Good morning,

This is the Thursday morning edition of The Intel Brief, the best OSINT product for critical geopolitical updates.

Reporting Period: 14-17 April 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

EU Efforts Likely To Hinder Peace Negotiations In Ukraine

Summary
European Union officials recently announced various plans and efforts to pressure Russia, support Ukraine, and grow Europe’s defense posture amid geopolitical tensions. The developments are very likely to deter Russia’s interest in reaching a ceasefire or peace deal in Ukraine. On 15 April, Director Naryshkin of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service stated Europeans are “increasing the level of escalation” and that “we [Russia] need to act preemptively.”

Findings

• EU Defence Spending: Following a meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Warsaw, EU officials agreed to find ways to increase European defense spending, particularly in capacities that bolster defenses in the East.
  POLITICO reports that the decision has been made due to “Eastern and Central European governments… bearing the financial brunt of Europe’s military build-up,” commitments that are exclusive of NATO efforts.
  Despite supportive sentiment, the EU does not see the issue unanimously due to issues like debt, inflation, and unemployment across the bloc.

• EU Sanctions: On 14 April, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas announced the bloc is preparing a 17th sanctions package against Russia in preparation for the EU Foreign Ministers meeting in May.
  Few details have been provided, but reporting suggests the sanctions will target Russia’s oil and gas shadow fleet.

• EU Ammunition Deal: The EU is committed to providing military aid to Ukraine, with a delivery of 2 million artillery shells awaiting approval. On 14 April, Kaja Kallas stated that the EU has “two-thirds” of the €5 billion necessary to fund the deal.
  The €5 billion worth of artillery shells is the first part of a €40 billion aid plan presented in March.

• Russian Gas Imports: On 14 April, the EU Commission announced it will present a detailed strategy in May that outlines how to phase out Russian oil and gas imports. The plan was originally due in March. The EU has pledged to abandon its dependence on Russian energy by 2027.
  President von der Leyen previously stated the EU would like to reach an LNG deal with the United States.

Why This Matters
The European Union’s moves to escalate pressure on Russia — through expanded defense spending, new sanctions, and military aid to Ukraine — signal a long-term posture of confrontation that reduces the likelihood of any near-term peace negotiations. By locking in funding for large-scale arms deliveries and doubling down on sanctions, the EU is shifting from reactive crisis management to a strategy of containment, which may harden Russian resolve and prolong the war.

While these actions strengthen Ukraine’s position militarily and support NATO’s eastern flank, they also risk triggering further escalation from Moscow. Director Naryshkin’s remarks about preemptive action suggest that Russia perceives EU efforts as not only provocative, but as evidence that Western powers seek regime change or permanent strategic degradation in Moscow. This perception could push the Kremlin to intensify military operations or conduct asymmetric attacks in Europe, something European intelligence services have already warned about.

Additionally, the EU’s ambition to cut off Russian energy imports — and replace them with U.S. LNG — has global implications. It reinforces transatlantic energy ties but will strain EU member states already grappling with inflation and economic fatigue.

Ultimately, the EU’s deepening commitment signals a shift away from diplomacy and toward containment, creating a feedback loop of militarization and strategic mistrust that could foreclose future off-ramps to the conflict.

Sources: Reuters, Euro News, Reuters, EU Neighbours East, POLITICO, NBC News

German Parliament To Meet, Elect Chancellor

Summary
Germany’s CDU/CSU and SPD parties are preparing to vote to certify a coalition agreement between the two parties. If the two parties vote to accept the deal, then the German parliament will vote to elect Friedrich Merz on 6 May.

Findings

• Coalition Deal: On 9 April, Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU) reached a coalition agreement with the SPD party to form a coalition. Once approved, the coalition will hold a parliamentary majority and be invited by President Steinmeier to form a government.
  DW reports that there is a 144-page coalition agreement that includes tougher positions on migration, economic policy, and national security.

  • What’s Next?: Before Germany’s parliament can meet to elect Merz, the CDU and SPD need to certify the coalition agreement. According to AP News, the SPD will vote to certify the deal on 29 April. The CDU will do the same on 28 April.

• Friedrich Merz: Merz is the leader of the CDU party, a center-right party aligned with the CSU in Bavaria. After winning recent elections, Merz has become the chancellor-in-waiting while his party has sought to form an amicable coalition with their historical rival, the left-leaning SPD and Olaf Scholz, the recently resigned chancellor.

• Parliament Meeting: On 14 April, AP News reported that the German parliament will meet on 6 May to elect Friedrich Merz chancellor, so long as the CDU/CSU and SPD parties retain their coalition deal.

Why This Matters
A Merz-led coalition signals a strategic pivot for Germany at a time of geopolitical uncertainty in Europe. The CDU/CSU-SPD agreement includes tougher stances on migration, fiscal policy, and national security—an alignment that may bring Berlin closer to Washington’s priorities on defense spending, border control, and curbing Chinese and Russian influence. As Europe’s largest economy, Germany’s leadership transition will directly shape EU policy on Ukraine aid, NATO readiness, and economic decoupling from adversarial regimes.

Merz’s ascent also marks a generational and ideological shift away from Olaf Scholz’s more cautious, consensus-driven governance. If confirmed, Merz is likely to push for a more assertive foreign policy, potentially increasing Germany’s defense contributions and adopting a firmer posture toward both Moscow and Beijing. That could strengthen U.S.-German alignment within NATO and the G7—but could also deepen internal EU rifts if Merz pushes austerity measures or hardline migration controls.

Remember, Germany’s far-right AfD party came in second in elections, so their ideological pressure and voting capacity mean Germany’s ruling parties — regardless of popularity — may face growing pressure to address harsh realities of issues plaguing Germany, such as migration, defense, and a shrinking economy.

Germany’s role as the de facto leader of the EU means its domestic political shifts ripple outward. The return of a CDU-led government, especially one backed by a center-left partner, suggests growing bipartisan appetite in Berlin for stronger national security postures amid rising threats from Russia, China, and transnational migration pressures.

Sources: DW, AP News, POLITICO

U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Continue, Approach Two-Month Deadline

Summary
The United States has resumed direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding full dismantlement and enhanced verification measures. Meanwhile, the U.S. has informed Israel of its intention to withdraw troops from Syria within two months. These actions have triggered alarm in Israel, where officials fear Iranian-backed forces will exploit the resulting power vacuum.

Findings

• Syria Withdrawal: On 15 April, the Times of Israel reported that the U.S. will begin withdrawing troops from Syria within two months. Israeli officials worry this will empower Iranian proxies and Hezbollah near the Israeli-Syrian border, especially around the Golan Heights.

• Iran Nuclear Talks: The U.S. has resumed nuclear negotiations with Iran, focusing heavily on establishing nuclear verification and enforcement procedures. President Trump’s adviser Steve Witkoff is acting as the lead negotiator. The current talks aim to implement stricter inspections than the 2015 JCPOA allowed.

• White House Deliberations: Axios reported that President Trump participated in a Situation Room meeting on 15 April, where intelligence assessments estimated that Iran is approximately 18 months from achieving nuclear breakout capability. U.S. leadership remains split between offering sanctions relief and pursuing a hardline stance, one that includes the threat of military force.

• Maximum Pressure Approach: Witkoff has demanded Iran fully dismantle its nuclear program, not just cease enrichment. Tehran has dismissed the demand as “unrealistic” and insists on the easing of economic sanctions before making any concessions. Talks remain precarious and could collapse without compromise.

Why This Matters
The convergence of a U.S. military drawdown in Syria and uncompromising nuclear demands on Iran places the region in a precarious position. As America’s military posture intentionally recedes, Iran and its proxies may exploit the vacuum to solidify regional influence.

Meanwhile, the aggressive negotiating stance risks derailing diplomatic progress unless paired with incentives. For U.S. national security, the challenge lies in balancing regional disengagement with credible containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while maintaining allied trust and countering adversarial interests. The Trump admin has used the threat of force to coerce negotiations, but recent reporting suggests military strikes might not fully disable Iran’s nuclear program. As we approach Trump’s original two-month deadline, it is possible Iran will wait, call out the bluff, and seek a nuclear deal on more favorable terms.

Sources: The Times of Israel, CNN, Axios, The Guardian

U.S. State Department, Foreign Organizations Face Budget Cuts

Summary
The Trump administration has proposed significant reductions to the State Department's budget, aiming to decrease it by nearly 50%. This includes plans to close several overseas diplomatic missions and eliminate funding for numerous international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO headquarters. These proposals are part of a broader initiative to reevaluate and realign U.S. foreign and diplomatic efforts.​

Findings

• State Department Budget Reduction: The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a nearly 50% cut to the State Department's budget. This would result in the closure of multiple overseas diplomatic missions and a significant reduction in diplomatic staff. Funding for various international organizations, including the United Nations and NATO headquarters, is also slated for elimination.

• Executive Order 14169: On 20 January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14169, titled "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid." This order initiated a 90-day pause on all U.S. foreign development assistance programs to conduct a comprehensive review. Some humanitarian programs remained funded.

• Closure of Disinformation Office: The State Department announced the closure of its Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office, previously known as the Global Engagement Center. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited concerns over the office's expenditures and its role in promoting censorship. The office had been instrumental in countering foreign disinformation campaigns, particularly from adversaries like Russia and China.

• Impact on International Aid Organizations: UNICEF projects a minimum 20% reduction in its 2026 budget compared to 2024, attributing this decline to significant cuts in U.S. foreign aid. The U.S. has historically been UNICEF's largest donor, and the funding shortfall is expected to affect various programs supporting children's survival and development worldwide.

• Reduction in USAID Programs: The Trump administration has canceled over 80% of programs under the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision followed a six-week review and resulted in the termination of more than 5,000 contracts. The remaining USAID contracts are now managed by the State Department.

Why This Matters
The proposed cuts could lead to a more disciplined and strategic U.S. foreign policy. While critics warn of diminished global engagement, these measures challenge the assumption that international influence requires massive funding of multilateral institutions. For decades, the U.S. has disproportionately funded organizations like the UN and USAID, despite persistent concerns over inefficiency, misallocation, and a lack of return on investment. Reining in these programs could allow the U.S. to refocus resources on bilateral diplomacy, great power competition, and domestic priorities.

That said, there are tradeoffs. Reductions in humanitarian assistance and diplomatic presence could create openings for adversaries such as China or Russia to expand influence through soft power generation. The long-term impact will depend on whether cuts are followed by a coherent reallocation of resources toward more effective tools of statecraft.

Sources: AP News, The White House

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Thank you for reading!

I would really appreciate some honest feedback:

See you Sunday,

Nick