“The old world is dying, the new one is slow to appear. And in this chiaroscuro, monsters emerge,” wrote Antonio Gramsci from the prison where Italian fascism had confined him. The communist thus encapsulated the upheavals of the early 20th century. Almost a hundred years later, the old multilateralism of the post-World War II era is unraveling under the same sense of disorientation and helplessness. After Russia opened the floodgates with Ukraine and China made its aspirations regarding Taiwan clear, Donald Trump—returned to power by the far right—has illegally intervened in Venezuela and is preparing to plunder its oil while threatening Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico. A fatal blow to the United Nations system, after the contempt he showed from the heart of the UN.

The first year of Donald Trump's second term has consolidated a dynamic that had been brewing for some time, but which has now accelerated: economic and technological coercion in relations within a Europe caught between the United States and Russia. In a context of tariffs and expansionist interventionism, China seeks to project stability and expand its markets, while new alliances are being forged in the Global South. 2026, therefore, will be a year of "global readjustment" in which "the capacity to adapt to a brutal geopolitics will be tested." This is the prediction of researchers at CIDOB, who have selected the 10 issues that will shape the global agenda in 2026. We review them one by one.

Towards the end of the last century, the EU introduced the term "European paradox" to highlight the contrast between European scientific research at a level comparable to that of the US and significantly lower results in terms of innovation and the creation of large companies. The subsequent academic debate on the reasons for this has been substantial. Professor Ruiz-Castillo, from Carlos III University, has been a major participant. Having read the literature, I offer my opinion, with less nuance than necessary. The cause is twofold: 1. The premise regarding the level of European science is not entirely sound. When the focus is placed on the most selective indicators of quality, the superiority of the US is clear. This difference at the top is significant because, until now, an implacable economic logic has prevailed in the world: whoever arrives first takes the whole pie. China understood this long ago.

Just as the world's key players are no longer the same, the forums where international relations are debated are also changing. Davos, the quintessential gathering of Western economic elites, is seeking a new purpose since Trump decided to reject globalization, promote protectionism, and impose barriers to international trade in the form of tariffs.

Europe is suffering a protracted and purposeful aggression from Russia. The disproportion between the triviality of the war's justifications and the magnitude of the harm inflicted makes the situation difficult for Russia itself to resolve. It has resulted in 280,000 deaths, 800,000 injuries, and 6 million displaced persons, as well as material damage exceeding €175 billion, according to the World Bank. The arbitrary nature of the aggression makes its recurrence likely if the conflict ends without reparations.

Historically, the hard power of the military, the economy, and trade has been linked to and prevailed over the soft power of cultural hegemony. Force has been used as a basis, and persuasion as a means and justification to prolong its effect over time. To establish international hegemony, a position of dominance, economic leadership logically counts, as does military supremacy. These factors, in fact, often go hand in hand. Having the largest and most powerful military helps set the pace of the economy not only in relation to production, but also to trade and, especially, to finance. The strength of capital, combined with a large and well-trained military, is often essential for playing a decisive role in global geopolitics. If the 19th century was Britain's century—the industrial revolution, colonialism, control of the seas, City finances...—after the First World War, the centrality of the world shifted to the United States, which was its true winner—British collapse, industrial hegemony, Wall Street's financial center, Hollywood...—a new era. Certainly, after the Second World War, new global players such as the USSR and China emerged, but despite the firmly established blocs, American leadership remained unchallenged. Despite some military demonstrations, but also failures, until recently, it was a series of intangible cultural traits that made it a country followed, copied, admired, respected, and recognized.

It is surprising and shocking that an American journalist and researcher like Robert D. Kaplan, a democrat, humanist and well-versed in Europe – let us remember his Balkan ghosts– declare himself, I wouldn't say an adept, but certainly sympathetic to some of Donald Trump's approaches. First of all, Kaplan, following the recent publication of his book Waste Land (RBA Editorial, 2025), on the risk of global geopolitics becoming an immense Weimar Republic—and, therefore, a threat of self-destruction for democracy—he dares to disqualify Trump as a politician, treating him as an ignoramus who represents nothing beyond social media propaganda. But when media outlets of various persuasions ask Robert Kaplan whether he sees a tyrant in the US president, the analyst and reporter says that perhaps Trump doesn't respect the judiciary, but then seems to exonerate him: "Trump isn't serious enough to be a fascist. A fascist has devised a plan, and Trump doesn't have one." Kaplan ignores or obviates statements about Trump's fascism expressed by historian Robert Paxton and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Mr. Z leaves food and water for the cat in the kitchen, then opens the roof window and leaves the house.

Albert Camus said that wars are too stupid to last, but they always end up lasting because stupidity insists and wins. Throughout history, humanity has seen conflicts of all types and in almost every corner of the planet. However, probably one of the most bizarre ones took place during the second half of the 20th century between Iceland and the United Kingdom. The reason for the dispute was cod. On three occasions (in 1958, in 1972 and in 1975), Reykjavik and London clashed over the rights to catch this fish in the waters of the North Atlantic. Only one death was recorded - that of an Icelandic engineer in 1973 - but there were countless violent skirmishes that left iconic images, such as a British navy ship intentionally crashing into an Icelandic navy ship.

While the Europeans of the Union, the British and the Americans dance to the music of our fantastic pharmaceutical companies, and while we try (with more or less success) that the bulk of the production of vaccines that we have reserved and that we have paid for in advance arrives on time, does not become more expensive and does not escape outside the borders of our privileged enclosure, China deploys its risky and ambitious vaccine diplomacy throughout the five continents.