Connect with us

EUROPE

Stoltenberg’s Ukraine plan fails to get full backing from NATO members

Published

on

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wants to “revolutionise” the way the alliance finances and arms Ukraine, but his plan for a $100 billion fund failed to get the response he wanted from NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday.

The secretary-general’s idea was to free military aid to Ukraine from political change and uncertainty by creating a five-year €100 billion fund and making the alliance shoulder more of the burden of arming Kiev.

“We need to provide Ukraine with reliable and predictable long-term security assistance. So we will rely less on voluntary contributions and more on NATO commitments. We should rely less on short-term offers and more on multi-year commitments,” he said.

The impetus for Stoltenberg’s plan is the situation in Washington, where a $60 billion military aid bill remains stalled in Congress due to opposition from some members of the Republican Party and presidential candidate Donald Trump.

NATO’s official role in Ukraine will change completely

Stoltenberg avoided mentioning Trump by name, but made it clear that the situation in Washington was worrying.

“Every day that the US delays its decision to provide more support to Ukraine will have consequences on the battlefield,” Stoltenberg said, adding that Russia now has more weapons than Ukraine.

According to POLITICO, the secretary general’s plan would “upend” NATO’s current role. Most of the alliance’s 32 members are providing military aid and cash to Ukraine through the US-led ‘Ramstein Group’, which organises arms shipments to Ukraine.

Taking over responsibility for this organisation would mean that the alliance would go beyond its current role, which focuses exclusively on “non-lethal assistance” to Ukraine.

“NATO taking a stronger role in coordinating and providing assistance is one way to end this war in a way that Ukraine emerges victorious,” Stoltenberg argued.

Aiming to decouple aid to Ukraine from US domestic politics

The aim is to make aid to Ukraine less dependent on national politics and to allow for long-term planning.

One proposal is for NATO members to contribute to the €100 billion fund according to the size of their economies. This would reduce the overall share paid by the United States and weaken Trump’s argument that European allies are not doing their part.

Stoltenberg dismissed concerns that a greater NATO role would weaken the American presence, stressing the dual role of US European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe Christopher Cavoli.

“General Cavoli is the US commander in Europe, but General Cavoli is also the NATO commander in Europe, and of course I think General Cavoli coordinates with General Cavoli; it’s the same person,” Stoltenberg said.

Support for NATO chief from Germany, Poland and Turkey

Such a radical change in Nato policy would require the approval of all members.

Although NATO spokeswoman Farah Dakhlallah said the ministers ‘agreed to plan for NATO to play a greater role in coordinating assistance to Ukraine’, discussions are expected to continue until the July summit in Washington.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said he supported Stoltenberg’s efforts to help Ukraine, while a NATO official briefed on the matter said Turkey agreed.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said it was important to create “reliable, long-term structures” to help Ukraine.

Some countries are sceptical about the plan

According to POLITICO, initial reactions from ministers in Brussels on Thursday to celebrate the alliance’s 75th anniversary were mixed.

After the presentation, some ministers “rolled their eyes” at the €100 billion figure and wondered where it came from, said a diplomat who requested anonymity.

“It is dangerous to make promises we cannot keep,” warned Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib.

At the same time, some Western European countries are concerned that giving Nato so much money and power will undermine the European Union’s efforts to play a greater role in defence.

Where will the money come from?

The NATO proposal has also raised many questions about the details. A key issue is whether the financial target will come from the new fund or from existing programmes that individual allies send to Ukraine.

Diplomats pointed out that Stoltenberg had refused to disclose the amount in his proposal and warned that the discussion on funding was still at a very early stage.

“We welcome the initiative, but we need to see the practical applications and details,” said Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský.

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares stressed that Ukraine should calculate how much money it needs “to protect its democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Hungary’s objection

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó insisted that NATO is only a “defence alliance”.

“Hungary will reject any proposal to turn Nato into an offensive alliance, as this would lead to a serious risk of escalation,” Szijjártó said in a statement ahead of the meeting. This is not Hungary’s war, it is not NATO’s war,” he said.

But Stoltenberg argued that creating more certainty about how Ukraine would be armed and financed would “also send a clear message to the Kremlin”.

“We see that Russia is pushing and trying to win this war by waiting for us. So we have to respond by sending a clear message about practical support, financial support and an institutional framework that will allow us to be there in the long term to end the war,” the NATO chief said.

EUROPE

AfD aims to expand influence in European Parliament

Published

on

Months after the European Parliament (EP) elections, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gradually establishing itself in Brussels and even seeking to expand the parliamentary group it leads.

A series of scandals during the European Parliament elections in June had caused the AfD to distance itself from other right-wing European parties, leading to more isolation in Brussels than ever before.

However, becoming the second strongest party in the recent general elections in Germany at the end of February, along with support from Elon Musk and a bilateral meeting with US Vice President JD Vance, has given the AfD international attention and, at least in some eyes, renewed legitimacy.

The AfD’s newfound prestige is particularly noticeable in the EP, where international cooperation is a daily routine. Once a solitary faction forced to form its own group after the EP elections, the party now wants to expand the European of Sovereign Nations (ESN).

Party sources speaking to Euractiv confirmed that the AfD is in talks with at least two potential new members. Greece’s far-right Niki (Victory) party and Spain’s “anti-establishment” SALF party have recently held discussions with the ESN.

A source close to the negotiations said, “We expect SALF leader Alvise Pérez to join as early as April or May.”

Just a few months ago, the AfD had been sidelined by like-minded colleagues in Brussels, citing espionage investigations and “inflammatory statements.”

Ultimately, the AfD was expelled from the Identity and Democracy (ID) group, the former right-wing group led by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, who feared that their German friends could cost them votes ahead of the European and French elections.

Without its former allies, the Germans struggled to form their own faction in Brussels because most candidates had found places in more established structures.

Together with another group of right-wing groups, the AfD formed the ESN in the EP.

Subsequently, attitudes toward the AfD and ESN softened, particularly with the support of the Trump administration. Even the French felt compelled to approach the AfD again in Brussels, inviting them, along with the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group led by Meloni’s party, to cooperate on issues of common interest.

Leaders of the AfD’s sister party in Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ), are also pleased with the end of tensions between the Germans and other right-wing groups.

“I think cooperation is extremely important, and I also think it is extremely important that at some point, perhaps one day, there will be a significant right-wing group in the European Parliament,” said FPÖ MEP Petra Steger to Euractiv on election night in Germany.

The two parties have always been close but recently split into two main groups in the EP: the Patriots for Europe (PfE) and the ESN.

The AfD now wants to stabilize and secure the ESN. “We do not provide information about confidential discussions. But you can be sure that at the end of the legislative period, the parliamentary group will be larger than it is today,” ESN Co-Chair René Aust told Euractiv.

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Calls for German nuclear armament grow louder

Published

on

Following some German politicians raising the idea of acquiring nuclear weapons, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), one of the country’s most important newspapers, has launched a campaign advocating for Berlin to possess atomic weapons.

Although Germany renounced nuclear weapons, experts agree that Berlin has the technological capacity to produce its own nuclear weapons in the near future, stating that the necessary technology for uranium enrichment is available at research centers in Jülich and Gronau.

Rainer Moormann, a former employee of the Jülich Research Center, notes that experts believe the construction of a much larger uranium enrichment facility is inevitable, and this would make it possible to produce “the necessary quantity for a few nuclear warheads within three to five years.”

However, delivering nuclear weapons to their targets requires missiles, and Germany is relatively weak in the construction of long-range ballistic missiles.

Nevertheless, it seems possible to produce cruise missiles that could be equipped with nuclear weapons. For example, it is said that Taurus could be used in this way. For this purpose, a maximum period of five years is considered realistic.

The legal and political situation is more challenging. On the one hand, the Federal Republic of Germany ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on May 2, 1975, albeit with a significant delay. Therefore, if the German government wants to start building its own nuclear weapons, it will first have to terminate the treaty.

From a purely legal point of view, this is possible without further ado, but it is likely to have serious political consequences, as other states may follow Germany’s example and try to obtain nuclear bombs for themselves.

The biggest examples in this regard seem to be Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Poland.

On the other hand, the Two Plus Four Agreement, in which the Federal Republic of Germany confirmed its renunciation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and also accepted the upper limit of 370,000 Bundeswehr military personnel, also constitutes an obstacle to Germany’s nuclear armament.

This treaty cannot be terminated; any changes require the approval of the four allies in World War II and the countries that occupied post-war Germany (US, Britain, France, USSR-Russia).

Ernst-Jörg von Studnitz, one of the former German ambassadors to Russia, recently ruled that the clausula rebus sic stantibus principle of international law could be invoked, according to which treaty provisions can be terminated if the basic conditions under which a treaty was concluded change.

This is the case for Germany because the US nuclear umbrella is no longer considered reliable and there is a possibility of escalating conflict with Russia.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) also embraced the essence of this argument in a widely read editorial on Monday. The newspaper argued that there were “good reasons” to speak of the elimination of the basis of the Two Plus Four Agreement and wrote, “A ‘commitment’ that harms the country cannot continue.”

In the headline of the commentary, FAZ argued that Germany “must loosen its old shackles.”

The political turmoil that would result from the termination of the Two Plus Four Agreement could be enormous. The Federal Republic’s possession of nuclear weapons would not only lead to strong reactions from the four former allies, albeit for different reasons.

For example, a large majority of the public still opposes such a plan. However, the results of various polls fluctuate significantly; moreover, the reluctance to a ‘German bomb’ is decreasing.

A Forsa poll conducted about two weeks ago showed that 64% of the population rejected the Federal Republic’s nuclear armament; the proportion of supporters remained at 31%.

But this rate is four points higher than in 2024.

A survey conducted by the public opinion research institute Civey in the same period also concluded that only 48% of the population explicitly rejected a German nuclear bomb. A year ago, this figure was still 57%.

Also, the proportion of those who support Germany’s acquisition of nuclear weapons rose to 38%.

Both polls show that the proportion of those who support Germany’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is much higher among those living in the former Federal Republic of Germany than among those living in the regions of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

Two employees of the Helmut Schmidt Federal Armed Forces University in Hamburg, in their article published in FAZ yesterday, argued that the nuclear weapons debate in Germany is “still characterized by moral reflexes and historically transmitted narratives,” probably also taking into account the insufficient public support for increased nuclear armament.

The authors instead call for a “measured reassessment” of the issue. For example, while pointing to the importance of “maintaining state functions even after a nuclear attack,” they write that the current debate should be expanded “to include important aspects of civil defense and social resilience.”

The authors argue that the German people will have to “learn to live with the bomb,” and for this, they point out that “a comprehensive, socio-politically based strategy that integrates the relevant military, political and social dimensions” is needed.

In short, while it is necessary to “persuade its own people” about the necessity of nuclear armament and to bear its consequences, it is emphasized that “traditionally” this task falls to the leading media.

Continue Reading

EUROPE

US officials’ visit to Greenland sparks controversy amid political tensions

Published

on

As negotiations to form a new government continue in Greenland, a Danish territory, following recent elections, senior officials from the Trump administration are scheduled to visit the island next week.

According to individuals familiar with the trip who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Usha Vance (wife of Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance), and the Secretaries of Defense and Energy will be in Greenland from Thursday to Saturday for a “private visit.”

A source familiar with the visit confirmed that Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright will tour the US military installation, Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland.

Danish and Greenlandic officials have indicated they are open to an increased US presence on the island but are not receptive to a takeover of the base.

The FT reported that the visit has caused consternation among Greenlandic and Danish officials. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of Demokraatit, which won this month’s elections, stated that the timing of the visit, amidst ongoing coalition negotiations and local elections, “once again shows a lack of respect for the people of Greenland.”

Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister, Múte Egede, added that the visit “cannot in any way be described as a harmless visit by the wife of a politician” and that its “sole purpose is a show of force against us.”

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to acquire the Arctic island and has even considered the possibility of using military force to take it over from the NATO ally. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., also visited the island in January for a “private visit.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded to the new US visit, stating that it “cannot be seen independently of the public statements” made by Trump and other officials.

“As the Kingdom of Denmark, we want to cooperate with the Americans. But this must be a cooperation based on fundamental values such as sovereignty and respect between countries and peoples. We are serious about this issue,” Frederiksen said.

Trump and other US officials have hailed the results of the Greenlandic parliamentary elections, seemingly equating the voters’ preference for pro-independence parties with a desire for ‘Americanization.’ However, a recent poll showed that only 6% of Greenlanders want to join the US, while 85% are opposed.

All leaders of the current parties represented in the island’s parliament also condemned Trump’s behavior as “unacceptable.” Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, told Danish television that the visit was an “untimely interference” in the island’s politics so soon after the elections.

“Anyone who tries to interfere but is not part of Greenlandic society should stay away. We are going through a particularly challenging period in Greenland’s history because we are very much affected by what is happening abroad,” Chemnitz said.

Martin Lidegaard, a former Danish minister and current opposition MP, said the visit crossed the acceptable line for both Denmark and Greenland.

“It will now be crucial for Denmark and Greenland to act together,” Lidegaard added.

Usha Vance’s office confirmed that she would be traveling with her son and a US delegation “to visit historical sites, learn about Greenlandic heritage, and attend Avannaata Qimussersu, Greenland’s national dog sled race.”

The organization behind the dog sled race told Greenlandic media that it had received a large but undisclosed sum of money from the US consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey