Following the ruling, the leader of the RN group in the French National Assembly announced that she would appeal to the Court of Cassation while confirming her intention to stand in the 2027 French presidential election. 

The case against the National Rally

At first instance, on 31 March 2025, Marine Le Pen, the Front National (now the Rassemblement National), and 23 other defendants were found guilty of operating a system of fictitious parliamentary assistant jobs at the European Parliament between 2004 and 2016. 

The RN, five former Members of the European Parliament, four former parliamentary assistants, the party’s accountant and its treasurer all appealed the ruling. 

On 7 July, the Paris Court of Appeal’s chamber specialising in economic and financial crimes handed down sentences to the 12 appellants. It also imposed fines and bans from holding public office, and ordered the defendants to reimburse the European Parliament €2.8 million in damages. 

A reduced ban from public office

For Marine Le Pen, the Prosecutor General had sought a four-year prison sentence on 3 February 2026, including one year to be served under electronic monitoring, a €100,000 fine and a five-year ban from holding public office, without immediate enforcement. 

The Court of Appeal instead imposed a 45-month period of ineligibility, 15 months of which had already been served under the provisional enforcement of the first-instance ruling, along with a three-year prison sentence, including one year to be served under electronic monitoring. 

As a result, the ruling does not prevent her from standing in France’s 2027 presidential election.

Moreover, she confirmed that she intends to seek a fourth presidential mandate while challenging the judgment before the Court of Cassation.

Campaign without an electronic tag – for now

On 8 July, the Paris prosecutor general clarified that Le Pen would be able to campaign “without an electronic tag” for the time being.

However, she could ultimately face part of the campaign under electronic monitoring, a prospect Le Pen has long rejected.

“If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided I am able to campaign,” she said in an interview with LCI on 30 June. She argued that “a presidential candidate must be completely free in their movements” and that wearing an electronic monitoring device would be incompatible with running for president. 

Bardella remains on the sidelines

Le Pen’s announcement effectively rules out, for now, the prospect of Jordan Bardella replacing her as the RN’s presidential candidate.

Instead, she emphasised the complementary roles she and Bardella play within the party, describing them as a “winning ticket” ahead of the 2027 presidential race.

L'articolo Marine Le Pen convicted on appeal, confirms 2027 presidential bid  proviene da The Watcher Post.

President Donald Trump immediately rejected the response as “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE”, signalling that the current deadlock may deepen rather than ease. 

The exchange marks the latest escalation in a confrontation that has already disrupted global energy markets, paralysed maritime traffic in the Gulf and revived fears of a wider regional conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States.

Although neither side appears ready to abandon diplomacy entirely, the negotiations increasingly resemble a strategic contest over leverage rather than a genuine attempt at compromise.

A widening gap between Washington and Tehran

According to emerging reports, Tehran’s response was transmitted through Pakistani mediators and focused primarily on sanctions relief, an end to the US naval blockade and recognition of Iran’s strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Iranian officials also reportedly demanded guarantees against future attacks and the release of frozen Iranian assets abroad. 

The US, by contrast, continues insisting on strict limits on uranium enrichment, external control over enriched uranium stockpiles and dismantlement of key nuclear infrastructure.

Trump has also linked any broader settlement to maritime security in Hormuz, where commercial shipping remains severely disrupted. 

The gap between the two positions remains substantial.

Iranian state-linked media portrayed Tehran’s proposal as “generous and responsible”, arguing that Washington was demanding unilateral concessions while maintaining military pressure. Trump, meanwhile, accused Tehran of continuing to “play games” and suggested the US could resume military operations if negotiations fail. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further hardened the atmosphere by insisting that no agreement could be considered credible while enriched uranium remained inside Iran and nuclear facilities continued operating. Israel continues to view any arrangement short of dismantlement as insufficient.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the central pressure point

Behind the diplomatic rhetoric lies the broader strategic reality shaping the crisis: control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The narrow maritime corridor carries roughly one fifth of global seaborne oil and LNG trade, making it one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Since the escalation earlier this year, shipping traffic through the strait has fallen sharply amid Iranian restrictions, US naval operations and rising insurance risks for commercial vessels. 

Washington’s maritime campaign, known as “Project Freedom”, was initially intended to restore commercial navigation through escorted naval convoys. However, the operation has struggled to stabilise shipping traffic and has instead contributed to a broader militarisation of the Gulf. 

US Central Command says more than 50 vessels have already been intercepted or redirected as part of blockade enforcement operations. Around 20 US warships remain deployed in the region. 

Iran, meanwhile, continues using selective access restrictions and drone activity to maintain pressure without formally declaring a complete closure of the strait. Analysts increasingly describe the situation as a “double blockade”, with both Tehran and Washington imposing competing forms of maritime control. 

The confrontation is already affecting global markets. Brent crude rose above $104 per barrel after Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal, while Saudi Aramco warned that oil markets may not stabilise before 2027 if the crisis continues. 

The longer the standoff lasts, the greater the economic consequences are likely to become, particularly for Asian economies heavily dependent on Gulf energy exports.

Diplomacy continues, but confidence is fading

Despite the aggressive rhetoric, neither Washington nor Tehran appears eager for full-scale war.

The United States faces growing domestic and international pressure to prevent a prolonged energy shock, especially ahead of Trump’s upcoming meetings with Chinese leadership. China remains one of Iran’s most important economic partners and retains significant influence over Tehran’s calculations. 

Iran, for its part, continues facing severe economic strain from sanctions, supply shortages and the maritime blockade. Reports from inside the country point to rising inflation, electricity shortages and worsening pressure on industrial production. 

This mutual vulnerability explains why diplomatic channels remain open despite repeated confrontations.

Ukraine diplomacy re-emerges alongside the Gulf crisis

The renewed Iran crisis is also unfolding alongside another major diplomatic effort involving Russia and Ukraine.

Over recent days, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested that the war in Ukraine may be entering its “final phase”, although Kremlin officials later softened the remarks. Moscow has also reportedly shown openness to renewed negotiations involving European intermediaries, including former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. 

Meanwhile, US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to travel again to Moscow as diplomatic contacts intensify despite continued ceasefire violations on the battlefield.

European officials now face simultaneous crises on two fronts: a renewed security confrontation in the Gulf and fragile diplomatic manoeuvring around Ukraine.

EU foreign ministers are meeting this week, while defence ministers from the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” are expected to discuss both maritime security and broader geopolitical coordination.

For European governments already struggling with energy security, defence spending and economic stagnation, the convergence of the two crises is becoming increasingly difficult to manage.

The broader risk for Western policymakers is that both conflicts are beginning to reinforce each other politically and economically. Rising oil prices strengthen inflationary pressures at a moment when Europe’s economic recovery remains weak, while simultaneous diplomatic crises stretch Western political attention and military resources.

The result is a growing sense that the international system is entering another period of prolonged instability, where temporary ceasefires and partial negotiations increasingly replace durable political settlements.

L'articolo US-Iran tensions escalate again as diplomacy stalls and oil markets react proviene da The Watcher Post.

Officially, the visit was designed to reaffirm the transatlantic partnership. In practice, it unfolded as something more layered. Against the backdrop of recent strains in relations between Washington and London, the king’s presence carried the quiet purpose of restoring balance and reaffirming shared political foundations.

The timing was significant. As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, the visit might have been expected to dwell on history. Instead, King Charles focused on the present, using his remarks to stress the durability of democratic institutions and the importance of their preservation. Support for Ukraine featured prominently, alongside a broader emphasis on institutional stability and the distribution of power.

His language was measured, but its implications were widely noted. Without naming President Donald Trump, the king spoke to themes that have become central to American political debate: the role of checks and balances, the limits of executive authority, and the resilience of democratic systems under pressure. The contrast was implicit rather than explicit, conveyed through tone and framing rather than direct criticism.

The approach reflected the constraints of his role. As a constitutional monarch, Charles avoided overt political intervention, relying instead on suggestion and emphasis. The effect was a form of understated diplomacy that nonetheless carried weight in a deeply polarised environment.

A shifting backdrop of crisis

Beyond the ceremonies, the broader geopolitical context remains unsettled. The ceasefire linked to the conflict with Iran continues to hold, but without meaningful diplomatic progress. Regional tensions persist, particularly in Lebanon, while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to disrupt global energy flows.

Divisions within the Gulf have added to the uncertainty. The United Arab Emirates’ decision to leave OPEC and pursue a more independent production policy has exposed deeper fractures, contributing to volatility in oil markets already under strain.

In the United States, the economic impact is becoming increasingly visible. Fuel prices have risen to levels not seen in years, feeding into domestic political pressures at a sensitive moment in the electoral cycle.

An uncertain path forward

Inside the administration, there is little clarity about the next phase of strategy. Officials have explored the possibility of declaring a form of victory and moving to end hostilities. At the same time, preparations for a prolonged period of containment suggest that a longer confrontation remains a realistic outcome.

Neither a swift resolution nor a controlled de-escalation appears imminent. The economic consequences are also being felt acutely in Iran, where rising unemployment, business closures and surging food prices are deepening internal strain.

For now, however, those pressures are competing with a different kind of political signal. In a city accustomed to blunt rhetoric, the visit of King Charles has introduced a quieter form of argument, one that places the focus not on immediate outcomes but on the principles that underpin political power.

L'articolo King Charles in Washington casts quiet shadow over Trump’s agenda proviene da The Watcher Post.

As co-host of the pre-summit, the Italian Prime Minister is not only shaping the agenda but also testing Italy’s ability to act as a bridge between northern fiscal caution and southern calls for industrial support. 

Seventeen countries are participating, including Emmanuel Macron’s France. Energy, automotive policy and regulatory simplification top the list. The common thread is competitiveness, a priority that cuts across political families and regional blocs.

A calibrated push on competitiveness

A draft package circulated ahead of the meeting outlines measures aimed at easing pressure on European industry. The focus is on lowering energy costs, streamlining regulation and ensuring that climate and industrial policies reinforce rather than undermine each other.

The informal document – a non-paper prepared jointly by Italy and Germany with Belgian backing – reflects a careful balancing act. 

Meloni’s role in drafting the text has been to keep the coalition broad: ambitious enough to respond to business concerns, but measured enough to avoid triggering resistance from more cautious capitals.

The paper avoids the most divisive proposals, notably new common borrowing to finance investment, an idea championed by Paris but viewed sceptically in Berlin and several northern member states. 

By sidestepping the issue, Meloni signals pragmatism and prioritises alignment with Merz over reopening entrenched fiscal battles.

At the same time, the text does not challenge core EU structures. There is no call to revise treaties, end unanimity or introduce sweeping “Buy European” provisions. 

The debate over an “emergency brake”

The most sensitive proposal is the introduction of an “emergency brake” mechanism on new regulatory burdens.

Under the concept, a Member State could request a pause during the legislative process if it considers additional obligations excessive. Supporters argue that such a tool would improve the quality of EU lawmaking and respond to long-standing complaints from industry about cumulative costs.

Critics warn that it could complicate decision-making and risk fragmenting the single market if used frequently or politically. Some diplomats note that the credibility of the proposal will depend on clear criteria and safeguards.

Italian officials insist the aim is not to dilute standards but to restore balance between environmental ambition and industrial competitiveness. 

Climate policy under review

The most consequential chapter concerns climate instruments. The EU emissions trading system (ETS) is due for revision in the third quarter of the year. Italy is seeking adjustments that safeguard national revenues while addressing competitiveness concerns for energy-intensive sectors.

Rome is also advocating refinements to the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), particularly to mitigate potential impacts on the steel industry. Here again, Meloni’s strategy is to present the changes as technical fine-tuning rather than a rollback of climate commitments.

More broadly, several governments, including Germany and Italy, are calling for a stricter application of technological neutrality in the automotive sector, giving manufacturers more flexibility in meeting decarbonisation targets while preserving investment capacity.

A fragile balance

For Meloni, the meeting carries domestic and European significance. At home, she can present herself as defending Italian industry and employment. In Brussels, she is seeking to reposition Italy from rule-taker to agenda-setter.

The initiative also allows her to consolidate ties with Berlin at a time when Franco-German dynamics are evolving. 

By engaging France within a broader group of 17 states, she avoids the perception of an exclusive axis while still anchoring the discussion in a Rome–Berlin partnership.

Divisions, however, remain. Some Member States stress fiscal prudence and regulatory stability. Environmental advocates caution against weakening long-term climate objectives. Former prime minister Mario Monti has warned that any perceived Rome–Berlin alignment must avoid creating new fractures within the Union.

L'articolo Meloni and Merz seek common ground on energy and deregulation ahead of March EU summit proviene da The Watcher Post.

The French president’s message was blunt: Europe must brace for a tougher geopolitical environment shaped by China and the United States.

Strategic sovereignty front and centre

Macron argued that the EU needs to speed up reforms and strengthen its economic and strategic sovereignty. In his view, Europe must be powerful economically and financially, but also in defence, security and democratic resilience.

On the economic front, he called for deepening the single market — notably through advancing the capital markets union and further integrating electricity grids. 

At the same time, he backed a form of targeted protectionism, advocating for a genuine European preference in certain strategic sectors.

Macron also reiterated France’s opposition to the Mercosur trade agreement, describing it as outdated and poorly negotiated. 

However, he suggested that its overall economic impact is likely to be more limited than both critics and supporters claim.

€1.2 trillion a year in investment needs

A central theme of the interview was investment. Macron stressed the need to scale up spending on security and defence, green transition technologies, AI  and quantum computing.

He estimated that combined public and private investment needs across the EU amount to roughly €1.2 trillion per year, covering green and digital technologies as well as defence and security.

To finance that effort, Macron revived a politically sensitive idea: common European debt. 

He argued that the EU should create a shared borrowing capacity through eurobonds and launch large-scale European programmes to fund the most strategic projects, particularly in the green transition, AI and quantum technologies.

Tensions with Washington here to stay

On transatlantic relations, Macron warned that current tensions with the United States are structural rather than temporary. He cautioned that American trade pressure and economic intimidation are unlikely to fade anytime soon.

L'articolo Macron pushes for a ‘powerful Europe’ – and revives the eurobonds debate proviene da The Watcher Post.

The New START treaty, the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between Washington and Moscow, is set to expire in February 2026. Talks on replacement arrangements have stalled, and formal inspections under the treaty remain suspended. If the agreement lapses, it would mark the first time since the early 1970s that the two countries are without legally enforceable caps on deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems.

New START limits each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems, and provides for verification measures that have long been seen as a stabilising feature of U.S.–Russian relations. 

Its potential expiration comes after years of erosion in the global arms control framework, including the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the deterioration of relations following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this week that the world would become “more dangerous” without the treaty. In the U.S., U.S. President Donald Trump has argued that the expiration of New START would open the door to negotiating a broader or improved agreement, though U.S. officials have acknowledged that no substantive talks are currently under way.

At the height of the Cold War, global nuclear arsenals exceeded 70,000 warheads. Today, the total stands at around 12,500, according to open-source estimates, with the steepest reductions achieved through successive U.S.–Soviet and U.S.–Russian treaties. 

Arms control experts warn that the loss of New START would not immediately lead to a rapid build-up, but would remove transparency and predictability at a moment of growing strategic competition.

Pope Leo’s appeal

The looming expiry has also drawn international concern. Pope Francis has renewed calls for nuclear disarmament, urging world leaders not to allow existing arms control instruments to lapse without credible follow-up. He warned that abandoning such frameworks risks accelerating an arms race and further undermining global security.

A shifting nuclear landscape

Beyond the U.S. and Russia, seven other states possess nuclear weapons: China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. China’s rapid modernization has drawn particular attention. 

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Beijing has more than doubled its nuclear arsenal since 2020 and could reach around 1,000 warheads by the mid-2030s, although it remains well below U.S. and Russian levels.

India and Pakistan continue to expand their arsenals at a steady pace, driven by regional tensions, while North Korea is consolidating its capabilities and doctrine. In Europe, France and the United Kingdom are investing in the long-term credibility of their nuclear forces within NATO, which continues to treat nuclear deterrence as central to collective defence.

SIPRI has warned that the weakening of arms control regimes risks ushering in a new phase of nuclear competition, even if overall warhead numbers remain below Cold War peaks.

Pressure on non-proliferation

The broader non-proliferation system is also under strain. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a central concern, with enrichment levels and reduced transparency fueling debate over potential breakout capacity. 

Saudi Arabia has indicated interest in nuclear capabilities in response to regional rivals. In Germany, Japan and South Korea, long-standing non-nuclear policies are increasingly debated amid shifting security assumptions.

Within the European Union, governments continue to balance support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with reliance on NATO’s nuclear deterrence. The 2026 NPT Review Conference is expected to test that balance.

L'articolo U.S.–Russia Nuclear Rearmament: The Risk of a Lapsed New START proviene da The Watcher Post.

Any diplomatic momentum remains fragile. Over the weekend, Russian strikes again hit Kyiv and Kharkiv, causing civilian casualties and reinforcing doubts about Moscow’s readiness to de-escalate even as talks proceed.

The negotiations unfold against the backdrop of ongoing controversy surrounding President Donald Trump’s appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week.

Territorial questions remain unresolved

As in previous rounds, territory remains the central obstacle. In Davos, Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky discussed possible post-war security arrangements, including continued U.S. military support and the delivery of Patriot air-defence ammunition. 

However, no concrete framework has emerged.

In Abu Dhabi, Ukrainian and Russian delegations met again face-to-face, following three earlier rounds of Turkish-mediated talks in Istanbul last year. 

Zelensky has characterised the dialogue as cautious but necessary. The U.S. delegation is led by special envoy Steve Witkoff, with Jared Kushner continuing to play a behind-the-scenes role.

Modest expectations, narrow mandate

Expectations for a decisive outcome remain low. Russia is represented solely by a military delegation headed by Defence Intelligence chief Admiral Igor Kostyukov, signalling Moscow’s preference for a narrowly defined security dialogue.

Ukraine’s team is led by Rustem Umerov, secretary of the National Security Council, with presidential office chief Kyrylo Budanov also participating.

Parallel economic discussions are taking place without formal political mandate. Kirill Dmitriev, Russia’s presidential adviser for foreign investments, is exploring potential areas of post-conflict U.S.–Russia economic cooperation, though Western officials stress these talks remain speculative.

Frozen assets and reconstruction debates

The potential use of frozen Russian assets has also entered the discussion. Moscow has reiterated a proposal to redirect $1 billion from Russian funds seized in the U.S., originally pledged by President Vladimir Putin to Trump’s Davos launched “Board of Peace”, towards post war initiatives.

Russian officials claim that up to $5 billion in additional assets could eventually be mobilised for reconstruction, with priority likely given to territories under Russian control in eastern Ukraine.

Western diplomats remain sceptical, warning that any such use of frozen assets would raise complex legal and political questions, particularly within the EU.

Davos and the strain on transatlantic trust

Across the American political and media landscape, Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced the perception of a more transactional foreign policy. One in which territorial sovereignty and long-standing partnerships are treated as negotiable rather than foundational. 

For European observers, this has revived uncomfortable parallels with earlier periods of great-power competition.

The reaction in Europe has been particularly sharp. Trump’s dismissive comments about allied contributions, including in Afghanistan, have reopened sensitive debates around burden-sharing and amplified doubts about the durability of U.S. security guarantees. 

Responses from European leaders reflect a broader concern that transatlantic ties are no longer anchored in a common understanding of mutual obligation.

The fallout from Davos has deepened the sense that the transatlantic relationship is entering a more volatile phase. For Europe, the challenge is no longer simply managing external threats, but adapting to an American partner whose priorities are becoming increasingly difficult to predict.

L'articolo Ukraine talks inch forward in Abu Dhabi as Trump’s Davos fallout reverberates proviene da The Watcher Post.

On Wednesday, Trump announced that the tariffs would not go ahead. 

Posting on his preferred channel for policy declarations, the U.S. president cited what he described as a breakthrough following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

“We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” Trump wrote about his exchange with Rutte on Truth Social. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.”

As suddenly as it came, the reversal defused an immediate trade conflict that had rattled markets and threatened to deepen fissures in the transatlantic alliance. 

Yet this latest episode of U.S. policy reversal exposes an uncomfortable truth about Europe’s position. It was neither setting the terms nor shaping the outcome, only absorbing both. Tariffs were threatened, suspended and repackaged without European input, leaving the continent to react rather than negotiate.

Markets feel the whiplash

Financial markets were quick to register the shock of Trump’s Greenland brinkmanship. U.S. equities sold off sharply, with Wall Street posting its steepest losses in months on Tuesday as investors priced in the risk of a renewed transatlantic trade conflict. 

The S&P 500 fell by more than 2 per cent, while the Nasdaq and Dow Jones also closed decisively lower.

European markets moved in lockstep. Major indices including the FTSE 100, DAX and CAC 40 retreated as trade uncertainty spread across time zones. Demand for safe-haven assets increased, pushing gold higher, while volatility indicators climbed as risk appetite deteriorated.

The policy reversal, when it came, was abrupt even by Trumpian standards. With the tariff threat withdrawn, U.S. and European equities rebounded and the euro strengthened. Traders moved quickly to unwind defensive positions, reflecting widespread relief that an immediate trade confrontation between Washington and Brussels had been averted.

Europe on the menu

For European leaders meeting in Strasbourg and Brussels, the market reaction served as a blunt reminder of how exposed the continent remains to decisions taken elsewhere. 

The tariff threat did more than shake confidence. It stalled momentum on a broader U.S.–EU trade agreement and forced a rapid reassessment of Europe’s willingness to tolerate economic pressure from a strategic partner. 

The European Parliament’s main political groups, including the centre-right EPP and Socialists & Democrats, have signalled broad backing for the suspension until there is “clarity” on Greenland and related tariff threats. 

Serious discussion has begun around the EU’s anti-coercion instrument, a measure designed to respond to economic pressure from third countries. Originally conceived to counter threats from China, the tool’s quiet appearance in internal deliberations underscores how far the transatlantic relationship has shifted. 

Speaking in Davos, French President Emmanuel Macron used his address to frame the dispute as part of a larger systemic shift away from predictable international norms. 

He warned that the world is seeing a “shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot and where the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest,” and stressed the need for Europe to build economic and strategic independence rather than yield to intimidation.

Paris and Berlin are now working to align their positions around that premise. Other capitals, including Rome, continue to argue that dialogue should take precedence over retaliation.

However, even as the tariff threat recedes, it has reinforced a growing awareness in European capitals that volatility is no longer episodic but structural, and that Europe remains exposed to pressure it cannot quickly counter or credibly deter.

As one policy expert put it, “this is yet another confirmation of Europe’s incredible weakness. We may not always have been at the table but never before have we been on the menu as we are now.”

Image Credits: Ernst, J. (2026, January 21). US-Präsident Donald Trump sprach vor dem WEF in Davos, Schweiz. Reuters.

L'articolo Trump’s sudden retreat on Greenland tariffs exposes Europe’s weak hand proviene da The Watcher Post.

Gaza, Ukraine and Greenland dominate conversations not because they are new flashpoints, but because they now sit at the intersection of diplomacy and Trump’s personal political choreography.

Trump is scheduled to deliver a special address on Wednesday and to attend a session on Thursday that his administration hopes will mark the first meeting of the newly created Board of Peace, a body intended to guide Gaza from ceasefire to reconstruction. 

In the background, Ukraine and Greenland loom as parallel tests of leadership, set to shape both the tone of the Forum and the statements of the leaders gathered here.

Greenland as a test case

Greenland has emerged as the most sensitive of Trump’s talking points. The U.S. president frames the Arctic island as strategically indispensable while coupling the argument with renewed threats of tariffs on Europe and pointed references to European troop deployments. 

For European leaders in Davos, the challenge is not to be drawn into a bilateral theatre, but to keep the discussion anchored in multilateral terms without inflaming transatlantic fault lines.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron are seeking to project coordination and restraint. Their task is to address immediate geopolitical risks while insulating Europe from the economic aftershocks of escalating trade tensions. It is a delicate balancing act, made harder by the sense that the rules of engagement themselves are shifting. 

Trump, meanwhile, has wasted little time reminding the Davos crowd that the Forum is as much spectacle as substance. 

A message he published on Truth Social, attributed to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and presented as private, quickly became fodder for discussion. Referencing Syria, Gaza, Ukraine and Greenland, the note underscored how Davos doubles as a media stage where diplomacy is performed as much as practiced.

Diplomacy by invitation only

No meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky has been confirmed, and U.S. officials say none is currently planned. 

U.S. sources point to limited progress in recent talks involving Ukrainian negotiator Rustem Umerov and Trump’s envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The caution a broader shift in how engagement is structured. Dialogue is happening, but selectively, and often outside the formal spotlight.

That logic is even more pronounced in Gaza, where the most experimental initiative on display is the proposed Board of Peace. 

Marketed as a bridge from ceasefire to reconstruction, it marks a deliberate departure from traditional UN-style multilateralism. Though formally temporary and backed by an international mandate, its authority would rest less on representation than on influence.

Under current drafts, Trump would chair the board, joined by Witkoff, Kushner, Senator Marco Rubio and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. 

Financial power is central to the design. World Bank President Ajay Banga and Apollo chief Marc Rowan appear alongside former UN officials and regional figures from Turkey, the Gulf, Egypt and Israel. 

Italy has claimed a place through Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, positioning Rome as a potential convening force.

Trump is expected to formalise the arrangement this week, underscoring a broader shift toward a model of diplomacy defined less by institutions than by invitation.

Power, markets and diplomacy signals

Beyond geopolitics, Davos remains what it has always been: a place to speak to markets. 

Argentine President Javier Milei arrives hoping that even a fleeting interaction with Trump might signal alignment. No bilateral is planned, but symbolism matters here. Milei will make the case for free markets and against state intervention, while courting finance leaders from Wall Street and European banking. 

The EU–Mercosur trade deal will feature prominently, pitched as both an investment signal and a reputational reset.

From Moscow comes another signal of movement. 

Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev is expected to attend Davos, where informal encounters with figures close to Donald Trump are possible. At a moment when official diplomatic channels appear slow and constrained, the Forum once again serves its familiar dual function: a place where leaders project certainty in public and quietly explore options in private.

Image Credit: Ciaran McCrickard / World Economic Forum. (2026, January 19). Impressions from the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/55048525542/in/photostream/

L'articolo At Davos, global crises bend toward one man proviene da The Watcher Post.

Marine Le Pen, deputy and president of the Rassemblement National group in the French National Assembly, is convicted of participating in a scheme that misappropriated public funds by having parliamentary assistants paid by the European Parliament while working primarily for the party, then known as the National Front. 

Prosecutors argue that Le Pen and her co-defendants used the monthly allowances assigned to MEPs to remunerate staff who should have been supporting parliamentary work, but instead served party functions. The alleged misconduct spans three parliamentary terms, from 2004 to 2016, and involves former MEPs, party officials and assistants.

On 31 March 2025, Le Pen was sentenced to four years in prison, including two years of actual imprisonment, and five years of ineligibility for public office with immediate effect. 

She has since appealed the ruling, with proceedings opening on 13 January and expected to run until 12 February. All defendants were found guilty at first instance to varying degrees of participation in the scheme.

If the five-year ineligibility is upheld, Le Pen would be barred from running in the 2027 presidential election. The appeal verdict, expected by summer 2026, could reshape the French political landscape less than two years before the vote.

Power shift inside the Rassemblement National

Polling suggests the centre of gravity inside the party may already be moving. A survey by the Verian institute for Le Monde and L’Hémicycle, published on 11 January, shows Jordan Bardella emerging as a far more credible candidate to represent the Rassemblement National: 49% of French respondents believe he has the best chance of winning the presidency, compared with 18% for Le Pen.

A separate Elabe poll for BFMTV, published on 14 January, points in the same direction among RN voters. A majority, 58%, consider Bardella best positioned to represent the party, compared with 35% for Le Pen. Beyond the RN base, scepticism remains high, with 51% of French respondents saying they would choose “neither candidate.”

Image Credit: Pietro Naj-Oleari © European Union, 2015 — CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/european_parliament/19334069189

L'articolo France: Le Pen appeal puts 2027 race on notice proviene da The Watcher Post.

Softer tone, hardened red lines

President Donald Trump softened his public tone after a meeting in Washington with U.S., Danish and Greenlandic representatives, but he stopped short of ruling out any option. His remarks left intact the central tension of the talks. 

For Washington, Greenland is framed as a strategic imperative. For Copenhagen and Nuuk, the island’s capital, any transfer of control remains a red line.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump had dismissed alternatives to direct U.S. control as unacceptable. Afterward, he spoke more cautiously, suggesting that a solution would eventually be found. Yet he repeated his claim that Denmark lacks the capacity to defend Greenland on its own and warned that Russia or China could exploit that weakness. Only the United States, he argued, could provide a credible security guarantee.

In practice, Greenland wouldn’t be left to defend itself alone. As part of NATO, it benefits from the Alliance’s collective defence commitments. 

At Denmark’s request, NATO exercises are under way on the island, involving forces from Norway and Sweden as well as from Germany and France. French media reported on Thursday that a French military contingent is currently being deployed to the self-governing Arctic territory.

Security, however, is only part of the equation. Greenland’s vast natural resources, including oil and rare earths, have become increasingly central to the debate. Exploitation once deemed impractical is now seen as more viable as Arctic temperatures rise. 

Estimates cited by Italian news agency ANSA suggest that the theoretical price tag for annexation could reach $700 billion, roughly half of the annual U.S. defence budget. The figures underscore the scale of what is at stake and the extent to which strategic and economic calculations are now intertwined.

No deal in Washington, more boots in the Arctic

The Washington meeting itself was described by participants as frank and constructive, but it failed to narrow the gap. 

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, reiterated that U.S. control of Greenland is unnecessary and emphasised Copenhagen’s willingness to strengthen Arctic security within NATO. He said talks would continue through a senior level working group in the coming weeks.

Rasmussen acknowledged that he and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, were unable to shift the American position during discussions at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 

The Danish side made clear that U.S. acquisition of Greenland does not serve its interests, while Motzfeldt stressed in Greenlandic that the island has no desire to be taken over by the United States.

Almost simultaneously, Denmark announced a further strengthening of its military presence in Greenland as part of NATO’s broader Arctic strategy. The move is widely seen as a response to long standing U.S. criticism that Copenhagen has underinvested in the region, criticism Trump has previously reduced to jibes about dog sleds.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said Swedish officers were arriving to prepare the next phase of the Danish led exercise Operation Arctic Endurance. German and French troops are expected to follow.

A familiar concern, different approach

Despite these gestures, Trump has continued to apply pressure in public. In social media posts ahead of the meeting, he argued that Greenland is vital to U.S. national security and claimed NATO would be stronger if the island were under American control. 

He has previously told the New York Times that he is prepared to choose between annexing Greenland and preserving NATO unity.

Trump has repeatedly urged NATO to facilitate U.S. control of the territory, warning that failure to do so would invite Russian or Chinese intervention. He has also linked Greenland directly to the Golden Dome missile defence project, describing the island as strategically indispensable.

Concerns about Arctic security are not new in Washington. The Biden administration shared similar assessments and established a dedicated Arctic and Global Resilience Policy Office at the Pentagon. 

In 2024, that office produced a strategy calling for expanded cooperation with allies and greater military readiness in the region. The office has since been dismantled under Trump, who appears to be pursuing a far more unilateral approach to a familiar strategic problem.

Image credit: U.S. Navy photo by MC2 Kevin S. O’Brien (Public Domain)

L'articolo Greenland talks stall as U.S. presses Denmark, NATO boosts presence proviene da The Watcher Post.

The withdrawal forms part of a broader pullback from international institutions. A presidential memorandum orders an immediate halt to U.S. participation and funding for 66 global bodies judged incompatible with American interests, security and sovereignty, according to U.S. officials.

UN warns of a “self-inflicted setback” 

The response from the UN was unusually blunt. Simon Stiell, the UNFCCC’s executive secretary, described the move as a strategic own goal, warning that it would ultimately damage the U.S. economy, jobs and living standards, particularly as climate-driven extreme weather and insurance costs accelerate.

On the same day, Washington also announced it was withdrawing from the IPCC and cutting contributions to the Green Climate Fund, the UNFCCC’s main financing vehicle for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

EU Climate Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra described the move as “deeply regrettable,” noting that the United States is still the world’s largest economy and its second-largest source of emissions. 

He added that the UNFCCC remains central to international cooperation on cutting emissions, adapting to climate impacts and measuring progress, and said Europe would continue to back the framework both politically and financially.

Sovereignty over multilateralism

The Trump administration has framed the withdrawals as a defence of national sovereignty against what it characterises as intrusive global governance and ideologically driven climate policies. Climate institutions are not the only targets. International reporting indicates the disengagement extends to UN bodies linked to development and gender equality, including the United Nations Population Fund and other affiliated agencies.

What’s at stake for the EU

Adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the UNFCCC underpins the rules-based system on which EU climate policy is built, from emissions transparency and collective targets to climate finance for vulnerable countries. 

A U.S. exit weakens that framework at a critical moment, shifting more diplomatic, financial and political weight onto Europe to keep global cooperation credible. For Brussels, this is not a symbolic rupture but a structural challenge that risks fragmenting the climate consensus the EU has invested in for more than a decade.

Image credit: Donald Trump speaking at CPAC by Gage Skidmore, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0).

L'articolo U.S. moves to exit global climate bodies, drawing sharp rebukes proviene da The Watcher Post.