France has adopted a more open stance toward the potential sale of the French-Italian SAMP/T air defense system to Türkiye, signaling a shift after years of staunch opposition.

Sources speaking to Reuters indicated that this change in posture followed discussions between French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on June 25, held on the sidelines of a meeting ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Türkiye.

However, Reuters reported that negotiations remain in their early stages. “There was clearly a lack of transparency before, but now there is transparency,” a source familiar with the talks said.

Conversely, the French presidency stated that the Reuters report contained “significant inaccuracies” and declined to confirm the information. The Elysée Palace did not specify what those inaccuracies were and refused to elaborate.

Sources noted that while Paris has set aside some of the political reservations that previously blocked progress, hesitations still persist.

Türkiye, France, and Italy initiated cooperation between 2017 and 2018 under a potential long-range air defense program, which envisioned joint development and co-production. However, the project ground to a halt as relations between Paris and Ankara deteriorated over disputes in Syria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean, the latter involving Greece and Cyprus.

The SAMP/T, also known as “Mamba,” is manufactured by Eurosam, a French-Italian consortium that brings together MBDA France, MBDA Italy, and Thales. The system can track dozens of targets simultaneously, intercept multiple threats at once, and is marketed as the only European-made system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.

Frequently described as the closest European equivalent to the US Patriot system, analysts remain divided on its efficacy. Analysts point out that the system has not been deployed in active combat for years.

Türkiye is seeking to acquire the system as part of its planned integrated air and missile defense network, known as the “Steel Dome” (Çelik Kubbe).

A source added that Meloni and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the matter during a telephone call on July 3.

Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler told Reuters in June that Ankara is evaluating options, including the US Patriot and the SAMP/T systems, and remains open to cooperation that includes technology transfer and co-production.

A Turkish official noted that the process had been stalled since 2020 due to tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and European Union sanctions. “At present, there seems to be political will from all three parties (Türkiye, Italy, France) to move this process forward,” the official said.

Outside of Paris and Rome, Singapore is the only country to have imported the system. However, in recent years, the system has been transferred to Ukraine, and France deployed it this year to help the United Arab Emirates defend itself against Iranian missile strikes. Additionally, Italy deployed the system to Türkiye in mid-June as part of NATO defense planning.

Any potential agreement would likely center on the next-generation version of the system, which is currently being distributed to the French and Italian militaries.

Officials stated that Erdogan and Macron are scheduled to hold a meeting to discuss bilateral issues within the framework of the NATO summit. Erdogan had previously sought to persuade Macron to drop his opposition during the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, following a thaw in bilateral relations.

Two sources cautioned that France would need to appease Greece and Cyprus regarding any potential sale. France has signed strategic defense agreements with both nations.

For years, Turkish officials have privately and publicly viewed France as the primary political obstacle to the program. Italy, by contrast, has long favored sharing the SAMP/T system with Türkiye to deepen defense industry cooperation.

The issue regained momentum last year as Ankara intensified efforts to strengthen its missile defense capabilities amid regional instability, and as NATO allies re-evaluated defense cooperation and capability requirements.

Sources emphasized that France’s newly open posture should not be interpreted as an approved sale.

“This is just a beginning,” said Murat Aslan, a defense and security researcher at the Ankara-based think tank SETA. “Even if France agrees to the sale, there is a long road ahead.”

The structural transition toward a “European NATO” has accelerated rapidly amid a scaling back of US assets within the alliance and strategic preparations for a partial American withdrawal from the continent.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and senior NATO generals report that rapid progress is being made on the “Europeanization” of the military alliance.

As confirmed by the US Commander of NATO Allied Joint Force Command, General Alexus Grynkewich, European member states have succeeded in replacing a significant volume of US military aircraft, warships, and military units within just a few weeks, after Washington withdrew them from NATO availability in early June.

European units are currently deployed and on standby to replace the departing US forces.

Last week, Pistorius officially approved the designation of the 1st German-Netherlands Corps in Valga, Estonia, as the tactical headquarters for all NATO operations in Estonia and Latvia.

This corps operates in parallel with the German-Polish-Danish Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, Poland, which continues to serve as the headquarters for alliance operations in Poland and Lituania.

The development of a “European NATO” has been met with approval in Washington. Within the Pentagon, officials are referring to this transition as “NATO 3.0,” a restructuring designed to relieve the burden on the US, thereby enabling American operations in other theaters.

Washington has also praised Germany’s leadership in driving this transition.

Europe replaces the US

Plans to expand the operational activities of European member states within NATO—ensuring the alliance remains functional during a crisis even without the US—have been systematically executed since the beginning of last year.

These initiatives are driven by the potential inauguration of US President Donald Trump for a second term and the ongoing uncertainty over whether he will act on his repeated threats to withdraw the US from NATO.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal in April, while individual NATO member states initially took the lead on these initiatives, the efforts gained significant momentum late last year when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz decided that Germany would join the transition.

Concretely, the objective is to replace the US presence—which has historically been dominant at all levels in terms of both personnel and equipment—with officers and weapons systems from European nations.

For example, in the most recent major command restructuring announced in early February, European generals were promoted to lead Allied Joint Force Command Naples and Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk in Virginia, both of which were previously commanded by US generals.

NATO exercises are also increasingly being conducted under European leadership or exclusively with European troops.

Gaps filled, except for heavy bombers

A few days ago, European NATO member states took another step forward in this transition.

Shortly before the force generation conference held at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, in early June, the US withdrew a large number of aircraft, drones, ships, and submarines from NATO availability.

This decision meant that these assets ceased to be available for designated NATO operations.

The withdrawal affected, among other assets, one of two long-range bomber wings, 54 of 153 fighter jets, and half of the cruiser and destroyer units.

Last week, it was reported that European NATO members had managed to “largely bridge” these gaps ahead of the upcoming NATO summit, a development confirmed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), US General Alexus Grynkewich.

According to reports, no suitable replacement has yet been found for the US long-range bombers. However, Grynkewich’s deputy, John Stringer, stated that the overall process serves as evidence of a “stronger Europe” within NATO.

New German-Dutch joint headquarters in the Baltics

Last week, the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and the Dutch Armed Forces took a further step in Estonia.

In Valga, located near the Latvian border, the 1st German-Netherlands Corps officially assumed the role of tactical headquarters for all NATO operations in Estonia and Latvia in the presence of Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

Established in 1995, the corps was previously deployed primarily in Afghanistan. It has now been directly integrated into preparation efforts for a potential conflict with Russia.

This transition has altered the distribution of operational responsibilities in the Baltic region. The Multinational Corps Northeast, based in Szczecin, Poland, and led by Germany, Poland, and Denmark, has handed over its previous responsibilities for Estonia and Latvia. It will henceforth serve as a tactical headquarters managing NATO operations exclusively in Poland and Lithuania.

This area of responsibility includes the geostrategically highly sensitive Suwałki Gap, which runs from Belarus along the Polish-Lithuanian border to Kaliningrad.

NATO strategists view this corridor as a primary potential target for a Russian offensive.

According to a recent statement from the German Federal Ministry of Defense, the new role assigned to the 1st German-Netherlands Corps strengthens “the role of Europe within NATO.”

“NATO 3.0” advances: The theses of Elbridge Colby

The Europeanization of NATO is taking place in full coordination with the US, and under direct American pressure.

This strategic alignment was demonstrated during the NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels on February 12 by statements from Elbridge Colby.

Colby, an influential Pentagon figure who serves as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, attended the meeting on behalf of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

According to Colby, NATO is currently entering a new historical phase. While the alliance focused on the collective transatlantic struggle against the Soviet Union in the decades following its founding, it shifted its focus after 1990 to out-of-area operations far beyond its borders, such as in Yugoslavia and later in Afghanistan.

Colby described this as the transition from “NATO 1.0” to “NATO 2.0.” Today, however, the task is to execute the transition to “NATO 3.0.”

This shift is driven by the reality that the US is currently focusing on new priorities: on one hand, new military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, and on the other, establishing a more robust presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition, Colby explained that the US must maintain the capacity to wage war on multiple fronts simultaneously.

US pushes Germany to lead

Colby further indicated that this geopolitical reality requires European nations to provide for their own defense to the greatest extent possible.

With the exception of nuclear deterrence, the US no longer possesses sufficient reserve capacity to secure Europe.

Consequently, European NATO members must not only continue to increase their military spending but also urgently expand their military capabilities.

The objective is to strengthen not only overall “readiness” but also weapons and ammunition stockpiles, alongside “industrial capacities” for all forms of defense production.

If this is achieved, Colby argued, NATO will emerge from its current challenges stronger than before.

In late April, Colby addressed this topic in detail on X, evaluating the German military strategy adopted at the time.

Colby concluded that the document confirmed Germany is now assuming a “leadership role.” Noting that the Pentagon stands ready to assist European NATO member states, particularly Germany, Colby welcomed the German military strategy as a “clear and credible path toward NATO 3.0.”

The Under Secretary emphasized that the strategy is “highly suitable to rapidly make NATO in Europe genuinely strong.”

The rapid expansion of data centers powering artificial intelligence systems is increasingly triggering legal battles over environmental concerns.

According to a report by the London School of Economics (LSE) cited by The Guardian in its annual climate litigation review, non-governmental organizations, local communities, and environmental activists from Chile to Ireland and the US are seeking to block the construction and operation of data centers through the courts, citing high energy consumption, water usage, and associated climate risks.

Researchers analyzed approximately 3,600 climate lawsuits filed globally since 2015, detecting a rise in cases linked to data centers.

The legal proceedings focus on energy supply sources, the volume of water used to cool servers, and environmental pollution.

One of the earliest cases in this field was filed against a Google project in the Chilean capital, Santiago.

In 2020, local residents and municipal officials challenged a construction permit granted for a massive data center in the Cerrillos area, arguing that it threatened the water resources of a city already struggling with drought.

The court ruled that the project’s climate impacts had been inadequately assessed and ordered a review of the decision.

Environmental impacts of projects in Chile and Ireland taken to court

In Ireland, which the report’s authors describe as one of the global flashpoints of conflicts over data centers, the situation is even more acute.

According to data shared in the report, more than 20% of the country’s total electricity consumption is allocated to this sector.

Despite government plans to further expand the sector, environmental organizations are pursuing legal action against official decisions that allow new facilities to use fossil fuels for several more years before transitioning to renewable sources.

Lawsuits in the US and UK force companies to make commitments

Environmental requirements for data centers are also tightening in the US. Officials in the city of Pittsburg, California, imposed obligations on a new data center to use renewable energy and opt for recycled water for equipment cooling.

At the same time, lawsuits in several states are challenging regulatory bodies that have approved the construction of fossil-fuel-based energy infrastructure to meet growing computing capacity demands.

A project belonging to Elon Musk’s xAI company in the state of Mississippi has also faced legal pressure.

Plaintiffs argue that the company used methane generators without obtaining the necessary environmental permits, thereby violating the Clean Air Act. The US Department of Justice, meanwhile, defended the project, highlighting its economic significance.

Similar disputes are occurring across Europe.

In the United Kingdom, activists successfully secured a review of the environmental assessment report for a planned mega-scale data center project in Buckinghamshire.

Following the judicial process, official authorities acknowledged deficiencies in the approval process, while the contractor agreed to undertake additional environmental commitments.

According to the experts who prepared the study, these lawsuits demonstrate that judicial processes have become a new tool for regulating rapidly expanding digital infrastructure.

Even if projects are not halted entirely, the lawsuits force companies and official bodies to account for climate risks, transparently disclose resource consumption data, and re-evaluate their energy strategies.

As reported by The Guardian, study co-author Associate Professor Joana Setzer of the London School of Economics commented on the issue: “The issue here is not necessarily to stop development, but to prevent the lock-in of fossil fuel dependency.”

“This is an opportunity to direct highly energy-intensive projects toward renewable energy sources while we still have the chance,” Setzer added.