World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action
These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.
Nationalism Surges in Europe – EU Self-Reliance Being Tested
April 2025
Download the article here.
Summary & Context
Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist forces are on the rise, reshaping the political landscape as of early 2025. In a year that saw numerous elections, far-right parties made significant gains. Notably, in the September 2024 general election in Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) – running on anti-immigration, anti-EU messages – won the largest share of votes and tried to position its leader, Herbert Kickl, as the head of government. The political landscape has evolved, however. Despite the initial FPÖ lead, a coalition government was formed in March 2025 by the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the liberal NEOS party, effectively excluding the FPÖ from power. Similarly, the February 2025 federal election in Germany resulted in a significant shift in the political landscape. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) achieved its best-ever result, securing 20.8% and becoming the second-largest party in the German parliament. The conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, which also ran on an anti-immigration message, emerged victorious with 28.5% of the vote.
The results of the June 2024 European Parliament elections further underscore these nationalist trends, with significant gains for right-wing populist and EU-sceptic parties. The newly formed nationalist alliance, Patriots for Europe, saw a notable surge, securing an additional 35 seats compared to the previous cycle. Parties such as the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany solidified their influence, reflecting an electorate increasingly critical of EU centralisation and migration policies. European discourse has shifted: EU countries are adopting tighter migration policies, from fencing external borders to fast-tracking deportations. There is also growing reluctance in some quarters to extend generosity – even towards fellow Europeans, such as war refugees from Ukraine. Right-wing leaders often question collective EU decisions. For example, they criticise sanctions on Russia and the cost of supporting Ukraine, arguing for a more nation-first approach.
Alongside these political shifts, the EU is striving for more self-reliance in an uncertain world. The impetus for this is twofold: 1) Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions urged Europe to ensure autonomy in critical sectors (such as medical supplies, semiconductors, energy); and 2) The transatlantic crisis in confidence has Europeans worried that the United States, especially when led by President Donald Trump or a similar future leader, may not reliably defend European interests. Indeed, with Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, EU discussions on achieving strategic autonomy have intensified. In March 2025, the EU unveiled plans for a massive €800 billion defence and security investment to strengthen European military capabilities and technological edge. Initiatives such as joint EU defence procurement, developing a European rapid deployment force and reducing dependency on US defence equipment have gained political momentum.
European leaders frame this as taking responsibility for their own security – describing challenges such as the Russian war on Ukraine as an existential challenge requiring Europe to stand on its own feet. This push for unity on external threats is complicated, however, by the internal divisions caused by nationalism. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, for example, frequently vetoes or opts out of EU consensus on issues from Russia to migration. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni walks a fine line between her nationalist base and the need to cooperate at EU level. The big question for Europe is whether it can remain cohesive in the face of these forces. Will the EU strengthen as a regional tower of stability or will its nationalist walls lead to fragmentation?
Scenario Parallels/Contrasts
The current European trajectory shows a tension between Walls and Towers scenario dynamics. The rise of anti-establishment nationalist parties aligns with the 2024 Walls scenario description: national populism and anti-establishment sentiments are shifting political discussion toward right-wing positions. We see this in how public debates on migration and sovereignty have become more hard line. Such parties also often exhibit democratic backsliding tendencies (for example, undermining judiciary or media independence, as previously seen in Poland or Hungary), which is very Walls – a slide toward authoritarian governance. This inward focus and scepticism of global cooperation (some even advocate leaving the EU or defunding international aid, as seen in campaign rhetoric) could weaken the role of Europe in multilateral peace efforts, a core concern of Walls scenario.
In contrast, EU pursuit of strategic autonomy reflects a key element of the Towers scenario: regional blocs fortifying themselves. In Towers, regions band together to fill the void of waning leadership, in this case US leadership. EU moves to boost defence spending and coordinate more closely can be seen as Europe taking charge of its destiny. This could possibly lead to a stronger EU able to act as a peace and security provider in its own neighbourhood; for instance, more EU-led peace missions or diplomatic initiatives. There is a catch, however. True Towers success requires unity in the bloc but Walls-style nationalism threatens that unity. Thus, it seems as if we have a Towers scenario on the outside and a Walls scenario on the inside: Europe versus external dependence and Europe versus itself, respectively. The Maze scenario – with emphasis on reformist multilateralism – could partially describe EU efforts to maintain a rules-based order (the EU still champions values such as climate agreements, WTO rules, etc.) but Maze also assumes powerful states supporting multilateralism. If many EU members turn inward or Eurosceptic, EU abilities to be a multilateral leader diminish. For example, the more nationalist European Parliament after 2024 elections may stall EU climate or development policies.
A Bridges angle might note that despite governmental shifts, Europe has a vibrant civil society that often pushes back. In some cases, we see pro-EU citizens rally against far-right narratives such as the large pro-EU demonstrations in Poland in 2023 before the election there. Bridges encourages alliances of civic actors across borders to uphold democratic values. We do see transnational activism in Europe (for LGBTQ+ rights, environmental causes, etc.) trying to counter the far-right trend. Europe is, then, at a crossroads. One path reinforces Walls (fragmentation and nationalist us-first policies), another builds a democratic Tower (a cohesive regional power for good) and a third consolidates a fortress (a Tower uniting in anti-democratic and anti-immigration forces). At present, Europe is experiencing all three scenarios. How it balances these will not only significantly influence internal EU realities but also the prospects for global peace and collaboration.
Discussion Questions
- For EU Policymakers (Balancing Unity and Nationalism): How can the EU maintain a united external front while accommodating or countering internal nationalist pressures? For instance, as the EU invests in common defence – an idea that even sceptics such as Orbán cautiously support in principle – how do leaders ensure that countries do not either free ride or veto progress? What institutional safeguards might help strengthen the EU project and protect its values despite nationalist governments undermining them in some member states? For example, qualified majority voting on foreign policy or stricter rule-of-law conditions for EU funds to dissuade democratic backsliding.
- For European Civil Society and Pro-Democracy Groups: With xenophobic and ultra-nationalist rhetoric becoming mainstream in some places, what strategies can civil society use to defend core European values of democracy, human rights and inclusion? How can they better address the legitimate grievances that populists exploit (such as rural economic neglect or fears around immigration) without ceding ground to hateful or false narratives? Are there successful examples of community dialogues or public campaigns that have shifted attitudes and could be replicated across borders? Moreover, can civic actors across Europe coordinate to build a firewall to protect democratic norms? For example, jointly supporting independent media under attack or mobilising observers to guard electoral integrity where rule of law is shaky? Such cross-country solidarity (a Bridges trait) may be key in resisting an authoritarian slide in Europe.
- For the Private Sector and Economy: European businesses generally prefer stability and common rules (which the EU provides) but they also adapt to nationalist policies (such as local content rules or restrictions on foreign labour). How are industries responding to the rising nationalist climate? If Europe pursues strategic autonomy in tech and defence, that could mean large-scale opportunities for European firms. What role should companies play in this? For example, public–private partnerships to develop European alternatives to US technology. Conversely, if nationalist governments impose protectionist measures that fragment the single market or target some international investments, how will businesses react? Will they lobby harder for EU integration as essential for their profits or take another path? The private sector can also help bridge divides by investing in regions left behind, which are fuelling populism trends. Could corporate investment in poorer EU regions or in integrating migrants into the workforce help undercut nationalist us–them narratives? What are the opportunities and risks of the latter?
- For Transatlantic Relations: From a US perspective and NATO context: How can a Europe that is simultaneously more self-sufficient yet more internally divided be effectively handled or navigated? US policymakers might welcome Europe taking on more burden (as some US administrations have urged) but if key European states drift towards pro-Russia, pro-China or illiberal stances, this might complicate transatlantic cooperation. What dialogue or other mechanisms could keep the transatlantic alliance strong even if personalities such as Trump and various EU populists strain it? For example, should NATO evolve to accommodate a more autonomous Europe – maybe an EU pillar in NATO? And how can moderate European leaders work with more nationalist ones? Are there bargaining chips, such as offering those governments concessions on issues they care about, in exchange for closer alignment on big security questions?
- For Global Peace Initiatives: Europe has historically been a champion of multilateral peace and development efforts. Collectively, the EU is the largest aid donor in the world and has been active in mediating conflicts; for example, in the Balkans and parts of Africa. If Europe turns inward due to nationalist politics or if it is preoccupied with its defence autonomy, what is the impact on global peacebuilding? Should UN agencies and international NGOs be preparing for a scenario in which European funding or engagement wanes? If this does happen, how might they diversify support? Perhaps by courting more engagement from rising powers such as India or regional organisations elsewhere. On the flip side, if Europe succeeds in bolstering itself as a cohesive regional power (Tower), could it take on more peace and security responsibilities? For instance, as a stronger EU role in conflict mediation in its own neighbourhood (Ukraine, Middle East) or in global issues (the climate–security nexus). Stakeholders should discuss whether a more independent Europe will step up as a partner in global governance (Maze/Towers synergy) or step back (Walls). How can that trajectory be positively influenced?
- For Local Communities in Europe: How do these high-level trends manifest at the local level and what can be done there? For towns in Italy and Greece that have seen large migrant arrivals: How can local officials and civil society manage integration in a way that addresses local resident concerns and treats migrants humanely, defusing tensions that nationalists exploit? For economically left-behind regions (former East Germany, rural France): What community-led development or dialogue processes can help people feel heard and hopeful, so they are less susceptible to far-right radicalisation? In other words, what is the community peacebuilding approach in European societies? Can this consist of building bridges between the sides of the us–them narrative, whether the ‘them’ are immigrants, minorities or just people with opposing political views? The mid-term future of Europe may well be decided not only in parliaments but in town halls and village squares, where winning back trust and fostering a sense of common purpose can inoculate against the politics of fear and division.