3/5 – International News Updates & Geopolitical Developments

As tensions over Ukraine’s future escalate, European leaders convened in London over the weekend to establish a unified peace initiative aimed at countering Russia’s aggression and securing continued Western support for Kyiv. The summit, hosted by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, included key European figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The objective was to formulate a cohesive European stance and present a robust security framework to the United States, particularly to President Donald Trump, whose recent confrontations with Zelenskyy have cast doubt on Washington’s commitment to Ukraine’s defense.

The urgency of the summit was amplified by a recent high-profile clash between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. Their meeting ended abruptly, with Trump refusing to finalize a minerals deal with Ukraine, raising concerns across European capitals about the stability of U.S. support. Trump’s unpredictable stance, which has included shifting blame onto Ukraine and engaging in undisclosed talks with Russian officials, has left European leaders scrambling to safeguard Kyiv’s future.

Starmer positioned Europe as the primary architect of a peace proposal, acknowledging that waiting for consensus from all EU members would be too slow. Instead, the U.K. and France, alongside Ukraine and other partners, formed a “coalition of the willing” to draft a plan that would later be presented to Washington. The fundamental objective was to ensure that any peace framework included firm security guarantees backed by the United States, without which Ukraine would remain vulnerable to future Russian incursions.

Central to the discussions was the necessity of increased defense spending among European nations. Ursula von der Leyen emphasized that Europe needed to “turn Ukraine into a steel porcupine”—a deterrent force strong enough to dissuade Russia from further aggression. European leaders have long faced criticism for underinvesting in defense, a situation Trump has repeatedly condemned. In response, summit participants signaled commitments to boosting military expenditures, though precise figures and specific commitments remained undisclosed.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reinforced the sentiment, stating that Europe must shoulder greater responsibility within NATO and ensure that its defense budgets align with strategic needs. However, balancing these increased military expenditures with existing financial constraints remains a challenge, particularly given economic pressures in several EU member states.

Another critical issue was the potential deployment of European peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire agreement. While Starmer confirmed that “a number of countries” had signaled willingness to participate, he refrained from naming them. The effectiveness of such a force, however, would depend on securing a U.S. “backstop”—a commitment from Washington to provide air cover, intelligence, and strategic support to deter Russian aggression.

Trump Halts U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine

The European initiative became even more urgent when President Trump announced the suspension of all U.S. military aid to Ukraine, a move intended to pressure Zelenskyy into negotiations with Russia. The decision followed a tense Oval Office meeting during which Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelenskyy for what they perceived as a lack of gratitude for U.S. support.

The White House justified the suspension as part of a broader review to ensure that U.S. assistance contributed to a peaceful resolution. However, administration officials suggested that Trump’s objective was to push Zelenskyy to the negotiating table by moderating Ukraine’s rhetoric toward Russia. The suspension of aid also had significant diplomatic consequences, as Zelenskyy had arrived in Washington hoping to finalize a rare-earth minerals agreement, only to see the deal become a bargaining chip in the administration’s strategy.

Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, reinforced this stance, stating that the administration expected Zelenskyy to demonstrate contrition for recent tensions and commit to both the minerals deal and renewed negotiations with Moscow. Despite this recalibration, Trump’s demand for a public apology from Zelenskyy complicated diplomatic efforts, prompting European allies to step in with alternative support for Kyiv.

European Response

Trump’s suspension of military aid accelerated discussions among European leaders regarding the continent’s long-term security strategy. Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a proposal for a €150 billion loan package aimed at increasing defense spending across the EU. The plan marked a significant departure from the EU’s traditional reluctance to fund military efforts, underscoring the urgency of bolstering European defense capabilities in light of shifting U.S. commitments.

While the EU’s plan still required approval from member states, it sought to facilitate the purchase of advanced weaponry and continued military aid to Ukraine. However, critics argued that the proposed funding fell far short of what was needed to compensate for the potential loss of U.S. support. Comparatively, the U.S. defense budget for the year stood at $883 billion, dwarfing the EU’s newly proposed commitments.

France and the U.K. signaled their intent to surpass NATO’s defense-spending target of 2% of GDP, with Macron advocating for an increase to 3.5%. Meanwhile, the EU explored legal mechanisms to exempt military spending from budgetary restrictions, allowing countries to scale up defense expenditures without violating fiscal rules.

Defining Moment for Western Alliances

Trump’s policy shift extended beyond Ukraine, as his willingness to normalize relations with Moscow sparked concerns among European leaders. Russian officials responded favorably to Trump’s stance, characterizing the aid suspension as a step toward peace. Moscow reiterated its claim that Ukraine was prolonging the war by refusing to negotiate, and Trump’s social media criticism of Zelenskyy echoed similar Kremlin rhetoric, reinforcing fears that his approach might tilt U.S. foreign policy in Russia’s favor.

Within the U.S., Trump’s base largely embraced his confrontational stance toward Ukraine, with figures such as Elon Musk advocating for a complete withdrawal from NATO. Some hardline conservatives in Congress echoed this sentiment, pushing for an America-first foreign policy prioritizing domestic interests over international military commitments.

The suspension of aid had immediate battlefield implications, forcing Ukraine to seek alternative sources of military support, primarily from Europe. However, the EU’s response, while ambitious, was unlikely to fully compensate for the scale of U.S. military assistance. If Trump remained steadfast in his approach, European nations would be compelled to accelerate their defense strategies, marking a decisive shift in the global security order.

Trump’s handling of Ukraine underscored the unpredictability of his administration’s geopolitical calculations. While his allies championed the move as a necessary recalibration of U.S. commitments, critics warned that it risked undermining democratic alliances and emboldening authoritarian regimes. The broader question loomed: was this the dawn of a new world order, or merely a temporary disruption in America’s global leadership?

As European leaders prepared for an upcoming EU summit in Brussels, where von der Leyen was set to present a comprehensive defense plan, diplomatic efforts continued. Macron engaged in a flurry of calls with Trump, Zelenskyy, Starmer, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, seeking to maintain cohesion. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also positioned herself as a potential intermediary, leveraging her favorable relations with Trump to mend U.S.-Ukraine ties.

The coming months would determine whether Europe’s “coalition of the willing” could transform its ambitions into a credible security framework. What remained clear was that the continent stood at a crossroads: either it stepped up to redefine its role in global security, or it risked being sidelined in decisions shaping Ukraine’s future and the balance of power in Europe.

3/4 – International Economic News & Analysis

In a move that sent shockwaves through global markets and upended long-standing trade relationships, President Donald Trump has followed through on his persistent threats to impose steep tariffs on America’s two largest trading partners. At 12:01 AM EST on March 4th, the U.S. government enacted a 25% levy on imports from Canada and Mexico. Additionally, Trump escalated his trade war with China, imposing an extra 10% tariff on Chinese goods, doubling down on the 10% charge implemented just last month. The move represents one of the most aggressive acts of protectionism by a U.S. president in nearly a century.

Despite previous instances where Trump appeared to back down at the last moment, this time, there was no reprieve. Investors, many of whom had assumed the president’s threats were more rhetorical than actionable, reacted swiftly. The S&P 500 index plunged nearly 2% in response—the largest decline of the year, with an additional 1-1.5% drop at time of publishing on Tuesday morning. Analysts believe the drop could have been even more severe had it not been for residual skepticism that Trump may reconsider if economic damage becomes apparent.

The economic fallout of the tariffs could be particularly severe for the North American auto industry, one of the most deeply integrated sectors between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Vehicle parts frequently cross the border multiple times before final assembly, meaning the tariffs will compound costs at each stage. This added expense may lead to higher production costs, supply chain disruptions, and an increase in the average price of new cars in the U.S.. While the Trump administration argues that these tariffs will incentivize carmakers to relocate their operations to the U.S., many experts warn that the reality is far less optimistic.

Both Canada and Mexico had previously signaled their intent to respond with retaliatory tariffs, but their governments now face the difficult decision of whether to escalate the trade conflict or seek alternative solutions. Anticipating potential blowback, Trump preemptively addressed American farmers on his social media platform, urging them to prepare for a domestic-focused agricultural economy. However, transitioning U.S. farms from export-heavy crops like corn and wheat to domestic produce such as avocados is far from a straightforward task and could leave farmers struggling to adapt.

Trump has long worshipped the virtues of tariffs, believing they serve as a robust revenue stream for the federal government while protecting American industries. However, economic assessments suggest shortcomings in this belief. The newly imposed tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico are projected to generate only around $100 billion annually—roughly 2% of total federal tax revenue. Meanwhile, the brunt of the costs will be borne by American consumers and businesses, with price hikes anticipated on a wide range of goods, including automobiles, crude oil, and agricultural products.

Manufacturing is also expected to suffer. The free trade network established over decades between the three North American nations has created an efficient, interdependent system. Canada provides vast natural resources, Mexico offers cost-effective labor, and the U.S. serves as a manufacturing hub. Disrupting this system could reduce competitiveness and productivity across the region.

While the levies on North American allies have dominated headlines, Trump’s latest round of tariffs on China has garnered surprisingly little media attention. His first term was marked by prolonged trade disputes with Beijing, culminating in an average tariff rate of 19% on Chinese imports. Now, barely two months into his new term, Trump has escalated the trade war further, adding an additional 20% tariff on all Chinese imports. Unlike in his first term, when he spared certain consumer goods such as smartphones and computers to avoid public backlash, these latest tariffs extend to those very products, potentially driving up costs for American consumers and businesses alike.

China, Canada, and Mexico each responded to the United States’ steep tariffs, which took effect on Tuesday. China reacted swiftly, imposing 10-15% duties on various American agricultural products. Canada followed suit, announcing 25% tariffs on U.S. goods. Meanwhile, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, stated that her government would provide further details on its planned “tariff and non-tariff measures” during a rally on Sunday.

The economic backdrop against which these tariffs are being implemented differs significantly from Trump’s first presidency. During his previous term, economic growth was buoyed by corporate tax cuts, helping to offset some of the negative effects of tariffs. Today, however, warning signs of economic fear are emerging. Consumer confidence surveys indicate growing concerns over inflation, particularly as tariffs contribute to higher prices. Businesses, facing increased uncertainty, may delay investments or expansion plans. Meanwhile, with federal finances already under strain, the likelihood of another large-scale tax cut is slim, leaving the economy with fewer mechanisms to absorb the impending shock.

Analysis: A Risky Bet

Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy reflects his broader economic vision—one based on protectionism and economic nationalism. His belief that tariffs can rebuild American manufacturing and reduce trade deficits is central to his policymaking. However, most economic theories suggest a more complex reality. Tariffs often lead to retaliatory measures, disrupting supply chains and increasing costs for consumers. The North American auto industry exemplifies this dilemma: rather than incentivizing production in the U.S., higher costs may force companies to cut jobs or seek alternative production locations outside North America altogether.

Moreover, the notion that tariffs generate substantial revenue for the U.S. government is misleading. While they do bring in revenue, they also act as an indirect tax on businesses and consumers, ultimately dampening economic activity. The additional strain on manufacturing and agriculture—two sectors that Trump has claimed to champion—risks alienating key constituencies, particularly farmers who depend on exports to Canada, Mexico, and China.

In the case of China, Trump’s decision to extend tariffs to consumer electronics could prove especially problematic. Unlike raw materials or industrial goods, consumer products such as smartphones and computers are inextricably tied to everyday life, making price hikes more noticeable and politically costly. If inflation soars back to mid-pandemic levels and consumer sentiment turns sour, the political repercussions could be significant.

In the short term, these tariffs will likely create turbulence in financial markets and stoke inflation fears. In the long run, the true test will be whether Trump’s gamble pays off by reshaping global trade to America’s advantage—or whether it serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of economic isolationism.

March 3, 2025 – International News Updates & Diplomatic Developments

Europe’s Gamble: Can a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ Support Ukraine Without U.S. Backing?

European leaders, led by Britain and France, are working to assemble a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine and help secure a peace agreement with Russia. However, significant hurdles remain, as Russia dismisses such efforts, and the U.S., under President Trump, appears focused on negotiating directly with Moscow without European or Ukrainian involvement. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledges that not all nations will contribute but emphasizes that a European-led initiative signals readiness to take on greater responsibility. While countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are expected to join, Germany faces domestic political constraints, and Italy remains skeptical. Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia actively oppose further aid to Ukraine and call for an immediate cease-fire.

France’s President Macron has proposed a phased approach, beginning with a temporary truce, followed by negotiations and eventual deployment of peacekeeping troops—though he firmly rejects premature military involvement. The effort is further complicated by Hungary’s potential veto over keeping $200 billion in Russian assets frozen, which some European nations, including the UK, have leveraged to provide financial assistance to Ukraine. Italian Prime Minister Meloni has voiced concerns over the feasibility and effectiveness of a European peacekeeping force, while leaders like Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, struggle to secure necessary defense funding.

Even if Europe successfully forms a coalition, its impact remains uncertain given Trump’s apparent reluctance to continue military support for Ukraine. Reports suggest he is considering suspending aid, intelligence sharing, and training programs, signaling a potential shift in U.S. policy. Starmer, aiming to balance European interests with U.S. diplomacy, has engaged directly with Trump but faces criticism at home for appearing too accommodating. His approach will be scrutinized in the coming days, as European leaders navigate both internal divisions and shifting U.S. priorities.

U.S. Weighs Cutting Ukraine’s Lifeline: The Future of Military Aid in Question

The Trump administration has halted financing for new arms sales to Ukraine and is considering suspending weapons shipments from U.S. stockpiles, raising concerns about Kyiv’s ability to sustain its defense against Russian aggression. This decision follows a broader freeze on foreign aid imposed in January, with exemptions granted only for Israel and Egypt. Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a waiver allowing Ukraine to receive military assistance, a key State Department official has yet to approve the necessary paperwork, effectively blocking new weapons transfers under the Foreign Military Financing system. The White House is now deliberating whether to suspend shipments through the presidential drawdown authority, the primary mechanism for supplying Ukraine with arms from U.S. inventories.

The potential cutoff of U.S. support comes at a critical moment, as Ukraine faces ongoing Russian military pressure. While European allies and Ukraine’s domestic defense industry may compensate for some shortfalls, the loss of U.S. military aid would limit Ukraine’s access to advanced systems such as air-defense technology, long-range rocket artillery, and precision-strike weapons. The U.S. is the sole producer of critical platforms like the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which are essential for Ukraine’s ability to conduct deep strikes against Russian forces. If the aid freeze continues, Ukraine’s ability to sustain long-term military operations could weaken, particularly as existing supplies diminish by mid-year.

European leaders have convened to develop an alternative strategy, including a potential coalition to provide military support to Ukraine. While they can supply some ammunition and conventional arms, replacing the sophisticated U.S.-made weaponry remains a challenge. The Biden administration had approved a significant arms package in late December, but no new transfers have been announced since. Over $3 billion in authorized but unallocated funds remain available, leaving the final decision on continued support to the current administration. If the U.S. aid suspension persists, Ukraine will face increasing challenges in maintaining its defense posture, with strategic implications for broader Western security interests.

Cyber Retreat or Strategic Gamble? The U.S. Halts Offensive Operations Against Russia

The recent decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to halt U.S. Cyber Command’s offensive operations against Russia signals a strategic shift in U.S. policy aimed at fostering diplomatic engagement with Moscow. This move, made ahead of President Trump’s tense meeting with Ukraine’s President Zelensky, is part of a broader reassessment of U.S. operations against Russia. The extent and duration of the directive remain unclear, as the line between offensive and defensive cyber activities is often ambiguous. However, maintaining intelligence access to Russian networks is essential for understanding President Putin’s position and internal Russian debates on Ukraine negotiations. Historically, pauses in military operations during sensitive diplomatic efforts are not unusual, but this particular decision represents a calculated risk, banking on Moscow to ease its own cyber activities and broader “shadow war” against the U.S. and its allies.

Despite this shift, Russia has maintained an aggressive cyber posture, continuing attempts to infiltrate U.S. networks and enabling ransomware attacks against American infrastructure. European allies have relied on U.S. cyber capabilities to counter these threats, and the new directive may put that cooperation in jeopardy. While Britain and Canada may continue some of these efforts, the U.S. appears to be pivoting its cyber focus toward China, regarded as a more sophisticated adversary. Additionally, previous U.S. cyber operations to counter Russian election interference may be curtailed under the new directive. The Trump administration has also taken steps to dismantle interagency efforts aimed at countering Russian propaganda, raising concerns about future election security.

The administration argues that this strategic pause is necessary to bring Russia to the negotiating table over Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the approach, stating that antagonizing Moscow would only hinder diplomatic progress. However, this shift has sparked bipartisan concerns, with critics, including Senator Chuck Schumer, warning that it effectively gives Russia a free pass to continue cyberattacks and destabilizing operations. The move also aligns with other recent decisions that appear to soften the U.S. stance on Russia, such as the removal of language in a United Nations resolution identifying Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. As the Trump administration navigates this delicate balance, the long-term impact of this strategic recalibration remains uncertain.

Rubio Bypasses Congress to Fast-Track $4 Billion in Arms to Israel

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked emergency authority to bypass Congress and approve a $4 billion arms sale to Israel, marking the second instance within a month that the Trump administration has circumvented the congressional review process. The State Department informed key congressional committees of the decision, raising concerns among some lawmakers about the lack of transparency. The package includes large quantities of bombs, bulldozers, and guidance kits, with a notable shipment of 35,000 2,000-pound bombs—munitions that U.S. military officials have deemed unsuitable for urban warfare.

This move follows the Biden administration’s previous decision to temporarily withhold a shipment of bombs to Israel amid concerns over their use in Gaza. Despite this, Israel continued its military operations, and the Trump administration ultimately released the shipment shortly after taking office. Concurrently, Israel announced a blockade on humanitarian aid to Gaza in an attempt to pressure Hamas into extending a cease-fire, a decision some legal experts argue violates international law.

The latest arms transfer also comes amid broader tensions over U.S. weapons sales to Israel. While the Biden administration had approved significant arms packages, it had also restricted the sale of assault rifles due to concerns over violence in the West Bank. The Trump administration, however, has sought to expedite weapons shipments, overriding congressional scrutiny and reinforcing its commitment to Israel’s military capabilities.

– F.J.

3/2 – International News & Diplomacy Analysis

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his first official visit to the White House on Thursday, aiming to secure stronger U.S. backing for European security and Ukraine’s defense in a post-war scenario. Seeking to foster goodwill with President Donald Trump, Starmer presented a carefully curated basket of diplomatic offerings, including a commitment to increased British defense spending, effusive praise of Trump’s role in peace talks, and a personal letter from King Charles III inviting the American leader to a state dinner. However, despite these efforts, Trump remained unmoved by Starmer’s appeals, offering little in return beyond vague reassurances and trade-related discussions.

Trump’s response to Starmer’s plea for a more robust American commitment to European security was blunt and dismissive. The British prime minister, aware of Trump’s reluctance to provide direct security guarantees for Ukraine, attempted a more modest request: U.S. support in “backstopping” European-led defensive efforts to deter future Russian aggression. Trump, however, declined outright.

During their joint press conference in the Oval Office, Trump reiterated his belief that the ongoing peace negotiations should be prioritized above all else. He asserted that security commitments would be secondary to the economic agreement he had intended to sign with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy the following day. The agreement, centered on rare earth minerals, was framed as an indirect means of ensuring stability, with Trump arguing that increased American economic presence in Ukraine would be a sufficient deterrent against further Russian aggression.

When pressed on the broader implications of potential threats against NATO allies, Trump offered only ambiguous remarks. While he expressed admiration for the British military, he downplayed the likelihood of NATO’s Article V being invoked in the event of a conflict involving British troops in Ukraine. His response left European leaders questioning the depth of Washington’s commitment to collective defense.

Starmer’s visit followed a similar diplomatic effort by French President Emmanuel Macron, who met with Trump earlier in the week to emphasize Europe’s willingness to bolster its own defense. Macron’s approach, like Starmer’s, was framed as an appeal to Trump’s transactional view of international relations: if Europe were willing to contribute more, the U.S. should, in turn, provide strategic backing. However, Trump remained resolute in his stance that Europe needed to take the lead in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security.

The timing of Starmer’s visit was particularly crucial, as European leaders sought to navigate an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape. Trump has adopted a more conciliatory approach toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, repeating Kremlin narratives regarding the Ukraine conflict and distancing himself from the security obligations traditionally upheld by the U.S. Since taking office for his second term in January, Trump has labeled Zelenskyy a “dictator,” questioned NATO’s structure, and suggested that European nations should bear the brunt of Ukraine’s defense.

European leaders worry that such an approach will leave Ukraine vulnerable to further Russian aggression, particularly given Moscow’s continued bombardment of key Ukrainian targets and its rejection of ceasefire proposals involving EU peacekeepers.

Beyond discussions on Ukraine, Starmer sought to address growing tensions between the U.S. and Britain on trade. Trump’s threats of tariffs on British goods loomed over the visit, with Starmer pressing for a new bilateral trade agreement to circumvent potential economic strain. Trump, while noncommittal, indicated that negotiations were ongoing and could yield a favorable outcome. However, he made it clear that tariffs remained a possibility if a deal was not reached.

During the press conference, Vice President JD Vance highlighted another point of contention: concerns over British regulations affecting U.S. technology companies. Starmer, mindful of maintaining diplomatic decorum, carefully sidestepped confrontation, reaffirming Britain’s longstanding commitment to free speech and innovation while avoiding direct criticism of Trump’s policies.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy then arrived in London on Saturday to a warm embrace from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, marking a stark contrast to the tense meeting he had with U.S. President Donald Trump a day earlier. As Zelenskyy stepped out of his motorcade and entered Downing Street, he was met with cheers from gathered crowds, a sign of the strong British support for Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s ongoing three-year invasion.

The visit comes at a critical juncture for Ukraine, following a highly contentious Oval Office meeting on Friday, during which Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw U.S. support, raising questions about the stability of Ukraine’s Western alliances. The White House encounter, described as an “astonishing blowout,” left many uncertain about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Seeking to reassure Zelenskyy, Starmer expressed the United Kingdom’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine. “We stand with you and Ukraine for as long as it may take,” Starmer affirmed. “As you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom.”

The meeting with Starmer set the stage for a broader diplomatic push, as Zelenskyy prepared to meet King Charles III on Sunday before attending a high-stakes summit of European leaders. The summit, convened by Starmer, will include heads of state from France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Czechia, and Romania. The NATO Secretary-General, along with the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, will also be in attendance.

Ahead of the summit, Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and EU Council President Antonio Costa engaged in phone discussions with both Trump and Zelenskyy in an effort to stabilize diplomatic relations and reaffirm Europe’s commitment to Ukraine. Macron, who recently visited Washington, has taken an active role in mediating discussions following the Oval Office debacle.

Friday’s White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy was initially expected to reaffirm U.S. support for Ukraine. However, what transpired instead was a heated exchange, with Trump reportedly questioning the extent of continued U.S. involvement in the conflict. Sources indicate that Trump’s rhetoric suggested a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, hinting at a reduction in military aid—a move that could significantly alter the balance of power in the ongoing war.

Zelenskyy, despite the apparent breakdown in discussions, sought to maintain diplomatic decorum, later thanking the American people for their past support and expressing hope for continued strong relations. However, the fallout from the White House meeting has led to increased concern in European capitals, with leaders now facing the challenge of reinforcing support for Ukraine as U.S. commitment wavers.

In response to Trump’s ambivalence, European leaders have redoubled their efforts to present a united front. Macron’s conversations with both Trump and Zelenskyy aimed to maintain diplomatic stability while preparing for upcoming EU discussions on Ukraine’s future. The London summit is expected to emphasize continued European military and economic assistance, as well as long-term reconstruction efforts.

Meanwhile, the meeting between Zelenskyy and King Charles III at the Sandringham estate is set to be another symbolic gesture of Britain’s backing for Ukraine. King Charles, who has previously voiced admiration for the resilience of the Ukrainian people, is expected to reaffirm his moral support for the country.

Analysis:

Starmer’s White House visit underscores the shifting dynamics of transatlantic relations under Trump’s second administration. While European leaders are willing to increase their defense spending and assume a greater share of security responsibilities, they remain wary of a U.S. retreat from its traditional leadership role in NATO. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, prioritizing economic agreements over military alliances, poses significant challenges for Europe as it grapples with ongoing security threats.

Starmer’s approach—appealing to Trump’s sense of legacy and portraying him as a peacemaker—reflects a broader European strategy of diplomatic flattery aimed at mitigating his more isolationist tendencies. However, this tactic has yielded limited results. Trump remains steadfast in his belief that any U.S. involvement should be framed in economic, rather than military, terms. His insistence on framing the minerals deal as a substitute for direct security guarantees signals a fundamental shift in American foreign policy priorities.

The broader concern among European allies is whether Trump’s reluctance to commit militarily will embolden adversaries like Russia. By prioritizing economic agreements over security assurances, Trump risks undermining deterrence efforts and creating a power vacuum that could be exploited by Moscow. His dismissive attitude toward NATO’s collective defense principles further exacerbates these anxieties, raising questions about the long-term stability of the alliance.

Starmer’s diplomatic overtures, while well-intentioned, ultimately highlight the challenges facing European leaders in dealing with an unpredictable and transactional U.S. president. As the war in Ukraine drags on and geopolitical tensions remain high, the need for a clear and unified strategy among Western allies has never been more pressing. Yet, with Trump unwilling to provide concrete commitments, Europe may have to chart its own course in securing regional stability, with or without American backing.

Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House was emblematic of Europe’s struggle to adapt to a new reality: a U.S. administration that views foreign policy through the lens of economic transactions rather than strategic alliances. While Starmer succeeded in reaffirming Britain’s commitment to increased defense spending and transatlantic cooperation, he left Washington without securing the assurances he sought.

Trump’s position remains clear—security guarantees for Ukraine will not come in the form of direct military backing but through economic agreements that, in his view, will deter future conflicts. Whether this approach will be sufficient to maintain stability in Eastern Europe remains uncertain. For European leaders, the challenge now lies in navigating this new paradigm, ensuring that their own security policies account for the unpredictability of U.S. commitments in the years ahead.

The stark contrast between Zelenskyy’s encounters in Washington and London highlights an evolving geopolitical rift. While Trump’s position signals a potential pivot in U.S. foreign policy—one that may prioritize American isolationism over international commitments—European nations are moving to fill the void. The London summit will serve as a litmus test for Europe’s ability to sustain Ukraine independently should U.S. support dwindle.

For Zelenskyy, the challenge now lies in securing long-term backing from European allies while navigating the unpredictability of U.S. policy under Trump. While Britain and the EU have signaled their unwavering commitment, sustaining Ukraine’s defense without substantial American aid could prove to be a formidable task.

As the London summit unfolds, the world will be watching closely. Will Europe be able to maintain a unified stance and provide the necessary resources? Or will Trump’s hesitancy signal a larger shift in Western priorities, leaving Ukraine in a precarious position? The answers to these questions will shape the next phase of the conflict—and Ukraine’s future.

3/1 – International Diplomacy Analysis

A long-anticipated agreement between the United States and Ukraine over mineral rights was thrown into uncertainty on Friday after a highly publicized and contentious Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Initially expected to solidify a partnership granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s vast natural resources, the meeting instead deteriorated into a tense exchange, leaving the deal unsigned and further straining relations between the two allies.

The mineral rights deal, which had been under negotiation for weeks, aimed to establish a jointly managed investment fund between the U.S. and Ukraine. Under the terms of the agreement, Ukraine would contribute 50% of future revenues from the development of its natural resources—including lithium, graphite, titanium, uranium, and rare earth elements—into the fund. These resources, estimated to be worth trillions of dollars, are crucial for global industries ranging from defense to technology.

Initially, Washington had demanded up to $500 billion in potential revenue from Ukraine’s mineral wealth, a condition that sparked backlash from Zelensky and European leaders. Zelensky, who had long advocated for providing Ukraine’s allies access to its mineral resources, refused to sign a deal that lacked security guarantees for Ukraine.

“I don’t want something that ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back,” Zelensky stated at a press conference last Sunday.

Despite Ukraine’s objections, U.S. officials pressed ahead, linking the economic agreement to broader strategic interests. The White House framed the deal as a pathway to stabilizing Ukraine’s war-torn economy while ensuring long-term American involvement in the country’s reconstruction. However, the failure to include direct security assurances in the deal remained a major sticking point for Kyiv.

Diplomatic Breakdown in Washington

As Zelensky arrived in Washington for the anticipated signing, tensions had already escalated between the two leaders. Trump, who has been openly skeptical of continued military aid to Ukraine, had recently criticized Zelensky, calling him a “dictator” and falsely accusing Ukraine of initiating the war. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials viewed the deal as a critical component of their broader diplomatic strategy to secure lasting Western support.

The meeting at the White House took a dramatic turn when Trump and Vice President JD Vance challenged Zelensky on his insistence that any mineral agreement must come with explicit U.S. security guarantees. Vance emphasized that diplomacy was needed to resolve the war with Russia, while Zelensky argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin could not be trusted in any negotiations.

“You’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty,” Trump told Zelensky in a heated exchange before reporters.

Zelensky countered by urging Trump to recognize the existential threat Ukraine faced, warning that if Russia succeeded in overtaking Ukraine, its aggression would not stop there.

Trump, however, remained unmoved, reiterating that U.S. support was conditional on Ukraine showing more gratitude. “You have to be thankful,” he told Zelensky. “You don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”

The clash effectively torpedoed what was meant to be a diplomatic victory for both sides. As the verbal confrontation played out before the media, the planned signing ceremony was canceled, and Zelensky left the White House early, skipping a scheduled press conference.

Shortly after, Trump took to Truth Social to denounce the Ukrainian president, stating, “I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

The failed meeting has sent shockwaves through Europe, where leaders had been hoping for a renewed commitment from Washington to Ukraine’s war effort. Many European nations, already wary of Trump’s softer approach toward Putin, convened emergency meetings to discuss alternative ways to support Ukraine should U.S. aid dwindle.

Meanwhile, Russia seized on the diplomatic breakdown to further strain Kyiv’s relationship with Washington. In an apparent bid to drive a wedge between the two allies, the Kremlin recently floated an offer to grant the U.S. access to Russian-controlled mineral resources, including those in occupied Ukrainian territories.

Analysis and Implications:

The collapse of the mineral rights deal marks a significant turning point in U.S.-Ukraine relations. Zelensky had hoped that tying Ukraine’s economic future to the United States would strengthen its position against Russia, providing a long-term economic partnership that would also serve as a deterrent against further aggression. However, Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy—insisting that Ukraine show gratitude and compromise with Moscow—has upended that strategy and strained personal relations between the two leaders.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the dispute underscores the broader shift in Washington’s foreign policy under Trump. Unlike the Biden administration, which framed Ukraine’s sovereignty as central to global security, Trump has adopted a more isolationist stance, prioritizing economic gain over military commitments. His refusal to offer explicit security guarantees leaves Ukraine vulnerable and raises questions about how Kyiv will sustain its war effort should U.S. military aid diminish.

For Ukraine, the failed negotiations represent a precarious moment. Despite its battlefield resilience, Kyiv remains heavily dependent on foreign aid and arms supplies. While European nations may step in to fill some gaps, they lack the sheer military and financial resources of the United States. Without a clear commitment from Washington, Ukraine could find itself increasingly isolated as it fights a protracted war against a more resource-rich adversary.

The confrontation also highlights a fundamental mismatch between the two leaders’ visions. Zelensky, as a wartime president, sees the conflict as an existential struggle requiring full Western backing. Trump, by contrast, views it as an unnecessary entanglement that America should exit as soon as possible, regardless of the long-term consequences. His insistence that Ukraine must make a deal—no matter the cost—plays directly into Russia’s hands, giving Putin leverage to push for a settlement that heavily favors Moscow.

In the immediate future, the fallout from this meeting will force Kyiv to recalibrate its approach. Zelensky may attempt to mend ties with Washington or pivot toward securing more European-led security arrangements. However, if Trump’s rhetoric is any indication, Ukraine will face increasing pressure to accept a peace deal on terms that could undermine its sovereignty and leave it vulnerable to future Russian aggression.

Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine is commendable—there’s no question that ending the war is in everyone’s best interest. However, his approach is fundamentally flawed if it fails to hold Putin accountable for starting the war. Just as he pressures Zelensky and Ukraine to show gratitude for U.S. support, he must also demand that Putin pay the price for his aggression. Without that balance, the inevitable consequence is more instability and emboldened authoritarianism by the end of this decade.

You simply can’t reward or overlook the actions of a leader like Putin, whose overarching goal is to restore Russia’s great-power status—an ambition that comes at the direct expense of European security. Turning a blind eye to Russian expansionism will only invite further land grabs, testing NATO’s resolve and weakening the credibility of Western alliances.

Even more alarming is Trump’s tendency to cozy up to autocrats like Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. If major powers like the U.S. fail to enforce meaningful consequences when a larger country overpowers a smaller one, the message to the world is clear: Might makes right. That kind of precedent could have catastrophic ripple effects, most notably in Taiwan. If China sees that the U.S. won’t take strong action against Putin’s war in Ukraine, it will only feel more emboldened to move on Taiwan—an event that would wreak havoc on the global economy and elevate China’s power at America’s expense.

Beyond that, the growing strategic partnership between China and Russia presents an even greater long-term threat. Both countries are already working to sidestep Western sanctions through economic and military cooperation. If the U.S. and its European allies remain divided and reactive rather than proactive, they will struggle to counter either power effectively. Meanwhile, China continues expanding its control in the South China Sea, laying the groundwork for yet another major conflict in the near future.

If Trump truly wants to secure peace and protect American interests, he must recognize that his approach risks doing the opposite. Ignoring Putin’s aggression and signaling to China that territorial expansion comes without consequence will only accelerate the erosion of Western influence. The U.S. and its allies need a firm, united stance—not a strategy that rewards the very forces threatening global stability.

Ultimately, the failure of the White House negotiations reflects the deep uncertainty surrounding U.S. foreign policy. For Ukraine, it serves as a stark reminder that its survival cannot rest solely on American backing, and that new alliances and strategies may be necessary to ensure its long-term security and independence.

The Oval Office showdown between Trump and Zelensky has exposed the widening rift between Ukraine and its most powerful ally. The mineral rights deal, initially seen as a way to deepen economic and strategic ties, has instead become a flashpoint in an increasingly fragile relationship. With U.S. policy shifting and European leaders scrambling to respond, Ukraine now faces an uncertain path forward in its fight for sovereignty and stability.

As both sides reassess their positions, one thing remains clear: the outcome of these negotiations could reshape the global balance of power and determine the future not only of Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression, but Eastern Europe’s vulnerability to a malicious neighbor exempt from international condemnation.

February 28, 2025 – International Security News & Diplomatic Developments

Oval Office Showdown: How Trump and Zelensky’s Explosive Clash Doomed a High-Stakes War Deal

The highly anticipated Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky erupted into chaos, exposing deep fractures in U.S.-Ukraine relations and threatening a critical minerals deal that could have reshaped global power dynamics. What began as a diplomatic sit-down quickly spiraled into a shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance berating Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude. Trump dismissed Ukraine’s position, warning Zelensky that he had “no cards” to play and suggesting U.S. support could wane if attitudes didn’t change. The planned press conference was abruptly canceled, and Trump took to social media afterward, blasting Zelensky for “disrespecting” the United States in its own Oval Office.

The stakes couldn’t have been higher. Beyond the war itself, the meeting was set to finalize a groundbreaking deal granting the U.S. limited access to Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources—critical for military technology, energy, and global supply chains. But after the explosive confrontation, that agreement was left in limbo. Zelensky, desperate for security guarantees and further support against Russian aggression, found himself cornered as Trump and Vance turned the conversation into a demand for submission. When Vance snapped, “Have you even said thank you once?” Zelensky fired back, challenging Vance’s understanding of the war and pressing Trump on Putin’s unchecked aggression. Trump, growing impatient, dismissed Zelensky’s concerns, scoffing, “You’re gambling with World War III.”

Trump’s stance reflected his broader shift toward diplomacy with Russia, insisting he could negotiate a peace deal that Biden wouldn’t. But his faith in Putin, paired with his reluctance to criticize Moscow, left Ukraine in a precarious position. Zelensky, armed with folders of evidence depicting Russian atrocities, pleaded for continued U.S. backing, warning that unchecked Russian aggression wouldn’t stop with Ukraine. Trump, however, remained focused on brokering a deal on his terms, signaling that U.S. support might not be unconditional.

With the minerals deal shelved and the meeting ending in fiery discord, the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations remains uncertain. For Zelensky, losing U.S. backing could mean a devastating blow in the war against Russia. For Trump, this confrontation set the stage for how he envisions handling global conflicts—through raw power plays rather than alliances. The question now is whether this breakdown was a one-time clash or a preview of a seismic shift in America’s role on the world stage.

Eyes in the Sky: How Secret U.S. Drones Helped Capture El Chapo & His Cartel Empire

The U.S. has secretly used unarmed drones from Mexican airfields to spy on drug cartels, aiding in major arrests, including Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán and his sons. The Department of Homeland Security and CIA operated these flights at Mexico’s request, gathering intelligence that led to high-profile captures and significant drug seizures. These MQ-9 Reaper drones, typically used in counterterrorism, provided real-time surveillance on smuggling operations and cartel hideouts, strengthening U.S.-Mexico security cooperation. However, growing political tensions, including former President Trump’s threats of military action in Mexico, have strained this partnership and sparked nationalist backlash within Mexico.

Despite the covert nature of the program, details have surfaced about its role in tracking and capturing cartel leaders. The drones were critical in both of El Chapo’s arrests, first in 2014 and again in 2016, providing surveillance of his hideouts and routines. In 2023, drone footage also guided Mexican special forces in capturing his son, Ovidio Guzmán, during a violent raid in Sinaloa. The use of American drones in Mexican airspace dates back to the early 2000s, with intelligence gathered helping to dismantle major drug trafficking operations over the years.

As scrutiny of the program grows, Mexican officials are under pressure to justify continued cooperation with the U.S. While Mexico’s government has historically accepted American surveillance as part of joint security efforts, Trump’s threats of unilateral military strikes have fueled domestic concerns over sovereignty. In response, Mexico’s administration is considering stricter laws against acting on behalf of foreign governments, signaling potential future limitations on this long-standing but secretive collaboration.

China’s Power Play: Military Drills, U.S. Uncertainty, & Growing Tensions in the Pacific

China has been ramping up its military presence in the Pacific, conducting drills near Australia and Vietnam while regularly flying aircraft near Taiwan. These maneuvers, while not large-scale exercises, send a clear message that Beijing intends to assert its power in the region. Experts suggest that China’s expanding naval capabilities and strategic timing aim to test how much influence the U.S. will maintain under President Trump, whose shifting policies on China—ranging from trade tensions to military spending cuts—have left many Asian nations uncertain about American support.

The drills, particularly the presence of Chinese warships near Australia and live-fire exercises in the Gulf of Tonkin, have raised concerns among regional players. While these actions may not pose immediate military threats, they serve as political signals that China is willing to push boundaries to reinforce its territorial claims, including over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, countries like Vietnam and Australia are walking a diplomatic tightrope, balancing economic ties with China while relying on the U.S. for security.

Taiwan remains the most vulnerable to China’s growing assertiveness. While previous U.S. administrations have maintained strategic ambiguity on Taiwan’s defense, Trump’s reluctance to commit has deepened anxiety in Taipei. His administration includes pro-Taiwan officials, but Trump’s broader approach—focused on economic deals and reducing foreign military commitments—leaves uncertainty about whether the U.S. would step in to defend Taiwan if China were to act. As Beijing continues to flex its military muscle, the region watches closely, wary of what the shifting U.S. stance means for their security.

Europe’s Defense Dilemma: Funding the Fight for Strategic Autonomy

Europe is facing the growing reality that it must bolster its defense capabilities without relying on U.S. support. While leaders like Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and French President Emmanuel Macron advocate for increased defense spending, they have yet to present concrete funding solutions. Currently, EU countries spend about 1.8% of GDP on defense—still below NATO’s 2% target, let alone the estimated 3.5-5% necessary for true self-sufficiency. Additionally, European support for Ukraine remains low compared to what the U.S. provides, meaning Europe would need to significantly increase its contributions if American aid were withdrawn.

Finding the estimated extra 1.9% of GDP for defense is a major challenge. One option is cutting other spending or raising taxes, but with Europe already among the highest-taxed regions globally, this would be highly unpopular. Social welfare, pensions, and other government programs make up a large portion of national budgets, and reducing them would likely face public and political resistance. Many governments are already struggling to manage deficits, making additional cuts even more difficult.

Another potential solution is EU-level funding, similar to the €806bn recovery fund set up during the pandemic. This would involve the EU taking on collective debt, but such a move would require unanimous approval—something countries like Hungary and Slovakia might resist. Even if approved, there would still be disagreements over how the funds should be allocated. A blended approach—gradual national spending increases combined with EU-level borrowing—could help close the funding gap. However, without real commitments from leaders to make tough budgetary decisions, calls for European “strategic autonomy” remain more rhetoric than reality.

– F.J

2/28 – International Relations Analysis Piece

The global order that emerged after World War II is unraveling at an accelerated pace, with major power shifts and the ditching of international norms occurring in real-time. Last week at the United Nations, the world saw the United States unexpectedly siding with Russia and North Korea against Ukraine and Europe, signaling a dramatic deviation from longstanding alliances. Faith in NATO and its guarantee of transatlantic security is lower than it’s ever been, and the world appears to be veering toward an era where raw power dictates international relations and dominant states make deals among themselves while smaller nations face coercion.

Under the Trump administration thus far, foreign policy has undergone a fundamental shift. The new American approach mirrors a ruthless business model—where national interests are pursued through direct, high-stakes negotiations rather than traditional diplomacy. Nowhere is this more evident than in their approach to Ukraine. A nation whose fate and territorial sovereignty could soon be primarily determined by a private agreement between Trump and Putin. The administration appears united in its belief that the old post-1945 system—characterized by multilateral trade agreements and security pacts—has disadvantaged America, compelling it to bear the economic and military burdens of global stability without sufficient returns. President Trump and his advisors carry the notion that America can secure better outcomes through direct negotiations with individual states rather than through overarching international frameworks.

This shift in strategy will have significant implications. Everything is now negotiable: territory, resources, technology, and security arrangements. The administration’s envoys—many with business rather than diplomatic backgrounds—are already engaging in a flurry of transactional diplomacy. This includes attempts to broker a deal where Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel in exchange for U.S. security commitments, as well as efforts to reintegrate Russia into global diplomacy through economic agreements that could lift sanctions.

In this emerging system, the U.S. positions itself as the dominant force, prioritizing negotiations with countries that possess strategic resources or wield significant regional power. Nations that are neither economically nor militarily independent find themselves vulnerable to exploitation. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, aims to restore its status as a major global and imperial force, while Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman seeks to modernize the Middle East and counter Iran’s influence. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping envisions a global order that accommodates a strong and ascendant China.

America’s traditional allies—especially in Europe—find themselves increasingly sidelined, as their reliance on U.S. military protection and economic integration is now perceived as a weakness to be leveraged rather than a partnership to be upheld. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East—spanning Israel, Lebanon, and Syria—have blurred territorial lines, with some global players indifferent to these developments. Trump himself has mused about the strategic potential of territories like Gaza and even Greenland, raising concerns that China might adopt a similar approach, seeking territorial concessions in exchange for economic deals concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The U.S. is no longer relying on traditional mechanisms of global commerce. The shift toward state-controlled economic negotiations marks a departure from the idea that trade should be governed by neutral and impartial rules. Instead, Washington now engages in direct bilateral talks with key economic players—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Ukraine—to negotiate terms involving oil production, sanctions, technology investments, and even space-based communications infrastructure. These discussions encompass everything from Elon Musk’s Starlink services to constructing new semiconductor plants and organizing international sporting events.

The new proponents of dealmaking argue that this approach will ultimately benefit global stability by allowing nations to negotiate their interests directly rather than relying on outdated diplomatic frameworks. The Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, are frequently cited as an example of how unconventional negotiations can yield positive outcomes. However, the complexity of these negotiations introduces significant risks. For instance, Saudi Arabia desires a defense pact with the U.S. to counter Iran, which Washington may grant in exchange for Saudi recognition of Israel. Yet, such a deal is contingent on a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a scenario that remains highly improbable given Trump’s previous rejection of a two-state solution. Contingencies like these might prove that some of the world’s most contested diplomatic issues are too complicated to simply be solved through bilateral talks forced by the big kid on the block.

Possible Consequences for America & the World

The rapid decline of institutional agreements and the erosion of established international norms are likely to generate lasting instability. The more fluid borders become, the higher the risk of conflicts escalating. Even nations like India—previously secure in their regional dominance—may feel increasingly vulnerable in a world where territorial disputes are no longer settled by international treaties but by power-driven negotiations.

Another critical vulnerability stems from Trump’s highly personalized view of power. Rather than anchoring international agreements in enduring American institutions, he treats them as individual business deals. This approach raises doubts about the long-term reliability of U.S. commitments. Unlike previous strategic thinkers such as Henry Kissinger, who sought to balance global power through consistent diplomatic engagement, Trump’s erratic and transactional style makes it difficult for other leaders to trust that agreements made today will hold tomorrow.

While Trump envisions a world where the U.S. leverages its economic and military might for maximum advantage, the reality may be far less favorable, especially once he’s out of office. America’s global influence has traditionally been underpinned by its ability to set the rules of international engagement—providing a stable environment in which trade, diplomacy, and security could function predictably. Although maintaining this role has come with costs—including military expenditures and some economic trade-offs—the benefits have far outweighed the burdens. The dollar’s centrality in global finance saves the U.S. over $100 billion annually in interest costs while allowing for high fiscal deficits. American corporations thrive under a rules-based global economy that promotes fairness over corruption and short-term bargaining.

The assumption that America can retreat from its alliances without consequences is deeply flawed. Trump’s belief that oceans provide a natural barrier ignores the reality of modern warfare, which extends beyond land and sea to space and cyberspace. The U.S. relies on a network of global military installations and intelligence-sharing agreements, including bases in Germany, Australia, and Canada, to project power and maintain national security. If America’s credibility and benevolence as an ally erodes, access to these critical strategic assets may be restricted.

As Trump pushes a dealmaking-driven approach, America’s leverage could rapidly decline. If European allies, sensing abandonment, seek alternative security arrangements, the U.S. may find itself with fewer international partners. A weakened system of alliances could quickly lead to greater global instability. In a world where norms are disregarded in favor of short-term transactions, America may discover that credibility, alliances, and the rule of law are ultimately more valuable than any single economic deal. The world is already adjusting to a more unpredictable and transactional era. However, there is still room for course correction. Yet, as things stand, the world is preparing for a future where power is the only currency, alliances are temporary, and the rules-based order that once provided a framework for stability is increasingly obsolete.

2/25 – International News Update & Election Analysis

Germany’s political landscape has undergone a seismic shift following the snap election triggered by the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s left-leaning coalition. The outcome, which saw a sharp rightward tilt, has set the stage for Friedrich Merz and his conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to take the helm of Europe’s largest economy. Merz’s road to forming a stable government remains fraught with challenges, as deep political divisions, policy disputes, and shifting geopolitical dynamics loom large.

Voter participation surged to 83 percent, the highest since Germany’s reunification, signaling the electorate’s strong engagement in what was widely regarded as the most consequential German election in years. The CDU, along with its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), secured a clear, albeit underwhelming, victory with about 29 percent of the vote. This result cements Friedrich Merz as the next likely chancellor but falls short of a decisive mandate, making coalition-building a necessary and strenuous task.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) emerged as one of the biggest winners, securing 21 percent of the vote, and doubling its 2021 election result. The party’s platform, focused on immigration restrictions, economic grievances, and a Russia-friendly stance, resonated particularly in the eastern regions, solidifying its position as the dominant force there. The Left (Die Linke), after years of decline, staged a surprise revival, gaining traction among young voters likely disillusioned with the rise of the far right.

Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) suffered a historic defeat, plummeting to 16 percent, its worst performance in over a century. Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that he would not seek a role in the new government, leaving the party in a period of self-reflection and restructuring. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) fared even worse, failing to cross the parliamentary threshold, leading its leader, Christian Lindner, to announce his retirement from politics.

The once-dominant Greens also took a hit, losing three percentage points from the last national election, with high energy prices and economic policies under Economy Minister Robert Habeck pushing voters elsewhere. Though their losses were not as severe as those of their coalition partners, the SPD and FDP, the Greens are now set to be relegated to the opposition.

Following the results of February 23rd’s historic election, the Bundestag stands at 208 seats for the CDU/CSU, a notable 152 seats for the far-right AfD, 120 seats for the underperforming SPD, 85 seats for the Greens, and 64 seats for the Left.

Despite Merz’s victory, coalition-building remains a daunting challenge. The CDU/CSU and SPD together hold a narrow majority, but forming a grand coalition—a model that once symbolized stability—is now fraught with distrust. Some SPD members have openly resisted the idea, while Merz’s pre-election rhetoric, particularly his criticisms of left-wing and Green policies, has strained relations.

Beyond political divisions, policy disagreements pose additional hurdles. One of the most contentious issues is immigration, with Merz advocating for stricter border controls and asylum policies that the SPD and Greens argue violate domestic and European law. Another key issue is Germany’s constitutional debt brake, which restricts deficit spending. While Merz has signaled some openness to reform, his party remains largely opposed, despite Germany’s growing investment needs in infrastructure, defense, and economic revitalization.

The failure of BSW to reach the 5 percent threshold means the CDU/CSU and SPD can govern without needing the Greens. This effectively sidelines climate policies, with the next government expected to focus less on ambitious environmental reforms. For businesses, this shift could mean a relaxation of EU green regulations, a point of contention that has divided Europe’s economic and environmental policies.

Geopolitical Implications

Germany’s election results also carry significant geopolitical weight. Merz has emphasized the need for Europe to prepare for a future where U.S. support is uncertain, particularly under this second Trump administration. He has proposed discussions with Britain and France on nuclear cooperation, signaling a possible shift away from reliance on American security guarantees.

Merz has also pledged to strengthen Germany’s defense commitments, potentially reversing Scholz’s cautious approach to military aid for Ukraine. He has hinted at lifting the restrictions on sending Taurus cruise missiles to Kyiv and increasing military spending beyond NATO’s 2 percent target. These shifts indicate that Germany may take a more assertive role in European security.

In economic policy, Merz has signaled a harder stance on China, breaking from Scholz’s business-friendly approach. German carmakers, deeply reliant on the Chinese market, may face tougher scrutiny under his leadership. Trade relations within the EU could also see a shift, with Merz advocating for strengthening Franco-German ties to push forward stalled agreements like Mercosur.

Domestic Reforms

Merz’s economic vision revolves around deregulation, reducing bureaucracy, and revitalizing Germany’s struggling industries. His administration is expected to push for tax cuts and business-friendly policies while maintaining strict fiscal discipline. However, this approach may clash with Germany’s need for increased public investment, particularly in infrastructure and defense.

One of the most controversial aspects of Merz’s agenda is his opposition to Germany’s recent cannabis decriminalization law. He has vowed to repeal it, citing concerns over rising drug-related crime. Additionally, his stance on migration suggests that Germany’s asylum policies will become significantly stricter under his leadership. He is also expected to implement corporate reforms, particularly in the automotive sector, as he seeks to address Germany’s declining economic competitiveness.

Analysis

Germany’s election results reflect deep societal divisions and widespread dissatisfaction with the previous government. While the CDU/CSU’s victory represents a rejection of Scholz’s leadership, it does not necessarily indicate overwhelming support for Merz. His lower-than-expected vote share suggests lingering doubts within his own party and the electorate at large.

The rise of the AfD underscores growing frustration with mainstream politics, particularly in eastern Germany, where economic disparity remains a key issue. Meanwhile, the resilience of leftist parties, particularly among younger voters, signals a counter-reaction to the rightward shift. This polarization will likely define German politics in the coming years.

Merz’s success will depend on his ability to navigate these divisions while implementing decisive policies. His handling of coalition negotiations, economic challenges, and Germany’s role in European security will be crucial. If he fails to deliver tangible results, disillusionment could grow, paving the way for further political upheaval in the next election cycle.

For now, Germany stands at a crossroads. With a new chancellor poised to take office, the country must decide whether it will embrace a more assertive, conservative path or struggle with the same political inertia that plagued its previous government. One thing is certain: the challenges ahead will test both Merz’s leadership and Germany’s resilience in an increasingly uncertain world that needs the European Union’s heavyweight to step up when it needs it most.

February 24, 2025 – International News & Geostrategic Security Developments

Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Mineral Deal & Demands Better Terms

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is pushing back against the Trump administration’s demands for preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves—including titanium, lithium, and rare earths—as a form of repayment for U.S. aid. Speaking ahead of the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, Zelensky criticized the current terms as financially crippling and called for security guarantees alongside any deal. The disagreement has escalated into a heated exchange between Zelensky and Trump, with Trump calling Zelensky a dictator and Zelensky accusing Trump of being misinformed. Despite tensions, aides from both sides have been working to salvage a deal.

The Trump administration has defended its proposal, with National Security Adviser Mike Waltz arguing that the U.S. should receive an economic return on its investment in Ukraine’s defense. The minerals dispute has also fueled broader disagreements on how to end the war, with Trump engaging in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin while sidelining Ukraine. Trump has also criticized Zelensky for postponing presidential elections due to martial law, while Zelensky maintains that holding an election under current conditions is impossible.

When asked if he would step down to secure peace or NATO membership for Ukraine, Zelensky said he was open to the idea if it truly benefited his country. However, NATO membership remains a point of contention, with the Trump administration and some European allies opposing Ukraine’s fast-tracked entry.

Europe’s Peace Plan: Can It Succeed Without U.S. Troops?

European leaders, led by Britain and France, are drafting a plan to send up to 30,000 peacekeepers to Ukraine if a cease-fire is reached with Russia. However, the success of this proposal depends on securing U.S. involvement as a “backstop” to provide critical military support and deter potential Russian aggression. The plan doesn’t call for American troops in Ukraine but would rely on U.S. air-defense systems, intelligence, and logistics. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are set to discuss the proposal with Trump, who has been hesitant to engage due to his interest in improving relations with Russia.

Trump’s reluctance presents a major challenge, as European leaders see U.S. backing as essential for the mission’s credibility and effectiveness. European forces have weakened over the years, and key NATO members lack the military capabilities needed to sustain such a force without American assistance. The peacekeepers wouldn’t be stationed on the front lines but would focus on securing infrastructure, cities, and ports, with drones and satellites monitoring Russian compliance with the cease-fire. Meanwhile, some U.S. officials have pushed for Ukraine to grant mineral rights to Washington as part of any peace deal, further complicating negotiations.

The European proposal reflects a broader effort to shift responsibility for Ukraine’s security from the U.S. to European nations. However, divisions remain, with Poland, a strong Ukraine ally, declining to send troops. Some experts question whether a European-led force, even with U.S. assistance, would be sufficient to deter Russia. The Biden administration had previously welcomed the idea of a peacekeeping force without U.S. troops, but Trump’s stance remains uncertain. European leaders, particularly Starmer and Macron, are determined to secure a commitment from Washington, recognizing that without U.S. backing, the plan faces significant hurdles.

Israel Freezes Prisoner Release Over Hamas’ Theatrics

Israel has halted the release of Palestinian prisoners, accusing Hamas of using hostage handovers as propaganda. The decision follows staged public ceremonies in which Israeli hostages were forced to wave to crowds, with one kissing militants. Hamas denies any mistreatment, calling the events dignified, but Israel insists such displays violate their cease-fire agreement.

Under the truce, Israel was set to free over 600 Palestinian prisoners, but families in the West Bank were left waiting when the release was postponed. Tensions escalated further when Hamas presented coffins containing hostage remains in a public spectacle, later revealing that one coffin did not hold the expected body. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the incidents, emphasizing Israel’s resolve to continue military action if necessary.

With no more living hostages set for release until the next phase of negotiations, the fragile cease-fire hangs in the balance. Netanyahu reaffirmed that Israel’s ultimate goal remains the destruction of Hamas’s rule, whether through diplomacy or force.

China’s Naval Drills Near Australia Spark Tensions

China’s navy conducted live-fire drills off Australia’s eastern coast, forcing commercial flights to reroute and sparking concern from Australian and New Zealand officials. While Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles acknowledged the Chinese vessels were operating legally in international waters, he criticized the lack of transparency regarding the exercises. New Zealand’s Defense Minister Judith Collins called the drills a wake-up call, emphasizing they were the most sophisticated Chinese naval exercises ever seen so far south. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong also raised concerns with her Chinese counterpart, urging “safe and professional” military behavior.

China’s growing naval presence has been causing tension globally, with recent close encounters between Chinese and Australian military forces in the South China Sea. In one incident, a Chinese fighter jet deployed flares near an Australian surveillance plane, and in another, a Chinese warship allegedly used a high-powered laser against an Australian aircraft. These latest drills highlight China’s ability to project power far from home, mirroring how the U.S. and its allies operate in the Indo-Pacific. Meanwhile, Australia and China resumed military talks in Beijing after a four-year pause, reflecting efforts to manage these rising tensions through diplomacy.

Trump’s Russia Talks Brew Anxiety Among America’s Asian Allies

The Trump administration’s decision to push forward with peace talks with Russia over the Ukraine war has sparked concern among U.S. allies in Asia, who fear Washington’s commitment to their security may waver. The negotiations, initiated after a call between Trump and Putin, notably excluded Ukraine and European allies, raising alarms about the potential impact on global security. While Asian allies like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines publicly express confidence in U.S. support, there is underlying anxiety that Trump may seek a deal with China or overlook North Korea’s nuclear threat.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reassured allies that the U.S. remains committed to deterring China, arguing that shifting resources from Europe to Asia is necessary to maintain stability in the Pacific. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials prioritized calls to Asian leaders, and Trump has hosted leaders from India and Japan to reinforce military cooperation. Taiwan’s National Security Council head Joseph Wu affirmed that U.S. support for Taiwan remains strong, despite China’s growing military pressure on the self-governing island.

The Philippines has also received reassurances, with Foreign Minister Enrique Manalo highlighting continued U.S. backing at the Munich Security Conference. Manila has deepened military ties with Washington, allowing U.S. forces greater access to bases and expanded defense infrastructure. Under a decades-old treaty, the U.S. is committed to Taiwan’s defense, but concerns linger that Trump’s diplomatic maneuvering with Russia could signal broader shifts in American foreign policy.

– F.J.

2/23 – Geopolitical Analysis Piece

The past week has been one of the most uncomfortable and daunting for Europe since the end of the Cold War. Amid shifting alliances and escalating diplomatic tensions, the security architecture that has underpinned the continent for decades appears to be crumbling. With Ukraine seemingly abandoned, Russia on the verge of reintegration into global affairs, and a United States led by Donald Trump no longer providing assured support, Europe is left at a crossroads. Leaders across the continent have yet to fully grasp the gravity of the situation, but the urgency to adapt to a new world disorder has never been greater.

The seismic shifts in global diplomacy became evident last week in Riyadh, where the United States and Russia began official peace talks on February 18th. European leaders were notably absent, effectively sidelined from negotiations that will determine the fate of Ukraine and, potentially, the broader European security framework. Vice President J.D. Vance’s address at the Munich Security Conference only deepened European anxieties, as he dismissed Europe as weak and undemocratic, further highlighting the continent’s diminishing influence in transatlantic affairs.

Trump, meanwhile, has signaled a willingness to walk away from Ukraine entirely, blaming Kyiv for the war while labeling President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator. His administration is reportedly considering a fragile ceasefire that would provide Ukraine with only limited security guarantees, further restricting its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression.

Even more alarming for European leaders is Trump’s apparent eagerness to restore relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The long-standing U.S. policy of isolating Moscow appears to be unraveling, with Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly discussing new economic and investment opportunities with Russia. This shift—seemingly without any strategic benefit to the United States—suggests a transactional foreign policy approach in which alliances and adversaries alike are subject to constant renegotiation.

NATO’s deterrence strategy has relied on the unshakeable assumption that an attack on one member state would trigger a collective response from all. That certainty is now in doubt. Trump’s actions raise legitimate concerns that in the event of Russian aggression against a Baltic state or another Eastern European nation, Washington’s support would be contingent on what Trump perceives as being in America’s immediate interest. The notion of NATO’s collective defense principle is now subject to Trump’s personal discretion, a reality that deeply unsettles European capitals.

Faced with this new existential threat, European leaders convened in Paris on February 17th but failed to produce a unified strategy. Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European military spending remains insufficient, and internal divisions continue to paralyze coordinated action. The European Union’s traditional reliance on treaties and multilateral agreements now appears dangerously outdated in a world where brute force and rapid decision-making are shaping international relations.

The reality is stark. Europe is a continent with a stagnant economy, an aging population, and a military apparatus incapable of standing alone. It is increasingly vulnerable to external threats, whether through direct military confrontation, disinformation campaigns, or economic coercion. If a Baltic state were to face Russian aggression, what practical steps could Europe take? As of now, no clear answer exists.

The crisis has exposed the urgent need for Europe to redefine its approach to security and defense. The continent must not only confront adversaries like Russia but also recalibrate its relationship with the United States, recognizing that Trump’s vision of foreign policy is not an aberration but a possible long-term shift. Europe’s first priority should be establishing a single, authoritative envoy to engage with the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. Europe needs a way to negotiate and participate in talks with these parties in a legitimate and respected manner. It must also consider tighter economic sanctions against Moscow, even if Washington loosens its own restrictions.

A bolder move would be the unilateral appropriation of the €210 billion in Russian assets currently frozen in European banks. These funds could be used to sustain Ukraine’s defense as American financial support wanes. However, short-term measures alone will not suffice. Europe must commit to a comprehensive military buildup, investing in logistics, surveillance, and nuclear deterrence. France and Britain, the continent’s two nuclear-armed states, must begin discussions on how their arsenals could be used to shield the broader European Union.

Such a shift will require a radical rethinking of European fiscal policy. Defense spending must rise to Cold War levels, reaching 4-5% of GDP. This will necessitate difficult political choices, including cuts to Europe’s vast social welfare programs. As former German Chancellor Angela Merkel famously observed, Europe comprises 7% of the world’s population, accounts for 25% of its GDP, yet consumes 50% of global social spending. Maintaining such an economic model while confronting serious security threats is no longer viable.

Trump’s foreign policy has redefined America’s global role, moving away from the consensus-driven, multilateral approach that has been in place since 1945. In its place is a transactional worldview that prioritizes immediate gains over long-term stability. Nowhere is this shift more evident than in the administration’s approach to Ukraine. By blaming Kyiv for the war and labeling its leader a dictator, Trump has echoed Kremlin rhetoric, creating an opening for Moscow to reassert its influence.

Beyond Ukraine, Trump’s foreign policy moves have extended to dismantling key U.S. institutions that have historically played a role in global stability. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has frozen billions of dollars in foreign assistance, allowing rivals like China to expand their influence in regions once reliant on American aid. Meanwhile, Trump’s musings about acquiring foreign territories, from Greenland to the Panama Canal, have raised concerns about an expansionist American foreign policy.

The implications of Trump’s foreign policy go beyond Europe. His transactional approach threatens to undermine long-standing alliances across the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. His administration’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza while asserting U.S. control over the enclave marks a dramatic departure from decades of American diplomatic efforts aimed at a two-state solution.

Former national security officials and foreign policy analysts widely agree that these shifts will have long-term consequences, making it difficult for future U.S. administrations to restore trust among allies. The reliability and predictability of American leadership—a cornerstone of global stability since World War II—is on track to be deeply eroded.

For Europe, this moment of crisis presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The continent can no longer afford to be complacent, nor can it continue to operate under the assumption that the old transatlantic order will be restored. Europe must seize this moment to forge a new strategic identity—one that prioritizes military self-reliance, economic resilience, and diplomatic assertiveness.

The reality is that NATO, once considered the world’s most successful military alliance, is no longer the unshakable force it once was. Trump’s second term has made it clear that the post-World War II era is over, and the European continent must adapt accordingly. The collapse of the U.S.-led postwar order signifies a shift toward a multipolar world where great powers and regional heavyweights—China, Russia, the U.S.—are now more emboldened to act in their own strategic interests.

With the rejection of “international norms” and realpolitik driving global affairs, Europe must recognize that it is too fragmented to compete alone. If it hopes to remain relevant and secure in this new geopolitical era, it must rapidly build a cohesive and independent defense and security strategy. Cooperation within the EU is no longer a luxury but a necessity, as the world reverts to an era where power, not principles, dictates international relations. The question is no longer whether Europe can rely on America; it is whether Europe is willing to take the necessary steps to secure its own future before it is too late.