Event: Mark Leonard

Denmark’s intelligence services have warned that foreign powers may seek to interfere in the country’s March 24 general election, singling out Russia as the primary threat but also flagging the US and China as potential sources of influence.In a statement published on Friday night, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service said it was “highly likely” that Denmark was a prioritised target for Russian influence activities due to the Nordic nation’s support for Ukraine. It also cited rising tensions over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, saying the US bid to take control of the Arctic island had fuelled misinformation that could cloud the vote.“The US focus on the Kingdom has furthermore created new international lines of conflict that foreign states such as Russia and China can exploit for influence purposes,” the agency said.Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called an early election for March 24 to capitalise on a surge in support stemming from a stand-off with US President Donald Trump over Greenland.A Danish military frigate docked in the port of Nuuk, Greenland, on Thursday. Photo: AFPThe Danish ballot will test voter sentiment on dealing with the president just as Europe’s relations with the US are at their worst in decades. The rupture in relations after Trump in early January revived claims over the Arctic territory has bolstered Frederiksen’s domestic standing, reinforcing her image as a disciplined and steady leader during periods of national strain.

Ukraine marked the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion with territorial gains in the south and improved air defences that kept the lights on in Kyiv, despite two barrages of drones and missiles during the past week.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday told the AFP that Ukrainian forces had regained 300 square kilometres (115 square miles) of territory in southern Ukraine, without specifying the time period.Recommended Stories list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4Devastation and frozen frontlines: Ukraine marks four years of Russia’s warlist 2 of 4Russia ‘has not won’ as Ukraine war enters fifth year, Zelenskyy sayslist 3 of 4Ukraine alleges Russia enlists more than 1,700 Africans to fightlist 4 of 4Azov’s hiring spree: How a controversial Ukrainian unit is luring fightersend of listHis commander in chief, Oleksandr Syrskii, two days later, said those southern gains were 400sq km (155 square miles), and had come since the end of January.[Al Jazeera]“You can’t say that we’re losing the war … The question is whether we will win,” Zelenskyy said.The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, attributed Kyiv’s successes to the fact that Ukraine persuaded Starlink to disconnect illegal Russian terminals in the theatre, and the fact that the Kremlin itself partly disabled the Telegram messaging service.Russian troops used both services for essential military communications, it said.Although limited in scale, Ukrainian counterattacks may have done enough to throw Russian preparations for a spring offensive off balance, said the ISW.Open source intelligence suggests that Russia’s campaign has been flagging for a long time.European leaders have publicly noted that over the past three years, it has seized 1.5 percent of Ukraine or less at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.[Al Jazeera]The battle for Pokrovsk, for example, a city in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, appears to have ended in…

Image for representative purposes only. File | Photo Credit: AP The U.S. ​will permit non-emergency government personnel and ‌family members to leave Israel over ​safety risks, the U.S. ⁠Embassy in Jerusalem said on Friday (February 27, 2026), amid growing concerns about the risk of ‌a military conflict with Iran.The embassy did not elaborate ‌on the safety risks leading ‌to the “authorised ⁠departure”, which allows affected ⁠personnel to decide whether to leave. It falls short of the ordered departure instituted this ​week for ‌some personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.The U.S. has built up one of its biggest ‌military deployments in West Asia ​as it negotiates with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s ⁠nuclear programme. The latest round of talks ended on Thursday (February 26, 2026) with no ‌sign of a breakthrough.Iran has threatened to strike American bases in the region if it is attacked, and an escalation could also draw in Israel. The ‌two foes fought a 12-day war ​in June.Several countries have begun withdrawing dependents of diplomatic personnel ⁠and non-essential staff from some locations in ⁠West Asia, or advising citizens to avoid travel ‌to Iran, amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran.  Published - February 27, 2026 05:17 pm IST

A powerful Iran-backed Iraqi armed group told its fighters to prepare for the scenario of a long war in neighbouring Iran should the United States launch strikes.Kataeb Hezbollah warned the U.S. on Thursday (February 26, 2026) of "immense losses" were it to start a war in the region, while a commander in an armed faction told AFP his group was "highly likely" to intervene in case of strikes."Amid American threats and military build-up indicating a dangerous escalation in the region, all fighters must prepare for a potentially long war of attrition," Kataeb Hezbollah said in a statement.The commander told AFP that his group sees Iran as strategic to its own interests, and therefore any attack on the Islamic Republic "directly threatens us". U.S.-sanctioned Iraqi armed groups did not intervene during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran last year.This time, the commander said they would be "less restrained", especially in the event of strikes seeking to overthrow the regime. For months during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Iran-backed groups carried out attacks against U.S. troops in the region and mostly failed attempts against Israel.Under mounting U.S. and domestic pressure, these attacks came to a halt, while pressure on the groups to disarm has grown. Iran-backed groups are part of the so-called "axis of resistance", which also includes Lebanon's Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen.A Hezbollah official told AFP this week that the Lebanese movement would not intervene militarily in the event of "limited" U.S. strikes on Iran, but would consider any attack against supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a "red line".U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed warships and fighter jets near Iran to back up his threats of strikes should ongoing negotiations over Iran's nuclear program fail to secure a deal.U.S. and Iranian negotiators met for a…

Four years after Russia invaded Ukraine with its full might, how has the war changed its various protagonists? It’s a question worth asking, even with no immediate end to the conflict in sight.To someone who has been visiting Ukraine for 35 years, before and during the war, its response has been astonishing. This was for decades the most frustrating of nations, a talented people thwarted and poisoned by levels of corruption so corrosive that the country was unable to progress. Russian aggression has made this nation, even while trying to destroy it.That isn’t just about the last four years of high-intensity warfare, but also the full 12 years of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assault on the country. That began with Crimea’s annexation and the fomenting and arming of a separatist insurgency in the east. Had Putin gone for a full invasion in 2014, there is little doubt he would have succeeded. The formal Ukrainian military was so gutted that it could field only 6,000 combat troops. The country’s defense had to be mounted by volunteers; their arms and uniforms were crowdfunded or paid for by oligarchs.

Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Trump administration is pressing Kyiv to agree to painful territorial concessions as the price for peace. In a draft peace agreement first reported by Axios in November, the administration proposed that the entire regions of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk be recognized as de facto Russian territory and that Russia retain control of the parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia its forces now occupy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is pushing back, refusing to do anything that would violate his country’s territorial integrity. Yet the realities of the battlefield are not on his side.Ukraine has been putting up valiant resistance, but its determination cannot disguise the fact that it is losing the war. Russia controls a large swath of Ukrainian territory, and Kyiv has little chance of dislodging it, as Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive in 2023 demonstrated. To be sure, recent Russian gains have come very slowly and at significant cost; over the last three years, Russia has taken a mere one percent of additional Ukrainian territory. But that does not change the reality that Russia now holds almost a fifth of the land within Ukraine’s 1991 borders—or that Russia’s greater resources and population mean that Moscow can fight on for years to come. Overcoming those Russian advantages and clawing back lost land on the battlefield would require time and investment that Ukraine doesn’t have. Current circumstances are therefore pushing Kyiv toward a compromise peace—one that will necessarily include the surrender of Ukrainian territory.FALLING BEHINDJudging by sheer numbers, the trajectory of the war does not favor Ukraine. The rates of battlefield losses on each side are one example. The Russian media outlet Mediazona tracks Russian military deaths using social media, obituaries, and official government notices and provides the most reliable estimates. (Estimates by Western intelligence…

Mark Leonard welcomes Jeremy Cliffe, Ulrike Franke, Janka Oertel and Majda Ruge live from the Munich Security Conference to unpack its biggest moments Podcast Mark Leonard's World in 30 minutes 14 February 2026 Apple Podcasts Spotify RSS In this special episode of the World in 30 Minutes, Mark Leonard welcomes Editorial Director and Senior Policy Fellow Jeremy Cliffe, Senior Policy Fellow, Ulrike Franke, Distinguished Policy Fellow, Janka Oertel and Senior Policy Fellow, Majda Ruge live from the Munich Security Conference to unpack its biggest moments. Recording from the Bayerischer Hof Hotel in Munich, they reflect on Marco Rubio’s message to Europe, European leaders’ calls for greater autonomy, Zelensky’s intervention on Ukraine, and the shifting tone on China, NATO and tech regulation. Is the transatlantic relationship entering a new phase? Did Europe show unity or fragmentation? And what does the mood in Munich reveal about the future of security in 2026? Bookshelf Letzte Chance: Der neue Kanzler und der Kampf um die Demokratie (German) by Robin Alexander    Far Right France, Le Pen, Bardella and the Future of Europe by Victor Ballot Mind the Deterrence Gap: Assessing Europe’s Nuclear Options by European Nuclear Study Group of the Munich Security Conference Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace by Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth W. Thompson This podcast was recorded live at the Munich Security Conference 2026.

Mark Leonard and Elbridge Colby unpack the future of America’s defence strategy, and its implications for Europe and the international order Director Podcast Mark Leonard's World in 30 minutes 13 February 2026 Apple Podcasts Spotify RSS This episode features a live recording of a conversation between ECFR director Mark Leonard and US undersecretary of war for policy, Elbridge Colby, which took place during the Munich Security Conference 2026.   Together, they discuss how ideas developed in think-tanks translate into government policy, and how the “America First” approach is shaping US national security priorities. Mark and Elbridge examine NATO’s evolution toward greater European responsibility, the challenge of turning higher defence spending into effective military capability, and the continued importance of nuclear deterrence. They also discuss support for Ukraine, rising concerns about China’s military posture, efforts to counter Iran, and the strategic role of the US–Israel relationship, before looking ahead to the trade-offs and priorities likely to define American strategy in the coming years. This podcast was recorded on February 13th 2026.

Mark Leonard welcomes Tiago Antunes and Jim O’Brien to unpack what the Greenland crisis means for Europe and the transatlantic alliance Podcast Mark Leonard's World in 30 minutes 13 February 2026 Apple Podcasts Spotify RSS This week, Mark Leonard is joined by Tiago Antunes, Portugal’s former secretary of state for European affairs and senior visiting fellow at ECFR, and Jim O’Brien, former US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, to reflect on the recent transatlantic crisis over Greenland.  After meetings in Copenhagen with Danish and Greenlandic leaders, and Tiago’s visit to Nuuk, Mark discusses with him and Jim how tensions escalated, why they were diffused at Davos, and what lessons Europe can draw from the episode.  What mood are the Danes in? How do they assess Trump’s motivations? Has the crisis brought Greenlanders closer to Denmark? And how did Denmark go about building European unity to oppose Donald Trump’s moves?  Bookshelf  Indignity: Life Reimagined by Lea Ypi  Everybody Loves Our Dollars by Oliver Bullough  This episode was recorded on February 11th 2026 

Summary The post‑cold war international order is fading, and no clear successor has emerged. The US is retreating as the main guarantor of that order and is increasingly acting unilaterally, while China and Russia offer tentative models of order that appeal to the global south. In this disordered interregnum, rising and middle powers are expanding their freedom of action and influence through new conflict-mediation styles, reconfigured connectivity networks and new approaches to development governance. At the same time, sovereigntist and illiberal movements are strengthening transnational ties and seeking to redefine the political West. It is unclear whether any of these initiatives will coalesce into a new global order; currently, they are mostly fragmented and opportunistic. Europe should seize these emerging formats as opportunities to shape outcomes, partnering pragmatically rather than clinging to a dying order. After hegemony The international system is no longer held together by a single dominant vision of order. The norms, institutions and power structures that shaped global governance after the second world war, later broadened and deepened in the post-cold war moment, are eroding without a clear successor. The US is retreating from its role as architect and guarantor of that order—imperfectly exercised in any case—while simultaneously asserting its dominance through unilateral action and displays of force in Greenland, Iran and Venezuela. At the same time, China and Russia are advancing competing models of order. In this context, rising and middle powers are actively pursuing new strategies to secure their autonomy and expand their influence. They are challenging established hierarchies, reshaping economic and connectivity networks and building alternative forms of cooperation that do not rely on Western leadership and involvement; some formats are in fact specifically built to circumvent or exclude Western structures and stakeholders. From infrastructure corridors to conflict management and development finance, these players…