The future of Ukraine will be discussed this week in Riyadh between Americans and Russians, with neither Europeans, nor, at the time of writing, Ukrainians themselves at the table. The question for European leaders now is: what can any of them do about it?

A hastily organized meeting in Paris, for now short on details in terms of attendance, is a measure of their concern as they wake up to the reality of Trump 2.0: that their long-standing American ally is no longer much of an ally and may in fact be far more dangerous to them existentially than they had imagined possible only a week ago.

There was, of course, US Vice President JD Vance’s startling speech in Munich on Friday, a rallying cry to the European far right that was quickly seized upon by their news outlets, in which he accused a stone-faced crowd of democratically elected European leaders on their own continent of selling out.

In a remarkable and disingenuous twisting of recent European history, Vance accused his audience of having betrayed the very ideals that allies had fought for during World War II. The danger, he said, warming to a theme he had touched upon in Paris just a few days before at French President Emmanuel Macron’s AI summit, was in Europe’s stifling of free speech, warning his audience that they should fear neither Moscow nor Beijing but European leadership itself.

It was a speech that went so much further than anyone had anticipated by questioning the moral underpinnings of the NATO alliance itself, rather than simply the operational question of budgetary contributions that had so far been President Donald Trump’s principal gripe.

Yet the vice president’s words, as surprising as they were, were not the only ones to set European alarm bells ringing.

Another senior American official to speak in Munich was the special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who sought to reassure the conference with tough words about his plan for extracting concessions from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The American position, he said, was to be tough on Moscow, to demand territory from Russia and security guarantees for Europe. Yet his comments came only days after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told his NATO counterparts in Brussels that he couldn’t see Ukraine joining the alliance at all, sweeping aside in one fell swoop not just the American position thus far but also what many had considered a key piece of leverage as negotiations with Moscow began.

The fear for Europeans is not now simply that Americans are preparing to negotiate without them but that they are preparing to negotiate badly without them. And while an invitation to Ukrainian leaders to join the discussions in Saudi Arabia may be in the post, for now the prospect is of American and Russian negotiators gathering around a table to discuss not just the future of the 6 million Ukrainians currently living under Russian occupation but also that of a European security architecture that impacts most closely the people living in Kyiv and Paris and every city in between.

The fact is that European countries, like their American ally thus far, spent nearly three years depleting their own arsenals and treasuries in the name of a fight for freedom and democracy that had felt to them existential as the Russian invasion began. That now appears to have been entirely brushed aside in the name of political expediency and the search for peace.

And, while peace is also what Europeans aspire to, their worry is now how costly it may be, given the price Washington seems prepared to pay, and how short lived, given Putin’s record.

Hence the meeting in Paris. European leaders may not be able to weigh in on the terms of a future peace deal but they do hope to find ways of giving security guarantees to Kyiv. Yet the danger facing them as they head to the French capital is that that just as the fight for Ukraine united them three years ago, so too might the specter of peace on their Eastern flank divide them once more. Particularly at a time when several of them are facing an increasingly emboldened and electorally successful European far right that is far more closely aligned with Washington’s new leaders than they are.

But European leaders are also keen not to appear rattled. The French foreign minister explained on French radio on Sunday that these sorts of meetings happened all the time. And Macron himself billed Monday’s talks as “an informal meeting” for those interested “in peace and security in Europe.”

For now, we expect not only the presidents of the EU council and Commission to attend, but also the NATO secretary general and the leaders of Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and Denmark. The British prime minister has also confirmed his presence, with Downing Street calling it a “once in a generation moment” for national security.

Few of those heading to Paris had doubted that Trump meant what he said the first time round, it’s more that now he appears to have surrounded himself with people who know exactly what they’re doing when it comes to undermining Europe and dismantling NATO. And they are, it seems, done with doing Europe’s bidding. This will make Monday’s meeting not just about how to help Ukraine, but, at its heart, about how to save Europe itself.

It was nearly 30 years ago when Rosember Lopez received a life-altering diagnosis: He was HIV positive.

With scant government resources for HIV support at the time in Mexico, Lopez joined advocacy groups to secure the funding he needed for medication to help him survive.

The experience inspired him to start his own organization in Tapachula, in southern Mexico, to help destigmatize HIV with the help of funding from the United States.

Today, his is one of dozens of aid groups across Latin America in jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s freeze on almost all international aid and the gutting of the US’ global development network.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a George W. Bush-era program that has enjoyed bipartisan support, was among those hit by US President Donald Trump’s actions. Relief groups have warned that halting programs such as PEPFAR could pose a risk to the lives of millions of people who will have to stop their HIV treatment, potentially opening the door to a HIV resurgence.

Organizations like Lopez’s help those with the disease access antiretroviral medications needed to reduce the risk of transmission, and give them a chance at a long, healthy life.

After hearing about the aid freeze in late January, Lopez began to worry not only about the future of his organization, A Helping Hand in the Fight Against AIDS (UMALCS), but also the deaths that could result from the lack of HIV care.

“It took me back to the times when there was no support and I said, ‘Well, now what is going to happen if we are no longer going to have the support of antiretroviral treatments?’” he said.

‘Shooting ourselves in the face’

PEPFAR has been a lifeline for those living with HIV and AIDS, saving tens of millions of people across the world since its inception, say advocates.

Without consistent treatment, Spencer warned that in a span of weeks or months, “We’re going to have people who had their HIV well controlled, who will be uncontrolled. You will have people that could not have transmitted who will be able to transmit now.”

If PEPFAR is not reauthorized for the next four years, and without other resources for the HIV response, there would be 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths in the near future, a 400% increase, Christine Stegling, the deputy executive director of the United Nations agency tasked with tackling HIV and AIDS, UNAIDS.

Not ‘enough money for everyone’

The lack of US funding is already impacting organizations in Colombia.

Some organizations, like Red Somos, which provides HIV care to Venezuelan migrants, have been forced to drastically scale back their operations.

“This could be dangerous for their life,” Marquez said, adding that the organization is looking to other sources of funding.

Without explicit permission from the US to resume work, Red Somos has more than 170 antiretroviral drugs that are nearing their expiration date. The group also had to suspend its educational, social protection and mental health services since January.

Miguel Lopez, who was diagnosed with HIV 10 years ago, founded Más Que Tres Letras — which translates to “More Than Three Letters” — to normalize public discourse in Colombia about HIV and where to seek help.

While Lopez’s group relies on other donors, he still anticipates fallout from the latest US policy. Lopez and his team worry there might not be enough money to go around as organizations that once relied on US funding are now scrambling to find other donors.

“There is not going to be enough money for everyone,” Lopez said.

Reduced activities

In Haiti, Dr. Alain Casseus and his colleagues at healthcare organization Zanmi Lasante have been severely impacted by the aid freeze.

Some approved services can’t immediately resume for aid groups that have already cut down on staff and are operating at reduced capacity.

There are parts of Haiti that rely almost solely on American funding for their healthcare needs, the USAID employee said. “If these health facilities were not there, people would receive no medications, no healthcare, nothing.”

“We urgently need international support to sustain our work.”

Argentine President Javier Milei is facing calls for impeachment after promoting a little-known cryptocurrency, whose price soared then collapsed after his endorsement, leading to losses for thousands of investors.

The news has caused a major scandal in Argentina, with the opposition accusing Milei of promoting a scam, an allegation that the presidency has denied.

It started with a tweet posted by the president to his X account, which has more than 3.8 million followers. “This private project will be dedicated to encouraging the growth of the Argentine economy,” he wrote, with a link to the $LIBRA cryptocurrency project.

Hours later, Milei deleted the message and, in another post, said he had no ties to the initiative. “I was not aware of the details of the project and after having become aware of it I decided not to continue spreading it,” he said.

The presidency on Saturday announced an investigation into the matter, saying: “President Javier Milei has decided to immediately involve the Anti-Corruption Office to determine whether there was improper conduct on the part of any member of the national government, including the president himself.”

Up and down in a matter of hours

At the time of its launch, most of the cryptocurrency was held in a few digital wallets, and its price was almost zero. After the president’s post, its price increased rapidly to almost $5, but in less than three hours it plummeted to cents, according to trading application sites.

“The first thing I saw was that the website had been registered yesterday (Friday); (which) is typical of a scam,” said Sabbatella. He also indicated that the token was created minutes before Milei published the message.

“The whales (large holders of the asset) bought at practically nothing. Then the price flies and when it is up, they sell. It is known as pump and dump; that mechanic happened,” said Sabbatella.

He noted that he saw accounts that bought at very low levels earning more than $4 million in two hours, and one that earned up to $87 million with the sale.

Argentina’s political opposition criticized the president, with the Union for the Homeland coalition announcing Saturday it would move forward with a request for impeachment against Milei.

Figures close to Milei rejected the possibility of an impeachment, with Congressman Diego Santilli calling such calls an attempt to “overthrow” the president.

Security Minister Patricia Bullrich defended Milei, telling Radio Rivadavia: “The president has the freedom of expression to raise the issues he wants.” She also compared his message on X with a presidential visit to a factory, saying that “it does not imply that he is creating a lobby for that place.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz are all traveling to Saudi Arabia for the talks.

A Ukrainian official said they would not be present at the talks though Keith Kellogg, the Trump administration’s Russia-Ukraine envoy, discussed a “dual track” set of negotiations and will be in Kyiv this week. On Sunday, US President Donald Trump said the Ukrainians would be part of the negotiations.

News of the US-Russia talks came as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday he was “ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to enforce a peace deal if necessary.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Starmer said he does not take the possibility lightly but reasoned that helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security would also strengthen the security of the United Kingdom and Europe.

He called on European nations to increase their defense spending and “take on a greater role in NATO,” but said US support would remain critical for guaranteeing peace. The prime minister also said he would meet with Trump and other G7 allies in the coming days to secure a strong deal.

Starmer is among the European leaders who will take part in an emergency summit on Ukraine on Monday amid growing concern that the Trump administration’s push to work with Russia to end the war has left them isolated.

The Elysée Palace said French President Emmanuel Macron would hold an “informal” meeting Monday with “the heads of government of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the Secretary General of NATO.”

Starmer on Saturday called the European meeting a “once in a generation” moment for national security and said the UK would “work to ensure we keep the US and Europe together,” according to a Downing Street statement. “We cannot allow any divisions in the alliance to distract from the external enemies we face,” he said.

Trump has talked openly about the Saudis playing a key role in the negotiations and the country has been an important part of US foreign policy under his presidency.

It was just a week ago that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman helped facilitate the release of Marc Fogel in Russia.

Trump’s first foreign trip in 2017 was to Saudi Arabia.

China is not ready for war, according to a contentious report from a US think tank, which claims the main motivation for the ruling Communist Party’s expansive push for military modernization is to retain its grip on power – not fight an overseas foe.

Beijing has pursued a head-turning military buildup under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, during which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) – previously not even one of the strongest in Asia – has started to rival, or in some categories surpass, the US military in analysts’ estimations.

Simulations by US defense experts have repeatedly shown the US – widely regarded as the world’s strongest military – having a tough time matching the PLA in a fight close to China’s shores, especially over the democratic island of Taiwan, which is claimed by Beijing.

But a report released last month by the Washington-based RAND Corp. said that despite the impressive buildup, political considerations – importantly the Communist Party’s desire for control over both military personnel and Chinese society – could hamper the PLA in battle, especially against a peer adversary such as the US.

“The PLA remains fundamentally focused on upholding Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule rather than preparing for war,” wrote Timothy Heath, a longtime China expert with RAND, in the report, titled “The Chinese military’s doubtful combat readiness.”

“China’s military modernization gains are designed first and foremost to bolster the appeal and credibility of CCP rule,” making war unlikely, Heath added.

One example Heath cited of political considerations butting up against military objectives is the PLA spending up to 40% of training time on political topics.

“The trade-off in time that could be spent mastering the essential skills for combat operations further raises questions as to how well prepared the PLA might be for modern war,” Heath said.

Heath noted too that PLA units are led not only by commanding officers, but also by political commissars who focus on party loyalty rather than combat effectiveness.

“A divided command system … reduces the ability of commanders to respond flexibly and rapidly to emerging situations,” he wrote.

A conventional war between the US and China is a “remote possibility,” and Pentagon planners should focus on a wider variety of Chinese threats than missiles and bombs, he added.

But other experts scoffed at his conclusions, saying that Xi had made his top military goal clear: bringing Taiwan under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.

The PLA’s buildup points to China being ready to do that, domestic control concerns notwithstanding, the experts added.

“There are much easier, cheaper, lower-risk ways to maximize party security than the bespoke warfighting capabilities Xi concertedly pursues,” said Andrew Erickson, professor of strategy at the US Naval War College.

John Culver, a former US intelligence officer for East Asia, also cast doubt on the report.

“War isn’t Plan A, but it is Plan B if events require and the material capacity of the PLA and China for such an event is strong and getter stronger,” he wrote on X.

Weapons and will

China has achieved rapid and indisputable military progress since Xi introduced sweeping reforms a decade ago.

Beijing’s intense shipbuilding program of recent years has yielded the world’s largest navy/maritime fighting force, which can operate farther than ever from China’s shores – including from the country’s first overseas military base in Djibouti.

Meanwhile, China has made advances in stealth aircraft and hypersonic weapons – and turned vast areas of its inland deserts into fields of missile silos.

But Heath questioned whether Beijing’s new arsenal would be effective in war.

“History has shown repeatedly that militaries sometimes fail to effectively use their advanced armaments in battle,” his report read, citing the war in Ukraine as the latest conflict where a better-armed military has failed to prevail.

Critics of Heath’s report said it’s folly to see the same weaknesses in the PLA.

“Xi repeatedly engages in difficult military restructuring efforts that prioritize improvements in realistic warfighting capabilities and impose some of the most demanding requirements conceivable on China’s armed forces,” said Erickson of the US Naval War College.

He noted that China is building both numbers – the Pentagon estimates Beijing is growing its nuclear warhead arsenal by about 100 a year – and technology, “pushing global frontiers with ambitious hypersonic weapons megaprojects.”

The human factor

Few doubt that the PLA has made great strides in both the number and quality of weapons it can field. Take for example its warships, led by the Type 055 destroyer, classified by many analysts as the most powerful surface combatant in the world.

The PLA Navy launched its 10th Type 055 last year, with as many as six more expected in the coming years. Each requires a crew of about 300 sailors.

Collin Koh, research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said building the high-tech warships may be easier than crewing them – because modern warships need young sailors to take on complex tasks, and that requires extensive training.

“The army could likely assimilate someone from the countryside … who might not get a lot of education … and train him up to be an infantryman. But if you want to train somebody who is able to (repair) the controls in the combat information center in the warship, fire a missile and to maintain a missile, that requires a bit more,” Koh said.

Meanwhile, the PLA continues to struggle another personnel problem – corruption. A Pentagon report from December said a widespread anticorruption campaign within the senior levels of the Chinese military and government is impeding Xi’s defense buildup.

“I think they’ve identified it as something that really has posed great risks to the political reliability and ultimately the operational capability of the PLA,” a senior US defense official said in December.

Defining Chinese military readiness

When analysts talk about Chinese military readiness, focus quickly zooms in on Taiwan. US intelligence estimates say Xi has ordered the PLA to be ready to invade the island by 2027, if necessary.

But Heath argues that while the Chinese leader set that goal, he and other top party officials have not engaged in any concerted push to prepare the Chinese public for combat.

“Chinese leaders have made no speeches that glorify war, advocate for war, or otherwise characterize war as inevitable or desirable,” Heath wrote, noting that “China’s military has not even published a study on how it might occupy and control Taiwan.”

Others caution against judging Beijing’s intentions based on Western thinking. It’s unknown what Xi would consider a win in Taiwan, they say.

The amount of pain the PLA – and Chinese society as a whole – could sustain to take the island is known only in Beijing, they say.

“We have to consider the use of force by Beijing at a level that could be potentially calibrated to suit its political needs,” Koh said.

That force could be a blockade to strangle the island without shots being fired. It could be enough airstrikes to show Taipei and its supporters that China holds the upper hand in any cross-strait conflict. It could be a full-scale invasion and occupation.

Or it could be a continuation of Beijing’s relentless political pressure accompanied by the almost constant PLA presence around Taiwan, including dozens of warplanes and ships. It’s a policy that, to date, has served the Communist Party well, some analysts say.

So, why spend all that money on new weapons?

“China’s military modernization gains are not designed to conquer Taiwan through military attack. Instead, (they are) designed to help the PLA more effectively carry out its longstanding mission of upholding CCP rule,” Heath wrote.

Essentially, new warships and stealth fighter jets impress the public, and that makes controlling society easier, he said.

Drew Thompson, a senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore agreed with that point. “Politics being primary means propaganda is more important than the military outcome,” he said.

But Koh said the PLA’s gains under Xi cannot be brushed aside as merely sending a domestic message.

“Despite those known issues within China and the PLA, I don’t think any military planner in the region is going to just dismiss the PLA as a paper tiger,” he said.

And Thompson said the PLA is indeed a capable foe for Taiwan and for the US.

“China could start a war and fight it. Could they win? How do you define victory?” Thompson asked.

“Is it a zero sum or just a series of tradeoffs?”