to rejoin the G7, from which it was expelled in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea.

“I really believe he wants to make a deal,” Trump said regarding Putin. “I may be wrong, but I believe he wants to make a deal.”

The opposition conservatives, led by Friedrich Merz, secured a modest victory in Germany’s election on Sunday, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) saw its support double, marking the strongest performance for an extreme-right party since World War II, according to projections.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz acknowledged defeat for his center-left Social Democrats, calling it “a bitter election result.” Projections from ARD and ZDF public television indicated that his party had finished in third place, marking its worst postwar performance in a national parliamentary election.

Merz expressed his intention to form a coalition government by Easter, though assembling such an alliance is expected to be challenging.

A Discontented Electorate

The election was held seven months ahead of schedule after Scholz’s unpopular coalition collapsed in November. His three-year tenure had been plagued by internal divisions, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among voters. However, there was little enthusiasm for any of the candidates.

Key concerns during the campaign included the prolonged economic stagnation in Europe’s largest economy and the pressure to control migration. Merz, in recent weeks, had strongly advocated for stricter immigration policies, fueling debate. Additionally, uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s future and Europe’s alliance with the United States added to voter concerns.

As the most populous country in the European Union and a leading NATO member, Germany plays a crucial role in shaping Europe’s responses to global challenges. It has been the second-largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, following the United States. The outcome of the election is expected to influence Germany’s stance on issues such as U.S. foreign policy under a potential new Trump administration.

According to projections based on exit polls and preliminary results, Merz’s Union bloc garnered around 28.5% of the vote, while the anti-immigration AfD received approximately 20.5%—nearly double its 2021 result.

Scholz’s Social Democrats managed just over 16%, significantly lower than their previous election performance and worse than their postwar low of 20.5% in 2017. The Greens, who had been part of the outgoing coalition government, secured about 12%.

Among the smaller parties, the hard-left Left Party showed resilience, making a comeback with up to 9% of the vote. The pro-business Free Democrats, also a part of the collapsed government, appeared poised to lose their parliamentary representation, with support hovering around 4.5%. Meanwhile, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) was on the brink of the 5% threshold required to enter parliament.

Merz Faces Tough Road Ahead

The ability of Merz to form a coalition government depends on whether he can secure a majority with the Social Democrats or if a second partner, likely the Greens, will be necessary. The inclusion of the BSW in parliament could also influence coalition dynamics.

“The most important thing is to reestablish a viable government in Germany as quickly as possible,” Merz emphasized.

“I am aware of the responsibility,” he stated. “I am also aware of the scale of the task that now lies ahead of us. I approach it with the utmost respect, and I know that it will not be easy.”

Merz also warned that prolonged coalition negotiations would be detrimental. “The world out there isn’t waiting for us, and it isn’t waiting for long-drawn-out coalition talks and negotiations,” he told his cheering supporters.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, urged Merz to adopt a more moderate approach following an intense campaign.

“We have seen the center is weakened overall, and everyone should look at themselves and ask whether they didn’t contribute to that,” Habeck remarked. “Now he must see that he acts like a chancellor.”

Despite its role in Scholz’s unpopular administration, the Greens fared relatively well compared to their coalition partners. Matthias Miersch, the Social Democrats’ general secretary, admitted that their defeat had been long in the making. “This election wasn’t lost in the last eight weeks,” he observed.

A Triumphant Yet Isolated Far-Right Party

AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla celebrated the party’s historic gains, addressing enthusiastic supporters. “We have achieved something historic today,” he declared.

“We are now the political center and we have left the fringes behind us,” Chrupalla asserted. AfD’sprevious best result was 12.6% in 2017 when it first entered parliament.

Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor, signaled the party’s openness to coalition talks with Merz’s conservatives. “We are open for coalition negotiations” with the Union, she said, adding, “Otherwise, no change of policy is possible in Germany.”

However, Merz and other mainstream leaders have consistently rejected working with AfD, and he reiterated this stance in a televised discussion with Weidel and other political leaders after the election.

Weidel suggested that AfD would not need to compromise much in any theoretical coalition, arguing that the Union had largely adopted its policies. She dismissed Merz’s victory as hollow, stating, “It won’t be able to implement it with left-wing parties.”

She predicted instability if Merz formed an alliance with the Social Democrats and the Greens. “It will be an unstable government that doesn’t last four years, there will be an interim Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and in the coming years, we will overtake the Union,” Weidel claimed.

Merz dismissed the possibility of a coalition with AfD, emphasizing that their policy positions were fundamentally at odds. “We have fundamentally different views, for example, on foreign policy, on security policy, in many other areas, regarding Europe, the euro, NATO,” he stated.

“You want the opposite of what we want, so there will be no cooperation,” he added.

Scholz also condemned AfD’s rising influence, asserting, “That must never be something that we will accept. I will not accept it and never will.”

The election saw more than 59 million eligible voters participate in choosing the 630 members of the Bundestag, Germany’s lower house of parliament, who will take their seats under the iconic glass dome of Berlin’s Reichstag building.

Former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley took issue with President Trump’s recent remarks about Ukraine and its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. She criticized Trump for his stance on the ongoing war in Eastern Europe and his negative comments about Zelensky, calling them “classic Russian talking points” and “exactly what Putin wants.”

On Tuesday, Trump appeared to place blame on Zelensky and Ukraine’s leadership for the war, which is now nearing its third anniversary. The following day, he reinforced his criticism, stating that Zelensky had done a “terrible job” leading the embattled country. Trump also accused Ukraine’s president of exploiting Washington, pointing to the extensive financial aid the U.S. has provided over the past three years.

Haley, who withdrew from the 2024 race and later endorsed Trump, took issue with his statements. As a strong advocate for U.S. foreign policy interests, she has consistently supported Ukraine and has argued that aiding Kyiv aligns with America’s national security priorities.

Trump’s criticisms of Zelensky coincided with a meeting in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, where U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz, engaged in discussions with Russian representatives. The talks aimed to explore potential peace negotiations and a re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which had weakened following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Notably, Ukraine was not represented in the meeting.

The following day, Trump escalated his attacks, referring to Zelensky as a “dictator” and accusing him of failing to hold nationwide elections. He also claimed that Zelensky’s approval rating had plummeted to single digits. However, under Ukraine’s martial law, elections are not permitted. A survey published Wednesday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology indicated that 57 percent of Ukrainians still trust their president.

Zelensky did not remain silent in the face of Trump’s remarks. In response to Trump’s Tuesday comments, he fired back, stating that the former U.S. president was operating within a Russian “disinformation space.”

Haley’s criticism of Trump aligns with her longstanding foreign policy views. Since joining the Hudson Institute think tank after exiting the presidential race, she has maintained that supporting Ukraine is vital to U.S. interests. She has also voiced her backing for Ukraine’s eventual inclusion in NATO, further underscoring her commitment to Kyiv.

Trump’s recent remarks on Ukraine have not only drawn pushback from Haley but also from his former vice president and one-time 2024 primary rival, Mike Pence.

“Mr. President, Ukraine did not ‘start’ this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth,” Pence stated in a pointed message on Wednesday.

Some Republican senators have also expressed concerns over Trump’s rhetoric. Many have defended Zelensky’s leadership, emphasizing that Russia was the aggressor in 2022, eight years after annexing Crimea.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Kyiv with Senate Democrats, acknowledged Zelensky’s challenges but praised his leadership. “Zelensky is frustrated, but he’s also been the right head of state for the time. He’s kept a nation together focused on Russian occupiers, and I think we should give them a fair amount of credit for that work,” Tillis said.

Sir John Major has cautioned that democracy is at risk as the United States retreats from its global leadership role.

The former British prime minister expressed concern that President Donald Trump’s policy of American “isolation” is leaving a power vacuum, potentially emboldening nations such as Russia and China.

Sir John, who led the UK from 1990 to 1997, remarked that the progress achieved since the Soviet Union’s collapse was now being undone. He asserted that Russia was likely to invade other countries in the near future. “There is no doubt in my mind that democracy has been in modest decline over the last 18 years,” he said, emphasizing that “ugly nationalism” was emerging, contributing to an increasingly unstable global situation.

His warning coincides with preparations by European leaders for an emergency summit on the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. and Russian officials are set to engage in peace talks, raising concerns that European nations, including Ukraine, are being excluded from negotiations.

Sir John also dismissed U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s recent criticism of Europe’s record on free speech. He argued that such remarks should have been directed at Moscow or Beijing instead. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, he stated, “It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

He further condemned Russia’s suppression of dissent, saying, “In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or—on a statistically unlikely level—fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow.”

Sir John highlighted the shifting geopolitical landscape, stating, “The world is changing and may not be reshaping in a way that is congenial to the West.” He pointed to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine as evidence that past diplomatic gains were being undone. “Many of the gains we made over recent years, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed, and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine,” he said. He warned that if Russia succeeded in its objectives in Ukraine, “no doubt they’d be elsewhere before too long.”

Discussing the broader decline of democracy, Sir John reiterated, “There is an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right… So it is a very unsettled time.”

Addressing domestic political matters, the former Conservative leader acknowledged the economic difficulties faced by the UK government, particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves. However, he suggested that the current global climate might necessitate increased defense spending. “It’s very, very easy to say from outside government, ‘I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money,'” he said. “I would prefer to say I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.”

Speaking separately on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg program, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds emphasized the need for the UK and Europe to respond to U.S. calls for greater contributions toward their “collective defense” in the face of “greater threats.”

Reynolds confirmed that the government would outline a roadmap to increase defense spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the nation’s economic output. However, he did not specify a timeline for achieving this target.

Despite growing tensions between the U.S. and its allies regarding the Ukraine conflict, Reynolds maintained that there was “still a great deal of common ground” between the nations.

Sir John has voiced his concerns on multiple occasions in recent years, particularly regarding Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022. In the early stages of the war, he joined former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others in signing a petition demanding that Vladimir Putin face a Nuremberg-style trial for war crimes over his actions in Ukraine.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, and nearly 60 world leaders and policymakers are set to gather in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC) over the next three days.

For nearly two decades, this event has been a focal point for global security discussions, but this year, the stakes appear higher than ever. A senior Western official described the current global security climate as “the most dangerous and contested time” of their career.

Cracks in the International Order

The established global security structure, often referred to as the International Rules-based Order, is facing unprecedented strain. Some argue it is already beginning to collapse.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, much of the world condemned the move. NATO, the European Union, and Western nations demonstrated remarkable unity in supporting Ukraine, ensuring it could defend itself without direct Western military intervention.

While Hungary and Slovakia occasionally expressed reservations, there was broad consensus that Putin’s invasion needed to fail to prevent Russia from further aggression, possibly against NATO members like Estonia. The prevailing belief was that Ukraine should receive whatever it needed to achieve a strong negotiating position for lasting peace.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Ukraine

However, that unity has begun to fray. Former President Donald Trump has significantly undermined Ukraine’s stance by declaring—through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “not realistic.” Additionally, the U.S. has dismissed Kyiv’s aspirations for NATO membership, a key goal for President Zelensky, and ruled out sending troops to defend Ukraine from potential future Russian invasions.

Further rattling Western allies, Trump recently held a cordial 90-minute phone call with Putin, abruptly ending a three-year diplomatic freeze. This shift in U.S. policy suggests a preference for quickly ending the war, even if it means meeting many of Moscow’s demands.

Over the coming days in Munich, Trump’s team is expected to outline their plans for Ukraine, with retired U.S. Army General Keith Kellogg traveling to Kyiv next week for further discussions. However, a clear rift has emerged between Washington and Europe. While the U.S. prioritizes ending the war swiftly, European leaders had, until recently, believed that sustained pressure on Moscow—amid significant Russian battlefield casualties and economic struggles—could secure a more favorable peace for Ukraine.

NATO’s Growing Divisions

Beyond Ukraine, other cracks are emerging within NATO. Trump’s recent announcement of his interest in “buying” Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark—has sparked fresh tensions. When Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly stated that “Greenland is not for sale,” Trump reportedly reacted with a “horrendous” phone call and did not rule out using force to take the territory.

The notion of a NATO country threatening to seize another member’s land was once unthinkable. In Greenland’s case, U.S. security interests are already well-served, as the island hosts more American troops than Danish forces, and Copenhagen has been open to strengthening mutual defense arrangements.

While many in Scandinavia hope Trump’s proposal is mere rhetoric, the broader damage is already done. His remarks signal a troubling precedent—that using force against neighbors for territorial gain is acceptable.

Former UK National Security Adviser and Ambassador to Washington, Lord Kim Darroch, warned that Trump’s threats against Denmark—whether economic or military—send a dangerous message. “Even if nothing comes from it, it’s done great damage. It’s another signal of Trump’s disdain for NATO. And it will be interpreted in Moscow and Beijing as a message that they have a free hand in Ukraine and Taiwan respectively,” he said.

At the Munich Security Conference, European allies will seek reassurance from Washington that NATO remains strong. However, Trump appears determined to reshape America’s global role and seems unlikely to heed European concerns.

President Donald Trump welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to the White House on Tuesday, once again pushing his controversial idea of evacuating Gaza’s population, placing it under U.S. control, and transforming it into a tourist destination.

This ambitious but highly improbable proposal to reshape the Middle East would require Jordan and other Arab nations to take in displaced Gazans. However, after their meeting, Abdullah reaffirmed his opposition to such a move.

Their discussion took place in the Oval Office, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio also present. Although Trump had previously suggested withholding U.S. aid from Jordan or Egypt if they refused to accept more people from Gaza, he appeared to backtrack on that stance.

“I don’t have to threaten that. I do believe we’re above that,” Trump stated. This contradicted his earlier remarks, where he had implied that reducing U.S. assistance was a possibility.

When asked multiple times about Trump’s plan to empty Gaza and convert it into a Mediterranean resort, Abdullah refrained from making any concrete remarks or committing to taking in large numbers of displaced Gazans.

However, the Jordanian leader did express his country’s willingness to accept up to 2,000 ill or cancer-stricken children from Gaza “right away.”

“I finally see somebody that can take us across the finish line to bring stability, peace and prosperity to all of us in the region,” Abdullah remarked, referring to Trump during their meeting.

After spending about two hours at the White House, Abdullah proceeded to Capitol Hill for discussions with a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Later, he posted on X, stating, “I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

“This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he wrote.

Despite Abdullah’s firm stance, Trump used the meeting to once again suggest that the U.S. could assume control of Gaza. He claimed this wouldn’t require American financial contributions but insisted that placing the region under “U.S. authority” was feasible, though he did not elaborate on what that would entail.

“We’re not going to buy anything. We’re going to have it,” Trump said regarding U.S. control in Gaza. He envisioned constructing new hotels, office buildings, and residences, promising that the region would be “exciting.”

“I can tell you about real estate. They’re going to be in love with it,” Trump added, referencing his background in property development, while also maintaining that he had no personal interest in handling the redevelopment.

Trump has previously suggested that Gaza’s population could be relocated, either temporarily or permanently—an idea that has been met with strong opposition across the Arab world.

The former president also reiterated that a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel could be scrapped if Hamas failed to release all remaining hostages by midday Saturday. He first raised this point on Monday but acknowledged that Israel would ultimately decide on the matter.

“I don’t think they’re going to make the deadline, personally,” Trump commented on Tuesday, referring to Hamas. “They want to play tough guy. We’ll see how tough they are.”

Abdullah’s visit coincided with a critical period for the ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas has accused Israel of breaching the truce and has delayed the release of more hostages captured during its attack on October 7, 2023.

Following Trump’s remarks, Hamas issued a statement calling them “racist” and “a call for ethnic cleansing.” The group also accused the former president of attempting to “liquidate the Palestinian cause and deny the national rights of the Palestinian people.”

Trump has repeatedly proposed that the U.S. should control Gaza and transform it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” His vision includes relocating Palestinians to neighboring nations without granting them a right of return.

However, his statements on Tuesday contradicted his previous stance on potentially withholding U.S. aid from Jordan and Egypt—two long-standing American allies and top recipients of foreign assistance—if they refused to accept additional Palestinians from Gaza.

Jordan already hosts over 2 million Palestinians, and its government has remained resolute in opposing forced displacement. Last week, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi stated that his country’s stance on Gaza’s population transfer was “firm and unwavering.”

Beyond concerns over jeopardizing the longstanding objective of a two-state solution, both Egypt and Jordan have expressed private security fears about admitting large numbers of displaced Palestinians, even on a temporary basis.

Trump first outlined his plans for relocating Gaza’s residents and asserting U.S. control over the region during a press conference last week alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the time, the former president did not rule out deploying American troops to help secure Gaza but simultaneously insisted that no U.S. funds would be allocated for its reconstruction—raising significant questions about how his proposal could be implemented.

Following Trump’s initial remarks, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to clarify that his administration envisioned only a “temporary” relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. They claimed the move would allow for essential tasks such as clearing debris, disposing of unexploded ordnance, and reconstructing the region.

However, when asked in a Fox News interview on Monday whether displaced Palestinians would eventually be permitted to return to Gaza, Trump firmly responded, “No, they wouldn’t.”

President Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order directing increased scrutiny of three United Nations entities: the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The order formally confirms the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC and suspends all future financial contributions to UNRWA. Additionally, it calls for an expedited review of UNESCO to examine whether the organization has demonstrated “anti-Israel bias.”

Under the directive, Secretary of State Marco Rubio must also assess and report on “international organizations, conventions, or treaties” that may foster radical ideologies or sentiments deemed “anti-American.”

Raising concerns about UNRWA’s alleged affiliations with terrorist activities, the order claims the agency has engaged in “anti-Semitic and anti-Israel” actions. It refers to reports that certain UNRWA personnel were involved in the October 7th attacks against Israel and highlights the use of the agency’s facilities by Hamas and other militant groups for stockpiling weapons and constructing tunnels.

“UNRWA has reportedly been infiltrated by members of groups long designated by the Secretary of State (Secretary) as foreign terrorist organizations, and UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel,” the order states. It further criticizes the UNHRC for providing cover to human rights violators and accuses UNESCO of displaying a persistent anti-Israel stance over the past decade.

The order instructs the Secretary of State to formally inform the UN Secretary-General, as well as the leadership of UNRWA and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the U.S. will no longer contribute funds to UNRWA or the UNHRC. Additionally, it declares that the United States will not “satisfy any claims to pay 2025 assessments or prior arrears by these organizations.”

Furthermore, the directive specifies that the U.S. will not take part in the UNHRC’s activities or seek a seat on the Council. The Secretary of State has been tasked with shutting down the Office of the U.S. Representative to the UNHRC and eliminating all associated positions.

Regarding UNESCO, the order mandates a comprehensive review of U.S. membership, which must be completed within 90 days. This assessment will be led by the Secretary of State in coordination with the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

President Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, where he proposed that the United States take control of the Gaza Strip and redevelop the war-torn territory.

During a press conference following their meeting, Trump suggested that the U.S. could relocate approximately 1.8 million Palestinians and completely rebuild the Gaza Strip. He envisioned transforming it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” under American administration.

“We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” Trump stated while Netanyahu observed. “Level the site, and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out, create an economic development.”

Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to visit Trump since he took office last month. Trump underscored their close alliance, describing the relationship between their countries as “unbreakable.”

Trump’s remarks align with his previous calls for neighboring countries to absorb Palestinians displaced by the war between Israel and Hamas. He has specifically pointed to Egypt and Jordan as potential hosts, though both countries have firmly rejected the idea. However, Trump expressed confidence that they would ultimately comply.

Trump did not specify how the U.S. might assume control of Gaza but did not rule out deploying American troops to assist in reconstruction efforts. He also announced plans to visit Israel and Gaza.

When Netanyahu took the podium, he commended Trump’s dedication to Israel. Addressing Trump’s idea for Gaza, Netanyahu remarked, “I think it’s something that could change history. And I think it’s worthwhile really pursuing.”

The meeting occurred as Israel and Hamas continue negotiations over the second phase of a ceasefire agreement. The first phase centered on the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees.

Trump administration officials stressed the importance of fully implementing Phase 1 to ensure the safe return of all hostages, including those who have died. They explained that Phase 2 would aim to conclude the war and secure the release of all remaining Israeli captives in Gaza.

However, Trump’s envoy cautioned that Phase 3—rebuilding Gaza—would present significant challenges. He described the idea of reconstruction within five years as “physically impossible,” estimating that it would require a timeline of 10 to 15 years due to the extensive devastation caused by the conflict.

Trump also expressed skepticism about the durability of the ceasefire.

“I have no guarantees that the peace is going to hold,” he admitted to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday.

When questioned about his vision for a U.S.-led Gaza redevelopment, Trump responded, “I envision the world people living there. The world’s people. I think you’ll make that into an international, unbelievable place.”

He also acknowledged that Palestinians would continue to inhabit the territory.

“You have to learn from history. History is – you just can’t let it keep repeating itself. We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal,” Trump stated.

As part of his broader Middle East strategy, Trump signed two executive orders on Tuesday. The first order intensified pressure on Iran, a decision he admitted was difficult.

“I’m signing this and I’m unhappy to do it, but I have not so much choice because we have to be strong and firm,” he said, emphasizing his hope that the measure would not have to be enforced.

“To me, it’s very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump added, asserting the U.S. authority to block the sale of Iranian oil to other nations.

The second order withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and terminated funding for the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), which primarily assists Palestinian refugees.

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the UNHRC, accusing it of bias against Israel.

Additionally, the order included a consideration to withdraw from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.