Europe is unprepared for the dangerous world it now inhabits
In a moment the Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies calls a rare historical rupture, Europe finds itself stripped of the strategic parenthesis it has inhabited since 1945. The return of the Trump administration has accelerated a convergence of pressures — aggressive unilateralism from Washington, nuclear proliferation, eroded international law, and regional realignments from Morocco to the Mediterranean — that the continent lacks the cohesion or military weight to absorb alone. Spain's defense analysts do not offer a map through this terrain, only the sobering insistence that Europe must navigate it regardless.
- Europe's eighty-year shelter of alliance-based stability has collapsed faster than the continent can build the strategic autonomy needed to replace it.
- Trump's treatment of partnerships as transactional liabilities, mirrored by China's dismissal of multilateral frameworks, leaves Europe caught between two powers that no longer see alliances as assets.
- Nuclear proliferation has resurged precisely as the international mechanisms designed to contain it have atrophied, opening space for opportunistic state aggression with few enforcement tools remaining.
- Morocco's accelerating military and security alignment with Israel — weapons transfers, drone partnerships, port access — signals that medium powers across the region are already recalibrating toward perceived American priorities, reshaping Spain's Mediterranean security environment in real time.
- Europe's narrow path forward demands it simultaneously absorb Washington's disruption and remain a credible ally to a partner that appears indifferent to the alliance itself — a contradiction the institute names but cannot resolve.
Spain's Ministry of Defense analytical body, the Institute of Strategic Studies, released its 2026 Strategic Panorama this week with an unsparing verdict: Europe is unprepared for the world it now inhabits. The institute's director, José María de Areilza Carvajal, frames the present as one of those rare historical ruptures that reorganize everything. The long postwar era of relative Western stability, he argues, has ended — replaced by great-power competition and a strategic landscape that is dangerous, murky, and deeply uncertain.
At the center of the disruption is the Trump administration's rejection of alliance-based statecraft, which the report characterizes as aggressive unilateralism — treating traditional partnerships as liabilities rather than assets. China operates from a similarly dismissive posture toward multilateral frameworks, and the convergence of these two powers' skepticism leaves Europe in an impossible bind. The continent lacks the military capacity, economic weight, and political cohesion to achieve strategic autonomy quickly enough to compensate for the weakening transatlantic relationship, yet it cannot afford to abandon that relationship either.
The institute traces a cascade of secondary threats flowing from this primary disruption: nuclear proliferation has returned as a serious challenge just as international control mechanisms have weakened, and eroded multilateralism creates openings for state aggression that exploits the absence of enforcement. Russia's expansionism looms largest, but the threat landscape is multidirectional.
The report pays close attention to Morocco, where Trump's return has catalyzed a strategic realignment with direct consequences for Spain. Rabat is deepening its military and security ties with Israel — weapons purchases, aerospace transfers, drone manufacturing, port access for Israeli naval vessels — while King Mohamed VI carefully manages domestic opinion by expressing solidarity with Palestinian victims without disturbing the underlying relationship. For Spain and Europe, this pivot is less an isolated case than a preview: medium powers across the region are already recalibrating their alignments in response to Washington's apparent indifference to traditional commitments.
Areilza closes with a formulation that distills the institute's anxiety. Trump's second term delivers a simultaneous shock to European defense, economics, and democracy. Europe must walk a narrow path between two impossibilities — absorbing the disruption from Washington while remaining the best possible ally to a partner that no longer seems to value the alliance. The institute offers no solution, only the insistence that the attempt must be made.
Spain's defense establishment has issued a stark assessment of Europe's position in what it calls a vertiginous moment of global transformation. The Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies, the Ministry of Defense's primary analytical body, released its 2026 Strategic Panorama this week with a warning that cuts to the heart of European vulnerability: the continent is unprepared for the world it now inhabits.
The institute's director, Jean Monnet Chair holder José María de Areilza Carvajal, frames the current moment as one of those rare historical ruptures that reshape everything. Europe, he argues, has spent eighty years in a kind of strategic parenthesis—a long stretch of relative stability following the devastation of World War II. That period has ended. The world that confronts Europeans now is dangerous, murky, uncertain, and organized around competition between great powers rather than the alliance structures that have anchored Western security since 1945.
At the center of this disruption sits the Trump administration's fundamental rejection of alliance-based statecraft. The institute's analysis uses the term "aggressive unilateralism"—borrowed from Jake Sullivan, Biden's former national security advisor—to describe an approach that treats traditional partnerships as transactional liabilities rather than strategic assets. China operates from a similarly dismissive posture toward alliance relationships, though for different reasons rooted in its asymmetrical view of international relations. The convergence of these two powers' skepticism toward multilateral frameworks leaves Europe in an impossible position: it lacks the military capacity, economic weight, or political cohesion to achieve strategic autonomy quickly enough to offset the weakening of the transatlantic relationship. Yet it cannot afford to abandon that relationship either.
The institute identifies a cascade of secondary threats flowing from this primary disruption. Nuclear proliferation has returned as a major security challenge at precisely the moment when international control mechanisms have atrophied. Weakened multilateralism and eroded international law create openings for what the analysis calls "opportunistic diseases"—state aggression that exploits the absence of enforcement mechanisms. Russia's expansionism looms largest in European calculations, but the threat landscape extends across multiple vectors simultaneously.
The report devotes particular attention to Morocco, where the Trump administration's return has catalyzed a strategic realignment with direct implications for Spain. Rabat is leveraging its relationship with Washington to secure preferential treatment and to reinforce its image as a reliable American ally. This positioning has accelerated Morocco's military and security deepening with Israel, including weapons purchases, aerospace technology transfers, drone manufacturing partnerships, and permission for Israeli military vessels to transit and dock at Moroccan ports. King Mohamed VI has managed this alignment carefully, tolerating public protests against Gaza's devastation and expressing solidarity with Palestinian victims while leaving Morocco's diplomatic, economic, and security relationships with Israel fundamentally intact.
For Spain and Europe more broadly, this Moroccan pivot signals something larger: the regional architecture of the Mediterranean is shifting in real time, driven by actors responding to perceived American priorities under Trump. The institute's analysis suggests this is not an isolated case but rather a preview of how medium powers will recalibrate their alignments in response to Washington's apparent indifference to traditional alliance commitments.
Areilza concludes with a formulation that captures the institute's underlying anxiety: Trump's second presidency represents a triple shock to European defense, economics, and democracy simultaneously. Europe faces a narrow path between two impossibilities—managing the disruption emanating from Washington while remaining the best possible ally to a partner that no longer seems to value the alliance itself. The institute offers no roadmap for threading that needle, only the insistence that Europe must try.
Citas Notables
The Trump administration has stopped understanding the value of alliances, a concept China also cannot embrace due to its asymmetrical view of international relations— José María de Areilza Carvajal, director of the Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies
Trump's second presidency represents a triple shock to European defense, economics, and democracy— José María de Areilza Carvajal
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the institute frame this as a moment of "transformation" rather than simply a policy shift?
Because they're arguing that what Trump represents isn't just a different approach to existing structures—it's a rejection of the structures themselves. Eighty years of alliance-based security architecture is being questioned by the very power that built it. That's not a policy adjustment; that's a fundamental reordering.
The report seems to suggest Europe is trapped. Is that accurate?
Trapped is the right word. Europe can't build independent military capacity fast enough to replace American security guarantees. But it also can't afford to break with Washington. So it's caught managing a relationship with a partner that's signaling it no longer values the relationship.
What does Morocco's alignment with Israel tell us about how other countries are reading the Trump moment?
It tells us that medium powers are watching Washington and concluding that traditional alliance loyalty no longer pays. Morocco is betting that being useful to American interests—in this case, supporting Israel—matters more than maintaining regional solidarity. It's a rational calculation in a world where alliances feel unreliable.
Is nuclear proliferation really a new threat, or is the institute overstating it?
It's not new, but the conditions enabling it have changed. When multilateral institutions were stronger and international law had teeth, there were mechanisms to discourage proliferation. Those mechanisms have weakened. So yes, the threat is older, but the guardrails are gone.
What would the institute say Europe should actually do?
That's the uncomfortable part—the report doesn't really say. It identifies the problem clearly but offers no solution. Europe needs strategic autonomy it can't build quickly, while maintaining an alliance with a partner that's become unpredictable. The institute seems to be saying: you're in a bind, and I don't see the way out.