Europe’s Migration Challenge: A Crisis of Geopolitical Dimensions

 The European Union’s ongoing migration challenges are frequently framed as logistical, geographic, or administrative hurdles. However, the core of the crisis is profoundly geopolitical. When external borders are placed under acute stress, it tests not merely physical infrastructure, but the political cohesion and strategic foresight of member states. Increasingly, the ability to cohesively manage human mobility is a matter of European resilience in the face of hybrid warfare.

The Geopolitical Weaponisation of Migration: The Ceuta Crisis

Foreign actors acutely understand that European migration policy has historically been fractured. Consequently, migration has been instrumentalised as a tool of political coercion. A stark illustration of this tactic is the recent crisis in the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, which saw tens of thousands of migrants cross the border from Morocco in an unprecedented surge.

Much like the tactics previously employed by Turkey at the Greek border or by Belarus against Poland and Lithuania, this influx was not a spontaneous humanitarian event, but a calculated test of Europe’s external borders. Third countries, recognising the political panic that mass arrivals generate within domestic European politics, strategically target vulnerable borders to extract diplomatic or financial concessions.

Confronting Morocco: The Need for Uncompromising Diplomacy

The Ceuta crisis underscores exactly why the European Union must adopt a far more robust and uncompromising diplomatic approach toward Morocco. Rabat has a documented history of using migratory flows as political leverage, effectively relaxing border controls when it seeks to pressure European capitals on geopolitical matters. This is frequently tied to their attempts to force international recognition of their sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. It is was related to the EU-Algeria-Morocco diplomatic puzzle.

This repeated instrumentalisation of vulnerable people for diplomatic gain demonstrates that the Moroccan government cannot be implicitly trusted as a reliable partner in border management. The EU’s reliance on superficial, transactional agreements with North African transit countries leaves the bloc dangerously vulnerable to extortion. Moving forward, Europe must abandon diplomatic appeasement in favour of strict conditionality, making it unequivocally clear that the weaponisation of migration will carry severe diplomatic and economic consequences.

The Maghreb Divide and European Stability

Compounding these external pressures is the deep-seated regional instability driven by the enduring conflict between Morocco and Algeria. This rivalry, particularly their proxy confrontation over the Polisario Front in Western Sahara, casts a long, destabilising shadow over European security.

The fractured relationship between Rabat and Algiers prevents the establishment of a cohesive “southern stability belt,” which is vital to Europe’s strategic interests. As the EU seeks to diversify its energy sources away from Russia and invest heavily in the North African green energy transition, this geopolitical friction introduces severe risks to energy infrastructure and supply chains. Furthermore, the persistent hostilities create a volatile regional environment that invites foreign interference, limits economic development, and ultimately drives the very migratory pressures that Europe is attempting to manage.

A Turning Point for European Cohesion

Despite these severe geopolitical pressures, the European response to the recent events in Ceuta signals a critical paradigm shift towards greater political unity. In stark contrast to past crises that prompted unilateral border closures and a breakdown of fundamental agreements, the EU’s recent emergency response demonstrated a rediscovered solidarity.

During emergency meetings, member states unequivocally backed Spain, flatly rejected reactionary calls to suspend the Schengen area, and unified around strategies for stronger external borders and coordinated returns. This newly unified front is fundamentally underpinned by the recent implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Pact establishes a binding framework for shared responsibility, ensuring that frontline states are not left to face migratory weaponisation alone. By moving away from an “every nation for itself” mentality, the EU is finally building the political infrastructure necessary to resist external blackmail.

Conclusion

The weaponisation of migration by states like Morocco, Belarus, and Turkey is ultimately a symptom of perceived European weakness. A sustainable and humanistic European migration policy cannot be built on vulnerability to foreign coercion. By aligning unified diplomatic strength with cohesive legislative frameworks, Europe is beginning to transition from being a reactive victim of geopolitical leverage to a secure, united bloc capable of protecting its borders and projecting stability into its southern neighbourhood.

Europe: The political indifference of the citizens and the mediocrity of the leaders

Europe and Democracy: The Dual Crisis of Indifference and Dependency

Victor Ângelo

It could be said that Europe is going through a period of crisis. Across much of the EU, citizens appear to have lost confidence in the political class and institutions. The reason is clear: a lack of satisfactory responses to social issues deemed essential. These include affordable housing, the growing malfunction of public services—especially in the areas of health, education, justice, and security—and political opportunism. More generally, all of this is compounded by the negative impact of the rising cost of life, which is linked to decisions made on the other side of the Atlantic. In the view of many citizens, the leaders of our Europe appear to lack sensitivity and courage.

When hope is lost, democracy does not collapse—it deteriorates silently. Byung-Chul Han, a Korean thinker long based in Germany, states that our societies have reached a phase of "fatigue": citizens are saturated, overwhelmed, and alienated by the digital flow, whether true or false. They feel isolated and incapable of mobilizing the energy required to carry out the changes that politics demands. The incompetence of institutions and the incoherence of politicians push citizens toward egocentrism, toward the solitary management of survival, and toward withdrawal from the public sphere. When the State fails, each individual retreats into their own microcosm. Politics ceases to be a space where hope is built. For many, it is merely a distant noise.

Digital disinformation is one of the instruments of democratic erosion. Algorithms optimized to maximize emotional reactions and content manufactured by artificial intelligence corrode public trust in a structural way. A survey from Special Eurobarometer 568 (2025) leaves no room for doubt: 79% of Europeans fear that voters will cast ballots based on false information, and 70% fear foreign interference. The credibility of national parliaments and governments hovers around 35%. In the case of political parties, the figure is even lower. In Portugal, the European Union maintains some credit, but the Assembly of the Republic and the parties follow the same downward trajectory seen in other European states.

In several societies, immigration, managed for years without a coherent strategy, has become the catalyst for social anxiety. Over time and with mass entries, unease has turned into resentment. It is in this terrain that the Rassemblement National (France), the AfD (Germany), Fratelli d'Italia, Vox (Spain), and Chega (Portugal) thrive. They grow because they exploit the vacuum left by traditional parties—yet they offer no realistic alternatives. Merely demagoguery. Furthermore, they generally ignore the axis that determines the viability and autonomy of the modern State: technological sovereignty. They discuss symbols, borders, and identities while the infrastructure sustaining democracy is in the hands of third parties.

Europe operates today based on digital systems that it does not control. Technological sovereignty means that a State controls the essential elements for its proper functioning: data, networks, software, hardware, AI platforms, and sources of information regarding major events with global impact. Europe is far from mastering these pillars.

The risk is not theoretical. If access to Microsoft and Google services were to fail—due to technical causes or even external retaliatory decisions—or if the supply of microchips from Taiwan's TSMC were interrupted—even if only for a short period—hospitals, businesses, schools, and public administration would grind to a halt. If Chinese electric vehicles were remotely shut down—for a political motive or diplomatic tension—logistics and our daily lives would collapse. A democracy dependent on foreign infrastructure and hardware is not sovereign: it is simply vulnerable. This fragility does not result from geopolitical fatality, but from decades of omission and false priorities in European policy.

Gaia-X, launched in 2019, is the European attempt to recover some control. It is not a "European Google." It is fundamentally a framework of rules, certifications, and standards. In parallel, the Regulation on the Development of Cloud Computing and AI seeks to build physical capacity—data centers, common infrastructures, and requirements for public administration. Gaia-X defines the protocols; the Regulation tries to build the material support.

However, these steps are insufficient. They are slow, timid, and decided by people from the legal field rather than from engineering, mathematics, or economics. They do not reduce, in the short term, the dependency on hardware, submarine cables, semiconductors, and base software originating from abroad. And the political problem is even more serious: these are orphan projects, forgotten, much like the Draghi report (2024). Neither traditional parties nor populists treat technological sovereignty as a priority. They prefer the comfort of easy narratives to the effort of building the strategic capacity that the present and future demand.

Thus, Europe remains a hostage—not by imposition, but due to flawed policies. Technological submission is not a mere backdrop to democratic fatigue: it is one of its most relevant causes. And this situation drags down the discredit of democracy and politics.

Reserves of resilience still exist—visible, for example, in the relative trust that the European Union maintains in countries like Portugal. But the future of our democracies demands clear and urgent decisions on two fronts: in the human dimension—housing, immigration, public services, functional governance, social protection for the most vulnerable, and the promotion of a democratic culture; and in the technological dimension—accelerating Gaia-X, building a sovereign cloud, investing in cutting-edge infrastructure, and mobilizing financial and technical resources at a supranational level.

The fatigue or indifference of citizens and the technological submission of States are the two sides of the same coin of crisis. Political incompetence generates social atomization; social atomization feeds political incompetence and populism. This is the vicious circle that we will have to break.

The Bear Meets the Big Brother, the Dragon: Putin and Xi Jinping

 

An Alliance Between Unequal Powers: Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin

Victor Ângelo

Op-ed published in Diário de Notícias on 22/05/2026

 

When Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin meet—as happened once again this week—we witness a highly choreographed geopolitical display, rich in symbolism. They speak of a multipolar world and toast to a ‘new era’ and a ‘no limits’ partnership—the celebrated expression coined during their February 2022 meeting, just days before the launch of Russia’s inadmissible war of aggression against Ukraine. The messages they seek to send to the rest of the planet, particularly to Europe, are highly explicit, and they were repeated this week. First, that China and Russia are bound by an unbreakable alliance, indispensable for constructing the new world order they deem necessary. Second, they intend for this order to differ from the one established in recent decades by the Western world, especially since the era of the Reagan-Thatcher tandem and the period following the end of the Cold War. We are clearly facing a Sino-Russian project to reorder international relations in their own fashion.

 

It is, however, a flawed partnership, an unequal relationship—from an economic perspective, for instance. China is undisputedly the centre of gravity and the primary axis of its neighbour’s economy. It now accounts for between 40% and 45% of Russian imports. This is an overwhelming dependency. Conversely, barely more than 4% of China’s foreign trade is conducted with Russia, according to Bloomberg data. This is an insignificant percentage when compared to the volume of trade between China and other economies, be they the US, the EU, or ASEAN. Furthermore, the Chinese currency, the yuan, is the predominant tender in Moscow’s financial market. The yuan has virtually replaced the majority of transactions previously executed in US dollars, with the remainder settled in roubles.

 

Political inequality compounds this economic disparity. This is the most significant dimension of the asymmetry between the two countries. A tacit hierarchy exists that places the Chinese president at the top. One might say that Xi envisions, proposes, and makes things happen. Putin follows when he can, provided he sees that it does not jeopardise his domestic political image, where he still dictates the law.

 

Xi Jinping intends to be the architect of the new international structure, built with calmness, firmness, and time. He plays without unnecessary haste. He is entirely convinced that, before long, his country will be a rival on an equal footing with the US, and that global challenges will place China at the heart of multilateral responses.

 

Vladimir Putin, for his part, mistook pompous parades for military capability. He ended up bogged down in an intensely draining war, which he made the blunder of initiating with utter disregard for international law and with armed forces that recall the highly doubtful legend of Potemkin villages. Putin continues to believe he is a strategic giant, when in reality Ukraine is laying bare his feet of clay. Putin is likewise a stain on Xi Jinping’s international reputation. Xi finds himself forced to defend him in various political arenas, even though he knows this entails reputational costs for his regime, which wishes to be seen as the champion of peace and multilateral cooperation.

 

Xi’s strategic objectives are essentially twofold. On the one hand, to ensure Chinese dominance in the region defined by the Pacific and Indian Oceans. On the other, to gain the lead regarding the technologies that are shaping the twenty-first century. Achieving this requires time, and it requires China’s main rival powers to remain distracted by other matters.

 

This is where Putin’s political blunders prove to be of immeasurable value to China. Though it is seldom considered, the endless war in Ukraine keeps a significant portion of the strategic capabilities, military resources, and diplomatic attention of China’s main rivals far removed from potential criticism and measures against Chinese domestic and foreign policy. Every crisis meeting at NATO headquarters or in EU capitals represents a tactical distraction for Washington and creates rifts between Europe and the US. All of this allows President Xi to continue the process of economically and politically subordinating Russia, while modernising the People’s Liberation Army and shielding China’s economy against potential Western sanctions. Putin is thus an excellent political distraction.

 

Xi’s greatest anxiety regarding Russia concerns the martial philosophy that continues to prevail in the Kremlin. When Moscow hinted that it might use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it was Beijing—and not just Washington—that also silently but firmly drew a red line before Putin’s intentions. Xi needs a prolonged and draining conflict that bleeds the West, but he cannot afford to permit or promote an apocalyptic escalation that would destroy the global order upon which China’s rise depends.

 

Consequently, Xi’s support for Russia has strict, albeit undeclared, limits. That is the reality, despite public assertions. China buys Russian oil and gas at a discount, in yuan, and within limits—there was no agreement on the new trans-Siberian pipeline, which deeply disappointed the delegation from Moscow. And it supplies Moscow with ‘dual-use’ goods, including military-applicable items like microchips and drone components. It does so discreetly, but in vast quantities. It denies, however, any accusation of direct lethal military aid. Why? To avoid secondary Western sanctions against its economy, which relies heavily on foreign trade. The ‘architect’ knows that a direct confrontation with the West at this juncture would derail his ambitions and imperil the authority of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

The essential thing is to understand the true nature of the relationship between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and to respond to the serious risks it poses. Note the various agreements signed during this visit—for example, in the fields of atomic energy, space, and AI. These matters do not allow for simplistic analysis. China and Russia do not represent the same type of challenge. Yet, despite the asymmetries, a dangerous strategic convergence exists between both regimes.

Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

Munich and the future of European Security

 

What image will Europe project at the Munich conference?

By Victor Ângelo

My chronicle of January 30th underscored the importance of this year’s Munich conference, given the new reality of international security twelve months into the Trump Administration. The main message of my text was clear enough: international law must say no to brute force!

Now, with the conference running until Sunday, I believe it is important to reflect on security from a European perspective. In Munich, Europe must know how to demonstrate that it is truly willing to resolve and overcome its geopolitical fragility with concrete actions.

This first year of Donald Trump’s presidency has confirmed what the illegal, unjustified, and large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already revealed: Europe is economically powerful and culturally and normatively influential, but strategically weak. In matters of security, it has depended fundamentally on the US and its vision of the world. With Trump’s arrival to power, Europe’s vulnerability and dependence on Washington regarding defence have become more evident.

In this context, the presence of Marco Rubio in Munich, heading a vast and influential American delegation, takes on a particular significance. At the 2025 conference, American Vice-President JD Vance made a name for himself by stating, among other shocking remarks, that the American commitment to European security was no longer unconditional. That having been said, Washington’s position may no longer need to be quite so disruptive now. Rubio represents a less coarse America, one that does not antagonise Europe in that manner. He merely considers it a fragmented, disoriented geopolitical actor with little weight—practically insignificant.

His speech will likely stick close to the following points: the responsibility for Europe's security is, above all, a European incumbency; European governments must invest more in defence, as committed at the NATO summit in June 2025; the Americans want more strategic clarity from the European side, which, in the US's understanding, would mean unhesitating alignment with the policies defined by Washington and effective engagement in Trump's initiative within the ineffable Peace Council. Rubio will not forget to mention that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist as long as its leadership is, in essence, dictated by US interests. He will also explain the alleged Russian-inspired peace plan that the American president wants to impose on Ukraine, including the unrealistic project of holding presidential elections in a country suffering a war of aggression day and night, an electoral process under the sound of Russian drums and missiles.

In truth, I do not believe Rubio will bring anything new from the West. It is the interventions of European leaders that will need to be listened to attentively.

There, I see increasingly clear and significant disagreements, particularly between France and Germany—divergences reflected in the contrasting visions of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.

For years, Macron has insisted on the need for a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of organising its own security while considering probable threats. This position was again reflected in the interview he gave this week to Le Monde and other major European newspapers. He does not diminish NATO, but he insists on a balance between the strategic interests of both sides of the Atlantic. For Macron, continued dependence on Washington is a disguised, yet real, form of subordination. Contrary to what others think, I believe Macron’s stance is not aimed at marking territory to eventually replace António Costa as President of the European Council in June 2027. In that area, Macron seems to have little chance.

Von der Leyen follows a more institutional approach, deeply shaped by German strategic choices. Her leadership, closer to Friedrich Merz, has been effective in achieving compromises in the field of defence industries and support for Ukraine. However, the President of the European Commission remains convinced of the need for our complementarity with the United States. For von der Leyen, European autonomy appears more as a reinforcement of the European pillar of NATO than as a parallel political project with hints of independence. It is a decision inspired by the German tradition of recent decades.

Macron thinks of Charles de Gaulle and reflects a Europe that has stopped believing in the American backstop. He bets on unity between the main European powers. Von der Leyen, meanwhile, fears the fractures that might emerge in crisis situations. She considers it indispensable to have an anchor point external to European rivalries. In reality, this may signify an acknowledgement of the fragility of the European project.

I fear that the Munich conference will display these discrepancies and convey an image of weakness to the delegation led by Rubio—and the conviction that the person truly in charge of European security is, after all, in the White House. This would be tragic for our common European project. Faced with Rubio, and through him, Donald Trump, Europe cannot limit itself to promising more spending. It must demonstrate unity, decision-making capacity, and moral strength in a new-old world, now dominated by powers that have once again ceased to value political ethics and international law.

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo

Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.