It appears quite evident, if we observe the current international situation and consider the converging analyses of the leading political commentators, that Europe is undergoing perhaps the most complex phase in its recent history. By “Europe” I am deliberately referring to the continent as a whole, encompassing a broader area than the -albeit large - one represented by the European Union and its 27 member states. Taking Great Britain's presence for granted, it certainly includes the Western Balkans, which have been seeking accession to Brussels for several years, as well as to other states that are also “in the Champions League,” if I may borrow a football metaphor -countries preparing, with varying and often uncertain prospects, to pursue that same path.
In the not too distant past, the European (or, more appropriately, pan-European) area was even broader, commonly described as stretching “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” This definition was no coincidence: it largely overlapped with the membership of the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based continental organisation tasked with promoting democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.
However, as is well known, since February 2022 the situation has changed radically. Even in Europe -which had remained largely free from armed conflict since the Second World War, with the tragic exception of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s - the winds of war have begun blowing again, prompting widespread concern.
Against this backdrop, many fear that Europe may be headed toward a future of irreversible decline, as it is crushed by the increasingly assertive rise of global superpowers whose internal systems differ markedly from those enshrined in our constitutions. These systems are heavily skewed toward “strong executives” and lack effective mechanisms for overseeing and restraining their exercise of power.
It is particularly troubling, in light of the emergence of the “new American security doctrine,” that the United States appears poised to withdraw from our continent the protective umbrella -comprised of both military assets and troops on the ground -that has effectively safeguarded Europe from 1945 to the present day. This development exposes a fundamental weakness in Europe: its inability to provide for and guarantee its own defence against potential external threats, whether conventional or even “hybrid” in nature.
Another limitation frequently highlighted in connection with today’s topic (here referring specifically to the Union), is the excessive bureaucratic rigidity that has accompanied it since its foundation. This rigidity often becomes an almost insurmountable obstacle to fostering innovation, addressing current technological challenges, competing with the United States and China in the leading economic sectors, and, ultimately, pursuing its own process of integration with sufficient determination. As a result, a market of 450 million consumers and the world’s second-largest GDP are unable to fully assert their weight on the global stage, at times even finding themselves compelled, as recently occurred with their U.S. “ally”, to accept markedly unbalanced agreements on tariffs, investment, or energy purchases.
According to most observers, Europe’s structural weakness originates in, and is largely attributable to, the principle of unanimity, which, with the exception of a very limited number of policy areas, remains a true cornerstone of the Brussels institutions. On closer inspection, this principle is the exact counterpart to the right of veto granted in New York to the five permanent members of the UN. These internal “architectures” were fully acceptable in the post–Second World War period and in the years immediately thereafter, but they no longer appear suited to the demands for greater dynamism and flexibility in a constantly evolving “new world.” It is no coincidence that both the European Union and the United Nations have emerged as major losers in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: beyond fulfilling their duty to provide humanitarian assistance, they have exerted no real influence over the parties involved and, as a result, have played no meaningful role in advancing a negotiated solution. It is also no coincidence that the substantial 'uselessness' of both organisations has been expressed on several occasions and in totally discordant terms by both US President Trump and his Russian counterpart Putin, who share a common design to undermine the principles of multilateralism and to create the preconditions for a global order based on relations of force, giving concrete form to the might takes right formula.
In order to counter this worrying authoritarian drift, I consider it essential that what Europe has achieved from 1957 to the present (summarised in the term acquis communautaire), be properly valued and safeguarded against any potential challenges, even if only partial.
Beyond the existing “construction errors”, some of which we have briefly touched upon and which are, moreover, inevitable in a structure of such complexity, Europe remains by far the part of the world where the values of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights (above all, the rights of all minorities), gender equality, and social solidarity find the widest affirmation, accompanied, if need be, by instruments of adequate protection. Two figures speak volumes about the privileged position our continent offers its inhabitants: just 7% of the world’s population accounts for 25% of total global welfare spending.
Speaking recently, with his customary sensitivity and political acumen, at the annual conference of Italian ambassadors, President Mattarella expressed himself with extreme clarity and equally decisive assertiveness in defence of Europe and its values. I quote below one of the central passages of his address: “It seems, to say the least, remarkable that at a time when, on the international stage, efforts are being made to unite states and coordinate their aspirations and actions, we are witnessing a disorderly and unjustified attack on the European Union. This portrayal distorts the truth, presenting the EU not as one of history’s successful experiments in democracy and the protection of rights, developed with the support and appreciation of the wider West but rather as an oppressive institution, if not an actual enemy of freedom.”
Based on the considerations above, in the good wishes I send at the start of each year to my circle of friends and acquaintances, I will also symbolically include our Continent, extending to it wishes of “health, success, and happiness” much like those I reserve for individuals.
I would, of course, be delighted if any of my readers felt inspired to do the same, taking this occasion to express from the heart a sincere, “Happy 2026, Europe!”
Reggente Marco Marsilli, Foundation President
