Europe’s security situation on 1 September 2026
by Jochen M. Richter*
The book „Europe and the Emerging New Global Order – Rethinking Europe’s Security Framework“ (ISBN 978-3-98674-141-9), published by the Diplomatic Council in January 2025 closed the analyses of Europe’s security challenges with a call for action. It’s worth reiterating how we defined security in the book. A holistic approach was chosen that after this summer includes questions of actively managing water scarcity, climate change and food security.
This article claims that our overall security situation on the September 1st, 2026, is worse than what we described 18 months ago. Is this just panicking or where do we stand today?
Let’s first zoom in to the conflict that occupies Europe the most, namely the aggression of Russia against Ukraine. The current scenario is a terrible mixture of total aggression by Russia increasingly targeting civilians, military failure in terms of Russia’s ambitions and an almost crazy cat mouse game where every month the dice roles again which technology advancement does the trick. The latter just for a few weeks, one must add. Europe’s support to Ukraine remains officially without limits but doesn’t lead to the victory Ukraine hopes for.
In negotiation exercise, the first lesson is to enable yourself to see as objective as possible the other side’s point of view. As difficult as this is in the described circumstances towards Russia, I think it is fair to say that the current Russian leadership is like an angry dog sitting in a corner. So, is it worse to throw a piece of sausage towards the angry dog to calm it down or what else can help? Of course, this picture fails to describe European challenges in dealing with Russia. However, the claim of some that Russia as the last Empire of the past must crumble is probably the reason why Russia’s elite thinks that its country is under attack. As much as this is nonsense, we have to keep this in mind when devising a negotiation strategy.
The combination of these complexities mixed with a complicated integration agenda for Ukraine into the European Union plus Ukraine’s increasing inner-political turbulences would require a cool hearted analysis of our options.
Zooming out, we should realise that our relations with the United States remain and will remain strained. It is not only the fickle attitude of the present US president towards its, let’s call it frankly, former allies. It becomes increasingly obvious that the orientation of the US away from alliances towards dealmaking has been failing. Whether it’s Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, China or South America, none of the attempts has led to any lasting results. And of course it couldn’t, because then it would be again a real strategy, a method this president despises. Consequently, he has no choice but to come up with a new stunt every week. Effective cooperation in such circumstances is almost impossible. And of course, some would counterargue that we should just sit and wait. Because either a lame-duck president following the mid-terms or another president after the next elections will turn things back. I would warn of going down that road because at least in the security area the call for more European engagement will not go away.
China’s advantage is its strategic long-term thinking in scenarios that allows for minimal adaptations while keeping up a strong system of control towards its own population. Some claim that China faces too many internal challenges, ranging from its over production to a gig economy and a population decline. Therefore, these experts predict that China cannot achieve what it has set out over the years as its strategic goal. I doubt this but time will show who’s right. However, as with its belt and road initiative China thinks and plans in decades. Its recent demonstration how to exploit a future ice-free Arctic passage is just as good an example as its race to beat the US in several technology areas such as space and AI. Furthermore, with its e-vision and rare earth strategy, it is likely the main beneficiary of the transitions needed to manage climate change.
Is everything lost or what would have to be done?
Maybe I should start with a provocative statement. No current political leader, including Mr Zelenskyy, will survive the hard choices – if they dare to do the necessary – or turbulences to come. Therefore, they all should stop thinking in (re-)election cycles and concentrate on leaving decisions that will be hailed for their bravery some years in the future. Of course, very difficult in times when media clicks seem to be more important.
Secondly, let’s admit that ever more national thinking and decision making is equally unhelpful, especially for Europe. Likewise, the fear that more conservative or extremist governments cannot be trusted, isn’t a strategy either. As George Bernhard Shaw famously said: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
Europe needs to decide whether we are willing to take up the gauntlet that Russia has thrown down to us. This doesn’t mean that we must think in any war scenarios. But to secure jointly our territories including Ukraine is for once without alternative. This requires much more cooperation, trust and burden sharing. I repeat what we wrote 18 months ago, burden sharing should include thinking along the lines of who produces and provides what. And it means to negotiate this actively with the southern European partners.
The key word of burden sharing concerns equally the financial side. Be it agriculture and the EU budget, financial support to Ukraine and the unwillingness of many to help Belgium for using the frozen assets, Europe demonstrates too much national navel gazing. It is high time for new avenues.
Some speak of a conflict between either security or social welfare. But frankly, money – you don’t hear me saying public money – isn’t the real problem. Besides the waste of resources by national planning, we haven’t come up yet with convincing proposals how to better engage private funds rather than over 33 billion Euros of household fund lying on savings accounts. Money that constantly loses value as inflation eats more than what interest rates add, and a resource that could grow by investing in the real economy. This would also mean more basic economic knowledge in school curricula.
An encompassing security concept that includes civil defence, would even require that persons, like the author, being too old for military service, are engaged in roles where they can be useful. Whether this concerns a defence situation or disaster response. Good example setting is the best way to engage a wary generation Z.
Third, Europe needs to define a strategy towards Türkiye. The country’s leadership pursues a wide-ranging strategy with the recent situation in Syria just being another puzzle piece. It’s security pact with powers such as Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan was in my view too early seen as falling short just because it won’t be immediately a middle east NATO. In my view it is an interesting diversification with other middle powers.
Fourth, here comes a central point, namely the need for alternative alliances that Europe should engage in. Probably to advance in this direction, we should admit that we are maybe a bit more but in the end a kind of middle power. A European Mr. Carney would be very helpful to send clear signals internally and towards others.
Like a revised strategy towards the US, fifth element, Europe needs a China strategy that deserves the name. Industry must help here too, because they cannot decide either whether protective measures or sizing business opportunities is the way to go. We cannot have sector-specific strategies but maybe someone has a better idea. Just wishing to have the cake and eat it, has never worked.
Two final aspects. The choke points of closed or embattled shipping routes combined at least during certain summer month of droughts risk to become a serious problem for feeding the world. Intelligent concepts including for fertilizer production are needed to avoid that all efforts over the past decennia to reduce starving are undone. The same accounts for access to consumable water. All elements that once were advanced by the UN.
Therefore, Europe should make a serious effort to come up with a joint proposal for the next UN secretary general. Support should be gathered from other countries and continents. This forum of debate, diplomacy and gathering the world leaders is still very important.
To conclude, we call – again – for action!
*Jochen M. Richter is
the Chair of the Security Forum @ Diplomatic Council
the President of the independent Luxembourg based think tank Cercle Européen Renert
