Good morning,

This is the Thursday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s take some time to review key updates from this week.

Reporting Period: 17-20 March 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Europe’s Rearmament Movement Continues Despite Challenges

Summary
This week, various summits, meetings, and interviews indicate that European leaders are intent on carrying out the REARM Europe plan. France’s president proposed increasing the sale of European weapons systems to European militaries. The UK and France both plan on sending peacekeepers to Ukraine.

Findings

• European Defense Industry: On 15 March, speaking to French media, President Macron urged European governments to purchase military equipment from French and European manufacturers instead of American defense firms.
  While Macron’s statements on the surface are intended to boost defense output in Europe, they also aim to pivot Europe’s dependence on U.S. weapons systems.
  France is currently the second largest defense weapons exporter globally.

• European Conscription: As European leaders France, Britain, and Germany struggle with military recruitment a study by the Bruegel think tank suggests European countries could reintroduce conscription to deter Russian aggression.
  Some type of mandatory military service is already in place in nine European countries:

  • Cyprus, Greece, Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark

• Coalition of the Willing: During a summit for the “Coalition of the Willing” on 15 March, UK Prime Minister Starmer announced plans to send 10,000 French and British troops to Ukraine for peacekeeping operations. It is uncertain which EU nations may send troops to Ukraine, but The Kyiv Independent reports that thirty-five nations will provide logistics and intelligence support.
  French President Macron told reporters that the EU and Ukraine do not need Russia’s “permission” to deploy peacekeepers, but did not elaborate on deploying peacekeepers if it could violate peace deal conditions.

Why This Matters
Europe’s energy and enthusiasm for reclaiming responsibility for its own security continues despite economic, technological, industrial, and political challenges.

Perhaps the best example of this is Macron’s suggestion that European militaries stop buying American platforms — such as the F-35 — and instead buy European ones — such as the Rafale. The challenge European firms looking to boost defense exports is economic and technological. Not only will European manufacturers have to secure supply chains to expand production of weapons systems, they will also need to compete with superior technologies from abroad. The Dassault Rafale, for example, is a very capable multirole fighter jet but it lacks the capabilities to classify it as a 5th generation fighter (i.e. it lacks advanced avionics, stealth capabilities, and sensor technologies). The American F-35 program, however, is 5th generation and the USAF is already working on its 6th generation fighter program. Likewise, Russia and China domestically produce 5th generation aircraft.

Another example is air defense technologies which, due to the war in Ukraine, have become a core component of modern militaries. While Germany is capable of producing IRIS-T systems (a very capable air defense platform with extensive Ukraine experience), the U.S. systems like PATRIOT and THAAD are superior. Additionally, some reports suggest Europe’s domestically produced missiles capable of penetrating advanced air defenses (such as Russia’s S-300 and S-400 systems) are “years away.”

So while there is great enthusiasm for the REARM Europe plan, a European Army, and the EU overseeing its own security, it is possible that those efforts will encounter issues regarding funding, industrial output, and popular support. Those challenges also mean that if diplomatic relations with the U.S. and Europe cool and normalize, the U.S. could maintain a leading role in Europe’s defense and industry.

Sources: POLITICO, France 24, Defense News, Army Recognition, The Kyiv Independent, The Guardian

CBP Issues Contract For Border Wall Construction

Summary
On 17 March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced a border wall construction contract. This is the first contract under Trump’s new administration. The construction, which begins Saturday, is in a highly trafficked area.

Findings

• Announcement: On 17 March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it had issued the first border wall construction contract in President Trump’s second term.
  California-based Granite Construction Company was awarded the contract.

• Construction: Granite Construction Co. will build approximately seven miles of border wall in Hidalgo County, Texas. Construction will begin on Saturday, 22 March.

• Border Crossings: On 16 March, The New York Times reported that “illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border are down to their lowest level in decades.” President Trump issued a series of executive orders early during his second term and has made border security a top domestic priority. Some of this administration’s changes include:

  • Rapid and large-scale deportations of criminal asylum seekers by ICE

  • Increased and unrestricted border operations

  • Designating the cartels as terrorist organizations

  • Declaring a national emergency at the Southern border

Why This Matters
The CBP’s contract award signals the Trump administration’s intention to implement significant immigration reform. While the border wall is intended to curb immigration at the border, it may also allow personnel and resources to be allocated to Trump’s deportation programs as well as operations against Mexico’s cartels.

Sources: CBS News, NYT

Russia Agrees To Pause Some Strikes Despite Continued Offensive Operations, Violations

Summary
On 18 March, President Trump and President Putin held a phone call. After the call, Russia announced it would cease strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Both Russia and Ukraine reportedly violated that agreement. Some European leaders feel Putin is using diplomacy as a tool to buy time and prolong the war as Russian offensives exhibit success.

Findings

• Trump-Putin Phone Call: On 18 March, President Trump and President Putin held a phone call in which the pair discussed moving forward on a ceasefire in Ukraine.
  On 17 March, ahead of the scheduled call, President Trump stated negotiations are based around “dividing up certain assets,” and that he and Putin would be talking “about land.”

• Putin’s Stance: Putin rejected the proposed 30-day ceasefire but agreed to pause attacks on energy infrastructure. Putin has repeatedly stated that in order for there to be a ceasefire, “root causes” must be addressed. From the Russian perspective, this means a few things:

  • No NATO expansion, especially Ukrainian membership

  • No European peacekeeping forces

  • No nuclearization for Ukraine

• Violations: Despite Putin agreeing to halt strikes on energy infrastructure, POLITICO reports that Russia has violated the agreement by striking civilian buildings and a hospital in Sumy, Ukraine. Ukraine has also launched strikes on non-military targets in Russia.

• Trump-Zelenskyy Phone Call: On 19 March, President Zelenskyy held a phone call with President Trump. This is the first known conversation between the two since the fallout at the White House.
  Zelenskyy expressed skepticism about Russia’s intention of upholding a ceasefire. Previously, Zelenskyy stated Putin is using diplomatic progress and negotiations as a tool for “prolonging” the conflict.

• EU Friction: As Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. attempt to make progress on a ceasefire, the European Union continues to demand a “seat at the table.”
  Additionally, the head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, recently claimed that Russia is preparing for war with Europe.
  Similarly, a joint letter authored by Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia has called for Brussels to expedite EU membership for Ukraine, a development likely to deter Russia’s cooperation in negotiations.
  Regarding Putin’s rejection of a ceasefire, some EU leaders sided with Zelenskyy. Finland’s President Stubb called on Russia to accept the ceasefire to land, sea, and air operations. Germany’s Defense Minister characterized Putin as “playing a game.”

Why This Matters
I think Zelenskyy’s assessment that Putin is using diplomacy and negotiations to feign progress as a means of prolonging the conflict is correct. On 16 March, BBC and Reuters reported that the last Ukrainian troops had been driven from the Russian Kursk oblast, a piece of territory held by Ukraine that Kyiv very likely intended to use as a bargaining chip with Moscow.

However, despite Zelenskyy’s accurate assessment, it does not seem to have motivated him to sign a minerals deal with the U.S., giving Washington a cause to provide security guarantees to Kyiv.

Given these realities, it is very likely that Russia will continue to strike critical infrastructure across Ukraine as Russian ground forces continue with offensive operations along the Eastern front.

Additionally, Europe’s position, while well-intentioned, is complicating Ukraine’s ability to reach a ceasefire. By pushing for EU and NATO ascension, Brussels is crafting a policy perspective that Russia can use as a pretext for prolonging talks. A future scenario in which Ukraine does join either pact would likely see Moscow abandon any future treaty and resume hostilities with Ukraine.

So what is likely for Zelenskyy and Ukraine right now? Zelenskyy is very likely to continue to work with EU partners and request more military aid. It is likely, given the enthusiasm and support for the REARM Europe plan, that Ukraine may soon acquire large aid packages. To this end, Ukraine is also likely to continue to carry out large-scale drone, air, and artillery strikes on Russian frontline forces, rear logistics, and infrastructure facilities.

Zelenskyy’s priority should be to get to the White House and sign a minerals deal in order to compel greater U.S. security interests in Ukraine.

Sources: BBC, NBC News, POLITICO, NPR, ABC News, CNN, Reuters, POLITICO, Reuters, BBC

USSF Identifies Improving Satellite Capabilities By China, Russia

Summary
The Space Forces’ second-most senior official testified that Chinese satellites practiced “dogfighting” in low-Earth orbit. The incident was monitored sometime in 2024. Both Russia and China have expanded their space-based capabilities, with both working on developing anti-satellite missiles, lasers, and other anti-satellite capabilities.

Findings

• Proximity Operations: Speaking to Congress, Vice Chief of Space Operations General Guetlein (the Space Force’s second-highest senior official) stated China conducted proximity operations in low-Earth orbit last year.

• Advanced Capabilities: Guetlein, without specifically naming China, stated that the USSF observed five satellites “maneuvering in and out and around each other in synchronicity and in control. That’s what we call dogfighting in space.” Air and Space Forces Magazine identified China and its Shiyan-24C and Shijian-6 05A/B satellites as partaking in the maneuvers.
  Guetlein stated adversaries like Russia and China already possess the capabilities to “laze” our satellites responsible for intelligence, communications, and navigation operations.

• Issued Warning: On 16 March, CNN reported that U.S. military officials believe Russia and China have been testing new “attack and defend tactics” with space objects. The U.S. maintains Russia’s goal is to place nuclear weapons in space in an effort to target adversary spacecraft in a future conflict.
  As recently as 2021, Russia destroyed its own satellite with an anti-satellite missile. Likewise, China is developing anti-satellite missiles and lasers.

Why This Matters
While most observers are focused on China’s development of its conventional forces as it relates to carrying out an invasion of Taiwan and, if necessary, contending with the U.S. military in the Pacific, many are oblivious to Beijing’s rapid development of space technologies and capabilities.

Similarly, Russia’s war in Ukraine has obfuscated attention on Moscow’s space capabilities.

China’s developments — due to their unorthodox and dangerous tactics — indicate China’s desire to contend with U.S. space superiority. In a future conflict, China may target America’s satellites to deprive our warfighters of critical intelligence, communications, and navigation capabilities. Russia’s intentions are the same, although the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space would create an electromagnetic pulse, disabling any object in the vicinity and leaving a portion of space incapable of hosting new satellites for a period of time.

These developments also bring international law into question, specifically the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which attempts to mitigate the weaponization of space, albeit regarding nuclear weapons.

Sources: Air and Space Forces Magazine, Breaking Defense, Defense News, CNN

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Care to leave some feedback?

Thanks for reading!

See you Sunday,

Nick