What do Leo XIV, Donald Trump, and Xi Jinping have in common? That all three have understood that the emergence of artificial intelligence is no longer just a technological issue, but a global strategic fact. The Holy Father opens his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas warning that humanity faces a “decisive choice”, and closes it with a fundamental question: how can we care for the human person in the age of AI? Trump, in turn, presented the American plan a year ago to “win the race” for artificial intelligence, convinced that whoever dominates this ecosystem will set global standards and reap the economic and military benefits. Xi Jinping, with more measured but no less ambitious language, has also placed AI at the center of China's coming years, to the point of wanting to introduce it massively into industrial processes and move towards artificial general intelligence.And meanwhile, what are we doing in Europe? Not much, to be honest. Facing a continent scorched by climate change, with an uncaring, nationalist and anti-European right gaining ground, and with a war entrenched in the backyard, the European Union appears slow, hesitant and, too often, inefficient. The problem is not just that we struggle to react to AI; it's that AI arrives at a time when the whole old world order seems to be falling apart at the same time. Therefore, the discussion about algorithms, data and machines is also a discussion about power, dependence and political future.It is worth reading the papal encyclical not as a text strictly about technology, but as a warning about the course of a planet that is more insecure, more unpredictable, and more multipolar than what the men and women of my generation have known. We are witnessing —first with condescension; then with disbelief, and now with stupefaction— the undoing of an order that seemed more solid to us than it was.Trump has called into question institutions and alliances that we believed unassailable: the United Nations, NATO, free trade, even the very idea of the West. Today, Europeans are no longer entirely sure whether the United States is a reliable ally or not. And this is perhaps its hardest lesson: in international politics, what was white yesterday can be black today, and beneath the civilized veneer of institutions, the old law of the strongest continues to beat.

Everything Donald Trump touches becomes unpredictable and unbelievable. And this week's NATO summit in Ankara has been no exception. The meeting has been overshadowed by the outbursts and threats of the New York magnate to his allies, and the issues that really matter to military understanding have been relegated to the background, such as the rearmament of Europe or military aid to Ukraine. Also starring at the meeting were the host, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pedro Sánchez, who has been the preferred target of the President of the United States. The meeting has left a list of anecdotes that, although they may seem trivial, are symptomatic of the moment the Alliance is going through.

Another U-turn from President Donald Trump. After being the entire NATO summit in Ankara charging against Spain, the President of the United States has changed his tone with the government of Pedro Sánchez and has assured on the way back to the plane that the Spanish state "has completely redeemed itself" because Moncloa has accepted an "important payment request". "Spain has been very generous today. They have agreed to an important payment request and, if they hadn't, we wouldn't have even talked to them," the American leader assured.

When it comes to Donald Trump, it is very difficult to discern what is true and what is pure bluster in his words, but the reality is that it is becoming increasingly evident that Europe must go it alone in the field of security. The latest NATO summit, held in Ankara, has been the clearest example that these United States are not a reliable ally. Trump has once again staged his particular show, in which he has insulted political leaders like Giorgia Meloni, has threatened countries like Spain, has insisted that he wants to keep Greenland, and has made it clear that, if it were up to him, he would dismantle the Atlantic Alliance because he sees no use for it. His press conferences are a collection of absurdities that serve both to provide sensationalist headlines and to cause confusions that quickly go viral on social networks, such as referring to Iran as the Islamic Republic of Japan.

Donald Trump's tone with Volodomyr Zelensky has changed, at least in recent days. He went from humiliating him in the Oval Office and in front of the cameras last February, to praising him and sending a message of support at the NATO summit this Wednesday in Ankara. In this context, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has promised to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture the powerful US Patriot missile system.

Donald Trump has once again set the NATO summit ablaze. Upon arriving at the meeting of leaders in Ankara, the President of the United States has lashed out indiscriminately at his allies, especially against Spain, and has asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, to "immediately" cut off trade and bilateral relations with the Spanish state. However, Pedro Sánchez has downplayed it and assured at a press conference that Spain maintains good relations with the United States. In fact, this threat is not new, it is legally very difficult to carry out because —apart from Spain belonging to the European Union— the measure could be halted by the US Congress or courts.

Europe, today, has two pillars. An economic and political pillar, which is the European Union, and a political and military one, NATO. Both are headquartered in Brussels, but they have gone decades almost without speaking to each other. However, Europe's strength derives precisely from this double pillar. During the summit of the military alliance being held this Tuesday and Wednesday in Ankara, European leaders will have to recognize without mincing words that the second pillar of Europe must be urgently rebuilt.

Donald Trump is setting fire to relations with Europe and puts Greenland back in the crosshairs just hours before the NATO summit begins. "Greenland should be under the control of the United States, not Denmark," said the North American leader from Ankara (Turkey). Although the leaders' meeting was to focus on rearmament and aid to Ukraine, the President of the United States took the opportunity to revive his expansionist desires with the territory of a NATO ally and member state of the European Union such as Denmark.

Sam Edwards is a professor of contemporary political history at Loughborough University, one of the most prestigious British research institutions, located in the heart of England, between Leicester and Nottingham. Edwards is a specialist in historical memory, commemorations, and transatlantic relations, and is one of the leading authorities on the study of how the United Kingdom and the United States have constructed the shared memory of their colonial past. A member of the Royal Historical Society, he has dedicated the last few years to researching the memory of the American Revolution.

NATO has no court or coercive power that can force a member state to reach 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in military spending. However, the rest of the allies, especially the United States, can exert all kinds of diplomatic pressure, economic and military to pressure countries like Spain, which refuses to accept Donald Trump's demands and wants to stay at 2.1%. And this is what the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance himself, Mark Rutte, has hinted that the White House will do against Pedro Sánchez's government.

Keir Starmer bids farewell to Downing Street by allocating more money for weapons than for fixing roads and promoting energy projects. It is the last major political act of a prime minister on the verge of leaving office, after announcing his resignation nine days ago, cornered by party colleagues who had lost confidence in the man who led them to electoral victory just two years ago.

These statements by Pete Hegseth that woke countries that do not want virile missiles, even though they spend much more than any reasonable figure on them. that they do not want virile missiles, even if they spend much more than any reasonable figure.chiringuitos del catalán, Hegseth could pass for one of those individuals that Vox has as spokespeople. The original MAGA end up resembling their provincial copies of the empire. This is because they all navigate, and dive, and feed, within the same putrid waters. A government that plays at confusing the eighty years of a president who falls asleep at public events with the 250th anniversary of the proclamation of independence, and does so with a spectacle of punches, blood and guts, is the exact reflection of those who here want to prevail the hatred of some citizens against others, and the ugliness of their bad taste.

Practically no one discusses the positive effects the EU has had on the development of European societies over the last seventy years. In addition to the advantages in socio-economic matters –common economic space and currency, development, social rights, etc.–, it is a period of stability framed by the absence of internal wars between member states. It is a positive outcome arising from the nefarious wartime experience of the Second World War.Today this European internal peace is not in danger. The same cannot be said, however, for the international situation in which the EU (and NATO) states are involved. As things stand, it is not out of the question that a war with Russia could occur in the short term. This would represent an irresponsible stupidity, as war interests neither of the two potential sides. Let's take it step by step.1. Western discourses on “European security” are neither analyzed nor conducted in parallel with the objectives of Russian security. The lack of Hobbesian empathy – analyzing the world of international relations from the perspective of “the other” – tends to erode the possibilities of resolving conflicts through diplomatic means. The security sought is never only one's own.2. It is partly demagogic to present Russia as the "aggressor" state, silencing NATO's prior expansionist policy towards Eastern Europe. An expansion that violated the previous agreements (Gorbachev) that made possible – with Russia's acceptance – the unification of Germany in 1990 after the collapse of the Soviet regime. As I have said on occasion, the subsequent will of the USA (NATO) to win the post-war period after winning the Cold War is at the origin of the current problems.3. As highlighted by the North American academic Jeffrey Sachs, European states are not reliable actors when it comes to respecting international agreements: they have constantly violated them. A small list: the aforementioned expansion of NATO; the disregard for Russia's collaboration proposals in the early years of the 21st century (summits of Munich and Bucharest), which led to the predictable invasion of Crimea, a Russian territory since the end of the 18th century, in 2014; the recognized European deception (ratified by Merkel) of the Minsk II agreements (2015) despite the collaboration of France and Germany. It does not seem that the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) was precisely a surprise. The Western boycott (USA, United Kingdom) of the Istanbul agreement of 2022 goes in the same direction.4. Wars have changed. The economic costs of attack missions are lower than the costs of a defensive nature. The combination of drones, missiles, and the growing strategic weight of artificial intelligence are a further factor of instability, as well as possible errors and tactical decisions without human control. Wars are currently easier to start and harder to end.5. Germany and Japan, the two main defeated powers in World War II, are beginning to be immersed in a program of strong militarization. Defense (or war) budgets of these two states are expected to increase significantly in the next decade. Germany's case, seen from Russia, can only be read as a real threat. It was the Germans who invaded Russia just a few decades ago. Furthermore, a (US) general and an (Lithuanian) Foreign Minister of NATO have threatened to attack Kaliningrad, a Russian settlement in the Baltic. An example of irresponsible irrationality.

More than forty years have passed since the referendum on Spain's membership in NATO. The vote took place on March 12, 1986, when the former mayor of Barcelona, Narcís Serra (PSC), was Minister of Defense. In these last four decades, Spanish society has changed a lot regarding its knowledge of foreign policy and defense matters, and the majority perceptions about the commitments that membership in the Western world implies. It would now make no sense to reconsider the country's role in its contribution in this area.

While Trump's and his administration's insults towards the European Union do not subside, European leaders agreed yesterday in Cyprus to shift into fifth gear to achieve a common defense system. What happened this Friday is a demonstration of how much this process needs to be accelerated. In the morning, we woke up to the news that an email circulating within the Pentagon proposed the option of "kicking out" Spain from NATO, as a warning to other countries that refuse to help in the United States and Israel's war against Iran. It is an internal email, not an official statement, and experts warn that it has little traction and at most would mean removing Spain from command or leadership of missions, but the threat is there. Mid-morning, the United States Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, dedicated part of his press conference to criticizing Europeans and pointing out that the conference of countries on the Strait of Hormuz, organized last week by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, was "ridiculous" and "ostentatious." Furthermore, he reproached them again for not participating in the war with the veiled threat that the "protection" they had from the United States until now has ended.

The Pentagon is reportedly considering suspending Spain from NATO, among other proposals to punish countries that have not supported American operations in the war with Iran. This is indicated by an email that has circulated among senior officials of the War Department —formerly the Department of Defense— of the United States, as a funcionario has assured the Reuters agency on condition of anonymity.

Cyprus is the only European Union member state that has received attacks of Iranian origin in the war initiated by the United States and Israel in the Middle East. The island is located about 200 kilometers from Lebanon – closer than to continental Europe – and is the easternmost community territory. Furthermore, due to its geographical location, it has great military importance. Even so, the country is not part of NATO and, therefore, does not have the military umbrella of the US army. A rare avis within the European club that serves as an excuse for EU leaders, who are meeting this Thursday and Friday precisely in Cyprus, to discuss how to defend themselves from potential attacks without relying on Donald Trump's US, which is increasingly distancing itself from European military interests.

It is true that Europe has benefited greatly from having a large part of its defense outsourced to the budgets of the United States, but Trump could reserve the role of the offended for a better cause. Because for decades, US security has been defended from American bases spread throughout Europe. And because 65% of European defense equipment orders are placed with North American companies, and that amounts to billions that have entered the American coffers and come from European budgets for decades.

Marco Rubio's speech in Munich on Saturday was the most intelligent piece of foreign policy the current US administration has produced so far. Intelligent because it was polished, well-argued, and seemingly conciliatory. In fact, European governments greeted the speech with relief, like someone expecting the coup de grâce and suddenly being offered a lifeline.

At the Munich Security Conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a conservative, took a step forward in assuming European leadership. In a carefully considered and calculated speech, Merz sought a balance between the desire to move towards greater European defense autonomy and the need to maintain the historic alliance with the United States. All of this stemmed from the assumption that a new era is dawning on the international stage, one that no longer adheres to the parameters of the post-World War II era. Merz and Macron acknowledged ongoing talks to "articulate France's nuclear deterrent for Europe," Macron stated, making it clear that a strong stance is necessary: ​​"Europe must become a geopolitical power." At this point, it remains to be seen what position London, which also possesses nuclear weapons, will adopt. In any case, in Munich, Merz, Macron, and Starmer made a public appearance together. The chancellor has opted for this path without abandoning Atlanticism, that is, within a NATO in which Europe assumes greater responsibility and, therefore, greater military strength. This European strengthening responds to the Western rebalancing unleashed by US President Donald Trump with his disruptive and contemptuous approach to Europe. What approach? So far, a four-move strategy. First, pressuring traditional partners to increase their military budgets—and to do so by spending on American industry. Second, flirting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the context of the war in Ukraine; this very Friday he insisted: "Russia wants to reach an agreement and Zelensky will have to make a move or he will lose a great opportunity." Third, emboldening the continental far right and thus weakening European unity. And fourth, with the threat of invading a European territory, Greenland (Denmark).