What Caught My Eye (no. 49)
Some interesting articles and podcasts that caught my eye this week
Here’s this week’s edition of articles I thought worth reading and sharing. Don’t hesitate to recommend your own reads; I may include some as well.
Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Laura Pitel, “‘It feels like a betrayal.’ Germany’s painful estrangement from the US,” Financial Times, February 9, 2026. Chassany and Pitel describe Germany’s deep sense of shock and emotional rupture as transatlantic ties fray under President Trump’s confrontational policies toward NATO, the EU, and Greenland. For a country whose postwar democracy and security were built under U.S. protection, Washington’s open hostility and transactional approach feel like a profound betrayal, unsettling generations of committed Atlanticists. They argue that Germany now faces a painful balancing act, preparing for an unreliable U.S. while hoping the rupture proves temporary and does not permanently upend Europe’s security architecture.
Max Seddon, “Russian army casualties in Ukraine surge,” Financial Times, February 10, 2026. Seddon, the FT’s Moscow Bureau Chief, reports that Russian military casualties in Ukraine have sharply increased, with Western and Ukrainian officials estimating at least 325,000 killed and tens of thousands wounded each month. \Advances have slowed to a crawl, with heavy reliance on infantry assaults and drone-saturated battlefields driving high rates of casualties. Although Russia can continue funding recruitment for now, Seddon shows that mounting losses, labor shortages, and economic strain may eventually erode Russia’s ability to sustain prolonged offensive operations.
Isaac Stanley-Becker, “Why Europe Is Talking About Nukes,” The Atlantic, February 13, 2026. Stanley-Becker reports that declining European confidence in U.S. security guarantees under President Trump has sparked unusually open discussions about expanding a collective European nuclear deterrent. Countries such as Sweden, long neutral and historically anti-nuclear, are now exploring deeper coordination with Britain and France, the only European nuclear powers. While leaders stop short of advocating national nuclear programs, the article underscores a profound shift: even previously pacifist states are reconsidering nuclear deterrence as a necessary hedge in a less predictable transatlantic order.
Feras Dalatey, Suleiman Al-Khalidi, Orhan Qereman and Jonathan Spicer, “Risk of missteps hangs over US-backed ceasefire deal in northeast Syria,” Reuters, February 13, 2026. The authors report that the U.S.-backed ceasefire between Syria’s central government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has reduced immediate fighting in the northeast but leaves major political questions unresolved. Washington has urged Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to show flexibility toward Kurdish autonomy, but tensions persist on the ground, including disputes over force deployments and Turkish concerns about Kurdish militias. Analysts warn that without clear agreements on authority and security arrangements, the fragile deal risks missteps that could reignite escalation.
Simon Shuster, “Read The Atlantic’s Interview With Volodymyr Zelensky,” The Atlantic, February 13, 2026. In this in-depth interview, President Volodymyr Zelensky discusses the direction of the war, the progress of peace talks, and the U.S. role in negotiations. He frames Donald Trump as the only leader capable of pressuring Vladimir Putin into meaningful concessions, while stressing that any agreement must be acceptable to Ukrainians and likely approved in a national referendum.
Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, “As Diplomats Talk, Pentagon Prepares for Possible War With Iran,” The New York Times, February 13, 2026. Cooper, a Times Pentagon correspondent, and Schmitt, a national security correspondent, report that while President Trump weighs diplomatic options with Iran, the Pentagon has significantly increased U.S. military forces in the Middle East to prepare for potential strikes on Iran. When Trump first threatened action, U.S. regional defenses were thin; since then, Washington has deployed an additional carrier group, strike aircraft, air defenses, and placed long-range bombers on heightened alert. Officials stress that the buildup is both offensive and defensive, aimed at deterring or countering likely Iranian retaliation.
Christoph Koettl, Eric Schmitt, Ashley Cai, and Daniel Wood, “Where the U.S. Is Building Up Military Force Near Iran,”The New York Times, February 6, 2026. The article uses maps and imagery to detail the significant U.S. military buildup near Iran, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. While President Trump has not authorized military action, the force posture mirrors preparations seen before previous strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The buildup underscores both deterrence signaling and the readiness for escalation, perhaps also increasing chances for miscalculation.
Finally, in case you missed it here are links to some of the things I did and wrote this week.
I joined Brussels Sprouts last week to discuss how Europe and Canada might take over responsibility for European Security within NATO.
I released on America Abroad a statement signed by 16 former US Ambassadors and Supreme Commanders who served at NATO on the vital role NATO plays in U.S. security.
I appeared on CNN News Central with Kate Bolduan to discuss the joint statement on NATO.
Happy reading, watching, and listening! Stay safe and stay warm.