Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Bottles of Champagne are seen on display for sale in a wine shop in Paris, France, on March 13, 2025.
Opinion: Tariffs bring a bitter aftertaste to Europe
The party ended abruptly last week, and the last bottle of European champagne may have popped.
After President Donald Trump imposed 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, US allies quickly announced countermeasures. This included a European Union plan to introduce 50% tariffs on US whiskey. Further accelerating any impending trade war, Trump responded by threatening a 200% tariff on all EU wines, champagnes, and alcoholic products. In the words of former President Thomas Jefferson as interpreted by Lin-Manuel Miranda in “Hamilton,” “Look, when Britain taxed our tea, we got frisky. Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whiskey.”
European leaders caught between the rock of needing Trump to help bring an end to the war in Ukraine (while they aim to beef up collective defense) and the hard place of fearing economic contraction from US tariffs are quickly realizing that nobody is having fun anymore.
Lessons of a tariff man
As Europe and others look to rebound from the latest round of the Trump administration’s trade offensive, a few misguided lessons are being drawn. The first is about Trump’s attachment to tariffs and protectionist trade policy. Many headlines in recent weeks have propelled a narrative of the Trump “whipsaw” or the view that the administration quickly U-turns on trade policy. Examples like the retreat on Colombia or the initial deferral for Canada and Mexico are frequently cited as evidence of the tendency toward reversals. What these perspectives underappreciate, however, is both how longstanding Trump’s regard for tariffs has been, and how fundamental the administration sees it to its broader policy objectives. The concession-reprieve cycle is the noise, while economic security as national security is the signal.
Trump’s zest for tariffs dates back to the 1980s and was widely written about during his first administration. Now, this four-decade history seems to have been overtaken by disorientation and incredulity. In an interview given in 1989, Trump reportedly said “America is being ripped off … We’re a debtor nation, and we have to tax, we have to tariff, we have to protect this country.” Taking to social media last week, Trump echoed these sentiments, posting, “The US doesn’t have Free Trade. We have ‘Stupid Trade.’ The Entire World is RIPPING US OFF!!.” In short, there is no new Donald Trump.
But it is not just that Trump may be ideological about tariffs; it is also that he and his team have placed these beliefs at the center of their second-term ambitions. In a Day 1 presidential action, the administration announced that “Americans benefit from and deserve an America First trade policy.” For the Trump administration, “America First trade” means promoting investment and productivity, enhancing US industrial and technological advantages, and defending economic and national security to benefit American workers. Each of these objectives will be backed up by efforts to address unfair and unbalanced trade – tariffs and other measures – and wider economic security considerations, including reviews and investigations, with special attention given to economic and trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. The administration has laid it all out by executive action. When Trump orders the creation of an External Revenue Service to collect tariffs, duties, and other foreign trade-related revenues, he plans to collect the money.
Missed connections
The other lesson that should be gleaned from what has unfolded in recent weeks between the US and its allies, particularly in Europe, is about a mismatch in intentions. Trump and his trade team believe that protectionist policies will restructure the global trade system in favor of US industrial and manufacturing strength. Imposing tariffs across the board on steel and aluminum is aimed at reigniting the US metals industry, whether this comes to fruition will take years to assess.
When Europe responds to industrial tariffs by targeting goods with only limited substitutability like US whiskey, the goal is to find a pain point and apply leverage. The downside of such an approach, however, is exactly what analysts, the financial market, and those targeted by US tariffs have lobbed at Trump: It will be domestic consumers that are most hurt. Will Europeans turn to the United Kingdom to replace American whiskey with Scotch? Perhaps. But the UK is no longer in the EU anyway. France, Germany, and others seem unlikely to invest in their own domestic distilling for near-term gain. Instead, Europeans will be left to pay a heftier price for whiskey or go without. Likewise, Trump’s proposed countermeasures on European champagne put US consumers in an analogous position. The US domestic wine market may be robust, but champagne can only be made in Champagne, France.
As the potential domestic impact ratchets up, US allies will likely discover that retaliation leaves a bitter aftertaste, especially for the Transatlantic relationship. This is the forcing function of tariffs that the Trump administration is hoping to see.
US presidents who came before Trump like William McKinley and Herbert Hoover found that the best tariff intentions do not always turn out as planned, instead bringing domestic price increases and economic downturns. In the current interconnected world where supply chains are truly global, the historical experience may not directly apply. Still, there is a real risk that it might. The question is, when the music stops, who is left with a seat and a glass of bubbly?
What will Trump offer Putin in Ukraine ceasefire talks?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Tomorrow is the call between President Trump and President Putin. The most important geopolitical discussion I would argue that we have seen so far of the Trump administration. Look, what we've had so far has been a move towards a ceasefire. Trump beating up on the Ukrainians, on President Zelensky in particular, which is comparatively easy to do. They are in a much weaker position. That's particularly easy to do if you don't feel like you need to be in lockstep with NATO allies, with the Europeans, with the Canadians. And as a consequence, Trump, off-again and now on-again relationship with the Ukrainian president, has now gotten Ukraine to agree to a one-month ceasefire with no preconditions. And that's definitely progress. And the Europeans are all on board and supportive of that.
That is closer to a ceasefire than Biden certainly ever got the Ukrainians. And though I would argue, it has certainly caused a lot of concern among US allies of whether or not the Americans can be counted on long-term. In the near term, it makes it easier and more likely to get to an end of the war than we were a month ago. And frankly, I think we would've been better off if Biden had been more willing to push Zelensky and push the European allies, and show that American power recognized that Ukraine was weakening in their position, vis-a-vis Russia and that the war was only leading to more expense and more lives being lost on both sides. And so, pushing for a shorter-term ceasefire was an important thing to do.
They weren't willing to expend much political capital. They certainly weren't willing to upset people, and as a consequence, we didn't get there. That's the good news is that we now have Zelensky in a position with everybody on board on the Western side, that a ceasefire should be agreed to, and nothing else needs to be discussed. That, of course, is not the Putin position. And now a much harder point, a much more challenging point, and open to question, is to what degree is Trump when push comes to shove, prepared to hurt Putin. Because of the earlier call that the two men had, 90 minutes long, and then the follow-up conversation in Riyadh between the cabinet members of both countries, that was easy.
That was, "Hey, Biden wouldn't talk to you. I'm willing to talk to you. Let's talk broadly about things we might be able to do together. We can talk about investment. We can talk about strategy. We can talk about the Arctic. We can talk about arms control. And yes, we can talk about Ukraine." And nothing was being forced for the Russians to agree with. This was all upside, especially because it was just a bilateral conversation. The Ukrainians weren't involved. The Europeans were involved. It's exactly the format that Putin wants to support. But now we have the Ukrainians saying they'll support a one-month ceasefire with no preconditions. What about Russia?
Because if Russia comes out of this phone call with Trump and says, "That's it, there's no pathway. I refuse to accept what you're putting forward." Well, then either Trump looks really weak for having gotten the Ukrainians to the table but not the Russians' table, isn't prepared to do anything about it. Or he has to actually follow through with some level of strikes, sanctions, economic strikes against Putin and further support to Ukraine, which is not, of course, at all where Trump wants to be. That will escalate the fighting. It won't lead the fighting to an end. So, what really matters here is how much is Trump prepared to offer to Putin when he drives a harder bargain than Zelensky was driving. And how much is Trump prepared to give away?
And I mean, from Putin's perspective, he wants to test that proposition. Ideally, for Putin, Putin gets enough that Trump says yes, and that Ukraine says no and ruins the conversation, and Ukraine is blamed for not wanting peace. And then the Americans and the Russians can go forth and build their own broader engagement, bilaterally over the heads of the Europeans, and the Ukrainians are the problem and the Europeans are stuffed. That is Putin's ideal outcome, but it's not clear he can get to that ideal outcome. Because if he pushes Trump too hard and it blows up, then suddenly he's angry, he's embarrassed. And he's also much more powerful than the Russians, and he's willing to talk to the Europeans in that environment. It's exactly what the Russians don't want.
If you're Putin, you push, but you also don't want this conversation to blow up. So, you want to see how much you get for Trump, but you also want to get to yes. And so, really, the question is not how much Putin ends up giving up. It's really about whether or not Trump makes it easy on Putin. And there are lots of reasons to believe that he will. So far, he has been willing proactively to say that Ukraine should never join NATO. Well, that wasn't a part of the one-month ceasefire that the Ukrainians agreed to, but it might be a requirement for Putin. Trump throws that out. Does that then blow up the Ukrainian conversation?
Trump has also said that Ukraine's not going to get all of their land, but he hasn't made that a condition of the one-month ceasefire. Does Putin require that? Does Trump say yes? It's a fairly easy give for Trump, except it's not been coordinated with the Ukrainians. Are the Ukrainians prepared to accept that? By the way, that would be the minimum table stakes that I think Putin would demand since Trump has effectively already given them away. Now, he could go much harder than that. He's also talked about wanting formal recognition over some of the territories that Russia presently occupies.
Might the United States directly be willing to recognize that territory? Ukraine wouldn't have to, but the United States would. I think that's a bad idea in a first-phase agreement, where the Russians can come right back and start fighting at the end of 30 days. But it's possible that Trump would be willing to give it away. Putin has said that he refuses to allow a 30-day ceasefire to be an opportunity for the Ukrainians to reconsolidate their military, which is facing pretty much a lot of hardship right now. They don't have as much artillery, they don't have as much ammunition, and they've also been bleeding recruits.
Is Trump willing to say, "Okay, for 30 days, I'm going to re-suspend aid to the Ukrainians?" I could see him doing that. But I can't see Trump saying that the Europeans are going to re-suspend aid to Ukraine over those 30 days. And certainly, I don't see the Europeans agreeing to that by themselves. And well, would Russia agree to a deal that doesn't have the Europeans in that environment? Might the Americans re-suspend intelligence aid to Ukraine over those 30 days? In principle, maybe you don't need that. If there's no fighting going on, maybe the intelligence isn't such a problem. So, that could be an easier give for Trump to offer that Zelensky wouldn't have a problem with.
And then there are broader issues of, for example, the Americans withdrawing forward troop deployments that are presently rotating in the Baltic states. For example, something that would make it feel that the United States is no longer as much of a threat with NATO to Russia, a give to the Russians. Finally, you could imagine the United States being willing to take some sanctions off. This is undermining the common position with the Europeans but is less of a direct problem for Zelensky than saying you don't get NATO or saying that you're not going to get to keep your land as a codified piece of a deal with the Russians.
My view is that the 30-day period, Trump should maintain a fairly hard line because he's maintained a hard line with the Ukrainians and it's been effective. And the US is ultimately in a stronger position than the Russians are. But Trump has also made it clear that he really, really, really wants to get to yes, and that a lot of these things don't matter very much for him. So, he's essentially put Putin in a stronger position than he really is. And this is why it's so interesting that Trump always likes to use these analogies with the cards. He said, "The Ukrainians don't have the cards, and the Russians don't really have the cards." And yet, as someone who plays poker, we all know that frequently people that don't have cards win.
And the reason they win is because they play better than you do. And so, what we're going to see tomorrow is the degree to which Putin, who doesn't have the cards that Trump has, is nonetheless a more effective poker player. And I am concerned, at least somewhat concerned, that Putin's poker skills are actually better, more effective than Trump's are. Even though if both sides were to actually have to show their cards right now, we'd see that the Americans would win quite easily. And the Americans with the Europeans would win overwhelmingly, and yet that's not the way these hands are being played right now.
So, anyway, we'll see where it goes tomorrow. I'm sure I'll give you a quick response after we get that news. But that's where I think we are. I suspect Putin's going to come out of this happier than he should have any right to be and that the Americans will give away more than they should. But hopefully, not by a dramatic margin and that that will make it more likely that we still get to this one-month ceasefire. But we'll see tomorrow, and I'll talk about it then. Be good.
Taoiseach Micheal Martin visits President Donald Trump at the White House on March 12, 2025.
Trade war update: Canada and EU hit back at Trump
The tits and tats are getting bigger as the US’s various trade wars escalate.
Canada hits back. Ottawa on Tuesday announced a fresh 25% percent tariff on $20 billion worth of annual imports of US metals, computer monitors and servers, sports equipment, and other items. The move came just hours after Trump imposed a 25% duty on all US steel and aluminum imports.
Canada is the largest foreign steel supplier to the US, sending 99% of its exports to Uncle Sam. The White House has said its tariffs on Canada – and those set to come into effect on Mexico in April – are meant to force the two US neighbors to beef up border security.
The EU cocks the hammer too. In April, the Union will raise tariffs on nearly $30 billion in annual imports of US products, including beef, poultry, bourbon, soybeans, motorcycles, peanut butter, and jeans. That seemingly random list aims primarily at industries in GOP-controlled states.
The EU, which made the move in response to the Trump metals tariffs, said it was “open to compromise.” The $1.5 trillion US-EU trade relationship is the world’s largest.
What does Trump want from Europe? The US runs trade deficits with Europe, which Trump has called an “atrocity.” But European officials say they’ve struggled to learn more.
A White House memo in February highlighted EU restrictions on American shellfish and cars. And on Wednesday, Trump blasted Ireland’s low corporate tax rates, which have lured US firms, particularly in pharma, to register themselves in the country.
“I have great respect for Ireland,” Trump said at an Oval Office meeting Wednesday with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, “but the United States shouldn’t have let it happen.”People visit the graves of their relatives killed during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A large-scale light installation "Lights of Memory" was held to mark the third anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion at the Lychakiv cemetery in Lviv, Ukraine, on Feb. 23, 2025.
The Ukraine war at three
Since returning to office, US President Donald Trump has pushed aggressively – and controversially – for a settlement to the conflict. He has engaged Russia directly while clashing openly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky even as Washington continues, for now, to support Kyiv.
Meanwhile, EU and world leaders are meeting in Kyiv on Monday to show their support for Ukraine and Zelensky, who said Sunday he’d be willing to step aside as president in exchange for Ukraine’s NATO membership.
With the coming weeks likely to bring about a significant turning point in the conflict, here’s a look at several key indicators of where things stand after nearly 1,100 days of war.
The front lines: Russia controls a fifth of Ukraine
In the early days of the war, Russia swept into Ukraine from the North, East, and South, taking large swathes of territory, and even reaching the gates of the capital, Kyiv. But the Kremlin war machine proved clumsy and poorly equipped, and by late 2022, Ukraine, with growing Western assistance, had pushed Russia back substantially to positions only in the East, where Putin consolidated his forces. Over the past year, Russia has gained momentum again, slowly grinding westward across the Donbas, village by village, gaining about 1,600 square miles since January 2024.
All told, Russia now controls about 20% of mainland Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula, which it seized in 2014.
Meanwhile, since August 2024, Ukraine has held a small patch of Russian territory in the Kursk region, where Moscow has called in North Korean troops to beat back the Ukrainian advance.
The casualties: no firm figures
Neither side has been transparent about its losses, because of the huge propaganda and strategic value of obscuring these figures.
But open-source sleuthing by the independent Russian outlet Mediazona puts the Russian death toll at about 100,000. For context, that number exceeds the total number of Soviet and Russian combat fatalities in every war Moscow has fought since World War II combined.
Independent analysis of Ukrainian records, meanwhile, puts the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed at just under 70,000.
Separately, the UN has recorded at least 12,300 Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia, which is accused of committing war crimes in areas of Ukraine that it has occupied during the conflict.
For each side, the number of wounded runs well into six figures.
The Aid: The US is key, even if it’s not the biggest source of funds
Since February 2022, Ukraine has received about $280 billion in military, humanitarian, and economic assistance. The US is the largest single-country contributor, responsible for about $115 billion, but the EU has contributed more overall than Washington, sending nearly about $170 billion to Kyiv.
President Trump has threatened to cut support for Ukraine as part of his strategy of forcing a negotiated solution to the conflict – but so far Washington has not suspended military aid.
Polling: Support for a negotiated solution is growing – everywhere
In the US, half of Americans polled in December said they favor a quick end to the war, even if it means Ukraine has to surrender territory. This is down nearly 20 points since August 2022.
In the EU, a strong majority of those polled in February see support for Ukraine as an important expression of European values. But a separate study done late last year also showed that support for the idea of backing Ukraine “until it wins” has cratered in large EU countries: A negotiated peace involving territorial concessions to Russia is now the more popular idea in Germany, Italy, and France.
In Russia, support for the war remains near 80%, according to the independent pollsters at the Levada Center. But 61% also favor peace talks to end the conflict, the highest mark since the war started. (Does polling have value in a system like Russia’s? It depends on what you want to measure. See our explainer interview on that here.)
What do Ukrainians think?
Just over half of Ukrainians polled by Gallup late last year said they favored a negotiated end to the conflict, even if it meant surrendering some territory.US and Russian leaders gather in Riyadh.
Saudis host US-Russia talks, Europe holds emergency meeting on Ukraine
Before Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between US and Russian officials to discuss the war in Ukraine and business dealings between the countries, French President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting in Paris of European leaders on Monday to discuss Ukraine. Neither Europe nor Ukraine were invited to Tuesday’s talks in Riyadh – and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskywas not even formally advised discussions were taking place.
What did European leaders agree on? The gathering wrapped Monday evening with a tweet by European Commission president Ursula von Leyen that “Ukraine deserves peace through strength” – but without any consensus about what that peace would look like. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed willingness to contribute peacekeeping troops, contingent upon a US security guarantee, but Polish President Donald Tusk ruled out sending Polish troops before the meeting even began. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called a discussion of peacekeepers “completely premature” and “highly inappropriate” while the war is ongoing. Scholz also opposed any agreements being made without European or Ukrainian involvement.
What might a deal look like? “It is not yet clear what the US and Russia will be able to agree to or even what the agenda will look like” in Tuesday’s meeting, says Eurasia Group analyst Alex Brideau. “Russian officials have indicated they will be pushing for a broader deal that includes ending the Ukraine war on their terms, along with the resolution of a number of other outstanding security-related grievances. Trump’s main declared goal is to end the war quickly.”
We do know that while the Trump administration doesn’t want the Europeans at the table, it expects Europe to shoulder some of Ukraine’s support. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the US could reduce the number of troops in Europe as part of the deal with Moscow and that any Ukraine peacekeeping force should lack the protection of NATO’s Article 5. He also signaled that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders would not happen – meaning that a sixth of Ukraine’s territory could be ceded to Russia.
But that doesn’t mean that Ukraine or Europe will agree to anything the US or Russia negotiate. “Zelensky has made clear he will not accept a deal reached without Ukraine and Europe’s participation,” says Brideau. “He and European leaders will, therefore, be working to ensure that Trump brings them into the discussions and takes their views into account,” noting that they view transatlantic unity as key to the future of any peace deal.
Spanish Vox party leader Santiago Abascal presided over the European Patriots Summit in Madrid over the weekend. The event brought together numerous conservative leaders from across Europe under the banner of "Make Europe Great Again."
From MAGA to MEGA? Europe’s far-right rallies in Madrid
Who are the Patriots and what do they want? Formed after the May 2024 European election, the bloc includes 86 members from 14 countries, representing 19 million votes. It is the third largest group in the 720-seat European Parliament, and it opposes green policies, migration, gender and family diversity, and “population replacement.” It wants to change the EU’s governance structure to one based on national sovereignty and boost Europe's economic competitiveness.
Could the Patriots make it happen? Other right-wing parties, including Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia, or FI, Poland’s Law and Justice, and the German AfD have so far refused to join. However, in a letter sent in late January, the European Conservatives and Reformists group, home to Italian Prime Minister and FI leader Giorgia Meloni, urged the center-right European People’s Party to ally with the Patriots. And as tariffs loom, Le Pen claims that the group is the only one that can “talk with the new Trump administration.”
We’ll be watching whether the AfD or other parties change their tune about joining the Patriots – and how this impacts the EU’s ability to negotiate with Trump.
Putin trolls Europe about "the master" Trump
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does Putin mean when he says Europe "will stand at the feet of the master"?
It means that he loves to troll his adversaries. Don't you remember when he said that he actually thought Biden would be a better president from Russia's perspective than Trump? He trolls. It's all misinformation. It's propaganda. It's all served to undermine and show that he's powerful, and he can say whatever he wants. And of course, he would love to see a fight between the Americans and their allies, whether it's the Nordics on Greenland or it's Canada on 51st state, or it's Panama on the canal, or it's Europe on tariffs. And he wants to undermine the countries that gets a divide and conquer kind of response from Putin. And that is what he is doing when he trolls the Europeans.
What's next for Panama after deciding to exit China's Belt and Road Initiative?
Well, certainly, of all the countries that are facing a deeply asymmetric relationship on the back of threats from President Trump, Panama is high on that list. And they really are trying to find a way to avoid tariffs and avoid the Americans squeezing them on the canal. And an easy way to do that, because they've heard this now directly from Trump and from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is that the Chinese have too much influence over transit. And that is particularly true through these port facilities that a Hong Kong-based company, read, China, is in charge of. And so, they are opening investigations into the contract and into how they engage there. And they're also saying they'll pull out of Belt and Road. All of that is clearly going to upset and antagonize the Chinese. And I think that the Panamanians are very, very comfortable showing that they are going to orient much more towards the United States, given how much more they rely on the Americans.
How would a potential Turkey defense pact with Syria reshape power dynamics in the Middle East?
Given who's on the ground in Syria and the fact that the Americans are likely to pull out the over 2,000 troops they have there, and that Trump has said it's really up to Turkey to maintain that relationship, they were the ones that were closest to the rebels that ended up defeating, overthrowing Assad's regime. Not surprised at all that that is where the diplomacy is heading. But that doesn't mean that it's going to be stable, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Kurds on the ground are going to be handled well. And that will be what we need to watch carefully. But Turkey, a NATO ally that has a lot of influence across the region and particularly now on the ground with Syria, I think that'll be relatively stable given the support from the United States. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Four reasons why Turkey is excited about the fall of Assad. ›
- Panama ditches key China initiative after pressure from Trump ›
- Putin's nuclear policy revision is a sign of weakness ›
- Russia-Ukraine: Two Years of War ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
- Trump's dealmaking with Putin leaves Ukraine and Europe with nowhere to turn - GZERO Media ›
- Why Trump won’t break the Putin-Xi alliance - GZERO Media ›
- What will Trump offer Putin in Ukraine ceasefire talks? - GZERO Media ›
Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, European leaders are reassessing their reliance on the United States for security and economic stability. In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. They discuss the evolving role of Europe in an era of shifting alliances, economic uncertainty, and rising geopolitical risks. In other words, Europe's role in a Trump 2.0 era. Stubb expresses cautious optimism about Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine but underscores the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense and technological leadership.
Stubb also acknowledges that Europe is facing a moment of reckoning. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Stubb agrees that Europe must strengthen its strategic position but remains wary of the region’s economic competitiveness, particularly in technology, where the US holds a clear advantage.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
- Envisioning Europe's path forward with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair ›
- Meloni joins Trump at Mar-a-Lago — with Europe’s economy on the line ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›