BRUSSELS — The European Union is under pressure to keep Ukrainian troops fully online after Elon Musk’s Starlink was restricted amid volatile U.S. support for Kyiv.

“It was a very dangerous and unpleasant surprise,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters after EU leaders met in Brussels, referring to Starlink speed limitations experienced by military troops in recent days. “We were using Starlink to intercept jet-powered Shaheds [combat drones] that are attacking our civilian infrastructure and killing our families … When the speed limits were lowered, we became incapable of shooting [them] down.”

Ukraine has long relied critically on Musk’s satellite constellation for wartime efforts. Reuters reported Friday that the order to slow Ukraine’s military-grade Starshield service came from the White House, days after Washington pressed Kyiv to halt strikes on Russian refineries, amid soaring energy prices and ahead of November’s midterm elections.

“It is unacceptable for Ukraine’s defense — and therefore Europe’s security — to depend on the goodwill of a single American billionaire or on Donald Trump’s decisions,” French centrist Member of the European Parliament Christophe Grudler told POLITICO.

Ahead of Thursday’s high-level meeting, European lawmakers had been calling on the EU executive to fast-track Kyiv’s access to satellite capabilities already pooled under the bloc’s Govsatcom program — which gives participating governments secure communications capabilities.

Negotiations between the EU executive and Ukraine over this access have been ongoing since March, with no breakthrough. Norway and Iceland secured such an agreement earlier this year.

“What I don’t understand is why the European Commission and the Member States have not done everything possible to quickly reach an agreement that would allow Ukraine to benefit from it,” added Christophe Grudler, who wrote to EU leaders.

He also called on them to speed up work on IRIS² — the EU’s in-house, planned satellite network and full-fledged match to Starlink, which is only expected to come online in 2030.

Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed in a statement that it is “currently in talks with Ukraine to fully associate” the country with the EU’s Govsatcom program. “The war in Ukraine shows that our security also depends on space. And the EU has been doing quite a lot. We are ready to support Ukraine where we can support Ukraine,” he added.

Calls to crack down on dependence on foreign providers and boost alternatives to Starlink also come at a time when legislators are negotiating a series of laws that could tame Musk’s ambitions in Europe.

“Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink highlights the vulnerability of European defence systems that rely on U.S. technology, Another reminder that Europe must reduce its dangerous technological dependencies — ASAP,” center-right Finnish lawmaker Aura Salla said on social media.

Policymakers across Europe have been joining forces to curb Starlink’s dominance in low-Earth orbit, where satellites fly close to Earth to deliver faster connections.

“As legislators, we must ensure that European operators are well positioned in the market and limit the dominance of foreign players,” German center-left lawmaker Matthias Ecke said. In Brussels, lawmakers, including Ecke, are backing European telcos gunning for prized satellite frequencies, currently licensed to U.S. operators until next year and eyed by Starlink.

Meanwhile, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was working bilaterally with EU countries to secure more capabilities, citing France. He also expressed hopes that Starlink restrictions could be lifted. “My partners told me there were signals from the White House that they would return these capabilities.”

SpaceX — Starlink’s parent company — didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

BRUSSELS — There is “no logic” to U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent moves to take Russia’s side in the Ukraine war, and he should remember his true allies lie in Europe, Finland’s prime minister said Thursday. 

In an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Petteri Orpo summed up the shock and dismay among Ukraine’s allies after Trump announced a diesel deal with Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, and reportedly imposed limits on Kyiv’s access to the military intelligence and technology needed to counter Russian attacks.

“My message to him [Trump] is that we are allies,” Orpo said on the sidelines of the European Council summit in Brussels. “We are in NATO. And what is the biggest threat against NATO? It’s Russia — and that is why there is no logic. I don’t have answers. I have many questions.” 

Trump alarmed European leaders and horrified Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week by announcing a deal to release Russian diesel onto the market, apparently in an attempt to lower fuel costs for American consumers. Ukraine’s allies fear the move will boost Russia’s revenue from fuel sales, giving it more money to spend on war. 

Trump also said Ukraine should stop hitting Russian fossil fuel facilities — as part of what he said was a ceasefire on energy infrastructure — and should replace Zelenskyy. 

Finland is an influential voice among Ukraine’s European allies: The country has the EU’s longest land border with Russia, at 1,300 km, and its president, Alexander Stubb — a talented sportsman — won Trump’s respect on the golf course, giving him leeway to try to influence White House policy.

Orpo said if he were in Trump’s position “I would not trust Putin.” Zelenskyy has said he fears Ukraine is losing the U.S. to Russia’s side in the war, warning the Americans and their president are on “the wrong side of history”. Orpo said he agreed: “I think he is, and they are.” 

Ukraine now faces grave danger, he said. “The sky is open for Russia, there are missiles. They need more military support, air defense,” Orpo said. “Also, the situation is dangerous because of the latest deal between Trump and Putin.”

Midterms move

One possible reason Trump turned against Ukraine with that diesel deal is the U.S. midterm elections on Nov. 3. “I think it is because of domestic reasons — elections are coming,” Orpo said. “But we need to get them back.” Nonetheless, he said the amount of Russian diesel that could be sold to the U.S. is too small to make much of a difference for American consumers. 

Whatever happens, EU leaders must equip Ukraine with weapons and cash, whether or not they can rely on the U.S., he said. “Today, we need to find a solution [on] how to support Ukraine, how to finance Ukraine in this winter, but also in next year,” Orpo said. “It’s crucial.”

Finland and Sweden are among the countries pushing the European Commission to reopen the fractious debate over how to use Russia’s financial assets currently frozen in European banks, especially in Belgium, which blocked a deal to raid the funds last year over legal concerns. 

“The best solution would be that we will have a solution on how to use frozen assets,” he said. “We have to try again,” Orpo said. 

Finland has asked the Commission “to continue work with Belgium, and the other member states, to find a solution.” He said he hoped to hear an update from the Commission during the summit. “It’s a better solution than using our own money.”

Budget blues

European leaders are arguing this week over their long-term budget, which Brussels officials want to finalize by the end of the year. Many diplomats do not expect a deal this year, and some leaders say they’re in no hurry. 

But others want the budget, worth around €2 trillion, signed off by December because they fear next year’s European elections — especially if far-right leader Marine Le Pen wins the French presidency — will derail negotiations. 

The longer budget negotiations last, the “more difficulties we will have,” Orpo said. “So we have to work to find a solution this year. I understand very well that it is difficult, a huge challenge, but I cannot see how it would be easier next year, because in France elections are coming, for example.”

Finland also has an election coming up in April 2027. Orpo’s center-right National Coalition Party is struggling in the polls. “This time has been very difficult,” he said. “But, finally, our economy is growing.”

Orpo’s Swedish sister party, the Moderates, mounted a late surge in last month’s election. Although that seems unlikely to keep them in office, Sweden’s Moderates still have a slim chance, even though many commentators had written them off long before the vote.

“They did excellent campaign work, and in the end of the day, people vote Moderates, not populist or socialist,” Orpo said. “I would like the same in Finland.”

PARIS — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy replied to French far-right presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen’s pledge to cut financial aid with a message: Europe is benefitting from Ukraine.

“Ukraine will give back security. It’s security and experience, the price is not so high as people’s lives, that’s why I think that Madame Le Pen is not deeply [acquainted] with some details,” he told the Financial Times. “We give back and this is very important.”

Le Pen has repeatedly said, including to POLITICO, that she would stop financial aid to Ukraine if she’s elected as French president next year — but suggested France could keep training Ukraine’s military and provide non-financial assistance. Le Pen, the National Rally candidate, is currently leading the polls.

Zelenskyy stressed that European armed forces and defense industries, including France’s, were benefiting from Ukraine’s battlefield experience. “It’s win-win,” he said. `

He argued that Le Pen should keep supporting Ukraine because it’s helping the Franco-Italian air defense system SAMP/T, which is currently deployed in the war-torn country, be more efficient. “We made a lot of different changes together with French guys, because they saw how it worked and how it works now.”

“The French industry only wins with these technologies, cooperation, co-production,” he added. “I will not vote for her … because I’m Ukrainian,” he also joked.

An Israeli surveillance technology firm has run a large-scale operation to infect mobile phones with spyware using online advertisements to hack the devices, researchers said on Thursday.

An investigation by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and cybersecurity firm Confiant Threat Intelligence laid bare an ad-based infection technique developed by an Israeli company that researchers named “AdFection.” The hacks weaponized legitimate online ad systems for espionage purposes, allowing spyware manufacturers to connect to millions of devices and identify, track and target victims.

“Plugging into the online ads ecosystem provides the mercenary spyware industry a stealthy delivery system,” said Bill Marczak, senior researcher at The Citizen Lab. He said the findings were “surely just the tip of the iceberg” of how online ads are abused for espionage.

Researchers discovered critical details of the hacking tools by analyzing devices belonging to journalists and staff at the Al Jazeera media network, finding that 45 devices of journalists and staff were targeted and some infected with Israeli-made spyware known as Candiru.

At the heart of the hacking campaign is the Israeli company Discover-Tech that describes itself as an advertising business. Citizen Lab researchers said the company facilitated surveillance for commercial spyware operators. Its platform, called Controlium, allegedly allowed spyware makers like Candiru — which in 2025 was acquired by Integrity Labs — to identify, track and target devices by loading advertisements on websites and apps.

Discover-Tech and Integrity Labs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The scale is striking: An analysis of four billion advertising records found that Discover-Tech’s ads appeared across nearly 200,000 websites and mobile apps in dozens of countries over four months. Among the websites that featured the ads were institutional sites of NATO, the United Nations, the European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the EU.

The technique exploits real-time bidding — the automated system used by platforms such as Google to sell advertising space and target users. Rather than persuading victims to click a malicious link, attackers can exploit advertisements to identify and potentially infect devices without any interaction from the user — a technique known as “zero-click” infections.

Discover-Tech’s advertisements directed millions of devices to servers associated with Candiru, potentially enabling large-scale surveillance and reconnaissance, researchers said. That does not mean all those devices were infected.

Citizen Lab, based in Toronto, is a globally recognized research group that previously uncovered spyware scandals targeting Catalan political figures, a member of the European Parliament and the inner circle of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The findings triggered calls for further investigation on Thursday. “The possibility that EU institutions have been exposed should set off alarm bells across Brussels,” said Hannah Neumann, a German European Parliament lawmaker of the Greens group. Neumann herself was the victim of a cyber-espionage operation by an Iranian hacking group.

“Europe cannot claim to defend democracy while leaving its own democratic institutions vulnerable to spyware,” Neumann said.

Ukraine’s strikes on data centers inside Russia aimed to disrupt military planning and communication services. There were also reports of another kind of disruption: to customers waiting for their dinner from food-delivery apps.

Kyiv’s drone strikes on three Yandex data centers in Sasovo, Kaluga and Vladimir saw delays and interruptions for thousands of businesses and households that rely on Yandex’s cloud infrastructure, including e-commerce, digital payment platforms and apps of food delivery and car services. Ukrainian drones on Wednesday targeted a major Sberbank data center in Russia’s Saratov region, though a senior company executive said it hadn’t affected operations.

After the strikes on Russian data centers, Kyiv noted that Moscow has already repeatedly targeted its digital infrastructure. “Ukrainians wanted to show Russians that two can play this game,” a senior official familiar with the operation told POLITICO, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The attacks and counter-attacks point to a new frontline in war: the infrastructure powering the digital economy.

The attacks on the buildings that supply compute power are akin to striking a power plant supplying the electricity, heating and fuel that both militaries and civilians depend on. It may weaken an enemy’s war effort but can also bring everyday life to a standstill.

Experts say the cost of rebuilding in Russia will be particularly high as the centers require scarce materials that must be imported. “Obtaining a large amount of equipment to replace what was destroyed is not going to be easy,” said Oleg Shakirov, a cyber policy and international security researcher, noting that most hardware needs to be imported and that is complicated by high global demand and sanctions on Russia.

“To be honest, no one really knows what’s the actual damage. Since two data centers are still offline, we can assume that it’s significant,” said Shakirov.

Joseph Jarnecki, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, warned that normalizing strikes to data centers could have a new set of dangerous consequences.

“These strikes likely breach International Humanitarian Law and it’s a big risk when global populations increasingly rely on digital services,” he told POLITICO.

When servers become targets

Data centers have entered the crosshairs of other recent armed conflicts. During the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran earlier this year, drone strikes hit three Amazon Web Services (AWS) facilities in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Since data centers can serve civilian and military purposes simultaneously, the legal status of targeting them is far from straightforward.

Kubo Mačák, an expert on international humanitarian law, said a data center must meet two conditions to qualify as a military objective under the Geneva Conventions: it must make an effective contribution to military operations and destroying it must offer a “definite military advantage.”

“If you know that they are storing military intelligence or that they’re using the data center to power military artificial intelligence tools,” Mačák said, there could be grounds to consider it a military objective.

Following the most recent strikes of the Yandex data centers, users on social media platform X reported a sudden drop in automated bot activity, including from accounts associated with pro-Russian, pro-Trump and Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) narratives.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seized on the reports to boast that the strikes had made social media less toxic, even as independent researchers and national research institutes found no evidence they specifically disrupted any Russian disinformation campaigns.

Mačák said that even if a data center is being used to “let’s say, run some trolls or these bot farms to interfere with elections abroad … that would not be sufficient.” In other words, hosting propaganda bots does not, by itself, make a data center a lawful military target.

The dual-use quandary has often focused on the targeting of energy infrastructure, which has been frequent in the Russia-Ukraine war. On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump urged Ukraine to stop striking Russian oil refineries, blaming the attacks for rising fuel prices. He has since called for both sides to halt attacks on energy infrastructure, although the existence of any ceasefire agreement remains disputed.

As data centers become increasingly central to national economies, they will become more consequential targets. A senior NATO official granted anonymity to discuss the matter told POLITICO that data centers are already considered potential targets and that the alliance is factoring their vulnerability into its planning.

NATO allies recognize that their data centers could come under attack in a conflict, the official said: “We would get it in a fight.”

Veronika Melkozerova in Kyiv contributed to this report.

LONDON — Britain has rolled out the royal treatment for Volodymyr Zelenskyy again.

King Charles hosted the Ukrainian president for an audience at Buckingham Palace Wednesday as Kyiv faces renewed tensions with Donald Trump’s White House. It is the latest in a series of meetings where the monarch has sought to champion the Ukrainian leader at a critical moment. 

The pair held discussions in the king’s private audience room for 25 minutes before the Ukrainian leader headed to Downing Street to meet British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Zelenskyy later thanked the King “for his unwavering support for Ukraine.”

Charles hosted Zelenskyy at Sandringham in March 2025, days after Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berated the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office, and at Windsor Castle earlier this year after Ukraine, the U.K., France and Germany published a joint statement calling for a “just and lasting” deal to end the war with Russia.

Zelenskyy entered Downing Street flanked by a ceremonial guard from No.12 Company The Irish Guards, something a No. 10 spokesperson said is believed to be unprecedented.

The latest visit comes amid fresh strains over Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine, after he criticized Zelenskyy’s leadership and struck a deal with Moscow to lift sanctions on Russian diesel exports. 

It is the first visit to a European capital by the Ukrainian president since Trump made the announcement last Friday, and his third meeting with Burnham.

A Downing Street spokesperson said Burnham and Zelenskyy had reflected on Russia’s “blatant indiscriminate attacks on civilians and energy infrastructure since President Trump called for an energy ceasefire” during their meeting.

Burnham told Zelenskyy the U.K. will continue to develop innovative military solutions for use on the battlefield in Ukraine — including retrofitting British capability onto equipment gifted from other partners, the spokesperson said. He also pledged to continue diplomatic efforts on international supplies of defensive equipment.

In an earlier interview with the broadcaster Piers Morgan, Zelenskyy said Trump’s deal with Russia meant he is “not the right side of history” and said Ukraine is “losing a strong partner.”

He said there had been a deliberate decision by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the U.S. to block access to the satellite system Starlink, warning “this decision will bring a lot of human losses. Of course, people will die.”

Burnham has so far refused to condemn the U.S. president for making a deal with Russia, telling MPs Wednesday he wants to “try and repair bridges so that the support comes back.”

In an overnight statement issued by No. 10 ahead of the visit, Burnham said: “Our rock-solid support to Ukraine is vital for keeping us safe here in the UK and ensuring those on the frontlines have the equipment they need to push back Russia.

“My message to the Ukrainian people could not be clearer, we are with you for as long as it takes, and we will go further and faster in our support to back your courageous fight for peace in Europe. It is not just the right thing to do, but it’s the necessary thing to do. Russia’s aggression cannot be allowed to succeed on our continent.”

Downing Street said the U.K. prime minister has asked ministers to draw up proposals for further sanctions, military aid, and fiscal packages to support Ukraine in the coming weeks.

Britain will deliver £45 million of surface-to-air missiles and implement a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

Britain will also accelerate deliveries of more than 5,000 Lightweight Multirole Missiles to Ukraine over the next four years with £1.6 billion in funding, Downing Street said.

This developing story has been updated.

European Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius urged EU countries to keep defense spending high in the EU’s next long-term budget — or face delays in the bloc’s military ramp up.

“Please support the next [multi-annual financial framework] defense lines,” he said, speaking at POLITICO’s European Resilience Summit. Otherwise, he added, “we shall have less possibilities to build the defense systems we need to have, or to build our infrastructure in space. That’s very clear.”

His comments come as EU leaders are set meet Thursday to discuss the EU’s next long-term budget from 2028 to 2034. Over the weekend, the Council of the EU’s Irish presidency proposed cutting the Commission’s original proposal by around 8% to appease a German-led camp demanding major cuts. The cuts overwhelmingly affect EU-wide priorities such as competitiveness, defense and foreign aid.

Earlier this week, national delegations watered down a commitment to secure a deal on the budget by the end of the year.

EU money is key to “incentivize member states to go together for joint procurement, for joint development, for European development,” the former Lithuanian prime minister argued. That’s especially needed as defense spending remains too national-oriented and the defense industry too fragmented, he lamented.

“If we have less of those possibilities to incentivize member states, we shall not be able to change that situation, which is now really still not at the level we need in terms of defragmentation of European development,” the commissioner said.

KYIV — Russia caught the Ukrainian capital off guard with its latest attack, hitting the country with over 100 drones and five ballistic missiles, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday.

“Intelligence on Russian ballistic missile launches helps save lives, and this is one of the most critical issues. This is precisely what helps prevent people from being killed — when there is an early warning about ballistic missiles,” Zelenskyy said.

He added: “Regarding this strike, unfortunately, there was no warning from partners.”

Kyiv usually receives a tip-off about impending Russian missiles via the Battlespace Command and Control Center system, which is operated and controlled by the United States’ military and NATO members, among others.

However, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said at the Warsaw Security Forum Tuesday that intelligence sharing through the platform is ongoing.

“They [Americans] told Ukrainians no warning happened because of bad weather conditions, which is seen as not an adequate reason in Kyiv. Thus many are getting increasingly worried this might not have been the case,” an official familiar with the matter told POLITICO on condition of anonymity.

The missile warning system has malfunctioned before. “At times this information doesn’t get through. This isn’t the first instance … If there were specific technical issues this time, I think the specialists will sort it out. And they will resolve this problem together with our partners,” Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ignat said Tuesday.

The U.S. reportedly threatened to cut intelligence sharing once again last week if Kyiv does not stop stricking Russian oil refineries. Zelenskyy did not publicly confirm the threat, but has backed down.

“Ukraine has not carried out strikes on Russian oil refineries or the energy sector in general for the two days since the American President announced an energy ceasefire. But Russia did not heed the American President,” Zelenskyy said, appealing to the U.S. to lead peace negotiations.

“The Russians have attacked both our energy facilities and our critical infrastructure, sending absolutely clear signals that they have no intention of refraining from strikes on Ukraine. Nineteen regions of our country have come under attack in these two days alone,” he added.

U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Monday that both Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an energy ceasefire because he said so — “and if it was violated, they both violated it.”

“Actually [Russian President Vladimir Putin] wants to make a deal, and we have to get Zelenskyy to want to make a deal,” Trump said.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, Katie Zacharia, the president’s new press secretary, demurred when asked if the U.S. has stopped sharing intel with Ukraine.

“I’ll have to get back to you on that,” she said.

Speaking to reporters at the White House later on Tuesday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. has not stopped sharing intel with Ukraine.

“But we are really helping them get to a final answer,” Trump said. “We are helping them, and we are sharing intel. We want the war to end.”

He reiterated that he is helping to broker a deal between Putin and Zelenskyy. “There is a lot of hatred there between the two of them. They both want it to end, they don’t know how to get there. We’re gonna get them there,” he said.

Russia has not yet commented on the ballistic strikes, but issued a general statement saying it had struck military and weapons production facilities across Ukraine.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday that Zelenskyy did not deserve a pause in fighting in response to the energy ceasefire: “I don’t think that he deserves a break. I don’t think that we will buy assurances and promises again,” he said.

This article was updated with comments from the White House and Donald Trump. Elleiana Green and Casey He contributed reporting.

LONDON — Britain’s spies will have a leading role in Britain’s preparation for AI threats, the head of MI5 announced on Tuesday, after warning the technology could enable terrorists to access bioweapons.

Ken McCallum, director general of the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency has established the AI Threat Assessment Centre to help determine how the government views potential threats.

Giving his annual threat update from MI5 headquarters in London, McCallum said: “Human history has given us no experience of facing an actor which is smarter than we are, is capable of outthinking us.”

He stressed the “real” risks of AI, saying MI5 has caught terrorists seeking to use AI to “improve their reconnaissance and attack methodologies,” in addition to the danger of AI-enabled drones.

Though it has not yet been “realized,” he said he attaches “the greatest weight” to AI’s potential to “change the stakes on existing or even new bioweapons.”

He said “low-capability” terrorists may get a “capability” uplift if the safety guardrails in AI models don’t work as intended. 

He added that for a long time “many terrorists would dearly love” access to chemical, biological or radiological weapons, but that it has been hard for them to achieve.

“One risk is that AI could enable dangerous knowledge to get into the hands of people who […] didn’t have that knowledge.”

McCallum added that “sober attention” must be given to the risk that “AI could generate novel pathogens not previously seen.” He noted that the government is taking “additional steps” on bioweapons. 

One thing that “does trouble me”, McCallum said, is the pace at which the world is evolving. He noted that the “weird bits inside MI5” that focus on how Britain’s adversaries will act in five years from now are seeing those timelines shortening due to AI.

He said it is now his responsibility to “drag my organization forwards at a faster pace than human beings generally want to be dragged.”

Sifting threats from hype

The new threat assessment centre, known as AITAC, will bring together expertise from bodies including Britain’s AI Security Institute, National Crime Agency, and the National Cyber Security Centre to “separate the bluster from the realities” of AI’s threat to the British public.

This is the third center of its kind MI5 has set up, after creating similar units dedicated to analyzing terrorism and state threats.

Asked how the agency would work, McCallum said it would look at emerging trends and how the U.K. can best think about and prioritize the various manifestations of AI threats. 

Though the government, rather than AITAC, will decide the response to AI, McCallum said it was partly set up to avoid “competitive analysis, slightly conflicting and confusing messages that otherwise might exist, where you have different departments offering their own opinion” on the issue.

He said that it would enable everyone to have “a single version of the truth, a single understanding, a single lexicon, typography.”

McCallum also said MI5 will now give national resilience — such as protecting critical infrastructure, countering cognitive warfare, and addressing technology threats — “front-rank mission status” alongside its twin roles of countering state threats and terrorism.

He noted that MI5 is now devoting more resources to countering state threats than it was during the Cold War, noting an uptick in anti-immigration cases tipping into terrorist intent, while Iran has shifted its ambitions to hit harder targets such as military sites.

LONDON — Nigel Farage on Tuesday defended his party’s proposals to allow the Royal Marines to use “lethal force” against irregular migrants crossing the English Channel.

The leader of the right-wing Reform UK party — who has announced plans to shut down Britain’s asylum system for five years if he takes office — doubled down on his Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick’s pledge Monday that if naval officers “need to use lethal force, then they’ll be able to do so” under Reform.

Farage’s political opponents leapt on Reform’s proposals following Jenrick’s comments. Labour Defence Minister Luke Pollard told Times Radio Tuesday morning the plan is “disgusting and illegal” and “abhorrent to British military values.”

“Our Royal Navy are not allowed, as all armed forces are, to accept an illegal order. We do not shoot unarmed civilians. We do not take military action against civilians,” he said.

Farage told LBC Jenrick’s remarks were being “utterly misconstrued” as “anybody wearing British military uniform who gets fired at has the right to respond.”

The Reform chief said there were shooting and stabbings in migrant camps every week. “We are dealing here with very, very serious international criminal organizations,” he argued.

Reform’s blueprint for stopping small boats — Operation Fortress —  was published in August and says “lethal force would be available where lawful and necessary in self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat to life.”

NATO’s top commander U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich on Monday vowed to block, blunt and break any Russian attack as part of a new “Theory of Victory,” and underlined that alliance troops would fight even if U.S. forces were engaged elsewhere.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Grynkewich outlined how the 32-member alliance would respond to an invasion of NATO territory as concerns grow that Russia could be capable of attacking a NATO member by the end of the decade.

“Our alliance exists to preserve peace,” he said, “but let there be no doubt: should war come, we will block, blunt any attack, and then, if it does not cease, we will break the forces conducting aggression against us.”

The rare intervention by the four-star general to discuss a military blueprint underscores NATO’s effort to deter Russia. It is also aimed at sending a message of NATO unity after a grueling year for the alliance, which was rocked by Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and infighting over the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.

Under the three-part blueprint, NATO would initially use land-based troops — buttressed by air, naval, cyber and space capabilities — to stop an assault, targeting attacking forces and preventing them from seizing territory, Grynkewich said.

NATO would then use sensors and autonomous systems among other capabilities to “overwhelm enemy formations … and their advance,” he said, before using “highly effective precision munitions” and unmanned systems if necessary to “break the [enemy] warfighting system” and “everything that supports” it.

Lithuanian Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas said the theory laid out by Grynkewich “will send a strong message to our adversaries that we are going to defend ourselves.”

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe said he does “not assess that conflict is imminent or inevitable.” But “we will … ensure any attack against any ally proves utterly futile.”

The speech describes a more forceful response if a foe attacks, but its credibility depends on allies having the forces, infrastructure, and coordination to implement the plan.

Asked whether the plan factored in a scenario where the U.S. was engaged elsewhere, Grynkewich said: “It absolutely does account for that, and in fact, it must.”

Under Trump, the U.S. has sought to refocus its military on other priorities such as the Indo-Pacific, homeland security and the Western Hemisphere. U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said in Warsaw on Monday that Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s strategic concerns.

The Pentagon has already cut its contributions to NATO crisis forces and is set to unveil a review of U.S. forces in Europe by the end of the year.

“No one should question the commitment of the United States to this alliance,” Grynkewich argued, but added that “ultimately, it’s a political decision about who’s providing troops where.”

Camille Grand, NATO’s former assistant secretary-general for defense investment, said the plan was “a very deliberate effort” to signal that the alliance would be ready to fight with or without large-scale involvement of U.S. forces.

“For my country, fighting with Russians is with or without Americans,” said a separate senior European defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “We expect them to come, but if they won’t, we will fight anyway.”

Grand added that the blueprint is also an indication that NATO is ready to take a bolder approach toward Moscow by threatening the destruction of its war machine even deep behind the front lines.

That comes as Moscow sent a letter to NATO last month threatening to use its nuclear arsenal if the alliance tried to isolate its Kaliningrad exclave.

Grynkewich warned that NATO would be ready to respond — even with its nuclear arsenal.

“Should an adversary threaten escalation by saber-rattling, or should one actually decide to escalate during conflict, it will not fracture our alliance,” he said. “We should take comfort in our ability to deliver mass effects and the implicit warning that we could match any enemy move up the escalation ladder.”

LYMPNE, England — A Reform UK government would take a “keen look” at Britain’s support to Ukraine, the populist right-wing party’s leader Nigel Farage said Monday.

Farage said Ukraine is “one of the most corrupt countries on earth” and that he is “very worried” about where some of Britain’s money has ended up — while also acknowledging the threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin is now the greatest it has ever been.

The Reform leader added: “I’ve never said we shouldn’t support Ukraine — ever. But I have said I would like to have a keen look to make sure British taxpayers’ money is not being swallowed up in corruption.”

The Ukrainian embassy in London declined to comment.

The U.K. has committed £25 billion to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion, according to government figures published in July 2026. That includes £16 billion of military support, up to £5.6 billion in non-military support and a £3.5 billion cover limit for export finance.

Farage was answering questions at a press conference after Donald Trump deepened the gulf between Washington D.C. and Kyiv by saying he would suspend sanctions on Russian diesel exports. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized the deal, Trump said Saturday: “It’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.”

Farage, an old ally of Trump who previously spoke at his campaign rallies, said he did not agree with the U.S. president’s decision to buy diesel from Russia, but criticized EU nations for “buying vast amounts of Russian petrochemicals” during the course of the war.

Farage also declined to agree with Trump’s call for regime change, saying: “I understand that Trump and Zelenskyy have a somewhat tempestuous relationship, so it’s not any particular surprise. At some point, Ukraine needs an election. That’s true if it is to be a country that aspires to have Western-style values. As to when that election comes, we’ll have to see. After all, we did have an election during World War Two.”

Asked if there is a limit to his support for Ukraine, Farage added: “No one’s support for Ukraine is limitless, is it? Is [U.K. Prime Minister] Andy Burnham’s support for Ukraine limitless? No, it’s not. But do we need to go on supporting Ukraine? 

“Look, this is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. We know that. I’ve been very, very worried about where some of our money has gone. And goodness me, Zelenskyy’s administration has been rocked by corruption claims, which perhaps makes at some point a general election there an important thing to do.

“But I am in no doubt at all that Putin now poses a greater threat than he’s posed at any point.”

Farage accused his critics of a “willful attempt to misconstrue” comments he made in 2024, when he said the eastward expansion of NATO and the EU gave Putin “reason to his Russian people” to justify the war. Farage said at the time: “We provoked this war. Of course it’s his fault — he’s used what we’ve done as an excuse.”

Farage said Monday that he believes NATO has been a “huge success over many, many years” and Britain’s role in the alliance is “a vital one, as a bridge between Europe and America, and keeping America on side with NATO.”

Right-wing rifts

Reform’s opinion poll lead ended in the summer and the party now trails four points behind Burnham’s center-left ruling Labour Party in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. Polls currently predict that the right-wing vote would be split between Reform and the Conservative Party in a general election, due by 2029.

While Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said last week that she would sooner force a second general election than form a governing pact with Reform, Farage said he “would work with anybody from any party” after an election to see his plans through.

Farage was speaking at an industrial estate in Kent to pledge a series of hardline reforms to the migration system, including halting all asylum claims for five years and deporting anyone left on the waiting list for a decision.

Reform officials previously said that Farage planned to meet France’s National Rally Leader Marine Le Pen in late October, around the time the party holds its conference, and that he was examining a possible visit to Ukraine.

Farage avoided saying, when asked by POLITICO, if he would travel to meet leaders of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Instead he appeared to suggest that Reform was a more moderate alternative to far-right politics rising up in parts of Europe.

“I have friends in the AfD. I have some of the AfD I’m less certain about,” he said. “But it is quite ironic when people attack Reform and say Reform is extreme. I’ll tell you what. There is a politics now developing in Europe directly as a failure of migration policy that would make most people in Reform blush. And this is why our fighting the next general election and winning it is so important — because it might just be the last chance to re-establish trust and faith in the electoral system.”

The EU approved its biggest package of sanctions against Russia since the start of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, targeting the Kremlin’s ability to make missiles.

The bloc’s foreign ministers approved the package during a meeting in Luxembourg, adding 1,600 new listings “targeting Russia’s military-industrial complex,” the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas said on X.

“This is the single largest expansion of our sanctions list since Russia started its war,” she added. “More than half are connected to the production chain for ballistic missiles.”

The new listings follow the removal of Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman, two of Russia’s wealthiest men, from the sanctions list last month after heated, down-to-the-wire talks between EU capitals.

Monday’s approval was a formality after EU countries agreed on the sanctions list in earlier talks.

“We are making it significantly harder, slower and more expensive for Russia to produce the weapons it uses to kill Ukrainians,” Kallas said.

The sanctions list will last for three years before it needs to be renewed.

BRUSSELS — The EU should use frozen Russian assets to fund Kyiv’s defense, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said, adding that doing so would counter claims from the far right and far left that Europe is footing the bill for the war.

“Russia, not European taxpayers, must be the first to pay for the damage it has caused and continues to cause,” Sybiha wrote in an opinion piece for POLITICO.

Using the assets would reassure “skeptical audiences across Europe” ahead of a year of major elections, Sybiha said, in a nod to votes in countries including France and Italy in 2027. In France, presidential frontrunner Marine Le Pen has vowed to end financial aid to Kyiv; in Italy, Roberto Vannacci is challenging Giorgia Meloni from the right and opposes continued support for the war-torn country.

The G7 immobilized roughly €300 billion in Russian central bank reserves in 2022, including about €210 billion in the EU — most of which are held at Belgian financial depository Euroclear. Belgium, backed by Italy, rejected an EU proposal late last year to use these assets to back a loan for Ukraine, citing legal and financial risks and fears of Russian retaliation.

The push gained fresh momentum over the summer, when Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain urged the European Commission to reopen talks and explore ways to overcome Belgium’s objections. But Belgium again shot the idea down.

Sybiha sought to address the Belgian concerns, saying Ukraine’s finance ministry had proposed placing the assets under collective EU control, making the decision to use them and any liability a shared responsibility.

“Belgium’s exposure is a reason to share the risk, not to do nothing,” Sybiha said.

Sybiha also rejected concerns that using the reserves would undermine the euro or weaken Europe’s leverage in future peace talks. The euro’s credibility, he wrote, “rests on Europe’s ability to defend order and principles.” And the leverage provided by the frozen assets “is not in holding the money — it is in spending it.”

He dismissed the risk of Russian retaliation against Western companies, saying Moscow had already seized control of European business assets, including Nestlé, Auchan and Metro. “Keeping the assets immobilized did not deter it,” he wrote.

Russia plans to spend a record €180 billion on its military in 2027, more than 40% above its 2026 spending, Sybiha said. He called on EU leaders to act this fall, warning that a delay would prolong the war and raise the cost of defending Ukraine.

WARSAW — NATO must modernize its military infrastructure to move forces and equipment from Western to Eastern Europe “where we would expect any future conflict,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said Monday.

Speaking on a panel at the Warsaw Security Forum, Whitaker’s comments came as Washington reviews its military presence on the continent — with the ambassador saying that Europe ranks fourth among Washington’s strategic priorities, behind homeland security, the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific.

He pointed to outdated military bases, fuel supply chains and agreements governing the stationing of American troops in Europe as areas requiring attention under the ongoing U.S. force posture and basing review.

He emphasized the importance of military mobility and “moving things from the west to the east,” citing discussions with EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius. European officials warn that Russia could be ready to attack a NATO country by the end of the decade.

Whitaker did not announce any decisions to relocate or withdraw American forces. He nevertheless made clear that Washington is reassessing its global commitments to avoid spreading its military resources too thin.

“Superpowers and great global powers have mostly had challenges when they get overextended,” Whitaker said, adding that U.S. President Donald Trump wants allies to become “capable and not dependent.”

“The United States isn’t stepping back. We’re just asking you to step forward,” he said.

Whitaker also criticized countries that are falling short of their defense-spending commitments.

He said he had recently delivered a “very strong message” to political leaders in Czechia. The country’s defense spending for this year is approximately 1.8% of GDP, falling short of NATO’s current 2% benchmark.

European governments must continue strengthening their armed forces, he argued, warning that the continent still lacks many of the capabilities it needs to defend itself.

Kubilius, meanwhile, stressed the need to reduce Europe’s military dependence on Washington, highlighting EU efforts to develop its own drone defenses, satellite communications and surveillance capabilities.

Polish presidential adviser Marcin Przydacz, also on the panel, urged Western European allies to accelerate defense spending while emphasizing that NATO, rather than the EU, must remain responsible for Europe’s collective defense.

A Russian attack that killed at least 17 people including three children in Ukraine are Moscow’s “thanks for the lifting on sanctions on diesel exports,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Saturday.

A series of strikes on the south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia also injured at least 18 people, including three children, Ukraine’s state emergency services said on Saturday afternoon.

“People continue to be searched for under the rubble of destroyed houses. Rescue operations continue,” said Mykhailo Semikin, acting head of Zaporizhzhia regional military administration in a Telegram post.

“Today, Russia expressed its thanks for the lifting of sanctions on diesel exports by dropping five glide bombs on residential buildings in Zaporizhzhia,” Zelenskyy said on X.

The strikes took place just one day after U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would temporarily lift sanctions on Russian diesel in a bid to bring soaring prices down.

Ukrainian officials were meeting on the same day with European and U.S. officials in Miami in a fresh diplomatic push to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Zelenskyy criticized the deal on Friday and accused Trump of using the peace talks as a “smokescreen” while pursuing a deal with the Kremlin.

Even though the talks were supposed to last two days, the Ukrainian team decided to return home earlier then planned “because they managed to talk everything through earlier,” a senior official familiar with the matter told POLITICO. Ukraine will continue to bomb Russian oil refineries despite US-Russia deals, the official added.

The Ukrainian armed forces said Saturday they struck a major oil facility in Russia’s Samara region overnight.

Zelenskyy is currently busy coordinating with Europeans and preparing several high-level meetings, the official said. He spoke on Saturday with leaders of France, Norway and Finland.

“Russian strikes killed over 80 Ukrainian civilians in two days. Moreover, it has stepped up its hybrid attacks against Europe, both EU Member States and NATO Allies,” Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, said Saturday. “Suspending sanctions on Russian diesel provides Moscow with more revenues to wage war.”

“On Monday, EU Foreign Ministers intend to approve the biggest set of sanctions listings targeting Russia’s war machine since the start of the war,” Kallas added.

This article was updated.

BRUSSELS — It was meant to be Europe’s escape from the web of Chinese critical mineral supremacy.

But two years after it took effect, the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act is not on schedule. Just one in four critical mineral projects granted special status under the law is on track to be ready on time, according to new analysis shared with POLITICO.

On Friday, EU industry chief Stéphane Séjourné will unveil a new list of critical mineral projects that will receive privileged access to funding, accelerated permitting and help from Brussels to find buyers.

The idea is to make Europe a major producer of materials essential to clean energy, tech, and defense manufacturing. It’s currently a heavy importer.

But progress on the first round of 47 projects, announced early last year, offers little hope for the bloc’s ambitions.

“At least one in three mining and processing strategic projects is either late, stalled, at risk, or no longer exists, and only about a quarter are clearly on track,” said Diego Marin, policy officer for raw materials at the European Environmental Bureau, citing publicly available sources. The findings will be published in a report later this month.

Financial, regulatory, and political hurdles are blocking European mining projects, the industry says, despite the Critical Raw Materials Act’s aim to speed up the time it takes to get the shovels in the ground.

The EEB’s findings were echoed in an industry call in August, where 23 projects named in the first round claimed some were facing “immediate jeopardy,” in a letter sent to the Commission and obtained by POLITICO.

Those same companies also believe that announcing more strategic projects will create more problems. However, a Commission official dismissed that claim, saying that some of those projects had received direct funding from the Commission, and claiming the companies believe new projects would “dilute their status.”

The EU unveiled 47 projects in March 2025, covering 14 of the bloc’s 17 designated strategic raw materials—from lithium, nickel, cobalt and graphite for electric vehicle batteries and rare earths for magnets used in wind turbines, to tungsten for military equipment and gallium for semiconductors. It also includes 13 projects from outside the bloc.

These were designed to deliver the EU’s raw materials targets: by 2030, the bloc aims to mine at least 10 percent, process 40 percent and recycle 25 percent of its own needs, while sourcing no more than 65 percent of any one material at any processing stage from a single non-EU country.

Breaking Europe’s dependence on China for key metals is at the heart of the policy, a goal European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted in her State of the Union speech last month. “We are more than 80% dependent on China for many critical raw materials [and] 90% for some rare earths,” she lamented. 

A Commission official said that if all goes to plan, the EU will meet its 2030 goals for lithium, cobalt and rare earths, but results for other materials are mixed, with shortfalls in nickel processing and recycling and across the manganese supply chain. They did not give hard figures, though.

Industry skeptical

“Unless something happens that is absolutely not foreseen today, we will be far, far away from reaching the targets, even if they are quite low,” said Jan Moström, former CEO of Swedish mining giant LKAB and outgoing president of Euromines. He said better access to financing and faster permitting was key.

The EU is under additional time pressure as a pause on China’s export controls on rare earth minerals is due to expire in January.

Global think tank ODI found in June that “out of 60 projects, 14 are unlikely to contribute by 2030 because their estimated start of production falls between 2029 and 2031,” and that “three out of four are either behind their expected schedule or impossible to verify using up-to-date public evidence” — backing up the EEB’s numbers. 

A European Court of Auditors report this year also revealed that “many projects will struggle to secure supply for the EU by 2030” and that there was “no proper tracking of results.” 

The European Commission questioned the current validity of the ECA’s findings, saying it “audited a period of policy that does not cover everything we’ve done since this mandate. So the Court of Auditors had very relevant points that we took into account in our policy, but should absolutely not be seen as a fair assessment of the work we’ve done with the von der Leyen Commission number two,” said a Commission official. 

Desperate times

Since adopting the Critical Raw Materials Act in 2024, Brussels has rolled out a flurry of initiatives to get projects moving. They include a proposed critical raw materials center, for which Parliament is seeking €2 billion; the “RESourceEU” plan that’s mobilized more than €2 billion; a mechanism to identify suppliers; and plans to revise water rules and speed up environmental impact assessments. 

But industry leaders say the EU is moving too slowly. 

“I’m still to be convinced that it makes any difference,” Michael Staffas, CEO of Swedish miner Boliden, told POLITICO when asked about the benefits of being designated as a strategic project. Boliden’s subsidiary Somincor was granted strategic status for a copper and zinc mine in Portugal. 

The “strategic project” label promised faster permitting and help securing public and private finance, with permitting deadlines of 27 months for mines and 15 months for processing and recycling projects.

“In Sweden you have different authorities that can basically object to a permit process and that in itself creates way longer time than 27 months, just the legislation,” said LKAB CEO Johan Menckel, whose company currently has three strategic projects.

One is the Per Geijer deposit, home to Europe’s largest rare-earth deposits, which the local indigenous Sámi community opposes, arguing it would harm their reindeer-herding tradition. 

The local administration recently recommended that the State Mining Authority grant the concession on the condition that the Swedish company “minimize the impact on the reindeer industry,” but that will be subject to appeal from the Sámi.

Karin K Niia, a Sámi reindeer herder, said in comments that the EU will be complicit in cultural genocide if the project goes ahead. 

Europe’s lithium hope

Europe’s biggest bet to escape China’s foothold in battery metal supply chains is the Barroso lithium mine in Portugal, run by UK-based mining company Savannah Resources. The company says the mine could supply enough lithium for around half a million electric-vehicle batteries a year.

“I don’t think the strategic project stamp and the [Critical Raw Materials Act] have been absolutely essential, but it wasn’t also supposed to be. It was supposed to, in my understanding, be important to set a framework under which Europe can do the right thing faster, better, and for the better benefit of the next generation of Europe,” Savannah’s CEO Emanuel Proença said, calling it just another piece of a very big puzzle. 

Europe’s lithium-refining ambitions are also faltering: France’s Viridian Lithium went bankrupt after failing to secure funding, while Portugal’s José de Mello Group was unable to finance its planned €492 million refinery — despite both projects winning strategic status in the EU’s first round.

Viridian Lithium spokesperson Luc Pez said the strategic project label was a ‘curse.’ 

Rio Tinto’s Jadar project in Serbia, one of the non-EU projects to gain strategic-project status, was meant to provide double Barroso’s lithium capacity and cater to up to 25 percent of Europe’s demand. That, however, was suspended because of permitting issues and became a widely protested project amid allegations of corruption and environmental concerns. 

That reflected the simple fact that people don’t like mines in their backyard — an obstacle for mining projects worldwide, but especially in Europe, which is densely populated and has strong civil society.

“These projects had strategic status, EU money and fast-track permits, and it still wasn’t enough,” said EEB’s Marin. “If the supply push can’t deliver even under those conditions, the EU has to take demand reduction and sufficiency seriously. We can’t permit our way out of a market problem.”

Frida Preuß contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — NATO is seeking to reassure Russia that an upcoming nuclear drill in Italy is nothing to fear, with tensions high between the alliance and Moscow.

NATO announced Thursday that 17 allies will participate in the annual Steadfast Noon exercise from Oct. 13-23. But this year, the exercise follows a tense exchange of letters between Moscow and NATO after allies conducted exercises near Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave in August.

“We have been doing this every year and … this is also a clear message to nations like Russia that there is no need to worry,” said Nassima Barrows, NATO’s nuclear policy director. “This is predictable and there is no reason to miscalculate.”

“Its purpose is really essentially to train our allied forces so that we are ready and prepared, and we ensure the safety and security of our nuclear capability,” she told reporters.

Following the previous NATO exercises, Moscow sent a letter to the alliance threatening to hit allied territory and mentioning the use of its nuclear arsenal — a move that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte publicly rebuked last week.

Tensions are rising as European countries accuse Russia of sabotage and growing so-called hybrid attacks across the continent. 

“Our intention is to really keep things calm,” said a senior NATO official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Russian officials “keep ratcheting up this mood of tension and we are going to keep trying to calm the mood.”

U.S. Col. David Bull, chief of NATO’s nuclear operations, said the exercise has garnered “similar” participation to previous years and involves everything from a “simulated alert to [a] live flight exercise” — but “no live nuclear weapons.” 

It will also feature dual-capable aircraft and ground troops to support the exercise and train on loading, fueling, and maintaining planes, a senior NATO military official added.

Russia’s embassy to Belgium didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The growing popularity of far-right parties across Europe is sparking worries in NATO that they could weaken public support for rearmament and military aid to Ukraine as risks grow of a confrontation with Russia.

In France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Poland and Romania, these parties are looking to turn voters’ cost-of-living concerns into opposition to aid for Kyiv, and rejection of higher national defense budgets and a greater role for the EU in defense — although each party has often sharply diverging views on those issues.

France’s National Rally leader Marine Le Pen last month called for limiting aid to Ukraine, saying: “financially, we can’t do it anymore.”

Roberto Vannacci, a former general and MEP who leads the far-right National Future party, which is increasingly challenging Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, called for a rethink of defense spending. “Let’s evaluate whether this military spending is justified: in my opinion, it isn’t, especially at a time when commodity prices are hitting record highs,” he said last week.

The challenge for Europe’s mainstream parties is how to sustain support for higher defense budgets even if that means competing with welfare and other priorities.

“People are struggling with the rising cost of living across the board … so there’s room for populistic rhetoric about how much should we support Ukraine financially, or how much should we invest in defense,” said Janne Kuusela, permanent secretary at Finland’s defense ministry.

The dilemma is sharpening as several large NATO members, including France, Italy and Poland, face elections in 2027, when far-right parties stand a real chance of coming to power. Many countries are also beginning talks on next year’s budgets.

For NATO, a spending slowdown would complicate efforts to meet the alliance’s target of spending 5% of GDP on defense and security by 2035. Four NATO diplomats, granted anonymity to speak freely, said the risk is a growing concern, though some said its effects may not be clear until next year’s budget cycle.

“We’re already in a situation where we need to catch up” with Russia, said a NATO military official. “So far, we’re on a positive trajectory — if someone closes the faucet, there’s a risk of losing capabilities.”

Turning the tide

European countries and Canada are expected to spend $634 billion on core defense needs this year, an 11% hike relative to 2025. But public support has limits.

In eight European countries, an average of 46.2% of respondents said they would not back higher defense spending if it meant higher taxes, while 35.5% were in favor, according to an August poll assessed by the European Council on Foreign Relations and shared with POLITICO. More people were opposed to increasing taxes to finance military spending in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. Respondents in the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were more likely to accept higher taxes for military spending.

Protests against higher defense spending have taken place in Rome, Brussels and Madrid this year, with demonstrators criticizing cuts to funding for hospitals, universities and social services.

Support for Ukraine is declining as well, according to NATO’s internal polling from this spring, falling from 59% in 2025 to 55% this year, with lethal aid the least popular form of support.

Far-right pushback on defense varies across Europe and falls broadly into three categories: opposition to military aid for Ukraine; rejection of EU-level defense projects; and criticism of defense spending more broadly. Yet all threaten to halt the continent’s effort to rearm rapidly and jointly — and limit Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

France’s National Rally and Romania’s Alliance for the Union of Romanians oppose aid to Kyiv. Poland’s Law and Justice and the Dutch Party for Freedom resist EU-level defense projects. Alternative for Germany and Italy’s National Future criticize increased spending more broadly.

The right’s political foes warn that opposition plays into the Kremlin’s hands. “The pressure from the right doesn’t actually come from the right, but largely from Moscow,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. Parties such as National Rally and the AfD have longstanding ties with Russia, though they have sought to shake off their links in recent years.

Defense spending pressure

The political risk varies by country. Le Pen is a front-runner to become French president, while the AfD has made gains at the regional level but is unlikely to take national office soon.

Far-right gains are putting centrist parties under pressure to defend higher spending or consider cuts to retain public support.

“There is a risk that the formally pro-European mainstream across Europe might be too timid to spend … as would be necessary on defence,” said Paweł Zerka, senior policy fellow at the ECFR.

While Le Pen’s National Rally has indicated that she would respect France’s current trajectory of increasing military spending, Italy’s Meloni last week proposed spending €8 billion less on defense than the government’s initial proposal amid pressure from her far-right coalition partner, the League. Meloni last week proposed spending €8 billion less on defense than the government’s initial proposal amid pressure from her far-right coalition partner, the League.

“You can’t spend on weapons what you can’t spend on pensions, excise tax relief, or utility bills,” Claudio Borghi, a League senator, said last week.

In Poland, President Karol Nawrocki, backed by the right-wing Law and Justice party, tried but failed to block access to nearly €44 billion in EU SAFE defense loans, saying the scheme risked making Poland dependent on Brussels and saddling future generations with debt.

Pressure to rethink defense spending could make it harder for NATO members to fund the capabilities officials say are needed to deter Russia, as capitals begin talks this month on determining the alliance’s war plans, which are due by 2029.

A slowdown by larger members such as France and Italy would have broader effects because they account for a greater share of defense investment and aid to Kyiv, one of the NATO diplomats said.

“If bigger countries stop making progress, then NATO will stop making progress,” the diplomat said. “You weaken NATO, you weaken Europe’s ability to defend itself, and you make Ukraine … more vulnerable.” 

It could also affect the sum earmarked for defense in the EU’s next long-term budget if talks stretch on into next year, said Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow and defense economics analyst at the Bruegel think tank.

“Nationalists are all only interested in their country, they don’t want to work together with other European countries,” said German lawmaker Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who chairs the European Parliament’s defense committee.

This article has been updated.

Pete Hegseth is odd. This isn’t just a personal opinion, though there’s no doubt that he gets widely mocked for his carefully cultivated public persona, which is a mix of megachurch preacher, gym rat and Robert Duvall’s napalm-huffing character in “Apocalypse Now.” The fact that the defense secretary is different is simply a statistical reality.

It’s not just that he’s a white evangelical Christian, a group that, according to PRRI, makes up only 13% of the population. Hegseth’s church, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, is extreme even for the right, with a leader who argues against women’s suffrage and teaches that slavery was the height of “mutual intimacy and harmony” between the races. Even within MAGA, those remain fringe positions, despite great efforts by some Christian nationalists to reignite “debate” on such long-resolved issues. 

All this means it’s hard not to laugh when Hegseth pontificates about his hatred of “weirdos.” Although he has a war to fight in Iran, somehow he finds time to focus his attention on what he clearly sees as the greater battle: remaking the military according to the demands of his very white, very male, very right-wing vision.

“No fatties, no t******s, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals,” Hegseth said during a Sept. 30 speech at the U.S. Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. He didn’t explicitly say “no women,” but his kicker — “with testosterone testing on top” — made the implication plain. The “no beardos” demand may seem strange, but as Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times explained, it’s coded racism. Hegseth ended medical exemptions that allowed beards for people, mostly Black men, with certain skin conditions. This may explain why he has no problem when white men have beards, as seen on his church leader, Doug Wilson, or the many celebrities the defense secretary likes to take photos with. (Hegseth himself sported a beard in 2018.) 

“Wimps,” “radicals” and “weirdos” are more ambiguous pejoratives, but Hegseth’s recent actions suggest his definitions are expansive enough to cover the vast majority of Americans. He’s been on a firing spree, demanding a 20% cut of the Pentagon’s top brass in an apparent effort to expunge those he deems “woke.” The move comes after nearly two years of blocking promotions for and pushing out Black and female military leaders. Hegseth also rewrote the list of religions recognized by the Pentagon, narrowing from over 200 faith categorizations to a mere 31 — 22 of which are Christian. He claims this is to simplify the bureaucracy, but his motives are likely more disturbing: to stigmatize non-Christians and restrict the definition of “Christian.” The Air Force is already forcing service members to register their religious beliefs under the truncated list, drawing criticism from atheists and others whose belief systems are not included as options. 

Last week, Hegseth upped the ante by announcing the formation of the Office of Religious Affairs “to strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters.” Despite boilerplate claims that this action will not “compel religious participation” or “diminish the free exercise rights” of service members, both the policies and pomp surrounding the announcement made it clear that the goal is to promote Hegseth’s version of Christianity — and shame anyone who does not adhere to it. The office will be run by the defense secretary himself and, in ominous language, promises to fund “research, technology, and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness,” which sounds like a data-gathering operation to ensure troops meet Hegseth’s esoteric views on proper religious practice. 

“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God,” Hegseth said in his announcement, using language from the Book of Ephesians that will be sure to resonate with Christian evangelicals. 

Taken together, this purge helps clarify what Hegseth means when he’s talking about “weirdos” and “wimps,” as well as other slurs like “t******s.” He’s hostile to women, the LGBTQ+ community, people of color and anyone who doesn’t adhere to his vision of conservative Christianity — although it’s worth noting that with his message of peace and love, Jesus Christ himself would not be accepted by Hegseth as a Christian.

The secretary may have gone to Princeton University, but he hasn’t yet grasped the concept of irony. The people he deems “weirdos” far outnumber those in his narrow category, presumably of non-weirdos, many times over. 

---

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

---

Hegseth has tried to justify his position and rhetoric by arguing that a proper military should only contain “the real 1%” of supposedly superior people. But as Eliot Cohen of The Atlantic notes, this claim is ignorant of history. You need large numbers to win wars, which inherently means that armies can’t be elitist institutions.

Hegseth has a real math problem on his hands. His “real 1%” of alleged non-weirdos is just not enough people to staff a modern military, especially in times of war. His solution appears to be to hit the road, trying to recruit more mini-Hegseths to enlist. On Sept. 19 he embarked on the Send Me Tour in an effort to reach out to people in white evangelical-heavy parts of the country with a Bible-heavy pitch about how Jesus wants them to fight for their country. Both the tour’s name and the secretary’s stump speech rely heavily on Isaiah 6:8; Hegseth equates God’s call to the prophet to be faithful with his own plea for evangelicals to join the military.

In a response video, Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat from Georgia who is also an ordained minister with multiple theology degrees, didn’t mince his words. “Pete Hegseth is busy twisting the scriptures yet again . . . When Isaiah answers that call, it is not a call to go into battle.” Instead, Warnock said, “Isaiah challenges corruption” and “those who would crush the poor.”

Those objectives, of course, are not remotely Hegseth’s. His creation of a hierarchy that places white, straight men at the top and relegates everyone else into an underclass of “weirdos” and “wimps” ignores the Bible’s historical context — and actual meaning. Anyone who doubts that can simply examine his behavior in office and his monomaniacal focus on sorting America’s service members into a worthy-unworthy dichotomy, based solely on how much they adhere to his own self-serving ideals of what a soldier should look like.

The post Pete Hegseth’s holy war on “weirdos” targets most Americans appeared first on Salon.com.