Connect with us

Europe

Europe prepares deterrence strategy against potential US move on Greenland

Published

on

European nations are drafting a “deterrence plan” to counter the possibility of a US move against Greenland, according to a report by Politico citing officials, diplomats, and NATO sources.

Speaking to the magazine, one European diplomat emphasized the need for readiness. “We must be prepared for a direct confrontation with Trump. He is acting in an aggressive mode, and we need to be ready for that,” the diplomat stated.

An anonymous German official told Politico that Johann Wadephul, a senior member of the German parliament, and his colleagues are working on deterrent measures Europe could implement in the event of a potential US invasion. Additionally, the possibility of increasing NATO’s presence in the immediate vicinity of the island is being examined.

Europe’s three options on the table: Conciliation, financing, and economic warfare

Based on statements from the officials interviewed, Politico categorized Europe’s potential responses into three main pillars. The first option focuses on conciliation.

A former high-ranking NATO official suggested that the alliance could act as a mediator between Denmark, Greenland, and the US. “Everything possible must be done to increase the alliance’s presence near Greenland and to meet Trump’s demands,” the diplomat said.

The second option involves Europe significantly increasing its financial support to Greenland.

Following Trump’s promises of massive investment should the island join the US, the European Union and Denmark are attempting to convince Greenland that they can offer a “more profitable alternative.” Brussels plans to more than double the funding provided to Greenland starting in 2028, though this spending increase has not yet been formally approved within the EU.

“Planning a security strategy to protect against America is madness”

The third option involves a direct economic response to the US. Thomas Crosby, an expert on the US armed forces at the Royal Danish Defence College, recalled that the EU had previously drafted plans to ensure European and Arctic security without the US during Trump’s first term.

“It is difficult, but possible. However, I don’t think anyone is seriously considering how to ensure Europe’s security against America. This is literal madness,” Crosby remarked.

One of the primary tools available is the “Anti-Coercion Instrument,” often referred to as an “economic bazooka.” This mechanism includes measures such as tariffs, taxes on American companies, and bans on investment in the European economy.

However, should the US decide to take control of Greenland by force, the chances of Europeans preventing it are seen as extremely low. Crosby suggested that if the Americans were to send a small military group, an attempt could be made to arrest them. A European diplomat added that France and Germany could potentially deploy troops to deter an invasion if requested by Denmark.

White House: Use of military force is always at the Commander-in-Chief’s disposal

Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility of using military force to establish control over Greenland. The US President has stated that his country “desperately needs” the territory within the context of international security.

While Jeff Landry, Trump’s Special Envoy for Greenland, stated that the US goal is “not to conquer anyone” but rather to offer “economic power and protection,” statements from the White House suggest a different tone.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), US Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed congressional leaders that Trump is intent on purchasing Greenland and is using bellicose rhetoric to pressure Denmark into negotiations. Rubio reportedly made these comments during a briefing regarding an operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, after Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked whether military force would be used elsewhere, including Mexico and Greenland.

The White House has not publicly rejected the military option. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “President Trump has made it clear that the acquisition of Greenland is a US national security priority and is vital for deterring our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to achieve this important foreign policy goal, and of course, the use of the US armed forces is always at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.”

The Micronesia model?

Furthermore, a senior US official speaking to Reuters said that Trump and his advisors are discussing various methods to acquire Greenland, including a direct purchase or a “Free Association” agreement.

Such agreements, which the US maintains with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, stipulate that these territories are not part of the US, but Washington provides them with protection and free trade. In exchange, the US military is permitted to operate on these lands without restriction.

“Diplomacy and deal-making are always the first option for the President. He loves deals. Therefore, if there is an opportunity to make a profitable deal to acquire Greenland, he will instinctively prefer that option,” the official said.

Thomas Crosby of the Royal Danish Defence College emphasized that such a deal would not necessarily benefit Greenland. “Trump’s fundamental approach is to impose his will on the people he negotiates with. In both his private and public life, he has repeatedly betrayed those he made deals with, failed to fulfill his obligations, and exploited those around him,” Crosby evaluated.

According to Crosby, it would be “madness” for Greenlanders to accept anything in the hope of a fair deal. The expert noted that the worst-case scenario, should Trump decide to use force, would be a “fait accompli strategy” similar to Putin’s attempt to seize Ukraine. In this scenario, Trump could simply send troops and declare that Greenland now belongs to the US.

“It would take half an hour for the capital Nuuk to fall”

Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on Greenlandic security at the Danish Institute for International Studies, stated that whether the US uses only the troops already stationed at its military base on the island or deploys special forces, it could seize control of the capital, Nuuk, in “half an hour or less.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphasized earlier this week that such an event would signal the end of the current global order. “The international community as we know it, the democratic rules of the game, and NATO, the world’s most powerful defense alliance… if one NATO country decides to attack another, all of this collapses,” Frederiksen stated.

Europe

Hungary’s new PM Magyar vows absolute ban on illegal migration, challenging Brussels over fines

Published

on

Hungary’s newly elected Prime Minister Péter Magyar has pledged to block all illegal migration, reject European Union quotas, and challenge Brussels’ punitive fines, signaling a highly restrictive border policy even as he vows to restore ties with European partners.

In his first interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung since taking office, Magyar outlined his administration’s strategic roadmap. He addressed the smear campaigns directed against him by the former government of Viktor Orbán, relations with the EU, migration policy, and the economic necessity of maintaining energy ties with Russia.

Reflecting on his transition to power, Magyar noted that the Orbán administration targeted him, his family, and his colleagues during a highly polarized campaign.

“I have known Viktor Orbán for a long time. What happened during the election campaign was no surprise to me, even if it might be difficult to imagine in other countries,” Magyar said. “The mudslinging campaign was not just directed at me personally, but also against my family, my colleagues, and my friends. However, those who faced each other were not Hungarians against Hungarians; it was Viktor Orbán and his vassals standing against the Hungarian nation. One of our most important campaign promises is that we will do everything we can to reunite the Hungarian nation.”

Despite running a pro-European campaign to secure victory, Magyar acknowledged fundamental disagreements with Brussels, particularly on migration. He argued that former Prime Minister Orbán’s hardline stance during the 2015 European migrant crisis was correct.

“My government will pursue an extremely strict and decisive policy regarding illegal migration,” Magyar said. “You can be as angry with Viktor Orbán as you want—and no one has criticized him more than I have—but when the migration crisis began in 2015, he was right. Many member states have now admitted they made wrong decisions at the time. In any case, we will protect our homeland, our country’s borders, and the external borders of Europe.”

“Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants”

Responding to whether Hungary would comply with newly implemented EU asylum rules, which mandate member states to conduct processing procedures at external borders, Magyar delivered a firm refusal regarding quotas and penalties.

“I can only say this: Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants. We will not pay any penalties for this either,” Magyar said. “However, we will help protect Europe’s external borders, whether in Greece, Malta, or Italy. The 2015 migration crisis must be a lesson for Europe. The most important duty of European politicians is to protect the safety of the people. I believe there are many ways to stop illegal migration without violating European Union rules. It is simply a matter of being able to negotiate.”

Magyar also dismissed the current relevance of a European Court of Justice ruling imposing a daily fine of 1 million euros on Hungary for failing to implement EU asylum procedures, arguing the decision is outdated.

“The court’s decision was made at a very different time and under a different legal framework,” Magyar said. “Today, we are in a completely different situation. This decision no longer reflects today’s reality. Today, there are many countries acting just like Hungary, yet this European Court of Justice decision does not apply to them. I find this incredibly unfair. In order to protect our borders and avoid having to pay the daily fine of 1 million euros, we will hold talks with our European partners and find a common solution.”

While acknowledging that the judicial ruling is final and cannot be appealed, Magyar described the financial burden on Hungarian citizens as unjust.

“The decision cannot be appealed. We are looking for new rules and opportunities to avoid paying the fine,” he said. “It is unfair and disproportionate that the people of Hungary must pay a fine of 1 million euros every day. Similarly, it is a great injustice that while other member states receive these funds, Hungary has been provided with no financial resources for the wire fence it constructed to protect the external border of the European Union.”

“Exclusion only makes the far-right stronger”

Magyar strongly opposed pushback from member states—particularly pressure from Germany—to transition EU foreign policy decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority voting, defending the preservation of national sovereignty.

While rejecting the confrontational rhetoric favored by Orbán toward Brussels, Magyar emphasized the importance of compromise among sovereign states.

“I served as a diplomat within the European Union for a long time, and I know very well how difficult it is to reach a consensus among 27 countries. Yet, most of the time, this is achieved,” Magyar said. “Orbán always said, ‘We must defeat Brussels.’ I do not think that is the point. The point is to understand each other, to persuade, and not to try to defeat one another. People do not want a United States of Europe; they want a European Union based on strong member states. For this reason, I do not support transitioning to a majority voting system in many areas instead of the unanimity rule at this stage. We will negotiate and find a middle ground.”

Addressing the political rise of far-right parties across Europe, particularly in France and Germany, Magyar criticized traditional political elites for being disconnected from public anxieties and relying on political moralizing.

He warned that isolating these populist movements is counterproductive.

“I do not like labels like far-right or far-left. I do not like ideological wars,” Magyar said. “People deserve more than politically correct speeches where ideological labels are slapped on one another. I have no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of other member states, and I will not do so; on this point, I differ from Orbán. However, I observe that some countries make mistakes in combating extremist parties. In many countries, politicians do not act honestly. They do not understand people’s fears and expectations, and they do not dare to talk openly about problems and face them. They use the language of political correctness and, at the end of the day, fail to grasp reality itself. These are precisely the mistakes that certain groups exploit. Excluding these people and these parties, building a wall of isolation around them, is not a solution on its own. Exclusion only makes these forces stronger. In many countries, these mistakes have been recognized, but not yet everywhere.”

Asked if this critique applied to Germany, Magyar maintained his criticism of governing establishments.

“In many countries, the political, media, and economic elites protect their own positions and do not always address the real fears and problems of the people. But the public does not forget this. That is why what we need is honesty, honesty, and once again, honesty,” he said.

On the debate over whether conservative factions in the European Parliament should cooperate with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Magyar shared his perspective on the future strategy of the European People’s Party (EPP), which includes his own party, Tisza.

“In the European Parliament, political forces must always seek a majority, and grand coalitions between the center-left and center-right can function. Germany and Austria are good examples of this,” Magyar said. “However, this does not always work, and that is why the CDU/CSU and the European People’s Party, which includes my party Tisza, may have to make a decision one day. In my view, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) are the natural allies of the European People’s Party. Whether they want to cooperate with the AfD is not my decision to make. However, I believe that talking to one another and listening to the other’s arguments never causes harm. What we accept from each other’s proposals is an entirely separate matter.”

“Europe will partially return to Russian energy after the war”

Defending Hungary’s decision to continue importing crude oil and natural gas from Russia despite the war in Ukraine, Magyar emphasized the country’s landlocked geography and economic constraints.

“The Hungarian people elected me as the Prime Minister of Hungary. My government’s duties include ensuring energy security, security of supply, and the lowest possible energy prices,” Magyar said. “In recent years, Hungary has become one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the European Union. Three million people live below the poverty line. Our neighbors in the European Union must understand that Hungary is a landlocked country. We are still dependent on Russian oil, and we cannot change this overnight. We have not seen economic growth for years, and we need cheap energy to grow. Of course, we are doing everything we can to diversify our energy resources, but we cannot afford to see our companies’ competitiveness decrease further and Hungarian families’ energy poverty increase. I think Europe will partially turn back to Russian energy resources and lift sanctions when the war ends, because the competitiveness of all of Europe is at stake here. In a future state of peace, no one has an interest in maintaining a new economic and political Cold War. For this, of course, the war must first end.”

While Orbán maintained close ties with American conservative movements and received explicit support from Donald Trump, Magyar indicated that the change in leadership in Budapest would not damage relations with Washington.

“The US is Hungary’s natural ally in NATO and a highly important economic partner. What happened during the election campaign will not change this. We will maintain good relations with every American administration,” Magyar said.

Magyar criticized Orbán’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing instead for a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to Moscow in the post-war era.

“I know the role of Russia in Hungarian history very well. I have not forgotten the years 1849 and 1956. In both periods, Russian troops bloodily suppressed the Hungarian freedom movement,” Magyar said. “But on the other hand, the reality is that geography does not change. We must accept this as it is. Therefore, we must develop pragmatic relations with Russia once the war against Ukraine ends. Nonetheless, it is extremely clear that Russia currently poses a security risk to all of Europe. It is unacceptable that people in Europe must live in fear of Russian sabotage or a Russian attack. That is why this war must end, and we must provide international security guarantees to Ukraine. However, Europe can only develop when normalcy returns, and Russia cannot have an interest in a new Cold War becoming permanent on the continent.”

“We can turn a new page with Ukraine”

Magyar pledged to end the hostile state-sponsored propaganda directed at Ukraine by the previous administration, emphasizing his respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and his personal involvement in humanitarian efforts.

“We want to build good relations with all our neighbors, not least because a Hungarian minority lives in each of them. This also applies to Ukraine,” Magyar said. “We have always stated that Ukraine is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine war and that Ukraine has the right to its territorial integrity. When the Russians bombed the largest children’s hospital in Kyiv in the summer of 2024, I immediately went to Kyiv with our volunteers and personally delivered the humanitarian aid of the Hungarian people. Right after the attack, we set off in a 30-year-old Ford Transit and reached Kyiv within 20 hours under air raids and missile bombardments. I did not see any other European politician at that bombed hospital. We are currently holding talks with Ukraine at a technical level, and we are working to reach an agreement within a few days to restore and guarantee the language, education, and cultural rights of the 100,000 Hungarians living in Ukraine. Today, we need to clarify certain matters with Ukraine regarding our minority in that country, and I hope we will achieve this in the coming days. Ethnic Hungarians there currently do not have the opportunity to use their mother tongue in their relations with official authorities. However, if we resolve these issues on the basis of mutual interest, we can turn a new page.”

Magyar cautioned that future security guarantees for Ukraine must be concrete and enforceable, unlike previous international agreements.

“In 1994, the famous Budapest Memorandum was signed, in which the US and other major powers guaranteed Ukraine’s independence and integrity. However, these promises were not kept, because empty slogans are of little use,” Magyar said. “Right now, everything is at stake in Ukraine. A large number of people are dying, and it is possible that this country will lose part of its territory. Therefore, Ukraine needs real, enforceable international guarantees.”

However, the Prime Minister reiterated that Hungary would remain militarily uninvolved in the conflict, stating that arms shipments do not constitute a genuine security guarantee.

“I do not believe that weapons are a security guarantee. Security guarantees can only be provided by the international community,” the Hungarian leader concluded. “Hungary cannot play a decisive role here; this is the work of the major powers. We can provide diplomatic and humanitarian aid, and Hungary can also provide a suitable ground for negotiations.”

Continue Reading

Europe

EU agrees new deportation rules allowing migrant return centers outside the bloc

Published

on

European Union lawmakers and member states have reached agreement on new legislation overhauling rules governing the deportation of asylum seekers.

According to Politico, the agreed text allows asylum applicants whose claims have been rejected to be sent to dedicated return centers established outside the EU.

As a key condition of the deal, measures to establish the return centers are set to be implemented immediately.

The move is said to be of particular importance to the Netherlands and Germany. Other provisions of the legislation are expected to take effect one year later.

The agreement must still receive final approval from both the EU Council and the European Parliament before it can formally enter into force.

European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner said the agreement would help the EU regain control over both those arriving in the bloc and those required to leave it.

According to data from Eurostat, the proportion of migrants denied asylum in the European Union who ultimately leave the bloc remains at around 27%.

“We must give people the feeling again that we have everything under control,” Brunner said.

The new framework grants member states the authority to transfer individuals ordered to leave EU territory to return centers located outside the bloc.

Several member states are already examining the option, while human rights organizations have warned of risks of rights violations and abuse during the process.

The legislation also introduces stricter measures, including home searches, extended detention periods, entry bans, and penalties for individuals deemed security threats or those who refuse to cooperate.

French Member of the European Parliament François-Xavier Bellamy told the publication: “For years, Europe sent the worst possible message: even if you had no right to stay, there was a high likelihood that nothing would happen. That era is ending. If you do not have the right to remain in Europe, you must leave.”

The initiative, however, has faced opposition from lawmakers affiliated with liberal and left-wing groups.

Melissa Camara, a representative of the Greens group, described the agreement as “a legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology” and criticized both offshore centers and the detention of minors.

Marta Welander, head of the International Refugee Committee, said the new measures signaled “a troubling new era.”

Welander argued that the rules would normalize migrant raids and increase the risk of people being deported to countries where they could face persecution or torture.

According to available data, the number of migrants living within the European Union reached 64.2 million in 2025. During the same period, the foreign-born population arriving from outside the bloc increased by 2.1 million people annually.

In 2010, the European Union was home to approximately 40 million migrants.

As a result, the migrant population has increased by more than 60% over the past 15 years, while migrants’ share of the EU population has risen to 14.2%.

In December last year, US President Donald Trump said Europe faced the risk of destruction because of the migration policies pursued by European countries.

Trump had previously argued that the continent was facing a wave of migration and that, as a result, Europe was “no longer the Europe it once was.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Anthropic invites EU cybersecurity agency to access Mythos AI hacking model

Published

on

Anthropic has invited the European Union to access Mythos, its powerful AI-powered hacking tool, by sending an invitation to the bloc’s cybersecurity agency.

A European Commission official said the AI company issued the formal invitation following a meeting with the Commission in San Francisco last Thursday, adding that the EU must now establish a mechanism that would allow access to the model under appropriate security safeguards.

Bloomberg reported on Monday that ENISA, the EU’s cybersecurity agency based in Athens, would be granted access to Mythos.

European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said the Commission had held “several productive meetings with Anthropic” and “welcomes the latest developments regarding potential future access.”

Anthropic unveiled Mythos in early April and warned that the model outperformed most humans in identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

The disclosure raised concerns that the model could be used to carry out large-scale attacks against critical and sensitive systems if it fell into the hands of cyber adversaries.

European officials were unable to access the cutting-edge cybersecurity AI technology for weeks, prompting urgent calls from European lawmakers and government officials to secure access.

Cybersecurity officials also urged Europe to develop its own version of the technology.

“This latest development is extremely important in helping us gain a clear understanding of the potential risks. We should not forget that Mythos is not an isolated case and that a new wave of powerful models is entering the market,” Regnier said.

An ENISA official said the agency does not currently have active access to the model but is working to make it operational.

The Commission is developing a formal action plan to respond to powerful AI hacking tools.

According to an industry official, the Commission has indicated that it wants to publish the plan before the summer break.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey