President-elect Donald Trump is deeply worried about the intensifying use of advanced munitions in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, his incoming national security adviser, Rep. Michael Waltz, said on Sunday.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Waltz criticized the Biden administration’s decision to authorize the use of anti-personnel landmines by Ukraine to impede Russia’s ground troop advances. Waltz compared the brutal conditions in eastern Ukraine to “World War I trench warfare,” emphasizing the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to bring the conflict to an end.

“It is just an absolute meat grinder of people and personnel on that front,” Waltz said. “This needs to be within a broader framework to end this conflict responsibly.”

The U.S. decision to supply anti-personnel mines follows a shift in Russia’s military tactics, with more ground troops leading its advances instead of armored units, according to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The mines, Austin argued, could help slow these offensives.

Waltz, however, cautioned against further escalation, citing recent developments as troubling. Following North Korea’s deployment of 10,000 troops to aid Russia, Ukraine retaliated with U.S.-supplied missiles targeting deep inside Russian territory, including weapon stockpiles in Bryansk. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an experimental rocket at Dnipro, marking a significant escalation.

“This is a clear escalation,” Waltz said. “Where is this going? How do we get both sides to the table for peace negotiations?”

Waltz reiterated Trump’s confidence in ending the conflict swiftly after his inauguration on January 20, but details remain vague. While Trump has promised to restore deterrence and bring peace, he has not articulated a clear plan, avoiding direct statements on whether he believes Ukraine should prevail in the war.

“Our focus must be on restoring deterrence and bringing peace,” Waltz said. “We need to bring this to a responsible end.”

Trump has previously asserted that he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine war even before officially assuming office, though he has refrained from explaining how he intends to achieve this.

Waltz acknowledged the broader geopolitical stakes, including simmering conflicts in the Middle East, where Trump has pledged to stabilize the region. However, ongoing cease-fire talks between Israel and Iran-backed groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, remain deadlocked, further complicating Trump’s ambitious peace agenda.

As the incoming administration prepares to take office, the world watches closely for signs of a shift in U.S. foreign policy that could reshape the trajectory of these overlapping crises.

Hundreds of Yemeni men have found themselves thrust into Russia’s war in Ukraine, victims of a shadowy recruitment scheme that exploits poverty, desperation, and political alliances in the Middle East. Promised lucrative jobs and Russian citizenship, these men instead were coerced into joining Moscow’s military efforts, illustrating how the Ukraine conflict is drawing in fighters from far-flung regions and complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Recruitment through Deception

Many of the Yemeni recruits had no military background and were lured by promises of high salaries and professional opportunities in fields such as security and engineering. Upon arrival in Russia, they were forcibly inducted into the military, signing contracts in a language they could not read, often under duress.

One recruit, identified only as Nabil, described his experience to the Financial Times, detailing the grim conditions at the front lines in Ukraine. Stranded in a forest, he and his fellow conscripts faced relentless bombardment, lacked proper clothing for winter, and were assigned tasks such as constructing shelters in mine-infested areas.

Another recruit, Abdullah, recalled being taken from Moscow’s airport to a remote facility where gunfire was used to intimidate them into signing contracts. Promised $10,000 upfront and $2,000 monthly, he instead found himself on a battlefield after rudimentary training.

The Role of Houthi-Affiliated Networks

At the center of this operation is Al Jabri General Trading & Investment Co, a company registered in Oman but linked to Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Contracts signed by Yemeni recruits listed the company, whose founder, Abdulwali Abdo Hassan al-Jabri, is a prominent Houthi politician and military leader. Al Jabri did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Houthis, an Iran-backed rebel group controlling northern Yemen, have deepened ties with Russia since the Ukraine war began. They have sent delegations to Moscow, met with senior Kremlin officials, and reportedly discussed arms deals. U.S. diplomats allege that Russian personnel in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, are aiding the Houthis with targeting data for missile strikes and possibly exploring advanced weapons transfers.

Maged Almadhaji, director of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies, noted that Russia’s growing relationship with the Houthis reflects its strategy to forge alliances with groups hostile to Western interests in volatile regions like the Red Sea.

A Broader Recruitment Trend

Yemeni mercenaries are not the only foreign recruits fighting for Russia. Reports suggest that Moscow has deployed soldiers from countries such as Nepal, India, and even North Korea, as it seeks to replenish its ranks without resorting to full mobilization.

For Yemen, a nation plagued by economic collapse and an ongoing civil war, recruitment is particularly effective. “Yemen is a very poor country,” said Farea al-Muslimi, a Gulf expert at Chatham House. “One thing Russia needs is soldiers, and it’s clear the Houthis are recruiting [for them].”

Humanitarian Efforts and Outcry

The plight of these conscripts has drawn condemnation from Yemeni civil society and international organizations. The International Federation of Yemeni Migrants has been instrumental in securing the release of at least 11 Yemenis who returned to Yemen via Oman earlier this month.

“This is a humanitarian issue that unites all Yemenis, regardless of political affiliation,” said Ali Al-Subahi, chair of the Federation’s board. However, he stressed that hundreds more Yemenis remain trapped in Russia or deployed on the battlefield.

Yemen’s ambassador to Moscow, representing the Saudi-backed government, referred inquiries to the embassy’s military attaché, who did not respond. U.S. officials, including Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking, have expressed concern over Russia’s recruitment activities but noted that they are consistent with broader trends in Moscow’s strategy to escalate the conflict.

The Emerging Russia-Houthi Alliance

The recruitment effort underscores a deepening partnership between Moscow and the Houthis. Historically, Russia had little engagement with the group, but the war in Ukraine and Russia’s confrontation with the West have shifted its alliances. Experts warn that this relationship could further destabilize the Red Sea region, with the Houthis potentially gaining access to advanced weapons capable of threatening shipping lanes and global trade.

“This kind of cooperation between Russia and the Houthis was unimaginable before the Ukraine war,” said Almadhaji. “Now, it’s part of a broader geopolitical recalibration.”

A War Without Borders

The use of Yemeni mercenaries highlights the lengths to which Russia will go to sustain its war effort in Ukraine. For the men recruited under false pretenses, it is a tragedy of deception, coercion, and exploitation. For Yemen, it is yet another painful chapter in a nation already devastated by conflict and economic ruin.

As international pressure mounts and humanitarian advocates demand action, the fate of those still trapped remains uncertain. Their stories, however, offer a stark reminder of how wars can ripple far beyond their borders, drawing in the world’s most vulnerable to fight battles they never sought.

Russian forces have reportedly taken control of several settlements in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, including Novodmitrovsk, according to Russian state media. The Russian Defense Ministry, through its RIA Novosti news outlet, claimed their troops overcame multiple Ukrainian brigades and repelled 68 counterattacks in the area. The assertions, however, remain unverified and are part of an ongoing information war between the two nations.

The alleged capture of five settlements marks a continuation of heavy fighting in Donetsk, one of the most contested regions in the conflict. Ukraine’s government has not commented directly on these reports, but recent updates from Ukrainian officials indicate persistent battles across multiple fronts, with Russia intensifying its offensive operations.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov has sought to strengthen international support. During meetings in Stockholm with Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson, Sweden announced a $2.2 billion aid package for Ukraine over the next two years. Jonson emphasized Sweden’s commitment to Ukraine as part of its own security strategy, stating that “your security is also our security.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged this week’s missile launch targeting Dnipro, an incident that had drawn international condemnation. Ukraine initially described the weapon as an intercontinental ballistic missile, but Moscow clarified it as an intermediate-range missile with an 800-kilometer reach.

Putin justified the launch as a response to the U.S. and U.K. providing Kyiv with longer-range missiles capable of striking Russian territory. He warned that Russia might target nations supporting Ukraine with such weapons, though analysts like Keir Giles from Chatham House have dismissed these threats as rhetorical, aimed at deterring NATO’s backing of Kyiv.

At the Stockholm press conference, Umerov labeled the missile launch as an escalation, citing it alongside Russia’s deployment of thousands of North Korean troops near its border with Ukraine. He affirmed Ukraine’s resolve to respond while acknowledging the significant challenges on the front lines.

Amid the intensified fighting, Russian strikes in Ukraine’s northeastern city of Sumy killed at least two people and injured 12. Local officials attributed the attack to drones, which struck a residential neighborhood, damaging homes, apartments, and businesses. Rescue operations are ongoing in the city, which lies close to Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces conducted incursions earlier this year.

Umerov pointed to heavy losses among Russian forces, both in personnel and equipment, emphasizing Ukraine’s determination to resist despite the “difficult situation” at the front.

As Russia claims advances in Donetsk, Ukraine continues to strengthen its international partnerships. Sweden’s significant aid package, which includes military and logistical support, highlights the growing role of NATO-aligned countries in bolstering Ukraine’s defenses.

Simultaneously, Putin’s missile launch and threats against NATO member states have drawn widespread condemnation but also underscore the delicate balance in avoiding direct NATO-Russia confrontation. Analysts view such actions as part of Moscow’s broader strategy to intimidate Western allies while continuing its grinding offensive in Ukraine.

The situation remains fluid, with regional and international consequences continuing to evolve. As Ukraine and its allies weigh their next steps, the conflict’s humanitarian toll and geopolitical ramifications grow ever more significant.

Russia launched an advanced medium-range ballistic missile targeting the city of Dnipro on Thursday, an action analysts interpret as a deliberate message to the West. The strike, confirmed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, has alarmed Western leaders and fueled fears of a broader strategic escalation.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the attack, labeling the use of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile a “nuclear adventure.” Speaking in a national address, Zelenskyy accused Moscow of using Ukraine as a testing ground for weapons that could endanger global security.

“It is obvious that Putin is using Ukraine to trial weapons that threaten the world,” Zelenskyy said.

A Strategic Signal

The missile strike on Dnipro marks the first confirmed use of the Oreshnik missile in the war, a weapon based on Russia’s RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design. Putin’s acknowledgment of the missile’s deployment, unusual for such incidents, appears intended as a demonstration of Russia’s technological and military reach.

“The Russian Federation tested a medium-range ballistic missile, known as Oreshnik, during its operation in Ukraine,” Putin said, framing the launch as a standard military test.

Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s former ambassador to the U.S., characterized the move as a deliberate provocation directed at Western allies.

“This isn’t just about Ukraine,” Chaly said. “It’s a challenge to the European security system and the United States. Moscow is signaling its readiness to escalate dramatically to influence the West.”

Chaly warned that a unified and decisive response is critical to deterring further aggression from Moscow.

Western Reactions

Global leaders swiftly condemned the attack. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it “reckless and dangerous,” while the European Union’s foreign affairs spokesperson Peter Stano described it as a “qualitative escalation” in Russia’s military strategy.

In Washington, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed the U.S. had received prior notification of the launch through nuclear risk-reduction channels. However, she emphasized the need for vigilance, describing the missile’s use as part of a broader pattern of Russian brinkmanship.

The Dnipro Strike

The missile struck industrial facilities in Dnipro, injuring two civilians and causing significant structural damage. Ukrainian officials initially speculated that the weapon used was an ICBM due to its speed and impact, but analysts later concluded it was likely a medium-range ballistic missile.

Dnipro residents reported the strike as unusually swift and devastating.

“We’ve learned to recognize the sounds of different missile types. This one was different — it hit almost immediately after the siren,” said Oleksiy Poltorazky, a local resident.

Despite the attack, Poltorazky expressed resilience.

“There’s no panic, no apocalypse. We have to live through this, raise our kids, protect our families, and work. We have to fight and do everything possible for our country,” he said.

Nuclear Signaling or Practical Deployment?

The use of the Oreshnik missile has raised questions about Russia’s intentions. Experts suggest the strike is less about battlefield utility and more about strategic signaling.

George Barros of the Institute for the Study of War noted that while the missile is nuclear-capable, its deployment does not necessarily indicate an increased risk of nuclear warfare.

“This is not the first time that Russia has used nuclear-capable weapon systems against Ukraine,” Barros said. “Russia regularly uses Iskander nuclear-capable weapons, and this appears to be a signaling effort designed to deter further Western support for Ukraine.”

Strategic Ambiguity as a Tool

The Kremlin’s mixed messaging further complicates the global response. While Putin openly acknowledged the missile test, Russian officials offered minimal details about its purpose or implications. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova reportedly avoided commenting on the attack during a Thursday press conference.

Analysts suggest this deliberate ambiguity is part of Russia’s broader strategy to unsettle Western nations. By oscillating between overt threats and vague explanations, Moscow aims to keep adversaries guessing about its next moves.

“This calculated reticence heightens global unease,” said one analyst. “It’s a strategy designed to maintain unpredictability and keep Western decision-makers off balance.”

As the war enters this potentially more dangerous phase, the international community faces heightened stakes. Analysts and officials alike stress the need for a firm, unified response to deter Moscow’s aggression and prevent further escalation.

For now, Russia’s missile deployment serves as a stark reminder of the conflict’s far-reaching implications — not only for Ukraine but for the stability of the global order.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday in Paris, with the two leaders planning to discuss sustained support for Ukraine amid growing anxieties that a Trump administration could scale back U.S. assistance in the ongoing conflict with Russia.

The visit comes shortly after Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, a result that has raised alarms across Europe regarding the future of Western backing for Ukraine. Trump, who has been outspoken in his criticism of U.S. spending on Ukraine’s defense, has promised to end the conflict but offered few specifics on his approach, prompting concerns that a swift reduction in support could leave Kyiv more vulnerable to Moscow’s advances.

Starmer’s trip to Paris will also see him make history as the first British leader to participate in French Armistice Day commemorations since Winston Churchill attended in 1944. In addition to Macron, Starmer is scheduled to meet Michel Barnier, the newly appointed French prime minister, for their first official talks since Barnier assumed the role in September.

A spokesperson from Downing Street noted that discussions will focus on “Russia’s ongoing barbaric invasion of Ukraine and the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Both Starmer and Macron are expected to reiterate the importance of a cohesive European approach to Ukraine, stressing that continued support is critical for the security and stability of the continent.

A Unified European Front

While Europe has consistently expressed strong support for Ukraine, there is recognition that replacing U.S. military aid entirely would be a formidable challenge. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy reports that European nations have allocated around €118 billion ($126 billion) in aid to Ukraine, surpassing the €85 billion ($91 billion) provided by the United States. However, critical military assets such as F-16 fighter jets and ATACMS missiles have largely come from American reserves, and European leaders have admitted that Europe alone lacks the capacity to match this level of support.

In light of these challenges, Starmer and Macron’s discussions are likely to touch upon how Britain and the European Union might enhance their collaborative efforts. Britain and the EU are already poised to begin negotiations next year on a post-Brexit security pact, which could include provisions for shared defense strategies and enhanced cooperation in energy security—an increasingly pressing issue as the conflict in Ukraine continues.

Armistice Day Symbolism and Broader EU Relations

Starmer’s participation in the French Armistice Day ceremony is steeped in symbolism. The last British prime minister to take part was Winston Churchill, who joined French General Charles de Gaulle in commemorating their countries’ shared sacrifices in World War II. Starmer’s attendance signifies not only the importance of Franco-British ties but also underscores a renewed emphasis on European unity in an era of shifting geopolitical dynamics.

Europe has witnessed a series of crises that have underscored the need for a more self-sufficient defense posture, particularly following Brexit and increasing tensions with Russia. Both Starmer and Macron see a stronger, more integrated European defense framework as a vital step toward long-term regional stability, especially given the uncertainties surrounding U.S. foreign policy in the coming years.

Starmer’s meetings in Paris come amid mounting pressure on European leaders to respond to Trump’s ascension with a strategy that prioritizes autonomy and resilience. Macron, who has previously advocated for “strategic autonomy” in Europe, may find common ground with Starmer on ways to reinforce continental defenses and reduce dependency on transatlantic support in critical sectors, including military logistics and infrastructure.

Europe’s Shifting Security Calculus

Starmer and Macron’s talks are likely to reflect a broader shift in Europe’s security calculus as leaders consider how to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty without the same level of direct support from Washington. Some European lawmakers have called for a ramp-up in defense spending, while others have pointed to the need for deeper strategic partnerships within the EU and between the EU and the UK.

The meeting between Starmer and Barnier, now serving as France’s prime minister, also signals an evolving approach in EU-UK relations post-Brexit. While Brexit introduced significant diplomatic and logistical hurdles, recent cooperative efforts suggest a willingness on both sides to find common ground, particularly on security issues where mutual interests are clear.

As European leaders grapple with the implications of Trump’s election, Starmer’s visit to France represents an effort to reinforce a unified stance on Ukraine and an evolving strategy to navigate a changing international landscape. For Macron and Starmer alike, maintaining solidarity on Ukraine is seen as critical not just for the immediate conflict but also for Europe’s broader geopolitical strategy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a mutual defense treaty with North Korea, formalizing a strategic partnership that includes provisions for military support if either nation faces an armed attack. The treaty, endorsed by both chambers of Russia’s parliament, follows Putin’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June, underscoring deepening ties between Moscow and Pyongyang amid Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

The defense treaty represents a significant pivot in Russia’s foreign policy, marking its first such agreement with North Korea and suggesting Moscow’s widening search for allies as it navigates international isolation. The pact obligates both Russia and North Korea to provide military assistance to one another in the event of an external threat, effectively anchoring the two nations in a defensive alliance with potentially broad-reaching geopolitical implications.

As details of the agreement were published on a Russian government website over the weekend, analysts noted that the treaty signals a shift in the balance of alliances in Northeast Asia, and could challenge the existing security architecture upheld by South Korea, Japan, and the United States. The timing of the treaty’s publication also highlights its symbolic resonance, coming amid reports of North Korean weaponry surfacing in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The closer alliance is not limited to mutual defense alone. Reports from Western and South Korean sources indicate that North Korea has supplied artillery, munitions, and other weaponry to Russia, with Ukrainian forensic experts reportedly discovering evidence of North Korean arms at Russian attack sites. Such findings suggest that North Korea’s military support may already be playing a role in Russia’s embattled campaign in Ukraine.

Additionally, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently claimed that North Korea has deployed approximately 11,000 troops to Russia, with some of them allegedly involved in combat operations against Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. While Moscow has not verified these claims, if substantiated, they would indicate a deepening level of direct North Korean involvement in the conflict, further complicating the geopolitical landscape in Eastern Europe.

The treaty reflects Moscow’s apparent bid to build alliances beyond its traditional partnerships, particularly as Western sanctions and support for Ukraine isolate Russia from much of the international community. For North Korea, the alliance offers opportunities to bolster its economy and defense, potentially with Russian support in advanced technologies. The collaboration could also enable North Korea to access resources and expertise that have been largely inaccessible due to its own isolation.

However, the defense pact raises alarms in South Korea, Japan, and the United States, where officials worry about the potential for increased military collaboration between Russia and North Korea, including possible weapons transfers or joint military exercises. As North Korea continues to develop its nuclear capabilities, any significant technological exchange or strategic alignment with Russia would represent a formidable challenge to regional security.

In response, South Korea and Japan are likely to intensify their cooperation with the United States on military preparedness and regional intelligence. The evolving dynamics may also lead to stronger security commitments from NATO, as Western nations increasingly view the Russia-North Korea axis as a potential flashpoint for future conflicts extending beyond Ukraine.

As Putin’s treaty with Kim Jong Un enters into force, its implications will likely ripple across international security circles, influencing both immediate military operations and broader alliance strategies. The degree to which North Korea might further assist Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, and the extent of Russia’s support for North Korea, could recalibrate the strategic calculus of nations across Asia and Europe.

The treaty, unprecedented in its scope between the two nations, underscores the shifting allegiances in a world increasingly marked by polarized alliances. With this agreement, Russia and North Korea have sent a clear message: both nations are prepared to expand their spheres of influence, with mutual defense as a cornerstone of their strategy in the face of rising global tensions.

As European leaders digest Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential election, there is a growing sense of urgency over what this return to the White House could mean for NATO and Europe’s own security architecture. European capitals, already grappling with challenges from a resurgent Russia, now face the possibility of a renewed strain on the transatlantic alliance that has underpinned regional security since the postwar era.

In a telling show of apprehension, around 50 European leaders gathered in Budapest this week for a summit of the European Political Community, an organization born in 2022 amid heightened fears following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The meeting was marked by a recognition of Europe’s need to recalibrate its security approach, potentially independent of the U.S. “Our role in the European Union is not to comment on the election of Donald Trump,” remarked French President Emmanuel Macron, who has long advocated for European strategic autonomy. “The question is, are we ready to defend the interests of Europeans?” Macron’s words underscored a growing sentiment that Europe must brace for a future where American backing may be less certain.

A Strained Alliance

Trump’s criticisms of NATO as a “bad deal” for the U.S. during his previous term and repeated threats to withdraw from the alliance have left a lasting impression. Former government officials have suggested that Trump was seriously considering pulling out of NATO altogether during his first term, an act that would have likely destabilized the alliance. Jonathan Monten, a foreign policy analyst at University College London, reflected on this prospect: “One of the very few consistent beliefs that Trump has held to since he entered politics has been the idea that the United States is being taken advantage of by its allies.” This perception, Monten argues, is likely to reemerge, raising concerns about whether Trump will revisit his threat to reduce America’s commitment to NATO.

While Trump’s unpredictability may leave European leaders in limbo, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who assumed the role just last month, struck a hopeful tone, highlighting Trump’s influence in pushing NATO allies toward greater defense spending. “When he was president, he was the one in NATO who stimulated us to move over the 2% [of GDP spending target],” Rutte noted, attempting to frame Trump’s prior term as one of tough love that ultimately bolstered NATO’s military capacity.

European Support for Ukraine

The most immediate concern is the potential shift in U.S. policy on military support for Ukraine, as European defense leaders scramble to assess their capabilities to compensate for any decrease in American aid. Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow on European security at the Royal United Services Institute, believes Europe could fill the gap but only at significant cost and effort. “It’s more about the cost to individual nations, and that’s going to have to ramp up pretty quickly if they’re going to be able to have that impact,” he said. Still, European analysts worry that some nations, particularly Germany, may balk at these increased expenditures, potentially leaving frontline states like Poland and the Baltic countries to shoulder the burden.

Trump’s assurances during the campaign trail that he could swiftly end the Russia-Ukraine war have only deepened these anxieties. His past praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin raises fears that Washington might pressure Ukraine into an unfavorable peace deal, leaving European leaders with limited influence over negotiations. Arnold cautions that the U.S. could pursue peace talks with Russia without consulting NATO allies, isolating Europe from critical decisions that affect its own security.

Economic Headwinds and Trade Tensions

Beyond security, Trump’s economic policies could present additional challenges for Europe. Known for his protectionist stance, Trump has promised to impose significant tariffs on Chinese imports, a move that would disrupt global trade and potentially impact European economies reliant on a stable trade relationship with both the U.S. and China. Garret Martin, co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University, foresees a turbulent period for Europe if Trump chooses to renew tariffs on European imports as well. “The [Trump] claims of putting about 60% or more tariffs on all imports from China will have to have a major disruptive impact on world trade,” he explained, “and there will be repercussions on the EU, on Europe, on the U.K. and elsewhere.”

European officials, wary of Trump’s possible “divide and rule” tactics, are emphasizing the importance of unity among EU member states. The political vulnerability of an economically fragmented Europe could become a lever for Trump, who, according to Martin, may exploit disunity to achieve favorable trade deals.

What Europe Can Do

While Trump’s election reintroduces unpredictability to the transatlantic relationship, Europe is not entirely without options. Leaders could seek to appeal to Trump’s desire for diplomatic recognition, offering him the spotlight through high-profile summits or bilateral trade deals. However, as Monten observes, these symbolic gestures might yield limited results. “They can try flattery,” he says. “They can try to offer him deals that benefit him personally, but it’s unclear what exactly they would have to offer.”

Ultimately, Trump’s victory serves as a sobering reminder of the volatile landscape that Europe must navigate in the years ahead. For Macron and other European leaders, it may signal a renewed mandate to enhance Europe’s own defense capabilities and economic resilience, perhaps even accelerating efforts to make the EU a more independent force on the world stage. In the meantime, European leaders can only prepare for a familiar yet altered transatlantic dynamic, one that forces Europe to face hard questions about its own future in a world where American support can no longer be taken for granted.

In an escalation of hostilities, Ukraine’s military reported on Tuesday the successful downing of 48 Russian drones and two guided missiles, part of a large-scale offensive reportedly involving 79 drones launched overnight. The attacks targeted multiple regions across Ukraine, including Cherkasy, Chernihiv, Khmelnytskyi, Kyiv, Odesa, Poltava, Sumy, and Zhytomyr, according to Ukraine’s air force.

Meanwhile, in the Zaporizhzhia region, a Russian strike hit an infrastructure facility, leading to at least six casualties and 16 wounded, according to regional governor Ivan Fedorov. The city of Kharkiv also reported injuries and damage to residential buildings, underscoring the toll on civilian infrastructure as the conflict grinds on.

In Russia, the Ministry of Defense reported the destruction of six Ukrainian aerial drones over the Kursk region, while the Bryansk governor confirmed that no casualties or damage had been recorded.

Growing Presence of North Korean Troops in Russia

Amid this intensified activity, reports have surfaced concerning a substantial presence of North Korean troops within Russia. According to South Korean Defense Ministry spokesperson Jeon Ha-Gyu, intelligence indicates that more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers are currently deployed in Russia, including frontline areas like Kursk. This assessment was echoed by the U.S. Defense Department, which estimated that 11,000 to 12,000 North Korean troops could be in Russia. Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, however, noted that these reports remain unverified regarding direct combat involvement.

The presence of foreign troops adds a new layer of complexity to the conflict, highlighting the increasing geopolitical entanglements. While the Pentagon has not confirmed whether these forces are active in frontline operations, the situation underscores a potential strategic shift, with Moscow seemingly drawing on international allies to bolster its position.