Good morning,

Today’s edition of The Intel Brief is extremely relevant to U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Europe and China.

Reporting Period: 3-6 March 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

UK, EU Propose New Plans For Supporting Ukraine Following Rift With Washington

Summary
European leaders are ramping up defense commitments in response to apparent shifts in U.S. foreign policy and the ongoing war in Ukraine. However, divisions persist over the extent of EU and NATO oversight in these efforts. While some countries push for greater European defense integration, others remain wary of centralized control, favoring national or bilateral initiatives.

President Zelesnkyy, aware of Ukraine and Europe’s dependence on the United States, issued a final appeal before Trump’s anticipated address to Congress on 4 March.

Findings

• London Summit: On 2 March, 18 European leaders met in London to reaffirm commitments to Ukraine. A vague plan includes increased NATO defense spending and greater EU defense initiatives, but the lack of concrete implementation details highlights continued uncertainty about how these promises will materialize independent of U.S. support.
  On 3 March, Secretary of State Rubio called UK Foreign Secretary Lammy to discuss the summit. Rubio confirmed the U.S. is ready to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and will work with the UK to do so.

  • “Coalition of the Willing”: UK Prime Minister Starmer announced that the UK, France, and other European leaders will lead a “Coalition of the Willing” to continue supporting Ukraine. The group is seeking ways to involve the United States but recognizes this as a period of “European unity” that the world has “not seen for a long time.”
    The goals:

    • Continue a steady flow of military aid to Ukraine while increasing economic pressure on Russia, despite Europe’s purchase of Russian gas.

    • Ensuring a peace deal that guarantees Ukraine’s “sovereignty and security.”

    • Ensure Ukraine receives support to rebuild its infrastructure and military to deter future invasions.

    • Form a “Coalition of the Willing” that will defend Ukraine and guarantee peace after the war. The UK and France have pledged to send military personnel to Ukraine and NATO’s eastern flank.

• Proposed Ceasefire: French President Macron suggested a one-month ceasefire to air and naval combat, aiming to test Russia’s willingness to negotiate. This move signals a European effort to take a more independent diplomatic role. The intent is to develop a comprehensive peace plan to present to President Trump.

• EU’s "ReArm Europe" Plan: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed an €800 billion defense initiative, including €150 billion in loans, to enhance Europe’s military capabilities. Some European leaders view this as a power grab by Brussels. For example, Poland and Finland reportedly want their defense investment and method to remain a domestic affair despite pledging support for Ukraine. On 2 March, NATO Secretary General Rutte said some European leaders “privately set out new plans on defence spending,” indicating the EU may not be as unified as suggested by media.
  Von der Leyen will present her comprehensive plan to boost Europe’s defense during an EU emergency meeting on 6 March.

• Opposition: Despite media and western European nations presenting the London meeting as a resounding success and historic pivot in foreign affairs, there are some in the EU who oppose the plan or worry the EU will look to expand its powers related to defense.

  • Italy: Prime Minister Meloni previously urged the U.S., EU, and Ukraine to schedule an emergency meeting to meet, reestablish normal relations, and discuss peace conditions. Following the London summit, Meloni rejected France and the UK’s plan, calling it “very difficult to implement” and ineffective.

  • Slovakia: Following the White House incident between Trump and Zelenskyy, Slovak Prime Minister Fico issued a statement cancelling financial and military aid to Ukraine, supporting increased European defense efforts, and securing Russian energy imports via Ukraine’s pipelines — a position that Fico has held persistently.

  • Hungary: Prime Minister Orban denounced Zelenskyy’s behavior at the White House. Orban denounced the London summit, calling it a perpetuation of war. Orban endorses peace negotiations.

• U.S. Policy Shifts: On 3 March, President Trump reportedly paused all military aid to Ukraine following the failed meeting with Zelenskyy and the following London Summit. Additionally, The Guardian reported that Trump has advised his team to draft a proposal to lift sanctions on Russia.
  As of 3 March, President Trump hinted that the rare earth minerals deal — the purpose of Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House — could still be reached.
  On 5 March, CIA Director Ratcliffe announced that the U.S. paused intelligence support to Ukraine.
  It is uncertain if Trump’s sudden policy shifts are long-lasting or intended to pressure Ukraine into a minerals deal and peace negotiations. On 4 March, Trump’s nomination for ambassador to NATO — Matthew Whitaker — pledged to strengthen the alliance and confirmed Trump’s commitment to it.

• Zelenskyy’s Appeals: On 4 March, before Trump’s address to Congress, President Zelenskyy issued a statement reiterating Ukraine’s desire for peace, his gratitude and need for U.S. support, his regret regarding the White House meeting, and desire to sign a minerals deal.

• Ancillary Details

  • Macron’s Leading Role: The French president has urged European nations to raise military expenditures to 3-3.5% of GDP. Macron has also proposed sending French troops to Ukraine. France currently has Europe’s largest defense industry.

  • Germany: Reuters reported that Germany’s CDU/CSU Union and SPD parties — in talks to form a new coalition government — have proposed a new defense fund and a new infrastructure fund.
    Estimates suggest the budgets would require $415 billion in funding.
    CDU spokesperson Florian Hahn recently stated that “suspension of conscription no longer fits the current threat situation,” indicating a new German government could implement mandatory military service.
    On 5 March, speculation that Germany may cut its military aid to Ukraine due to depleted arsenals spread on social media.

  • Nuclear Umbrella: The U.S. has long provided a “nuclear umbrella” for Europe. On 4 March, The Telegraph reported that the U.S. may be redeploying nuclear weapons to the UK for the first time in two decades due to renovations ongoing in Suffolk, UK.

  • Norway’s Strategic Shifts: Norway is reassessing its €1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund as a possible option to provide more support for Ukraine. Simultaneously, Norway has decided to continue supplying fuel to the U.S. Navy despite an incident in which a Norwegian company refused to resupply a U.S. nuclear submarine.

Why This Matters
Europe’s security landscape is undergoing a major transformation as leaders debate the future of defense integration. While the push for increased military spending reflects growing fears of Russian aggression and an apparent withdrawal by the United States, ancillary details suggest the U.S. is not abandoning NATO, rather Trump’s recent charades are devices for pressuring three things:

• Minerals deal with Ukraine

• Higher defense spending by European nations

• Getting Zelenskyy to a negotiating table with Putin

What Europe’s public campaign of “unity” is blinding people to is continued internal divisions over EU control, national sovereignty, and NATO’s dependence on the U.S. These factors weaken Europe’s ability to establish a coherent security framework as they have willfully distanced themselves from the Trump administration. If these tensions persist, efforts to strengthen collective defense may be undermined by fragmentation and political disagreements, especially by European Union member states like Slovakia, Hungary, and Italy.

But where does Ukraine stand in all this? Zelenskyy was happy to see the outpouring of European support before and after the London Summit, but what the EU ends up mustering in terms of aid remains uncertain. In fact, this uncertainty has already led to Zelenskyy turning back to Washington, having made multiple public statements and sending a letter to Trump, stating his willingness to sign a minerals deal with haste. Such a deal would also likely include a discussion about preliminary peace negotiations, as Belarus has offered to host the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine for talks.

The bottom-line is that this week, media and pundits presented the White House fiasco as a total collapse of U.S. foreign policy precedent, when evidence suggests the Trump administration is remaining true to U.S. alliances and interests, but by different means. Whereas the Europeans prefer the bloated oversight of unified, supranationalist institutions, Trump appears to be pushing the U.S. into an era of bilateral diplomacy in which the U.S., partners, and adversaries have equal and free reign to engage in diplomacy one on one.

So long as U.S. interests remain constant, what we should be concerned about is if it will work.

Sources: U.S. Department of State, BBC, POLITICO, Reuters, POLITICO, Reuters, ABC News, POLITICO, POLITICO, Reuters, Fox News, Euractiv,

Iran’s Vice President For Strategic Affairs Resigns As U.S. Generals Urge Trump To Back Israeli Airstrikes On Tehran

Summary
On 3 March Iran’s Vice President of Strategic Affairs resigned. Mohammed Zarif faced mounting pressure from the radical opposition in Iran’s government, as well as from the Supreme Leader. Zarif was viewed as a reformist and supported denuclearization negotiations with the U.S. Shortly after his resignation, 77 retired U.S. generals and admirals endorsed President Trump backing Israeli strikes on Iran.

Findings

• Zarif’s Resignation: On 3 March, Mohammad Javad Zarif submitted his resignation as Iran’s Vice President for Strategic Affairs, a position he held under current president Pezeshkian.

  His resignation follows the impeachment of Economy Minister Abdolnaser Hemmati, reflecting rising tensions within the reformist government as Iran’s currency plummets due to U.S.-led sanctions.

  Hard-liners criticized Zarif for his role in the 2015 nuclear deal and his perceived Western affiliations, particularly the fact that his children hold dual U.S.-Iranian citizenship.

  Zarif’s resignation could signal a shift in Iran’s diplomatic approach, possibly leading to a harder stance against the West, especially regarding nuclear negotiations.

• Netanyahu Thanks Trump: On 3 March, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked President Trump for approving a $4 billion arms deal to Israel. Netanyahu said the support will help Israel to “finish the job against Iran’s terror axis,” implying military operations in the region will continue.

  It is also possible that Israel’s military operations could expand. Israel has previously stated it would not allow the Iranian regime to obtain nuclear weapons. On 13 February, American media reported that the U.S. intelligence community warned Biden and Trump that Israel was likely to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025.

• Iran’s Nuclearization: A new report by the IAEA claims Iran is rapidly enriching uranium for the purpose of constructing nuclear weapons. Iran has over 8,000 kgs of uranium enriched at 60%, with 90% enrichment being sufficient for weapons use.
  On 17 February, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) commander stated an attack on Israel was being planned and that the attack, dubbed “Operation True Promise 3,” would happen soon.

Why This Matters
Zarif’s resignation underscores continued challenges for President Pezeshkian and his administration, a group that western media had hoped would make leaps and bounds in reforms and open up Tehran to diplomacy with the West. For example, Pezeshkian previously stated that regarding nuclear diplomacy, “My belief was that talks are better but the Supreme Leader has said we do not negotiate with the U.S and we will go forward in the direction of the statements of our top leader.”

The departure of reformist figures in Pezeshkian’s camp, which could continue at the behest of radical opposition or Supreme Leader Khamenei, suggests Iran is becoming more unwilling to reach a diplomatic solution with Israel and the U.S. regarding the ongoing proxy wars and Tehran’s nuclear program. If this is true, it significantly increases the likelihood of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

On 5 March, media reported that Russian President Putin offered to mediate negotiations between President Trump and Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran.

Sources: The Guardian, AP News, France 24, The Intel Brief, The Intel Brief, The Intel Brief

U.S.-China Tensions Continue To Dip Amid Tariffs, CCP Two Sessions

Summary
China’s embassy in Washington stated China is ready to fight “any type of war” with the United States. The statement came as the Trump administration implemented new tariffs on China, a point President Trump highlighted during his address to Congress. The event was preceded by the beginning of China’s Two Sessions, which included the announcement of a 7.2% defense spending increase by Beijing.

Findings

• Two Sessions: The Two Sessions, also known as Lianghui, is the name for the consecutive meeting of China’s major political bodies — the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). The NPC is China’s highest legislative body, with all other state bodies being subservient to it despite the fact that, in practice, Xi Jinping rules with absolute authority as a Paramount Leader (holding the positions of President, Chairman, General Secretary). The CPPCC is the advisory body to the united front system, China’s network of CCP-loyal or controlled entities.
  On 5 March, the NPC convened to begin this year’s Lianghui. It is expected to continue to 8 March.

• Escalatory Rhetoric: On 4 March, during President Trump’s address to Congress and in retaliation to new tariffs on China, the Chinese Embassy in the United States stated that Beijing is “ready to fight” any war — trade or kinetic — with the United States.

• China Defense Spending: On 5 March, China announced it will increase its 2025 defense spending by 7.2%, totaling roughly $245 billion.

• Hegseth’s Interview: In an interview with Fox News, Secretary of Defense Hegseth stated the United States is “prepared” for war with “powerful, ascendent countries with very different ideologies.” Hegseth highlighted Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” policy approach, but that Trump’s strong relationship with Xi Jinping could be called on to simmer tensions and establish mutually beneficial arrangements.
  Interestingly, on 3 March, the U.S. State Department took the time to make a distinction between the ruling elite — the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — and the Chinese people, indicating U.S. hostility for the CCP and not Chinese citizens.

Why This Matters
Taken at face value, China’s statements and indirect threats would normally be interpreted as posturing. Because of Trump’s sanctions, media are interpreting China’s remarks as defensive and retaliatory; justified remarks and responses reflective of a Beijing that views itself as provoked.

While a degree of this is true, China’s decision to increase its defense spending — which has followed two weeks of intense, large-scale, and live-fire military exercises across the Pacific — indicates Xi Jinping, his CCP, and his PLA are rapidly pursuing their goal of seizing Taiwan in 2027.

What experts and policy makers need to be aware of, however, is whether or not recent developments have accelerated that rough timeline. For example, Taiwan Semiconductor recently invested over $100 billion in the U.S., and is moving some facilities stateside from Mexico. At the same time, Taipei and Washington have been quietly negotiating a new arms deal.

In regards to China’s more subversive measures, Beijing has refined its United Front operations in Taiwan, to the degree that it has drawn the attention of U.S. lawmakers. Also on Washington’s radar is the CCP’s influence over the Kuomintang (KMT) party in Taiwan’s legislature. These factors indicate Beijing has significantly increased its influence campaigns in addition to overt military growth, posturings, and aggressions.

So, while those should be the long-term strategic questions for our leadership to answer, I want to point out that Xi Jinping followed a similar “Soft Power” formula during the Biden administration. Xi Jinping previously pressured the Biden admin into revealing its intentions on security and trade by threatening conflict and a trade war. In this case, in the short-term, Xi Jinping may be attempting to get the Trump admin to reveal some of its goals, especially since the State Department — and proposed legislation — suggest Washington may officially recognize Taiwanese sovereignty; a decision that could lead to a formal strategic partnership with Taipei.

Certainly lots to think about…

Sources: AP News, VOA, The Guardian, ABC News

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Thank you for reading!

See you Sunday,

Nick