India and Pakistan are once again locked in a familiar cycle of tension, marked by cross-border strikes, sharp rhetoric, and rising public anxiety. Yet despite the heated atmosphere, the conflict is widely expected to remain limited in scope and eventually de-escalate. Behind the scenes, both governments appear more interested in scoring political points at home than pursuing a full-scale war. Their actions, measured military responses and carefully crafted messaging, suggest a strategy aimed at domestic audiences rather than battlefield escalation. In this article, we explore why this crisis, while serious, is unlikely to spiral out of control, and what signals from both sides reveal about their true intentions.

The initial terrorist attack was caused by Pakistan

There are strong suspicions that the group behind the recent deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, identified as the Islamic Resistance Front (IRF), operates with either the support or tacit tolerance of elements within the Pakistani state. These suspicions are not based solely on Indian claims; they reflect a broader consensus among Western intelligence analysts and international observers. The IRF is widely believed to be a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and others. LeT was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed over 170 people, including foreign nationals. U.S. intelligence has consistently identified LeT as maintaining ties with Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Although Pakistan officially bans LeT and similar groups, analysts from think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and government assessments, such as those from the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism, have long noted that these organizations often continue to operate under different names. Western intelligence agencies have frequently expressed concern that Pakistan uses such groups to pursue strategic interests in the disputed Kashmir region while maintaining plausible deniability. This aligns with a pattern where militant groups are not necessarily under direct government control but are allowed to function within Pakistan with minimal interference. While there is currently no public, direct evidence linking the Pakistani government to the April 2025 attack, the continued presence and activity of these groups, despite international sanctions and pressure, provides a strong basis for suspicion. In this context, many observers believe Pakistan bears at least indirect responsibility, either by failing to dismantle these networks or by quietly enabling their operations for geopolitical leverage.

The strategy of allowing militant groups to operate unofficially, while maintaining formal deniability, closely mirrors Russia’s use of hybrid warfare tactics, particularly in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. Just as Russia has employed proxies, mercenaries, and unmarked forces to obscure direct involvement, Pakistan’s apparent tolerance of jihadist groups allows it to exert pressure on India without triggering full-scale retaliation or international condemnation.

Low risk of escalation

Despite the sharp rise in tensions following the recent terrorist attack and subsequent military responses, the likelihood of a full-scale war between India and Pakistan remains low, largely because Pakistan is in no position to sustain one. Economically, Pakistan is facing a severe crisis: inflation is high, its foreign currency reserves are dangerously low, and it remains heavily dependent on international loans, especially from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The country is already struggling to maintain essential public services, and a war would risk total economic collapse. Politically, the government is fragile, grappling with internal unrest, power struggles between civilian leaders and the military, and a deeply divided society. While a limited conflict might be used to stir nationalist unity, escalating into a broader war would be a high-risk move that Pakistan is ill-equipped to handle.

India, on the other hand, is in a stronger position both economically and militarily. Its economy is far larger and more stable, and its military has superior conventional strength, especially in air and naval power. Yet even for India, war is not a cost-free option. Open conflict would disrupt economic growth, deter foreign investment, and damage India’s image as a rising global power. That’s why, in recent years, India has favored limited, targeted strikes against militant infrastructure rather than full-scale military operations. Both nations also possess nuclear weapons, creating a powerful deterrent against all-out war. In this context, experts believe that while skirmishes and proxy violence may continue, neither country is in a position, economically or strategically, where launching a full-scale war would serve its long-term interests.

Actions on both sides suggest limited intentions

Although tensions between India and Pakistan have spiked following the recent attack in Kashmir and India’s retaliatory strikes, the actions of both countries suggest that neither side is truly seeking a full-scale war. So far, both have limited their military responses to drone strikes, cross-border shelling, and long-range attacks on selected targets, without sending troops into each other’s territory. India used kamikaze drones and air-launched weapons without crossing its soldiers over the border, while Pakistan responded in kind with aerial interceptions and artillery fire, not ground invasions. This restraint is a strong signal: when nations want war, they tend to cross red lines with more aggressive moves. The current behavior indicates both are trying to project strength without triggering uncontrolled escalation.

This pattern fits with past India-Pakistan conflicts. In 2019, after a deadly suicide bombing in Pulwama, India carried out airstrikes in Balakot (inside Pakistan) but stopped short of a ground assault. Pakistan responded with its own air strikes, and while both sides traded fire, they deliberately avoided expanding the conflict. Even during the Kargil War in 1999, the fighting was confined to a specific region along the Line of Control, and neither side invaded deeper into the other’s territory. Globally, countries that do intend to escalate, like Russia before its 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Germany before WWII, often use aggressive rhetoric or stage massive buildups with little effort to hide their intentions. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are publicly stating they do not want war, which, in diplomacy, is usually a real signal of restraint. Taken together, their cautious military actions and calming public messages suggest this crisis, while serious, is still being managed to avoid all-out war.

The Indian’s threat on water will probably not follow through

India has recently threatened to cut off water access to Pakistan by utilizing its control over the eastern tributaries of the Indus River system, specifically the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers. This move would represent a significant escalation, as the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, governs the shared use of the river system, with India responsible for the eastern rivers and Pakistan for the western ones. For Pakistan, the Indus River is vital for its agriculture, providing around 90% of the country’s irrigation water. Cutting off or diverting this water would have devastating economic and social consequences, threatening Pakistan’s food security and political stability. While India has used the threat of water disruption as leverage in past conflicts, historical patterns suggest it is unlikely to follow through with such extreme measures. The Indus Waters Treaty has long acted as a stabilizing force, and India’s previous actions, such as limited strikes and covert operations rather than full-scale warfare, show a tendency to avoid actions that could escalate uncontrollably. Disrupting water access could provoke not only severe international backlash but also destabilize the entire region, something India has historically sought to avoid. Therefore, despite the rhetoric, it is more likely that India will pursue diplomatic or limited military options instead of taking the drastic step of cutting Pakistan’s water supply.

A rhetorical battle for their domestic audiences

In the coming weeks, we can expect both India and Pakistan to engage in increasingly assertive and nationalistic rhetoric. From India’s perspective, the main points of focus will likely include framing its actions as defensive in response to Pakistan’s support of cross-border terrorism and the need to protect national security. India will emphasize its right to sovereignty, particularly regarding the Kashmir issue, and may highlight its growing military strength as evidence of its capacity to confront any threats. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty will be presented as a necessary measure in response to Pakistan’s alleged provocative actions, and India is likely to position itself as willing to engage diplomatically, but only if Pakistan addresses its role in supporting militants. Expect strong appeals to domestic nationalism, with India portraying itself as a global power unwilling to tolerate external aggression.

On the other hand, Pakistan will frame its rhetoric around self-defense and the preservation of its sovereignty. It will likely accuse India of violating the Indus Waters Treaty and international law, positioning India’s actions as a provocative and destabilizing move that threatens the livelihoods and security of millions of Pakistanis. The water issue will be central to Pakistan’s arguments, with appeals to the humanitarian impact of any disruptions to the Indus River’s water supply, which is critical to Pakistan’s agricultural base. Pakistan will also emphasize the need for peace, presenting itself as willing to engage in dialogue while asserting its right to resist Indian actions. In terms of global alliances, Pakistan will likely appeal to Islamic solidarity and seek international mediation to highlight its plight, portraying itself as the aggrieved party in a struggle for justice and survival. Both countries will likely invoke nuclear deterrence in their rhetoric, signaling their ability to escalate matters but stopping short of full-scale war, as neither side truly wants to provoke such a scenario.

Conclusion

While the situation remains highly volatile, the most probable outcomes seem to point toward limited military engagement and diplomatic negotiations rather than all-out war. Both countries have strong incentives to avoid a full-scale conflict, especially given the nuclear deterrent and the global consequences of escalating hostilities. The water issue is significant but will likely remain a tool of diplomatic pressure, rather than leading to full-blown military action. Ultimately, international mediation and strategic restraint will play key roles in preventing this conflict from spiraling out of control.

The European Union finds itself at a historic crossroads. The continent has spent nearly €5 trillion recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic (€2T from EU, €3T at national level), is in the process of committing over €800 billion to rearmament, and has already absorbed at least €850 billion in direct and indirect costs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as spending €111 billion on fossil fuels each year. Yet, the EU still struggles to mobilize just €400 billion to achieve a complete transition to solar energy that would permanently liberate it from fossil fuel dependency.

This isn’t just an environmental imperative. It’s an economic no-brainer.

The biggest misconception is that most analysts overestimate the cost of change by excluding nuclear energy from the equation and underestimating the long-term efficiency gains from repairable solar panels. Many ecologists struggle to reach such low-cost projections due to their counterproductive anti-nuclear stance, while many proponents of the status quo grossly inflate cost estimates because of the perceived need for batteries in the absence of nuclear energy.

But we don’t have to fall into these fallacies.

The Cost of a Full Solar Transition: Just €400 Billion

To power the EU entirely on solar energy, as an example, while maintaining existing nuclear infrastructure for grid stability and avoid the storage problem, we would need to replace both electricity generation and fossil fuel consumption across all sectors — transport, heating, and industry.

Here’s how it breaks down:

1. Energy Demand and Solar Capacity Needs

• Total EU final energy consumption: ~13,000 TWh/year
• Average solar PV output in Europe (capacity factor): ~11%
• Annual output per GW of solar: ~960 GWh/year

Required solar capacity: 13,000 TWh / 0.96 TWh per GW = ~13,500 GW

However, thanks to electrification efficiencies (e.g., electric vehicles being 3x more efficient than combustion engines, and heat pumps being 3-4x more efficient than gas boilers), we estimate a 30-40% reduction in final energy demand, bringing the total required capacity down to about 8,500 GW.

To meet that target over 30 years: 8,500 GW / 30 years = ~283 GW/year, rounded up to 307 GW/year to account for grid losses, redundancy, and seasonal storage needs.

2. Timeline and Build-Out Plan

307 GW/year must be installed, requiring a massive scale-up in manufacturing capacity.

3. Cost Breakdown

• Capital cost per GW factory (mass production): €400 million
  • This estimate is based on reported figures from recent large-scale solar manufacturing facilities in Europe and India, which include vertical integration of wafer, cell, and module production.
• Number of factories needed: 307
• Initial capital investment: €122.8 billion

Annual operating costs per factory:

• Estimated at ~€30.5 million/factory/year based on input materials (silicon, glass, aluminum), energy, labor, and maintenance. This figure draws from industrial-scale benchmarks published by Fraunhofer ISE and IEA.

307 factories x €30.5M = €9.36 billion/year

Total 30-year cost: €122.8B (setup) + €280.8B (operation) = €403.6 billion

Importantly, this does not rely on short-lifespan, mass-produced Chinese panels.

Why We Need Repairable, Long-Life Solar Panels

Today’s dominant solar panels, mostly produced in China, are optimized for low upfront cost and 25-year performance. But this short-term thinking locks us into a cycle of replacement and waste.

Repairable solar panels, with modular designs and easily replaceable components, cost roughly 2x more upfront but:

• Last 4x longer (up to 100 years with maintenance)
• Require fewer raw materials over the lifecycle
• Offer 2x better return on investment over a century

This change in approach would also end our dependency on China, which currently produces over 95% of global solar panels. Building a European solar manufacturing ecosystem would:

• Keep investment within the EU
• Strengthen industrial resilience
• Prevent China from leveraging solar dependence as an economic weapon
• Divide by 10 the quantity of wastes difficult to recycle at the end of life

The Benefits: Strategic, Economic, and Environmental

1. Energy Independence

No more dependence on Russian gas, Middle Eastern oil, or volatile fossil fuel markets.

• Consumer impact: Stabilized electricity bills, unaffected by geopolitics or fossil fuel speculation.
• National impact: Improved trade balance by slashing energy imports.

2. Permanent Low-Cost Energy

Once installed, solar panels have minimal operating costs and can last nearly a century.

• Consumer impact: Homeowners and renters enjoy ultra-low energy costs after payback.
• Business impact: Industries gain a global edge from predictable, affordable energy.

3. 1.5 million Jobs Creation

Solar value chains support a wide variety of jobs: mining, manufacturing, engineering, logistics, installation, maintenance.

• Ballpark estimate: Around 1.5 million jobs could be created or supported EU-wide, based on IRENA’s data that show about 25 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs created per MW of solar during build-out phases.
• Consumer impact: Boost in regional employment and income security, particularly in rural and post-industrial areas.

4. Industrial Leadership

Europe could become a clean-tech manufacturing superpower.

• Economic impact: Export potential in solar modules, storage, and grid technologies.
• Consumer impact: Reindustrialization brings supply chains closer to home, shortening delays and reducing costs.

5. Climate Security

The fastest, most scalable way to reach net-zero.

• Health impact: Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, and lower healthcare costs.
• Environmental impact: Mitigates climate disasters, preserving agriculture and water.

Why It’s Not Happening Yet

Despite the clear return on investment, the transition is blocked by:

• Short-Term Political Thinking: Politicians focus on 5-year terms, not 50-year gains.
• Fossil Lobby Pressure: Legacy industries resist disruption.
• Regulatory Bottlenecks: Grid connection, land use, and permitting delays.
• Lack of Unified Strategy: Energy policy is fragmented across member states.

What We Can Do

1. Finance the Solar Transition with a Joint EU Investment Program

The first step is to finance the transition. The EU has already demonstrated its ability to act collectively in times of crisis, as seen with the NextGenerationEU recovery fund, a joint borrowing effort that raised hundreds of billions to address the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a similar approach could be used to fund Europe’s clean energy future. By issuing joint EU bonds, Europe could tap into substantial public financing, which would, in turn, unlock private capital and drive investment into solar energy projects, grid modernization, and clean tech manufacturing.

Such an initiative would not only bring Europe closer to its climate goals, but also foster innovation, create millions of jobs, and reduce dependency on energy imports, especially fossil fuels. The key challenge here is the resistance from fiscally conservative member states, who might oppose shared debt issuance. However, the success of the COVID fund has already laid the groundwork for this type of cooperation, proving that when the stakes are high, Europe can rally together. The return on investment from solar and clean tech is far more than just economic, it is about securing energy sovereignty and creating a greener, more competitive Europe.

2. Cut Red Tape and Modernize Europe’s Grids

The second critical move is to address one of the biggest bottlenecks in solar deployment: permitting and grid modernization. At present, solar projects often face frustrating delays due to bureaucratic red tape, with permitting processes that stretch for months or even years. At the same time, many of Europe’s energy grids are outdated, ill-equipped to handle the decentralized nature of renewable energy. Streamlining these processes and modernizing the grid is not just an administrative necessity. It is an urgent priority. The EU can step in here by setting binding guidelines for faster permitting, creating designated zones for renewable energy projects, and investing heavily in the digital infrastructure needed for a smart, flexible grid.

In practical terms, this could mean that a solar panel installation, which currently takes weeks or months to approve, could instead be completed in days. A smarter, more efficient grid would allow solar power to flow seamlessly across borders and from rooftop to power station, strengthening both energy security and economic resilience. Overcoming the challenges will require strong political will, but the EU is already well-versed in harmonizing regulations to create a single market. A single market for renewables is the next logical step, and it could be as transformative as the common market for goods and services was in the 1990s.

3. Redirect Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Clean Energy

Finally, the EU must take bold action to redirect fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy. The EU spends over €100 billion a year on subsidies for fossil fuels, money that could be better spent on the transition to renewable energy. Despite the rapid decline in the cost of solar, many member states continue to support fossil fuel industries with subsidies that drive up both emissions and public spending. A fraction of this amount, just 25%, could go a long way toward funding solar installation in low-income households, community projects, and small businesses. Redirecting these subsidies would not only save money but would also send a clear signal that the era of fossil fuels is over and that the future belongs to renewable energy.

Naturally, redirecting fossil subsidies is politically tricky. Many sectors rely on these subsidies, from transport to agriculture. The solution, however, is not to simply cut the subsidies overnight, but to carefully redirect them to support a just transition. This means helping vulnerable populations with direct energy aid while using the savings to build solar infrastructure. There is precedent for this kind of reform: the EU Common Agricultural Policy was once resistant to change, but transparency and strategic redirection eventually made it more sustainable and fair. A similar approach could make fossil fuel subsidy reform politically feasible while benefiting the environment and the economy.

Taken together, these three moves — a coordinated investment plan, streamlined permitting and grid upgrades, and the redirection of fossil subsidies — offer a vision for Europe’s energy future that is bold yet realistic. The path is clear. These are not speculative, far-fetched ideas. They are achievable goals that can create a greener, more resilient Europe. And the costs of inaction are far greater than the efforts required to make these changes. With political will, European unity, and a commitment to the common good, Europe can seize this moment to lead the world in the clean energy revolution. The benefits for our economy, our planet, and our security are within reach, if we act now.

Conclusion

We are not short on money. We are short on prioritization. With less than 10% of what we spent on COVID, and a fraction of the cost of the war in Ukraine, or food/energy inflation, the EU could permanently secure its energy future.

We prefer to pay €35 trillion on fossil fuels over the next 30 years than a one time €400b for low cost renewable energy investment, safe from foreign influence.

The absurdity lies in our inaction. But the opportunity lies right in front of us.

It’s time to invest not in reaction, but in resilience.

When Russian forces crossed into Ukraine in February 2022, the geopolitical shockwaves were immediate. Beyond the battlefield, the European Union has borne a wide array of economic consequences: direct financial support to Ukraine, soaring energy and food prices, disrupted trade, and the need to ramp up defense spending. While these costs are spread across different sectors and budgets, it’s now possible to assemble a grounded, prudent estimate of the total economic burden faced by the EU from 2022 to 2025.

1. Direct Assistance to Ukraine

Between 2022 and 2025, the EU and its member states have committed unprecedented levels of aid to Ukraine. According to the European External Action Service (EEAS), as of early 2025, the total assistance includes:

• Financial and humanitarian aid: Approximately $73 billion, including macro-financial assistance, emergency funds, and reconstruction support.
• Military aid: Around $53 billion from both the EU budget and bilateral contributions from member states.
• Support for Ukrainian refugees: Estimated at $18 billion, based on refugee integration programs, housing, healthcare, and education.
• Ukraine Facility (2024–2027): A financial package worth $54 billion, of which we conservatively allocate half ($27 billion) to the 2024–2025 period.

Total Estimate for Assistance to Ukraine: $171 billion

2. Inflationary Pressures: Energy and Food

The EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels made the continent particularly vulnerable to energy shocks following sanctions and the disruption of gas flows.

• Energy Costs: According to data from Eurostat and Bruegel, wholesale gas prices spiked nearly 15-fold in 2022 before stabilizing in 2023. EU governments spent heavily on energy subsidies and diversification strategies, including importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. and Qatar. A reasonable aggregate cost for the energy shock, including household and industrial energy bills and state interventions, is around $250 billion over the 2022–2023 period.
• Food Inflation: Ukraine and Russia are key exporters of wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Disruptions in supply chains pushed food prices higher across Europe. Based on OECD estimates and national food subsidy programs, the additional cost burden is estimated at $50 billion.

Total Estimate for Inflationary Costs: $300 billion

3. Lost Economic Opportunities

Indirect costs are harder to pin down but arguably just as significant. The war undermined confidence, disrupted trade, and shifted investment priorities:

• Slower GDP Growth: The European Commission revised GDP growth forecasts downward for 2022 and 2023, with notable slowdowns in Germany, Italy, and Eastern Europe. Estimating the GDP shortfall compared to pre-war trajectories suggests a cumulative loss of $150 billion.
• Trade with Russia: Trade volumes between the EU and Russia plummeted due to sanctions. The EU lost a key market for exports and had to reconfigure imports. Based on historical trade data, the lost trade opportunity is estimated at $50 billion.
• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Capital Flows: Investor caution due to geopolitical risk, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, has suppressed capital flows. Lost or delayed investments are estimated at $50 billion.

Total Estimate for Lost Opportunities: $250 billion

4. Other Indirect Costs

Some costs, while less visible, still weigh heavily on national and EU budgets:

• Defense Spending: Several EU countries, including Germany and Poland, have announced large increases in defense budgets. Not all of this can be attributed to Ukraine, but a conservative estimate of $100 billion is reasonable.
• Administrative and Logistical Costs: Managing sanctions, customs changes, financial monitoring, aid distribution, and refugee processing carries a significant overhead. An estimated $30 billion is allocated here.

Total Estimate for Indirect Institutional Costs: $130 billion

Summary of Estimated Costs (2022–2025)

Category	Estimated Cost (USD)
Assistance to Ukraine	$171 billion
Inflationary Costs	$300 billion
Lost Economic Opportunities	$250 billion
Other Indirect Costs	$130 billion
Total Estimated Cost	$851 billion

Final Thoughts: A Most Probable Total

Based on a grounded aggregation of public data, institutional reports, and economic projections, we estimate that the total cost to the EU from the Russian invasion of Ukraine between 2022 and 2025 is approximately $850 billion.

Given the inherent uncertainty in projecting macroeconomic impacts and indirect costs, we suggest a confidence interval ranging from $750 billion to $1 trillion.

While the EU’s support for Ukraine reflects strategic, moral, and political values beyond monetary cost, understanding the scale of the financial implications is vital. It allows policymakers, economists, and the public to assess both the sacrifices made and the resilience shown in the face of one of the most consequential geopolitical crises of the 21st century.

Sources:

• European External Action Service (EEAS)
• European Commission Economic Forecasts (2022–2024)
• Bruegel Energy Tracker
• Eurostat inflation reports
• OECD food price data
• IMF World Economic Outlook
• National defense budget announcements (Germany, Poland, France)

As the war in Ukraine drags on, many in the West continue to pin their hopes on the Russian opposition — envisioning it as a democratic counterforce that could one day usher in a freer, more peaceful Russia. Yet this optimism overlooks a deeply embedded truth: the vast majority of Russia’s liberal opposition is still tethered to the very imperialism and colonialism that undergird the Kremlin’s authoritarianism. As long as these views remain intact, a truly democratic Russia is not only improbable — it is impossible.

Even in exile, opposition figures who have positioned themselves as champions of democracy routinely reveal their blind spots when it comes to Russia’s internal colonialism. In April 2025, Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza sparked backlash after suggesting that ethnic Russians may struggle more than minorities to kill Ukrainians because of shared history and culture. This comment, which implicitly suggested that non-Russians are more expendable in war, was met with outrage from minority communities. Kara-Murza later insisted his remarks were taken out of context, but the damage was done.

The reaction wasn’t simply about phrasing. It tapped into a longstanding pattern: the Russian opposition, even those who oppose Putin’s war and advocate for reforms, often fails to confront the imperial assumptions that define the Russian state. This failure isn’t just academic — it has real consequences for ethnic minorities who continue to be politically sidelined, economically exploited, and culturally erased under Moscow’s centralized rule.

Critics of the regime from minority communities have pointed out the uncomfortable truth: Russia’s opposition largely mirrors the very power structures it claims to resist. “Russian colonialism is not simply about Putinism,” says historian Botakoz Kassymbekova, “but a more general part of the political imagination and ambition of the metropolitan political groupings, liberal or illiberal.” In other words, the empire exists not only in Moscow’s policies but in the mindsets of those who imagine a post-Putin Russia.

This is not a new phenomenon. Under both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, regions like Buryatia, Chechnya, and Tatarstan were subjected to Russification, their languages and identities suppressed, their economies subordinated to the imperial core. Today, these same regions are disproportionately targeted for military recruitment and economic exploitation. Yet when activists from these republics — like Alexandra Garmazhapova of the Free Buryatia Foundation — speak out against these injustices, they are often dismissed or ignored by the opposition’s central figures.

At best, Russia’s liberal opposition treats the issue of internal colonization as a secondary concern. At worst, it actively undermines the movement for decolonization. In a December 2024 interview with Vox, Kara-Murza called decolonization “an amazing gift to Putin’s propaganda,” arguing that it plays into the Kremlin’s narrative that the West seeks to destroy Russia. Opposition figure Yulia Navalnaya, speaking at the Bled Strategic Forum, went further, questioning why people with shared culture and background should ever be “artificially divided.” We already wrote about her late husband Alexei Navalny: Putin’s opponent, but still a far-right nationalist.

Such comments betray a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal democracy. Democracy is not the maintenance of artificial unity but the protection of self-determination. It is not about preserving the illusion of national greatness, but about guaranteeing the political agency of all peoples within — or outside — a federation.

True democracy cannot coexist with colonial domination. As Central European University professor Alexander Etkind noted, decolonization is not just discourse, but “a political practice” — one historically linked to wars and revolutions. The Russian Federation is home to over 190 ethnic groups, many of which have never been meaningfully included in the decision-making processes of the state. Moscow’s recent moves — such as forcing regional leaders to abandon the title “president” or curbing the teaching of minority languages — reveal the ongoing erosion of even symbolic autonomy.

Even within the opposition, there is limited support for real structural change. Ilya Yashin, one of the few who has cautiously supported the right to secession, has said such rights should be enshrined in a future Russian constitution — yet he quickly adds that he sees no sign that any republic truly wants independence. Whether this is denial or wishful thinking, it reflects the opposition’s broader reluctance to imagine a non-imperial Russia.

This reluctance has consequences beyond Russia’s borders. By presenting itself as democratic while refusing to engage with the grievances of colonized peoples within the Federation, the Russian opposition lends credence to the myth of the “good Russian” — a figure whose mere opposition to Putin supposedly qualifies them as a liberal democrat. As exiled writer Katia Margolis recently observed, this myth “carries special weight” in the West, where suffering under dictatorship is often confused with moral clarity.

But surviving oppression does not automatically confer democratic values — especially if those values are selectively applied. Supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty while denying Tatarstan’s right to self-determination is not democracy. Condemning the war while ignoring the militarization of Buryatia is not justice.

If the West is serious about fostering democracy in the post-Soviet space, it must abandon the fantasy that Russia’s current opposition is ready to lead such a transformation. It must listen more to the voices from the margins — from indigenous peoples, republic activists, and those who have long resisted both Putin and the empire he maintains.

While most Russian opposition figures have been vocal in their criticism of Vladimir Putin’s regime and the invasion of Ukraine, few have explicitly addressed Russia’s imperialistic and colonial legacies. However, Garry Kasparov stands out as a prominent figure who has consistently condemned Russia’s imperialism and colonialism.​

While other opposition figures like Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Ilya Yashin have condemned the war in Ukraine and criticized the current regime, their focus has primarily been on anti-corruption and “democratic” reforms, with less emphasis on addressing Russia’s imperial culture.​

To imagine a democratic Russia without confronting its colonial foundations is to build castles on sand. Without decolonization, there can be no democracy — only a more polished version of the same imperial project.

In an age where truth is losing its gravitational pull, Europe faces a defining question: can democracy survive in a post-truth world?

From Russian disinformation campaigns to the viral spread of lies about elections, vaccines, or climate change, we are witnessing a silent corrosion of democratic trust. Propaganda is no longer just a relic of the 20th century, it is a digital, algorithmically-amplified threat that undermines public discourse and weakens institutional legitimacy.

To confront this, the Strategic Intelligence Institute proposes a bold but necessary idea: the creation of a European Information Authority (EIA), a scientifically grounded, politically independent fourth branch of democratic governance.

This vision is laid out in our newly released policy brief, “A Fourth Branch for Democracy: Establishing a European Information Authority to Defend Truth in the Digital Age.” It outlines both the necessity and the feasibility of such an institution.

Why a Fourth Branch?

The EU already has robust legislative, executive, and judicial institutions. But none of them are structurally equipped to patrol the digital battlefield where democracy is being eroded daily. Truth itself — what is real, what is false, what is misleading — has no dedicated guardian.

Worse, no information authority is independant from the executive branch, that is often the branch benefiting the most from lies.

The EIA would fill this gap: a neutral, transparent institution designed to track and correct falsehoods that threaten the public good, without censoring opinion or political dissent.

How Would It Work?

The EIA would be built around three pillars:

• Scientific Integrity: Claims are assessed not through ideology but through transparent, evidence-based processes. The model is closer to peer-reviewed science than political oversight.
• Technological Capacity: A publicly vetted AI system flags viral falsehoods in real time. Then, expert panels—made up of over 1,000 vetted academics—review and issue context-rich findings. A special tribunal handles appeals.
• Institutional Independence: To avoid politicization, the EIA would operate independently from the European Commission, Council, and Parliament. Its budget would be tied to EU GDP, and its experts elected in staggered, non-partisan terms.

A Light Prototype Comes First

We understand that creating a full-fledged fourth branch of government is a monumental task. That’s why the policy brief also lays out a “light version”: a pilot agency that could be launched quickly at the EU or national level. With a leaner team and a focused scope (e.g., elections, health, climate), this agency could prove the concept in real time, build public trust, and set the stage for broader adoption.

Addressing the Critics

This proposal is not a call for a “Ministry of Truth.” It’s a call for intellectual accountability. Only empirically false or highly misleading content would be addressed, and all decisions would be public, appealable, and evidence-backed.

We also anticipate and welcome democratic scrutiny. That’s why the entire system would be open-source, independently audited, and governed by scientists—not politicians or corporations.

Truth is a Public Good

The right to speak freely does not include the right to deceive entire populations without consequence. As a society, we regulate pollution, fraud, and public health—why not the pollution of our information environment?

Europe must lead the way in defending truth as a public good. The Information Age demands an evolution of democratic architecture, and the EIA could be the institution that ensures the survival of truth itself.

📘 Download the full policy brief here

In recent years, Donald Trump’s approach to governance has sparked heated debate around the world. Supporters view him as a tough negotiator and a political outsider shaking up the status quo. Critics, however, argue that many of his actions reveal a clear trend toward authoritarianism, marked by the erosion of institutional checks and a disregard for both international norms and economic principles. Below, we dissect some of the main arguments used to defend Trump’s policies and present a fact-based rebuttal to each.

1. Tariffs Are Taxes – And Republicans Voted for Them

Despite traditionally opposing tax increases, today’s Republican leadership has largely supported Trump’s imposition of broad tariffs on imports from numerous countries. Tariffs, by definition, are taxes paid by domestic consumers and businesses on imported goods. This runs counter to the conservative principle of low taxation. In effect, Trump’s administration introduced massive new taxes, just not by name.

2. Tariffs as a Negotiation Tool – Misused

In business and diplomacy alike, threats are used as leverage before actions are taken. Trump, however, frequently imposed tariffs preemptively, triggering immediate retaliation from trade partners rather than initiating productive dialogue. This escalates into prolonged trade conflicts, most notably with the European Union and China, which harms American farmers and manufacturers. Using force first and negotiating later is not effective diplomacy, it’s coercion.

3. Misunderstanding Trade Deficits

Trump’s claim that the U.S. loses money through trade deficits is economically flawed. Trade is not a zero-sum game. When a consumer buys a $5 Big Mac, they aren’t being “robbed”—they’re exchanging money for value. Similarly, when Americans buy goods from abroad, both parties benefit. Blocking imports under the guise of “protecting” American jobs ignores the value of global supply chains and consumer choice.

4. Tax Cuts and Economic Distortion

While Trump has promised tax relief for lower-income Americans, these measures often remain unimplemented or symbolic. Meanwhile, tariffs increase the cost of goods, particularly for the middle and lower class. The economic impact of combining tax cuts with new tariffs is unpredictable and destabilizing at best, especially when consumer behavior shifts due to sudden price hikes. Especially when the tariffs already don’t even cover the cost of the tax cuts he plans.

5. A Weakened Congress and Expanding Executive Power

Trump has increasingly bypassed the legislative process, using executive orders to push major policy changes. The idea that Congress would let him act to give him an illusion of power misses the point: Congress has largely abdicated its role in checking executive overreach. The fact that significant legislation has stalled while executive orders multiply is not a sign of balance, it’s a warning about democratic erosion.

6. The Fallacy of Reciprocal Tariff Dismantling

Supporters argue Trump’s tariffs could lead to the fall of foreign trade barriers. In reality, this hasn’t happened, in any time in history. On the contrary, targeted countries like China and Russia have responded with their own tariffs, deepening economic divides. Far from opening markets, Trump’s trade war strategy has narrowed them in the past. Now he expanded this poor idea to the whole planet.

7. Accusations of Institutional Bias – Where’s the Proof?

Claims that Democrats have “infiltrated” the state or weaponized government agencies remain unsubstantiated. Institutions like USAID, often targeted by such accusations, perform critical work around the globe, from supporting healthcare and education to promoting democratic governance. Problems in implementation, like in Afghanistan, do not prove partisan corruption. Generalizations without evidence are political smears, not legitimate critiques.

8. USAID’s Global Role

USAID exists to promote U.S. interests through soft power, helping to stabilize developing countries, fund civil society, and counter authoritarian influence. Cutting its budget or discrediting its mission weakens American influence abroad, especially in contested regions where U.S. values are in competition with those of authoritarian powers.

9. Allegations Against Judges Must Be Specific

Sweeping claims about “partisan” or “corrupt” judges demand evidence. In a system based on the rule of law, accusations against judicial officials require facts, not innuendo. Without clear examples, these attacks resemble autocratic tactics used to delegitimize independent courts.

10. The Constitution and Destruction of Public Records

While the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) may not be unconstitutional in name, its actions, such as sudden mass firings and orders to destroy public records, raise serious constitutional and legal concerns. The deliberate erasure of institutional memory undermines accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight.

11. Foreign Policy Fantasies: The Greenland Case

Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. could get Greenland “one way or another”, emphasing that military actions are not out of the table, despite clear opposition from its residents and leadership, is more than absurd; it’s a troubling example of imperial thinking. Such proposals directly contradict international law and the right to self-determination, principles enshrined in the UN Charter, which the U.S. helped create.

Conclusion: Facts Over Fiction

Donald Trump’s second term raises important questions about the balance of power, economic strategy, and international leadership. While his defenders paint his style as unconventional but effective, a deeper look reveals a pattern of undermining democratic institutions, destabilizing global alliances, and misapplying economic tools. The facts speak for themselves, and the warning signs are clear.

Authoritarianism rarely begins with tanks in the street. More often, it starts with the slow erosion of checks and balances, justified by slogans and scapegoats. A critical, fact-based discussion is essential to safeguarding democracy.

Phase 1: Chaos

One quiet Tuesday afternoon, Trump unilaterally declares that Greenland belongs to him. Without consulting anyone, he hastily signs a presidential decree “authorizing” the annexation of Greenland, in front of a press corps stunned by such a statement. Within hours, a U.S. frigate patrolling the region receives instructions from the Pentagon. Before dawn on Wednesday, the frigate docks at Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, deploying a small military convoy.

The convoy heads directly to City Hall. Local police offer formal but non-violent protests as U.S. soldiers enter the mayor’s office and inform him that he is relieved of duty — the American government is now in charge. By the afternoon, the public learns via local TV and radio that a new government is in place and Greenland is now “American.” Occupation authorities begin registering residents and issuing new ID cards and documents in the following weeks.

Phase 2: Global Shock

Within 24h, around the world, shockwaves spread. European capitals are stunned by the blatant violation of national sovereignty. Trump, unfazed, insists the move is a matter of “national security.” Denmark immediately summons the U.S. ambassador to lodge strong protests, but it’s too late — the U.S. has acted unilaterally and with force.

Washington issues thinly veiled threats of military retaliation should Denmark attempt to respond. Desperate, Denmark turns to the European Union. Ursula von der Leyen condemns the U.S. action in the strongest terms, calling it a grave breach of international norms by a supposed ally. Trump shrugs it off, convinced he holds “all the cards”, to quote his imperialist jargon.

Phase 3: International Condemnation

Europe, realizing the U.S. has gone rogue, calls for an emergency United Nations General Assembly.

In an unprecedented move, Trump physically blocks access to the UN headquarters in New York, citing “public safety concerns” and imposing a temporary lockdown.

The UN moves the session to Geneva. There, nations from across the world vote to condemn the American annexation. Only a handful of nations, including Israel and a few U.S.-dependent microstates, abstain or side with the U.S. Russia and China abstain. But the vote is purely symbolic. Nothing changes in the near term. Trump doesn’t back down.

Several countries try to talk to Trump, to negotiate with him, expecting that he will change his mind. Some suggest that things will improve with the next US President, but they still don’t understand that there won’t be any free and fair elections anymore in the US in the foreseable future.

Phase 4: Fallout

Meanwhile, NATO allies across Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan go on high alert.

The U.S., the cornerstone of NATO, has violated its foundational treaty. Europe suddenly realizes it can no longer count on American military support — half of its defense systems, from planes to missiles, rely on U.S. parts and software. Much of its firepower becomes obsolete without the necessary maintenance.

Denmark, as a NATO member, invokes Article 5, calling for a collective response. But the U.S. uses its veto power to block any action. In response, a “coalition of the willing,” led by France and the UK, forms a NATO 2.0 without the United States.

After days of deliberation, UE will not declare war to the US. Instead, economic sanctions are imposed. Trade with the U.S. is cut off, made easier by Trump’s already aggressive tariff policies.

Phase 5: Escalation

But things don’t stop there.

Canada, now surrounded by an increasingly hostile U.S. and stripped of key military capabilities, becomes the next target. Emboldened by his Greenland “success,” Trump ramps up pressure on Canada, mimicking Putin’s post-Crimea strategy.

Europe responds by deploying four nuclear submarines, 2 french ones and 2 UK ones, to Canadian waters as a show of support, as they already did in early 2025. Unlike Greenland, Canada will not go quietly, and nuclear stakes are now on the table, because both the US and EU needs the vital natural ressources of Canada.

Back in the U.S., the population is stunned, but not in revolt. Trump, having consolidated control over media and social platforms, suppresses dissent intellectually first, then physically. Free speech becomes constitutional in name only. Protest leaders are labeled “troublemakers“ or “terrorists” and jailed. The courts, stacked with Trump loyalists, uphold draconian new laws. Political opponents, especially Democrats, are systematically harassed and threatened with prison.

Both chambers of Congress are under Trump’s control, allowing him to enact virtually any law he wants. In fact, he doesn’t even bother with legislation anymore, as he currently governs directly by presidential decree, knowing that Congress won’t push back.

Fox News becomes the official state broadcaster. Independent media are shut out. Slowly but surely, Americans are indoctrinated to view Canada and Europe as enemies. Support for isolation and aggression rises. Public polls show a rapid increase — from 1% to 20% in under a year — of Americans who view Canada and the EU as “hostile to U.S. interests.”. This is not fiction, this is already happening.

Internet freedoms erode. Trump grants telecoms the power to create the tiered, pay-to-access internet, they ask for decades. Social network platforms full of Trump’s misinformation like X/Twitter and Truth Social are included in basic packages, while “woke” or independent networks become premium, an effective censorship tool by pricing out dissent.

By 2028, the invasion of Canada begins. Trump uses it near the end of its regular presidential mandate to declare martial law and suspend future elections, staying in power indefinitely. U.S. citizens largely support it, believing they are “liberating Canadians from woke tyranny.” Nuclear threats are issued against France and the UK to prevent intervention. Europe provides Canada with weapons, as it did with Ukraine, but avoids direct conflict.

A Canadian resistance forms, mirroring the Ukrainian struggle, fighting from the interior against occupation, with their survival hanging by a thread.

Phase 6: War in Europe

Meanwhile, Putin watches gleefully. With NATO fractured, he invades the Baltic states. Not to conquer, but to provoke a war declaration that would justify mass mobilization in Russia. Ten million russian troops are raised to assault the Nordics, Baltics, and Ukraine, now severely weakened.

If Ukraine falls, its population becomes cannon fodder for a new front against Poland, which won’t withstand the numbers. Germany, outnumbered 10-to-1, collapses next. Even nuclear retaliation from France won’t stop Putin russian civilian deaths will only fuel his propaganda. France falls by 2032, and the rest of Europe soon follows.

This is the path we may face if we remain complacent.

But history is not yet written. A different future is possible.

If we act decisively, prepare seriously, and mobilize with the urgency and yet calmness of a nation like Finland. With enough planes, drones and missiles, we could deter Trump and Putin and even survive nuclear escalation.

But the current chapter? It’s off to a disastrous start. Europe has been too slow, too timid, and far too divided.

We can’t afford to just talk. We don’t have 5 years ahead of us. We need to act much faster.

Anyone willing to negotiate any settlement with Russia deeply misunderstands the nature of the Russian state.

Russia has a 700-year history of breaking most of its agreements. Under Vladimir Putin alone, it has violated every single peace agreement it entered — 25 in total — as well as most international conventions.

Here is a list of some of the conventions and agreements Russia has broken:

• United Nations Charter (1945)
• Geneva Conventions (1949)
• Helsinki Final Act (1975)
• INF Treaty (1987)
• Budapest Memorandum (1994)
• Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership with Ukraine (1997)
• Chemical Weapons Convention (1997)
• Minsk Agreements (2014 & 2015)
• Various cybersecurity treaties and norms (2000s–present)

There is a clear pattern to Russian negotiations, best summed up by former Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko:

1. Demand the maximum — not ask, but demand.
2. Present the most aggressive ultimatums, including military and nuclear threats.
3. Never concede an inch, because there will always be someone in the West willing to offer something — often more than what was originally demanded.

If we allow Russia to gain anything from its war against Ukraine, we send a message that aggression works — and that others should follow the same path.

In the end, Russia can only be defeated on the battlefield. It’s that simple.

The idea that “all wars must end at the negotiation table” is dangerously naive. Hitler, Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito never negotiated anything — until they lost everything through total military defeat.

Therefore, all U.S.-pushed “peace negotiations” will lead nowhere. Russia is simply trying to obtain through diplomacy what it failed to win on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Trump is foolishly playing into Putin’s hands, and Ukraine is being threatened by the U.S. to comply — amounting to extortion and the betrayal of an entire nation. This also violates the Budapest Memorandum, where the U.S. asked Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees.

Shockingly, the U.S. has even voted against Ukraine at the UN — twice — joining Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea against the free world. This is historically unprecedented.

Let’s make this loud and clear: the United States is now actively aligning itself with authoritarian powers like Russia and China. And because its leaders were democratically elected, this alignment is not accidental — it is a deliberate betrayal of the values of freedom and democracy.

The conflict in Yemen has become a critical flashpoint for both regional and global stability, with the Houthi movement at its center. Known formally as Ansar Allah, the Houthis have transformed from a local insurgency into a powerful militia with a significant influence on maritime trade in the Red Sea.

Who Are the Houthis?

The Houthis are a political and military group originating from the Zaidi Shia Muslim community in northern Yemen. Their name derives from the family of Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, who led a rebellion in the early 2000s against the Yemeni government. Over time, the group evolved into a powerful political and military force with a strong ideological base. The Houthis’ rise is often tied to grievances over political marginalization and economic inequality in Yemen, as well as resentment against foreign influence, especially from Saudi Arabia.

The group gained significant strength during Yemen’s civil war, which escalated in 2014 when the Houthis took control of the capital, Sana’a, and later ousted the internationally recognized government. This led to an ongoing conflict with a Saudi-led coalition supporting the Yemeni government.

Houthi Attacks on Ships in the Red Sea

The Houthis’ influence extends beyond land-based warfare. They have increasingly targeted ships and shipping lanes in the Red Sea, especially near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—a narrow waterway that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. This area is vital for global trade as it serves as a major route for oil and goods transiting between Europe, Asia, and Africa.

The Houthis have been using missiles, drones, and naval mines to disrupt international shipping. Their attacks, such as those on commercial vessels and oil tankers, are aimed at exerting pressure on their enemies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but also serve as a means of asserting their power on the global stage. These operations have raised significant concerns about the security of global trade routes and have contributed to volatility in the region.

The Houthis’ tactics are varied:

• Missile strikes: They have fired missiles at vessels, causing damage and forcing rerouting.
• Drone attacks: Drones targeting vessels or maritime infrastructure have intensified, especially against oil tankers.
• Naval mines: The use of mines has further complicated the safe passage of vessels, with several ships falling victim to these hidden threats.

Global Impact of Houthi Actions

The consequences of these actions are not just felt locally but extend globally. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait handles roughly 10% of the world’s oil shipments. An attack on oil tankers or merchant vessels in this region can disrupt the flow of goods, leading to spikes in global oil prices. It also creates uncertainty in maritime trade, raising shipping costs and causing delays in goods reaching their destinations.

The attacks have strained global supply chains, particularly for industries that rely on raw materials, including energy, electronics, and consumer goods. The disruption of the Red Sea shipping lanes has sparked concerns over the future security of maritime routes, prompting businesses and governments to reassess their reliance on these vital trade passages.

Moreover, the Houthis have linked their operations to broader geopolitical struggles, especially with Saudi Arabia, which has been at odds with the group since the onset of the civil war. The instability in Yemen, exacerbated by the Houthis, has raised concerns about the broader Middle Eastern security situation, including the potential for escalating tensions between Iran (which has supported the Houthis) and Saudi Arabia, two major oil-producing countries in the region.

The U.S. Response and Global Reactions

The United States has long been a key player in the Middle East, and its response to Houthi actions is critical for global stability. In reaction to the mounting threat posed by the Houthis to shipping and regional security, the U.S. has taken a multi-pronged approach:

1. Military Support to Saudi Arabia and the UAE: The U.S. has provided military aid to countries in the region, including arms and training to bolster their defenses against Houthi attacks.
2. Naval Patrols and Presence in the Red Sea: The U.S. Navy has increased its presence in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to protect shipping lanes and deter further attacks on maritime trade. The U.S. also collaborates with international partners to ensure the safe passage of vessels.
3. Diplomatic Measures: Although the U.S. has limited direct engagement with the Houthis, it has called for a peaceful resolution to the Yemeni conflict. The U.S. also supports United Nations efforts to mediate peace talks.
4. Sanctions on Houthi Leaders: The U.S. has imposed sanctions on key leaders of the Houthi movement, designating them as terrorists in order to weaken their financial and logistical support networks.

Global Macroeconomic and Commodities Impact

The Houthis’ actions in the Red Sea have the potential to cause significant disruptions to global markets, particularly in the following ways:

1. Oil Prices: As the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait are key transit points for oil shipments from the Middle East, any attack on oil tankers could cause a spike in oil prices. The uncertainty surrounding the safety of this vital route could lead to market volatility, driving up global energy costs.
2. Shipping Costs: Disruptions to global shipping lanes mean that goods may take longer to reach their destinations, forcing companies to reroute shipments around the Horn of Africa or through other more expensive and less efficient routes. This would increase shipping costs and could further strain global supply chains.
3. Commodity Prices: The disruption of supply chains, particularly in critical sectors like energy, metals, and chemicals, could cause price fluctuations. Industries relying on raw materials, such as manufacturing and automotive, might face higher costs due to delays and increased shipping fees.

Industries Most Positively and Negatively Affected

Positively Affected Industries:

• Alternative Energy and Renewables: The volatility in oil prices could encourage investment in renewable energy sources as countries look for ways to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. Solar, wind, and other green technologies could see increased demand.
• Defense Companies: Companies providing maritime security services or insurance for ships navigating volatile regions could experience growth as more vessels seek protection and safety in the Red Sea and beyond.
• Gold: As instability rises, so does the price of gold.
• Oil and Gas: Despite potential higher operational costs and disruptions in supply chains, the higher price of oil may contribute to increased stock prices in the oil industry.

Negatively Affected Industries:

• Shipping Companies: The shipping disruptions, higher insurance costs, and rising oil prices will negatively impact this industry.
• Manufacturing and Consumer Goods: The disruption of global supply chains would likely lead to delays in the production of goods. Manufacturers that rely on timely deliveries of raw materials from the Middle East could face production slowdowns, leading to higher costs and potential shortages.
• Automotive and Airlines: Since these industries are highly sensitive to oil/gas prices, they could be negatively affected.

Conclusion

The Houthis’ activities in the Red Sea are a significant concern for global trade, particularly due to their ability to disrupt key shipping lanes. The U.S. and its allies have responded with military support, naval patrols, and diplomatic efforts, but the broader implications for global markets are profound. Rising oil prices, increased shipping costs, and strained supply chains could have far-reaching consequences for industries across the globe. The potential for further instability in the region makes it critical for governments and businesses to monitor developments closely and adjust strategies to mitigate risks.

The Strategic Intelligence Institute (SII) is proud to announce that French Senator Claude Malhuret has been selected as the recipient of the Strategic Intelligence Institute Award (SIIA). This recognition is presented to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional courage in defending liberal democracies, and Senator Malhuret’s powerful speech in the French Senate stands as a testament to his unwavering commitment to these ideals.

Senator Malhuret’s outspoken critique of U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and Russia, has resonated deeply within the political landscape of Europe and beyond. His speech, delivered in the French Senate, articulated a sobering warning: Europe stands at a critical juncture in its history, one where the American shield appears to be crumbling and the specter of authoritarianism threatens to engulf the continent.

Malhuret’s words about Trump — whom he describes as prioritizing deals with autocrats over the defense of democratic allies — are a clear call to action for those who stand for the values of liberty, peace, and sovereignty. He warns of the consequences of abandoning Ukraine, emphasizing that the defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe itself. He highlights how Putin’s objectives align with the Trumpian vision of a world dominated by spheres of influence, where the sovereignty of smaller nations is subjugated to the interests of great powers.

In his address, Malhuret speaks to the grave threat posed by the collapse of American support for Ukraine, urging European nations to accelerate military aid, strengthen their defenses, and confront the existential challenges posed by Russia. His call to arms for Europe’s moral and military rearmament has sparked an important conversation about Europe’s strategic autonomy and its role in global geopolitics.

"Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power," Malhuret states in his speech, stressing the need for significant investment in defense, modernization of European military systems, and the enhancement of European solidarity in the face of external threats. His vision is a European Union that not only unites in defense but also leads the world in technological and industrial innovation.

As a strong advocate for Ukraine and a committed voice against the forces of authoritarianism, Malhuret’s courage in speaking out against Trump’s capitulation to Putin is a vital contribution to the preservation of liberal democratic values. His recognition by the SII as the recipient of the SIIA is a well-deserved honor for his clarity, conviction, and vision for a democratic Europe that stands resolutely against tyranny.

The Strategic Intelligence Institute, a non-profit European think tank that decodes geopolitics for investors and businesses, is proud to support the defenders of liberal democracies. The SIIA, now presented for the third time, continues its tradition of honoring those who exemplify courage in the fight for freedom. Previous recipients include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose leadership and resilience have inspired the world during Ukraine’s struggle for sovereignty.

Senator Malhuret’s words resonate today more than ever: Europe must stand firm, not only against the threats of authoritarian regimes but in defense of the democratic values that have shaped the post-World War II order.

Long live free Ukraine. Long live democratic Europe.

Here is his original speech, translated in english from french:

---

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unSSHfIs3U0

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history.

The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia is being strengthened.

Washington has become Nero’s court. A fiery emperor, submissive courtiers, and a jester on ketamine in charge of purging the civil service.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is primarily a tragedy for the United States.

Trump’s message is that it’s pointless to be his ally because he won’t defend you, he will impose higher tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

The king of the deal is now showing what the art of deal-making on your stomach looks like. He thinks he will intimidate China by groveling before Putin, but Xi Jinping, seeing such a shipwreck, is likely accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Never in history has a US president capitulated before the enemy.
Never has any president supported an aggressor against an ally.
Never has any president trampled on the US Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, revoked judges who could prevent him, dismissed the military leadership in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.

This is not an illiberal drift; it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy.

Let us remember that it only took a month, 3 weeks, and 2 days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution.

I trust in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more damage to America than in 4 years of his previous presidency.

We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.

Eight days ago, while Trump patted Macron on the back at the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military draft dodger gave moral and strategic lessons to the war hero Zelenskyy, before dismissing him like a stable boy, ordering him to submit or resign.

Last night, he took another step into infamy by halting the promised delivery of weapons.

What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: stand firm.

And first, do not be mistaken: the defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is a return to Yalta, where half of the continent was handed over to Stalin.

The southern countries are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they must continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it.

What Putin wants is the end of the order established by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with the first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territories by force.

This idea is at the very heart of the UN, where today, the Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the victim, because the Trumpian vision aligns with Putin’s.

A return to spheres of influence, where great powers dictate the fate of small countries.

– Give me Greenland, Panama, and Canada. You take Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Eastern Europe. He gets Taiwan and the South China Sea.

They call this "diplomatic realism" in the oligarch parties at Mar-a-Lago.

So, we are alone.

But the narrative that we cannot resist Putin is false. Contrary to Kremlin propaganda, Russia is in a bad state. In three years, the so-called second-largest army in the world has only managed to scrape crumbs from a country three times smaller. With interest rates at 25%, the collapse of currency and gold reserves, and a demographic collapse, it is on the brink of the abyss. The American push for Putin is the greatest strategic mistake ever made during a war.

The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands, and that they have three imperatives.

1. Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so it can hold on, and of course, to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiations. This will be costly, and the taboo on using frozen Russian assets must be lifted. We will need to bypass Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself through a coalition of willing countries, with, of course, the UK.

2. Secondly, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners, and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know the value of agreements with Putin. These guarantees require a sufficient military force to prevent further invasion.

3. Finally, and this is the most urgent – because it will take the most time – we must rebuild European defense, neglected in favor of the American umbrella since 1945 and sabotaged since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that today’s democratic European leaders will be judged in the history books. Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This acknowledges that France has been right for decades in advocating for strategic autonomy. Now, it must be built.

For this,

1. Massive investment will be necessary.
2. Strengthen the European Defense Fund outside of Maastricht’s debt criteria.
3. Harmonize weapons and ammunition systems.
4. Accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the Union – it is now Europe’s largest army.
5. Rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence, based on French and British capabilities.
6. Relaunch missile shield and satellite programs.

The plan announced yesterday by Ursula Von der Leyen is a very good starting point, but much more is needed.

Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power. In short, the Draghi Report must be fully applied.

But Europe’s true rearmament is its moral rearmament. We must convince public opinion in the face of weariness and fear of war, and especially against Putin’s accomplices, the far-right and far-left. They still argued yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr. Prime Minister, before you, against European unity and European defense.

They claim to want peace, but what neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of "De Gaulle Zelenskyy" with a "Ukrainian Pétain" at Putin’s beck and call. The peace of the collaborators who have refused to offer any help to the Ukrainians for three years.

Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance?

The risk is great, but in recent days, the public humiliation of Zelenskyy, and all the crazy decisions taken over the last month, have finally made the Americans react: polls are dropping, Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies, even Fox News is becoming critical.

The Trumpists are no longer in power.

They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, and social media, but in American history, those who championed freedom have always triumphed. They are beginning to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine is being decided in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy and here, on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means for their common defense, and to make Europe the power it once was in history and hesitates to become again.

Our ancestors defeated fascism and communism at the cost of all sacrifices. The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine.
Long live democratic Europe.