标签： Europe

ATHENS, Greece — During a diplomatic visit to the Greek capital on Saturday, French President Emmanuel Macron has clarified the European Union’s accelerated push to strengthen collective defensive capabilities, emphasizing that the initiative is not designed to create a parallel alliance to replace NATO. Instead, it directly responds to a decade of repeated calls from the United States for European nations to take greater ownership of their own regional security.

Macron made the remarks following official talks with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, stressing that the EU has no intention of undermining the transatlantic alliance that binds North America and Europe in collective security. He noted that U.S. leaders have pressed European countries to increase their security responsibility for years, putting the request sometimes politely, sometimes with more urgency. “The core lesson we have to take away is that we can no longer remain reliant on others for our defense,” Macron stated. “We must build up a strong European pillar within NATO, and grow a cohesive European defense sector — this effort is not directed against any nation, and it is never meant to be an alternative to our existing alliances.”

Mitsotakis fully backed Macron’s position, arguing that Washington should welcome the EU’s growing commitment to defense self-reliance and increased defense investment. He called the longstanding U.S. demand for European higher defense spending entirely justified.

Macron’s stop in Athens came after he attended an informal EU leaders’ summit in Cyprus. The primary purpose of his Greek visit was to reaffirm a bilateral 2021 Franco-Greek defense partnership, which includes binding mutual assistance that requires each nation to come to the other’s aid in the event of an armed attack.

Macron underlined the ironclad nature of this commitment: “This mutual assurance and assistance clause is inviolable, it is not open to negotiation between our two countries. There are no question marks, no room for doubt — and any potential or actual adversary must understand this clearly.”

The 3 billion-euro bilateral defense deal has already delivered major military upgrades to Greece, including the acquisition of 24 Rafale fighter jets and four advanced frigates. On Saturday, the two leaders toured one of the newly delivered frigates, the Kimon. For years, Greece has faced persistent geopolitical tensions with neighboring Turkey, leading Athens to carry out a sweeping overhaul of its military capabilities. France has emerged as Greece’s primary supplier for this modernization push, with deals including the versatile French MICA anti-air missile system, deployable on aircraft, ground platforms, and warships.

Both leaders framed the Franco-Greek defense partnership as a model for the rest of the EU to follow, arguing that closer cross-border collaboration can strengthen the 27-nation bloc’s defense industrial competitiveness. Mitsotakis called on EU member states to set aside “national egotism” that shields domestic defense industries from cross-border competition, urging governments to pursue more cross-border industrial mergers to achieve the economies of scale needed for large-scale defense production.

Macron echoed this call, stressing that European defense industry must prioritize innovation to deliver higher-quality, more competitive defense products that can generate the revenue needed to fund the bloc’s long-term defense goals. “The Franco-Greek relationship is a perfect example of what all European nations should do: we need to buy more European defense products, manufacture more goods within the EU, and drive more innovation here at home,” he said.

The two leaders also highlighted Article 42.7, the EU’s own collective mutual defense clause, which Macron emphasized is far more than symbolic rhetoric. He pointed to the rapid deployment of French and Greek warships to Cyprus earlier this March, after a Shahed drone attack targeted a British military base on the island — the first direct drone attack on EU territory linked to the ongoing Iran war — as concrete proof of the bloc’s commitment to mutual defense.

Turning to global energy security concerns amid tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, Macron urged against unnecessary public panic over potential fuel shortages. Around one-fifth of the world’s daily oil and gas supplies pass through the strategic waterway, which has faced widespread disruption amid the ongoing conflict. Macron said current fuel supplies remain “fully under control” and that he does not expect widespread shortages to occur. He added that the EU remains fully committed to diplomatic efforts to reopen the strait to full commercial traffic, even as he acknowledged it will take time for stability to return to the region.

As a major global shipping power, Greece has a direct stake in the strait’s future. Mitsotakis said any diplomatic resolution to the current crisis must include a non-negotiable guarantee of full, unimpeded freedom of navigation through the strait, with no arbitrary tolls imposed on passing commercial vessels — a return to the status quo that existed before the outbreak of the Iran war.

A new wave of public discontent has surged across Russia in recent weeks, with high-profile influencers, long-time government loyalists, and ordinary citizens speaking out against Kremlin policy, exposing growing frictions between the Vladimir Putin administration and segments of the public it has long relied on for support.

The outbreak of public criticism began when popular Russian blogger and former television host Victoria Bonya — who currently resides abroad and publicly maintains her support for Putin — released a 19-minute Instagram video addressing the president directly. In the clip, which has amassed more than 31 million views 10 days after publication, Bonya argued that Putin is being deliberately misinformed by lower-level officials about a cascade of unfolding crises across the country. Among the issues she highlighted are the botched local response to devastating recent floods in the southern republic of Dagestan, controversial mass livestock culling in Siberia that sparked spontaneous farmer protests, crippling internet restrictions that have disrupted daily life, and mounting pressures that are pushing small businesses to collapse.

“People are screaming at the top of their lungs now. They’ve been robbed of everything they have, and they continue to be robbed. Businesses are dying,” Bonya said in the video, emphasizing that average Russians and even pro-administration officials are too intimidated to share unvarnished truth with the president.

Bonya’s remarks quickly sparked a viral cascade of similar criticism from other Russian influencers, many of whom shared their own grievances in public posts before several of these videos were removed from platforms. In a rare public acknowledgment of the growing discontent, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that administration officials had viewed Bonya’s video, noting that “a lot of work is being done” on the issues she raised and that “none of it is being ignored.”

The criticism has even spread to long-time pro-Putin political circles. Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party and a decades-long Putin ally, used a parliamentary address this week to lambaste government policy, warning that failure to address growing public hardship could trigger a repeat of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Threats of potential mass unrest have also circulated in pro-Kremlin Telegram channels and among loyalist military commentators, a unusual departure from their usual unwavering support for the administration.

Against this backdrop of growing public criticism, polling data shows a measurable decline in Putin’s national approval ratings. State-controlled Russian pollster VTsIOM reported Friday that Putin’s approval currently stands at 65.6%, the lowest recorded since before the launch of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, down from a high of 77.8% in late December 2025. The Levada Center, Russia’s leading independent polling firm, also recorded a five-point drop in Putin’s approval between October 2025 and March 2026, falling from 85% to 80%.

Analysts point to two core structural issues driving the current wave of discontent: sweeping new internet restrictions and a rapidly cooling wartime economy. Since last spring, Russians across the country have faced widespread and recurring cellphone internet shutdowns, which the Kremlin justifies as a necessary security measure to disrupt Ukrainian drone operations. Critics, however, argue the outages are part of a years-long campaign to consolidate full state control over the Russian internet, building on years of escalating censorship that has already blocked or throttled thousands of independent platforms, including two of the country’s most widely used messaging apps, WhatsApp and Telegram.

The Kremlin has simultaneously pushed a new state-backed messaging app called Max, which many analysts and ordinary Russians view as a tool for expanded state surveillance, while cracking down on VPN services that Russians have long used to bypass national censorship. These moves have spurred scattered acts of public resistance, including petitions to the presidential administration, a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the government, small unsanctioned street pickets, and multiple attempted larger protest mobilizations that were quickly dispersed by security forces. Putin has stood firm on the policy, reaffirming last week that internet shutdowns are necessary to “prevent terror attacks” and urging officials to improve public communication about the restrictions, a signal that the policy will remain in place.

Compounding public frustration is a sharp slowdown in Russia’s wartime economy, which saw an initial growth surge from massive military spending that has now fully faded. The Russian central bank’s steep interest rate hikes to curb rampant inflation, combined with recent government tax increases, have put severe new pressure on small and medium businesses. Economic Minister Maxim Reshetnikov recently acknowledged that the country’s available economic reserves “have been largely depleted,” and Putin confirmed earlier this month that GDP contracted by 1.8% between January and February, marking the second consecutive month of declining economic growth.

A third underpinning factor is the collapse of public hopes for a swift end to the war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year. Many Russians pinned their hopes on a peace deal brokered by new U.S. President Donald Trump, who made ending the conflict a core campaign promise and launched negotiations shortly after taking office in January 2025. Those talks have since stalled, leaving the public disappointed. According to Sam Greene, a professor of Russian politics at King’s College London, both the Kremlin and the Russian public priced in an end to the conflict, and the failure to reach a deal has eroded public confidence.

While the growing discontent represents a new and expanding challenge for the Kremlin, analysts across the political spectrum agree that it does not pose an imminent threat to Putin’s hold on power. Mark Galeotti, a leading Russian politics expert and head of Mayak Intelligence, noted that there is still no unified, organized opposition movement capable of challenging the administration, and Putin’s control over Russia’s security services remains absolute. Even many critics are reluctant to call for broad destabilization during an ongoing war, Galeotti added.

Denis Volkov, director of the Levada Center, echoed that assessment, noting that approval ratings are declining from a historically very high starting point, and discontent is growing only gradually. “For now, we shouldn’t downplay or exaggerate this, because we’re only at the very beginning of the road,” Volkov said. Still, former Putin speechwriter turned independent political analyst Abbas Gallyamov warned that public frustration will continue to deepen as high-profile figures give ordinary people permission to voice their own grievances, slowly shifting the national political mood.

The ongoing Iran war has sent shockwaves through global energy markets, creating a severe fuel shortage across Europe and driving oil and gas prices to unprecedented heights. In response, the European Union has launched a serious evaluation of funding new alternative energy transport routes in the Middle East, designed to bypass conflict-prone chokepoints that have thrown global supply chains into chaos, most notably the Strait of Hormuz.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the bloc’s new strategy Friday following an informal summit of EU leaders held in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency. Von der Leyen emphasized that the EU is prepared to partner with Persian Gulf nations to develop new energy export projects that will not be vulnerable to disruption from war or geopolitical tension. “The events of the past month have taught us a hard lesson,” she told reporters during a post-summit press conference. “Our security is not just related, it is intrinsically linked. A threat to a merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz is a threat to a factory, for example, in Belgium.”

While the EU executive highlighted plans to deepen defense cooperation and pointed to the bloc’s existing Red Sea maritime security mission as a potential model for Persian Gulf security, the core of von der Leyen’s public address focused on European backing for the repair and expansion of Middle Eastern energy infrastructure. “We are also ready to team up with the Gulf countries to diversify export infrastructure away from solely the bottleneck of the Hormuz Strait,” she said, adding that the bloc also stands ready to assist with repairing Gulf energy facilities damaged by the ongoing war.

Roughly 20% of the world’s total annual oil and gas trade transits the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Oman and Iran that has been effectively closed to most commercial traffic since the outbreak of the Iran war. The disruption has triggered a sharp rally in global crude prices: as of Friday morning, Brent crude climbed 98 cents to settle at $100.33 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude rose 81 cents to reach $96.66 per barrel. Von der Leyen confirmed that the price surge has added an extraordinary 25 billion euros ($29.3 billion) to the 27-nation bloc’s total energy bill over just 43 days.

Neither von der Leyen nor European Council President Antonio Costa released specific details about which potential infrastructure projects are under consideration or a clear timeline for moving proposals forward. However, von der Leyen did name the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, a previously announced connectivity partnership between the EU and India, as a relevant framework for future cooperation. She noted that a planned summit between the EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council, scheduled to take place later this year, will provide a formal opportunity for both sides to flesh out details of new energy infrastructure projects.

Cyprus, the current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, is a small Eastern Mediterranean island nation located just off the coast of the Middle East, bordering Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Turkey. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has made strengthening ties between the bloc and Middle Eastern nations a core priority of his country’s presidency, aiming to shore up regional economies and reinforce collective security across the Mediterranean and Middle East. This regional focus was clear in the guest list for the informal summit: attendees included Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El Sissi, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Jordan’s Crown Prince Hussein, and GCC Secretary-General Jasem Mohamed AlBudaiwi.

During the summit, Syrian leader Ahmad al-Sharaa noted that “Europe needs Syria as much as Syria needs Europe,” while Lebanese President Aoun called on the EU to provide critical support for rebuilding his country, which has been heavily impacted by regional spillover from the war. Costa praised Aoun for his recent ban on unauthorized military activities by the militant group Hezbollah, which Costa described as “an existential threat” to Lebanon, and pledged EU support for the Lebanese government’s efforts to disarm the group. “The European Union is not part of the conflict, but we will be part of this solution,” Costa said.

The summit drew criticism from international human rights organizations, who condemned EU leaders for failing to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel over its ongoing military campaigns in the region. On the Iran policy front, multiple senior EU leaders including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reaffirmed that the bloc will not roll back sanctions on Iran until a full range of outstanding issues are resolved, including ending Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional militant proxies. Costa echoed that position, telling reporters “it’s too early to talk about relief of any kind of sanctions.”

Cyprus itself has already felt the direct impact of regional conflict, after a Shahed drone launched from Lebanon damaged an aircraft hangar at a British military base on the island’s southern coast on March 2. In response, several EU member states including Greece, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands deployed warships equipped with anti-drone capabilities to reinforce Cyprus’ air and maritime defense. The attack has reignited debate over a mutual assistance clause in the EU’s foundational treaties, which requires member states to provide support if one comes under armed attack. Following the summit, Christodoulides announced that EU leaders have agreed to develop a formal, institutional mechanism for activating mutual assistance, after concluding that the bloc’s current ad hoc response arrangements are unreliable.

This report was contributed to by McNeil reporting from Brussels, and Associated Press writer Baraa Anwer in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

LONDON — As King Charles III prepares to depart for his first state visit to the United States this week, a quiet yet defining challenge hangs over his four-day tour: stepping onto a diplomatic stage long shaped by the legacy of his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.

In 1991, the Queen delivered a legendary address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress that remains a high bar for royal diplomacy. She wove tributes to the two nations’ shared democratic roots, cited iconic American figures from Abraham Lincoln to Ralph Waldo Emerson, and cemented public memory of the deep cross-Atlantic ties that define the U.K.-U.S. “special relationship.” That legacy will form the core of Charles’ agenda during a visit timed to mark the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence, as the monarchy works to ease diplomatic friction sparked by new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to back U.S. President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Texas, emphasized the key distinction between the British monarchy and the sitting government that shapes this visit’s mission. “Politics come and go; prime ministers and presidents rise and fall, but the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom rests on foundations far deeper than transient policy disputes,” Brinkley told the Associated Press. “The royal role on these visits is always to present the best face of that long-standing bond.”
Beneath the ceremonial pomp that will see Charles and Queen Camilla travel through Washington D.C., New York, and Virginia lies a carefully scripted diplomatic mission arranged at the direct request of the British government. Starmer faced calls to scrap the trip after Trump publicly belittled British military sacrifices in Afghanistan and launched personal criticisms of Starmer’s Iran policy, but the prime minister opted to move forward with the planned visit. Despite the cross-government tensions, Trump has repeatedly spoken favorably of King Charles, and Brinkley predicts that dynamic will hold throughout the trip. “History has shown that President Trump goes out of his way to make a positive impression when engaging with British royalty, and there’s no reason to expect that will change this time,” he noted.

Royal visits to the U.S. have carried special diplomatic weight since 1939, when King George VI — Charles’ great-grandfather and the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II — became the first British monarch to visit the former American colony, as World War II loomed over Europe. That groundbreaking tour saw the royal party tour the U.S. East Coast and attend a casual picnic at President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s private Hyde Park, New York estate, where the King’s playful reaction to a first American hot dog (“He tries hot dog and asks for more,” read a legendary New York Times headline) won over ordinary U.S. citizens. The most symbolic moment of that trip came at Mount Vernon, where the King laid a wreath at George Washington’s tomb — a deliberate show of respect that pushed back against rising U.S. isolationism ahead of the war.

Barbara Perry, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, explained that gesture’s long-term impact: “People could already see the writing on the wall that war was coming, and that visit made clear how critical it would be for the U.S. and Britain to stand together against Hitler.” The small, public acts of connection on that 1939 trip built lasting goodwill beyond elite diplomatic circles. After war broke out in September that same year, Queen Elizabeth (the wife of George VI and mother of Queen Elizabeth II) wrote to U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying she had been deeply moved by handwritten letters from ordinary Americans that included small donations for British forces. “Sometimes, during the last terrible months, we have felt rather lonely in our fight against evil things, but I can honestly say that our hearts have been lightened by the knowledge that friends in America understand what we are fighting for,” she wrote.

Queen Elizabeth II built on that foundational connection across her 70-year reign, completing four official state visits to the U.S. In 1976, she helped President Gerald Ford mark the U.S. bicentennial, and in 2007 she met with President George W. Bush at a time when British and American forces were fighting side-by-side in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as with Charles’ upcoming trip, those visits centered on smoothing over diplomatic rifts and reaffirming the shared values that bind the two nations.

Charles’ itinerary reflects that same diplomatic tradition. Key events include a commemoration of the 2001 September 11 attacks, a wreath-laying to honor fallen service members from both nations, and a Winnie the Pooh centenary event hosted by Queen Camilla, marking 100 years since British author A.A. Milne published his first collection of stories about the beloved character.

Organizers have deliberately sidelined controversial issues to keep the focus on cross-Atlantic friendship. Despite public calls for King Charles to meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein over his brother Prince Andrew’s well-documented ties to the convicted sex offender, no such meeting is planned. There is also no scheduled meeting between Charles and his younger son Prince Harry, who stepped back from official royal duties in 2020, moved to California, and has since become a vocal public critic of the monarchy.

Robert Hardman, royal biographer and author of *Elizabeth II: In Private. In Public. The Inside Story.*, noted that these unaddressed controversies are secondary to the visit’s core mission. “He is coming 250 years after America’s founding, when the nation rejected the rule of his great-great-great-great-great grandfather. His message is simple: no hard feelings. This has been a good separation, 250 years of strong friendship, and we are here to celebrate the high points,” Hardman said. “There will always be large elephants in the room on a trip like this, but the king has prioritized other, more unifying topics.”

Charles’ upcoming address to a joint session of Congress will be the visit’s centerpiece, a platform to emphasize that long-term, cross-national friendship outweighs short-term political disputes. Like his mother’s 1991 address, observers expect the speech to include measured, self-deprecating humor — a tactic the Queen used masterfully to win over lawmakers. During her 1991 speech, the Queen opened with a joke about the previous day’s White House blunder, where an overly tall lectern had completely blocked the audience’s view of her. “I do hope you can see me today from where you are,” she deadpanned, drawing uproarious laughter and a standing ovation before moving into her address on democratic values, the rule of law, and the Atlantic Alliance.

Brinkley noted that while Charles will carry forward the core themes of cross-Atlantic friendship, he will bring his own perspective to the moment. “The speech will center on American exceptionalism, U.S. history, the enduring importance of the U.S.-British alliance, and reflections on shared history,” he said. “Its core message will be that the two countries share a deep, lasting bond, even when that relationship navigates rocky rapids from time to time.”

When European Union leaders gathered in Cyprus this week, they arrived intending to hash out pragmatic policy priorities, most notably the bloc’s next multiyear budget. Instead, they found themselves confronting yet another simmering transatlantic crisis that has laid bare deep fractures between the United States and its European allies – a rift that experts and leaders warn threatens the very foundation of the post-WWII collective defence order.

The catalyst for the latest standoff was a leaked internal Pentagon email, first reported by Reuters Friday, that outlined potential punitive measures against Nato allies who refused to back the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Most alarmingly, the document floated the idea of suspending Spain from the 32-member defensive alliance over Madrid’s public opposition to the offensive.

Under Nato’s founding treaties, however, no mechanism exists to expel or suspend a member state. Any attempt to block Spain from occupying key civilian or military alliance roles, another potential penalty cited in the leak, would require unanimous approval from all Nato members – a step that all but guarantees rejection, given the swift, unified pushback from European leaders this week.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the U.S.-Israeli strikes, struck a measured tone as he arrived at the summit, telling reporters simply: “We are fulfilling our obligations toward Nato.” Later, he dismissed the leaked email as an unauthorised document, noting Madrid conducts its diplomacy based on official U.S. government positions, not unsourced internal correspondence.

Sanchez’s defiance has long rankled the Trump administration: he was the only Nato leader to refuse Trump’s demand that members boost defence spending to 5% of GDP, and he immediately blocked U.S. forces from accessing shared U.S.-Spanish military bases for operations against Iran, earning earlier threats of U.S. trade sanctions.

Fellow European leaders were quick to rally to Spain’s side. Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten said he wanted to be “crystal clear” that Spain is and will remain a full Nato member, adding that European contributions to strengthening the alliance directly serve U.S. security interests. A senior German official echoed the sentiment, saying “Spain is a member of Nato. And I see no reason why that should change.”

Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, once widely viewed as a pro-Trump ally and a potential bridge between Europe and Washington, joined the criticism, describing the rising tensions between the U.S. and Madrid as “not at all positive.” Meloni has herself fallen out of favour with Trump in recent months: she denied U.S. forces permission to use the Sigonella airbase in Sicily for Iran operations, and called Trump’s derogatory remarks about the Pope “unacceptable.” Trump responded publicly by branding Meloni herself unacceptable, ending their once-close political alliance.

The leaked email also targeted another Nato ally, the United Kingdom, proposing a review of Washington’s position on the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands – a territory also claimed by Argentina. The move comes amid lingering tension between Trump and British Prime Keir Starmer, who initially denied Trump’s request to use British military bases for February strikes on Iran. Though the UK has since allowed limited base access and participated in drone interception missions, Starmer has refused to deepen UK involvement in the conflict or back the U.S. port blockade on Iran, drawing repeated verbal attacks from Trump.

Beyond the immediate threats against Spain and the UK, the leak has laid bare a growing crisis of confidence in the transatlantic alliance that experts say poses existential risk to Nato. Former Nato Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment Camille Grande, now head of ASD Europe, said the leak reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the alliance works on the part of the Trump administration.

“The defence alliance is based on consensus; not run by the United States,” Grande explained. He compared Trump’s approach to that of a landlord seeking to evict tenants who do not pay what he deems sufficient rent, stressing that “Nato is not Trump’s building.”

French President Emmanuel Macron went even further, accusing Trump of deliberately “hollowing out” Nato through repeated public attacks on the alliance. Trump has repeatedly called Nato a “paper tiger” and a “one-way street” that benefits Europe at U.S. expense, writing on social media recently that “We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us.”

These public divisions have sparked deep anxiety among eastern European Nato members that have long relied on U.S. security guarantees to deter Russian expansionism. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is now entering its fourth year, and the country’s war economy is growing, fueled by high global oil prices spurred by the current crisis around the Strait of Hormuz. Dutch military intelligence this week warned that once the conflict in Ukraine concludes, Moscow could be ready to launch a limited regional conflict against Nato within 12 months, aiming to divide the alliance politically through limited territorial gains and nuclear coercion.

That threat has left eastern allies questioning whether the U.S. would honour its Article 5 commitment to defend any attacked member. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a longstanding transatlanticist, openly raised that question this week. Even Estonia, a small Baltic state that spends heavily on defence and has long been courted by Trump, was left feeling vulnerable this week after the Pentagon delayed delivery of six contracted High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to meet U.S. operational needs for the Iran war – a capability the U.S. itself called the most significant upgrade in Estonian military history.

The Trump administration has openly framed its approach as dividing allies into a tiered system of “good guys” and “bad guys.” In a December speech, U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said model allies that fully back U.S. priorities would receive special favours, while those that do not would face consequences.

But former U.S. ambassador to Nato Julianne Smith, now president of Clarion Strategies, said punitive threats against European allies are entirely overreactive. “The President is obviously upset by Europeans that failed to fully support the US war in Iran. But punitive measures like removing force posture in Spain seem over-reactive in light of the fact that allies were never asked to assist the US and Trump has frequently denied that the US actually needed European support,” she noted. She added that new threats come as the transatlantic relationship is already reeling from Trump’s stated policy to seize Greenland from Nato member Denmark, and could deliver a devastating blow ahead of the alliance’s July summit.

Alarmed by the growing uncertainty over Nato’s reliability under the Trump administration, some EU leaders at the Cyprus summit floated the idea of activating the bloc’s own mutual defence clause, Article 42.7, as a potential backstop should Nato’s Article 5 prove unworkable. But European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the guardian of EU treaties, acknowledged the clause leaves critical details undefined: while it requires member states to come to each other’s aid, it offers no clarity on when activation is appropriate or what specific actions each member must take.

Caught between domestic public opposition to Trump’s Iran policy and the need to maintain working security and economic ties with Washington, many European nations are moving forward with independent plans to deploy international maritime patrols and mine-clearing operations in the Strait of Hormuz once hostilities end, in a bid to ease tensions with the U.S. France has pushed to exclude the U.S. from these discussions, though the UK has reportedly pushed for U.S. involvement.

Former Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned this week that the mounting tensions put the alliance’s long-term survival in question, saying its existence cannot be guaranteed a decade from now. Still, he argued that Nato’s survival remains a core U.S. national interest: together, the U.S. and Nato allies account for 50% of global GDP and 50% of global military capability, giving the U.S. a network of global partners that rival powers Russia and China lack.

Stoltenberg pushed back on claims that Europe has broadly abandoned the U.S. over Iran, noting that most allies have provided quiet logistical support for operations, with only a handful of public dissenters. He also warned against Trump’s description of Nato as a paper tiger, stressing that alliances are rendered useless when they are undermined and attacked from within by their own members.

For European leaders, the core dispute with Washington is not whether Iran poses a threat to global security, but how to address that threat. European governments broadly favour diplomatic engagement and targeted sanctions over the unilateral military offensive launched by the U.S. and Israel, which they view as an unnecessary war of choice that has destabilized global energy markets and increased the risk of a broader regional conflict.