Good morning, In a world of Trumps and Putins, the ability of countries to work together seems impossible. It's been so bad that experts have declared the end of multilateralism. But recently, the World Health Organisation achieved a victory of collaboration that's been years in the making: a new treaty dealing with future pandemics. What also requires collaboration are Europe's armies. That's because the perhaps biggest problem of European defence is that it's ultimately not European, but national armies not designed to work together. If you read this newsletter, you'll know how huge the implications of this for our collective defence are.  Editor's noteJulius E. O. Fintelmann  Pandemic to-do listWhen was the last time most of the world actually agreed on something? Two weeks ago, after three years of hard and seemingly hopeless negotiations, 191 member states of the World Health Organisation (WHO) agreed to a treaty on how to prevent, prepare for, and proceed when we encounter the next pandemic. Each state still needs to ratify the Pandemic Agreement, and then, in case of crisis, actually act on it. Nonetheless, the agreement "has the potential to become a milestone for multilateralism and global solidarity," Germany noted, and it certainly proves that the WHO is alive and kicking, with or without the US. What's in the treaty? One of its core achievements is the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. Any manufacturer who signs up for it will get the newest research from other partners and share their own. In case of a pandemic, they'd have to give 20% of their real-time production of developed vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics to the WHO to distribute, with 10% as a donation. That's a key promise of solidarity, which could prevent the repeat of vaccine hoarding from Covid-19 times. There's also a prevention framework, under which countries need to develop measures identifying the disease drivers and ensure pathogen surveillance. "The next pandemic is not a question of if, but of when", WHO's director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, says. In most cases, modern methods of farming or land use, plus globalisatio,n mean diseases spread from animals to humans, and it is somewhat of a consensus that this was the case with the coronavirus. Densely packed chickens or pigs are a fertile ground for pathogen mutations - animal diseases adapting to infect humans.  | Zuzanna Stawiska
It's hard to say if it's time to pop the champagne yet. In my previous newsroom, which specialised in health issues, the Pandemic Agreement was big news, and in some ways, getting most of the world to concur on a crucial issue is a feat in itself. And yet, the negotiating body's chair is right to say that "now the real work begins to make this agreement a reality." |
Eurelectric invites you to Power Summit on 3-4 June at Gare Maritime, BrusselsRising cybersecurity threats, procurement issues and escalating geopolitical tensions are testing the resilience of Europe’s energy sector. Transport, big tech and industry are raising new demands: from lower electricity prices and more competitive contracts for industrials to exponentially higher electricity demand for data centres and AI. Meanwhile, the energy price crisis caused the average energy consumer to be increasingly sceptical of the power sector and Europe’s energy transition. Join the most influential policymakers and industry leaders in Europe at Eurelectric’s Power Summit to make sense of these megatrends. Register here! 〉Learn more About advertisement in The European Correspondent €500 million fine for Apple – punishment or peanuts?The EU has fined Apple (€500 million) and Meta (€200 million) under the Digital Markets Act, its new law to keep Big Tech companies in check. Apple was punished for making it difficult for app developers to tell users about cheaper deals outside the App Store. Meta was fined for its "pay or consent" model, where users had to either agree to hand over their personal data or start paying for access to Facebook and Instagram. While the European Commission insists the penalties are "simply the result of applying the law", the broader political context is impossible to ignore. US president Donald Trump has already accused Europe of using tech regulation not to protect consumers, but to shield weaker European companies and punish dominant American ones, and has threatened new tariffs. Even if the EU insists it's only enforcing the law, moves like this could risk fuelling an already tense trade relationship.  | Thibault Krause
Whether these fines are pure law enforcement or a geopolitical move, the EU is targeting the US, where it could apply real economic pressure: its tech giants. Apple, Meta, and co. are central pillars of the American economy. But ultimately, considering the billions these companies generate, the fines are only peanuts (Meta makes its fine, €500 million, in one day) – unlikely to seriously hurt or change their business models without much stronger measures such as significantly higher financial penalties or limits on how they can operate in Europe. |
 Defence 300,000 European troops =/= 300,000 American troopsIf Russia attacked, Europe would struggle to respond – not only because it lacks troops or equipment, but because its national armies still aren't built to fight together. Darius Kölsch If Russia were to attack a European NATO country, the 100,000 American troops stationed in Europe would, in theory, quickly be reinforced by another 200,000 sent from the US to support European defence. But as Donald Trump withdraws from Europe, and Europe rearms, can Europe pick up the slack? That Europe has underinvested in its military for the past 30 years is nothing new, though this has as much to do with American interests as with European disinterest. Without the US, European armies are missing a lot of hardware, both in terms of sheer numbers, and more exclusive systems such as military satellites and strategic aviation – refuelling, transport, airborne command, and many more. To an extent, these can mostly be patched with significant investment – satellites can be bought and launched, planes likewise, although the technology might take time. But the main problem is one that money doesn't necessarily solve. To paraphrase a European Defence Agency official, 300,000 American soldiers are worth more than 300,000 European soldiers. That's mainly because they are trained and designed to work together – in other words, to be interoperable. And this is a problem. If, as European leaders seem to believe, Trump's US is no longer an ally, Europe needs to be able to defend itself against possible Russian aggression, together. But European militaries are still designed as national forces. The most obvious difference between the American and European armies is the diversity of equipment. Most famously, while the US uses one main battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, European allies operate 14 different tanks, though most are based on the German Leopard 2. Each of these tanks needs its own supply chain, spare parts, and maintenance experts. The same goes for planes, artillery, vehicles, and more. NATO has tried to fix that by introducing joint standards, but they are often voluntary. For example, sending 155mm "NATO-standard" ammunition to Ukraine revealed that there are really several different types of 155mm ammunition, which may be technically interoperable, but not in practice due to policy, legal, and safety reasons. We also need doctrinal unityLess discussed than technical interoperability is conceptual unity: how European militaries conceptualise winning differently and therefore how they use their forces. NATO doctrines exist here too, but the different priorities of NATO countries since the Cold War translate into very different practical understandings of the same doctrine. This is especially relevant for large-scale operations at divisional level (approx. 15,000 soldiers) or above – levels at which Americans train, but Europeans do not. Additionally, NATO command structures operate on American systems, without an operational European alternative. In brief, yes, European defence needs investment. More so, however, it requires armies that aren't just bigger but designed to fight together. True European defence requires interoperable forces, shared strategic thinking, and real political will. Without that, Europe's armies will remain national forces marching to different drums.
The diplomacy of mourning The attendance of heads of state and government at Pope Francis's funeral on 26 April 2025 held diplomatic significance, not least because of the much mediatised meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump. Meanwhile, absences can reflect diplomatic tensions or domestic priorities. Many Northern European countries' leaders didn't attend, signalling their secularism or national events that mattered more.  Created by Mandy Spaltman.
You're drinking contaminated wineYou might want to take a closer look at what's in your next glass of wine. A new study by the NGO Pesticide Action Network has found that no bottle produced in Europe in recent years is free from contamination by trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a toxic byproduct of PFAS, the notorious "forever chemicals." In the grapes from the last three vintages, TFA levels were 3,000 times higher than EU groundwater limits. The health risks are severe: PFAS compounds are linked to cancer, liver damage, and reproductive harm. TFA, once considered relatively harmless, is now suspected of causing developmental abnormalities and it lingers permanently in soil, water, and crops. So what is being done about it? Despite mounting evidence, EU action has been slow. Under the REACH framework – Europe's main chemical regulation – PFAS were supposed to be tightly controlled years ago. But industry lobbying, lengthy scientific reviews, and political hesitancy have stalled reforms.  | | Thibault Krause
While public debate often centres on PFAS in non-stick cookware and textiles, the more immediate threat lies in their use as pesticides sprayed across Europe's farmlands, embedding toxic chemicals directly into our food chain. Safer, biodegradable alternatives exist. The EU should move beyond slow, case-by-case bans and push for a full phase-out of PFAS in agriculture if it wants to protect food, water, and public health. |
Your car registration may be digital in the futureIf you own a car, this will be relevant to you: The European Commission wants to overhaul the EU's road safety and vehicle registration rules. The most immediate impact for drivers is that vehicle registration documents would be digital in future. In place of paper certificates, mobile registration docs would be issued that could be stored in a digital wallet. The Commission says that digitalisation will improve data management and lower costs. It also plans to tighten regulations for vehicle safety tests, including introducing technical inspections for electric vehicles, implementing new emissions testing, and recording odometer readings in national databases.  | Paul Krantz
If the measures succeed in helping to identify cars not meeting emissions standards, or with other technical problems, it could amount to thousands of lives saved. According to Eurostat, more than 20,000 people are killed in road accidents in Europe each year. The European Environment Agency estimates that more than 300,000 people die due to air pollution annually. |
Every day, our correspondents recommend one song to you. Today, Laoise Murray chose this one. We hope you enjoy!  Dungarvan Bay Cliffords Ireland is pumping out alternative, soft-rock bands at the minute, and Cliffords are leading the pack. Their latest release truly sheds their high-school origins and pushes them onto the world stage, all while rooting their sound firmly in their hometown of Cork.
Listen on YoutubeListen on Spotify 〉Recommend a song for our next edition
To hone in on the necessity for collaboration: our newsletters are the result of dozens of journalists working together across borders. But they can only do so and bring you the most important stories from the continent with your support. If you can, please consider donating below. Julius E. O. Fintelmann Editor-in-chief PS: Can you tell us what you think of today's edition of the newsletter? Every day, as a small reward for your feedback, we will show you a cute animal picture. The visuals for this newsletter were produced by Philippe Kramer and the executive producer was Klara Vlahcevic Lisinski. |
