Good morning,

This is the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief.

Reporting Period: 27 February - 3 March 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Trump And Zelenskyy Meeting Cancelled, EU Backs Ukraine

Summary
On 28 February, President Zelenskyy was kicked out of the Oval Office after engaging in a heated argument with President Trump and Vice President Vance. Zelenskyy left the White House without signing a rare earth minerals deal or discussing peace deal conditions. Following the ordeal, European leaders voiced their unquestionable support for Ukraine, with some stating the EU will lead the free world and oversee its own security.

Findings

• European Support: Nearly all European heads of state and major EU officials took to X to voice their support for Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. The general consensus is that there is a rapidly growing rift between the U.S. under Trump and the European Union. Hungary and Slovakia voiced their support for Trump and characterized Zelenskyy’s attitude and demeanor as inappropriate.
  In an emergency meeting in London, which lacked much representation from eastern Europe and the Baltics, EU leaders announced new support for Ukraine, commitments to invest in European defense, and the possibility of putting European troops in Ukraine.

One of the more interesting statements came from Vice President of the EU Commission Kaja Kallas. She suggests that Europe provide Ukraine more aid to continue fighting and that Europe should accept the growing rift with the U.S. and lead the “free world.” The emergency meeting in London was mostly made up of Europe’s western leadership, indicating a possible lack of consensus for this shift in the EU.

• NATO Response: Despite resolutely supporting Ukraine’s war effort, Secretary General Marke Rutte stated that Zelenskyy — due to realities on the battlefield — must work to restore friendly relations with President Trump. Rutte supports Ukraine signing a mineral deal and working to establish the first peace negotiations with Russia.

• U.S. Disposition in Europe: At any given moment, there are between 75,000 and 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe participating in NATO exercises, ensuring Europe has a lasting deterrence, and paying more than $3 billion to the alliance’s annual budget.
  On 1 March, President Trump announced he was cancelling all further U.S. aid to Ukraine.
  Activity on social media, supported by Elon Musk, suggests the U.S. should withdraw from NATO and the UN entirely.

Why This Matters
The fallout from the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting has solidified a growing rift between the U.S.-European relationship and raises questions about the future of unanimous Western support for Ukraine. The diplomatic breakdown carries several key implications:

• U.S. Foreign Policy and Strategic Interests: The exchange between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy highlights an ongoing shift in American priorities. While Trump's team asserts that it is standing up for American interests, the meeting's outcome suggests a hard pivot away from Biden’s unquestionable and unreviewable support for Ukraine. This may signal broader skepticism toward sustained U.S. involvement in European security matters, raising doubts about the future of NATO cohesion.

• U.S.-European Relations: European leaders have responded with a rare and coordinated rebuke of President Trump, signaling potential strains in transatlantic cooperation. However, their reaction is confusing due to Europe lacking strategic leverage—Europe cannot single-handedly sustain Ukraine, and its heavy dependence on U.S. leadership, resources, and military support means any break with Washington weakens Western unity rather than strengthening it. If European leaders overplay their hand by distancing themselves from Trump, they risk further alienating a U.S. administration that already sees them as unreliable partners. This also means Ukraine is significantly less likely to reach a peace deal with Russia.

• Ukraine's Position and Peace: Ukraine remains in a desperate position due to its dependence on external aid and its increasingly weak battlefield position. Despite support by Europe’s heads of state, Zelenskyy’s miscalculation was met with resistance, signaling that Washington’s approach to the war is shifting due to Zelenskyy and Trump having different interests, approaches, and opinions of battlefield realities. While Zelenskyy seems to be reveling in Europe’s support, that position is confusing as Ukraine — even with increased support from the EU — does not have enough manpower or resources to continue fighting. Even now, Ukraine’s biggest bargaining chip — its control of Russia’s Kursk oblast — is fleeting.

• Russia’s Perspective – Moscow benefits from growing disunity in the West. If the U.S. and Europe fracture over Ukraine, Russia will capitalize on the discord, prolonging the war on more favorable terms. The EU’s continued economic engagement with Russia, particularly in energy, weakens its moral authority and undermines its ability to pressure Moscow and substantively support Ukraine.

Ultimately, this development feels like a desperate reaction by Europe; an open opportunity to unify against Trump and avoid any one nation from being singled out. As a result, the U.S. is quickly reconsidering its role in European security. Europe is struggling to assert meaningful strategic independence, and Ukraine is left navigating an increasingly complex and unforgiving geopolitical reality. How these tensions resolve—or escalate—will shape the trajectory of the war and the future of the transatlantic alliance.

I think the unfortunate reality of this situation was that it was on live television, as I believe conversations like this occur all the time. I think Trump and Vance were right to strike a harsh tone with Zelenskyy, and headed in the right direction by suggesting two realities:

1. Europe and Ukraine need the U.S. — now and forever — whether they like it or not. Likewise, the U.S. cannot contend with global adversaries without Europe.

2. Zelenskyy needs to publicly acknowledge he is open to peace negotiations without getting security guarantees from the U.S.

It is uncertain what will happen next. Europe seems very happy to have captured Zelenskyy’s attention and sentiments. An emergency meeting was held in London on 2 March, and British PM Starmer suggested the EU will enforce a peace deal with Russia by putting “boots on the ground and planes in the air.”

In my opinion, Zelenskyy should double-back before a European-led initiative enrages Russia and undoes Trump’s progress. He should continue to appeal to his easiest option, which is to ingratiate the Trump administration with thanks. Why? Because he did not enter the Oval Office like a man who’s safety — and his country’s future — is at risk. Zelenskyy’s goal should be to get back to the White House, sign a minerals deal, and offer to establish a U.S.-EU-Ukraine meeting to coordinate peace negotiation efforts.

As speculation of an (unlikely) U.S. withdrawal from NATO abounds, the West does not need a wedge between it.

Sources: YouTube, NBC News, NATO, The Kyiv Independent, Economic Times, New York Post, Reuters

IAEA Claims Iran Continues Uranium Enrichment For Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing

Summary
A report by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Iran is continuing to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons production. Iran’s stockpiles are more than 8,000 kilograms and are approaching 90% enrichment.

Findings

• IAEA Statement: An IAEA report claims Iran has 274.8 kgs of uranium at 60% enrichment, up 92.5 kgs from the last report in November 2024.
  Weapons-grade uranium is typically considered to be at 90% enrichment, a process AP News reports as “a short, technical” one from 60%.

• Weapons Production: Citing the IAEA, AP News claims that 42 kgs of 90% enriched uranium is enough to make a nuclear weapon. With an estimated 8,294.4 kg stockpile, the Iranian government would have no trouble developing a full nuclear arsenal.

• Iran’s Response: The head of Iran’s atomic organizations stated that the IAEA should publish its reports with consideration for national sovereignty. He also stated Iran would not comply with IAEA regulations, but the regulations of Iran’s atomic agency.
  The Iranian President and Supreme Leader previously stated that there can be no diplomatic solution to denuclearization in Iran.

• U.S. Aid to Israel: On 1 March, Secretary of State Rubio used emergency authorities to expedite the delivery of $4 billion in military aid to Israel, citing a reversal of Biden’s decision to restrict arms sales to Jerusalem.

Why This Matters
The IAEA report is a major policy concern, and one that contradicts a report from the Biden administration that claimed the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) believed Tehran was not enriching uranium for weapons manufacture.

Trump’s policy — which he and his cabinet have been transparent on — is that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. When Trump met with Israeli PM Netanyahu, the pair discussed dealing with Iran. With a diplomatic solution to denuclearization unlikely, the chances of a joint U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran grow.

In February, reports emerged which suggested Israel had developed an operation for conducting airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In response, Iran was observed deploying air defense assets near its nuclear facilities.

Sources: AP News, Fox News, U.S. Department of State

Hegseth Orders Cyber Command To Cease Actions Against Russia

Summary
Secretary of Defense Hegseth directed U.S. Cyber Command to cease operations against Russia. The directive does not affect the NSA, and reporting suggests the decision may have been made to reorganize personnel and resources for new threats in Mexico.

Findings

• Orders to U.S. Cyber Command: On 28 February, The Record reported that Secretary of Defense Hegseth ordered U.S. Cyber Command to cease all operational planning for operations targeting Russia.
  However, Hegseth did not restrict the National Security Agency from targeting Russia.

• Risk Report: Cyber Command has started to compile a risk assessment for Hegseth, a report that acknowledges his directive, efforts to adhere to it, and an assessment of what missions were halted and, as a result, what Russian risks and threats to the U.S. and allies remain in the cyber domain.

Why This Matters
The Record suggests Hegseth’s directive is an attempt at appeasing Russia as the Trump administration attempts to normalize and grow the diplomatic relationship between Washington and Moscow.

The reporting by The Record also seems to suggest that Hegseth’s directive may be an effort of reshuffling resources, as the NSA is still carrying out missions against Russia while other personnel are struggling to construct intelligence products and assessments of the Mexican cartels, eight of which have been designated as terrorist organizations.

Sources: The Record, The Washington Post

German Parties Enter Coalition Talks, Exclude AfD

Summary
On 28 February, the center-right CDU/CSU Union and center-left Social Democrats (SPD) entered talks. The two parties are discussing the possibility of forming a coalition government. Both parties have rejected the possibility of forming a coalition with the AfD, which came in second place in the 23 February elections.

Findings

• Talks: Euronews reported that representatives from the CDU/CSU Union and SPD parties met in Berlin to discuss forming a coalition government.

• Policy Disagreements: The Union and SPD have competing ideologies and perspectives on policy, specifically regarding the economy, defense, immigration, energy, and welfare. It was the Scholz (SPD) that recently collapsed due to political infighting that led to policy stagnation.

• AfD Support: Despite weathering attacks from Germany’s media and mainstream political parties, the far-right-designated AfD party secured 20.8% of all votes. Germany experienced a historic turnout of voters, with over 80% of Germans voting (the highest since reunification).
  The AfD gained nearly 1,000,000 votes from Union voters and 700,000 from SPD voters.

Why This Matters
This is a big deal, not just because the next government will shape Germany’s domestic and foreign policy agendas, but because it potentially damages Germany’s political integrity with no guarantees that a coalition made by rivals will even solve any issues.

In other words, the AfD may continue to grow their supporter base the more they are excluded and denounced by Germany’s politicians who, despite continued advantage, have done nothing to solve German domestic and foreign issues.

The Scholz government’s inability to address Germany’s economic and immigration issues, for example, were major factors in the government collapsing through a vote of no confidence at the end of 2024. And now, with a right-wing mandate from German voters, that same SPD party is somehow slated to join a new government with its historic rival.

It is likely that a CDU-SPD government would benefit from favorable media coverage and popular sentiment due to a narrative of unity and moderation, but there are many in Germany who are demanding radical change as a vehicle for solving decades-old German issues. Because of this, it is possible that a new CDU-SPD government could lead to political unrest in Germany, particularly in the former East Germany where the AfD’s popularity is greatest.

Sources: Euronews

End Brief

That concludes this brief. I hope you learned something.

Care to send me some feedback? Email me: [email protected] 

See you Thursday,

Nick