In 2026, Europe's future hinges on this.
The warning had been brewing for some time, alluding to issues as diverse as Brexit, peasant uprisings, bureaucratic chaos, the lack of a sustainable migration policy, and leadership that was purely administrative (at best) or merely decorative (at worst). Ultimately, the dreaded word: decline. This is part of a value judgment, but also an objective and quantifiable reality encompassing demographics, productivity, technological obsolescence, and much more. Those aspects I will attempt to explain here, while acknowledging that I will inevitably leave some unmentioned, suggest that 2026 could mark a turning point in the viability, even in the medium term, of the European Union. There are at least three elements worth highlighting.
The first and most relevant issue is related to defense and security. This is not my opinion: the strengthening of military capabilities is perceived by the Union itself as the main challenge for the 2026/2027 period. It implies unprecedented investments that, obviously, will have to come from somewhere. Aside from the typical Brussels rhetoric, it is clear that all of this will affect certain founding values and some red lines related to social policies. All of this goes far beyond the direct consequences of the reconstitution of the former USSR, including the invasion of Ukraine: it leads to a profound rethinking of the Union's ideology. However well the product is presented, many people will disagree. Moreover, Putin has allies within Europe, political parties that, while minority parties, enjoy a manifestly disproportionate media presence. The dilemma also involves, of course, the United States and the international disorder—the Greenlandization—promoted by Trump. pro domo suaThe new USSR and China are trying to rewrite the same mess in their own way, and they generally do so with a malevolent chuckle at a decadent Europe. Putin's main argument is not, and cannot be, his own weight (despite its size, Russia has a negligible GDP) but the decline of others. That is why he sows discord within the Union, which is enthusiastically embraced by the most gullible members of each group.
Secondly, the Union is trying to maintain competitiveness in a context of technological transformations and geopolitical tensions stemming from these changes, but it is doing so with parameters from another era. European institutions have set as a priority for 2026 the boosting of competitiveness and the simplification of overregulations that literally paralyze the economic activity of many sectors. The Union has, in fact, ended up consolidating a specific regime: that of the moralizing bureaucracyThat is, it is associated with individual and collective rewards and punishments (subsidies and sanctions, respectively). This approach has proven completely ineffective in solving existing problems or preventing future ones. For example, what good has it done to overwhelm farmers with electronic forms?
Third, the development—necessarily accelerated and somewhat improvised, yet inevitable—of generative artificial intelligence and other technologies associated with digitalization implies rewriting the balance between innovation and regulation, which in the case of the European Union often translates into compulsive bureaucratization, over-legislation, and inertia. 2026 will be key to beginning negotiations on the new 2028-2034 budgetary framework. There will inevitably be tensions between priorities such as defense, the green transition, immigration, and economic support for Ukraine. The idea that no one will lose out is simply ludicrous.
I understand that the reader might think I've overlooked something important: the unstoppable rise of the far right in most European countries (and the world). I'm very much aware of it, but I prefer to pose it as a question, not to sound clever, but because I don't have a clear answer. The dilemma is this: is the rise of right-wing extremism the cause or the consequence of certain European Union policies related to, among other things, immigration, environmental, and gender issues? This question isn't directed at those addicted to hysterical debates of one side or the other. Nor is it for those who frequent social media platforms that promote simplistic and almost demented attitudes—they already have the answer ready—but rather at those who still read, know how to listen, and can distinguish between black and white. To all of them, the author of these lines wishes a happy new year.
