February 13, 2025 – Top Geopolitical News & Security Developments

Trump and Putin Launch Direct Talks: New Push for Ukraine Peace Deal

President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin in their first publicized phone call since Trump returned to office. The conversation, which lasted nearly 90 minutes according to the Kremlin, focused on ending the war in Ukraine. Trump later spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and stated that he believed both Putin and Zelensky wanted peace. He also suggested that a ceasefire could happen in the near future and mentioned plans for a potential meeting with Putin, possibly in Saudi Arabia, without confirming if Zelensky would be included.

During the call, Trump expressed that Ukraine’s NATO membership was unlikely, a position that aligns with one of Russia’s key demands. He also indicated that Europe should take on more responsibility for Ukraine’s security and financial support. While he did not specify what concessions he expected from Russia, he acknowledged that Ukraine may not regain all of its lost territory. The administration has not provided a detailed outline of its negotiation strategy but stated that securing peace remains a priority.

This call marks a significant moment in diplomatic efforts surrounding the Ukraine conflict, as it represents a direct dialogue between U.S. and Russian leadership after years of limited contact. The discussion also follows Russia’s recent release of an imprisoned U.S. citizen, and Trump’s administration has indicated that further negotiations will continue. Meanwhile, European leaders and Ukraine remain focused on ensuring that any peace agreement secures Ukraine’s long-term stability and independence.

Trump Turns Up the Heat on NATO While Europe Scrambles to Keep Up

As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made his first visit to NATO’s headquarters, European leaders braced for tough negotiations on defense spending. With Russia’s war in Ukraine escalating and Trump’s push for NATO allies to rely less on the U.S., European nations are under pressure to increase military budgets. Trump has proposed a dramatic hike to 5% of GDP, far exceeding NATO’s current 2% goal. While European diplomats see this as a bargaining tactic, a compromise around 3-3.5% is expected at the NATO summit in June. However, with struggling economies and potential U.S. tariffs, finding the funds and public support for higher spending remains a challenge.

Beyond spending, Trump’s stance on Ukraine is another sticking point. Hegseth endorsed a land-for-peace approach, signaling limits on U.S. support for Ukraine’s territorial claims. Meanwhile, European allies have significantly increased aid to Ukraine, but their defense stockpiles are dwindling. There’s also debate on whether to buy more U.S.-made weapons to appease Trump or invest in European arms production. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte insists that spending must increase, but the political cost is high—tax hikes or social spending cuts may be necessary, an unpopular move among voters already struggling with economic strain.

Despite these tensions, European leaders emphasize that the transatlantic alliance benefits the U.S. as well. While they acknowledge the need to spend more, there’s growing concern that if the U.S. disengages, the foundation of NATO itself could be at risk. As negotiations unfold, the question remains: how much will Europe bend to meet Trump’s demands, and at what cost to their own economic and political stability?

Countdown to Conflict: Israel’s Looming Strike on Iran and Trump’s Dilemma

Israel is likely planning a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities within the first half of 2025, according to U.S. intelligence reports. The attack, which could set Iran’s program back by weeks or months, would heighten tensions in the Middle East and test President Trump’s foreign policy approach. The intelligence points to two possible strike options: a standoff attack using air-launched ballistic missiles or a more dangerous stand-in strike with Israeli jets dropping bunker busters inside Iranian airspace. The success of such an operation is debated, with U.S. officials believing it would have limited long-term impact, while some Israeli officials argue it could significantly weaken Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Trump, who has long positioned himself as both a peace-seeker and a staunch supporter of Israel, faces a difficult decision. His administration includes officials with contrasting views on military intervention, from hawks like National Security Adviser Michael Waltz to skeptics like Vice President JD Vance. Trump has suggested he prefers diplomatic negotiations but has not ruled out military action if Iran does not engage in talks. His administration recently approved the sale of guidance kits for bunker buster bombs, signaling potential U.S. support if Israel moves forward with the strike.

The situation further complicates Trump’s approach to the Middle East, where his team is divided between interventionists and those pushing to scale back U.S. involvement. Meanwhile, Iran has condemned Trump’s rhetoric as a violation of international law and continues to insist it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Whether Trump will greenlight Israeli military action remains unclear, but the intelligence assessments indicate that a decision will need to be made soon, with major geopolitical consequences on the line.

Egypt and Jordan’s Response to the Gaza Resettlement Proposal

Jordan and Egypt are pushing back against former President Trump’s proposal to relocate two million Palestinians from Gaza to their countries, viewing it as a threat to their stability. Instead of outright confrontation, both nations are attempting to placate Trump by offering alternative solutions, such as increasing humanitarian aid and helping rebuild Gaza. Jordan’s King Abdullah, while rejecting mass displacement, offered to take in 2,000 sick Palestinian children as a symbolic gesture. Egypt, for its part, emphasized peace efforts and reconstruction while firmly opposing resettlement. Analysts suggest these moves are designed to buy time in hopes that Trump abandons the idea.

Despite resistance, Trump remains fixated on his vision of turning Gaza into a prosperous hub under U.S. influence. However, he has softened his earlier threats to cut aid to Egypt and Jordan, instead hinting at other countries—like Albania and Indonesia—potentially taking in displaced Gazans (though their leaders have rejected the idea). Meanwhile, Egypt and Jordan are rallying regional support, with planned discussions among Arab leaders to reinforce opposition to forced displacement. Jordan, already hosting a large Palestinian population, fears further destabilization, while Egypt worries about security risks if displaced Palestinians use its territory to attack Israel.

Both countries have historically worked closely with the U.S. on security matters and rely heavily on American aid, yet they appear willing to risk financial repercussions rather than accept a policy they see as ethnic cleansing. The broader concern among Arab leaders is that resettling Gazans elsewhere could pave the way for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank as well, undermining the long-standing push for Palestinian statehood. For now, Egypt and Jordan remain firm in their stance, prioritizing regional stability over U.S. pressure.