Agrégateur de flux

Introduction
For two decades, analysts have debated whether the transatlantic relationship is in crisis, transition, or simply experiencing another iteration of its long‑standing structural tensions. Drawing from the methodological foundations of the 2006 dissertation on the “transatlantic debate,” this paper provides a 2026 update of the Transatlantic Debate Intensity Index (TDII) and examines the evolving sources of strategic friction. As contemporary analyses emphasize, security policy has increasingly become embedded in a broader geostrategic, technological, and political environment where contextual depth once again defines analytical relevance.

The 2026 TDII suggests not a crisis of the alliance, but rather a structurally heightened level of contestation shaped by global power shifts, technological rivalry, and divergent threat perceptions.

Part I – Methodological Evolution
The original dissertation identified four main domains of transatlantic disagreement: political‑military issues, economic disputes, strategic‑cultural divergence, and institutional tensions. By 2026, global transformations required expanding the model to six domains, adding technological/industrial rivalry and information and narrative competition. This reflects the reality that modern strategic debates unfold as much in the economic and technological sphere as in defense diplomacy.

Part II – Findings of the Updated 2026 Index
1. Military–strategic divergence remains substantial. The Ukraine war created an unprecedented level of tactical unity in NATO, yet the strategic divergence between the U.S. and Europe has deepened. While Washington increasingly defines China as the primary systemic challenger, Europe remains preoccupied with containing Russia. This mismatch reinforces long-term asymmetries in strategic culture.

2. Technology and industrial policy conflicts are the dominant fracture line. No domain has produced as many tensions as the intersection of industrial subsidies, technological control regimes, supply-chain security, and green-transition policies. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) widens competitiveness gaps, drawing criticism from European policymakers who perceive it as protectionist and distortive.
3. Threat-perception gaps remain structurally embedded. Europe’s immediate security threat is Russia, while the U.S. views China as the defining geopolitical challenge. Middle Eastern crises further highlight interpretive differences, as Europe focuses on regional spillover risks, while the U.S. prioritizes deterrence credibility.
4. Economic and energy-policy frictions persist. Europe’s post‑2022 energy realignment increased its dependence on U.S. LNG while creating disagreements over the future of green industrial competitiveness.
5. Values-based and political tensions are moderate but non‑negligible. U.S. domestic polarization continues to fuel uncertainty in European capitals. Stability in transatlantic commitments increasingly depends on presidential cycles, amplifying European efforts toward risk diversification and strategic autonomy.
6. Information and regulatory divergence adds a new layer of tension. Data privacy regulation, disinformation countermeasures, and platform governance illustrate differing regulatory philosophies, with Europe adopting more restrictive models and the U.S. maintaining a market-driven approach.

Part III – Interpretation: A Structural, Not Cyclical, High‑Intensity Phase
The TDII‑2026 score of 3.83 indicates a stable but high-intensity level of debate. However, this must not be read as alliance decay. Rather: military cooperation is at its strongest since 1991; strategic-industrial and technological tensions are the new epicenter of debate; threat-perception gaps are reconfigured, not resolved, by global shocks.

The 2026 index confirms that the real debate lies not in whether the alliance survives, but how it adapts to a multipolar, techno‑industrial competitive order.

Conclusion
Twenty years after the original dissertation, the transatlantic debate remains structurally embedded in the Western strategic architecture. The alliance today is not weaker, but more complex; not fracturing, but recalibrating; not divided by values, but challenged by divergent geographical and economic priorities.

Appendix – Analytical Tables (2026)

1. Transatlantic Debate Intensity Over Time (Based Only on Dissertation Framework)

Year Intensity Score Dominant Issue Explanation 2006 3.0 Iraq/NATO Post-war divergences 2010 3.4 Libya/Strategy Different intervention logics 2016 3.8 Russia/Migration Strategic shift and pressure 2026 3.83 Tech–industrial tensions New structural conflicts

2. Evaluation by Analytical Dimensions (Derived from Dissertation Logic)

Dimension Score Explanation Military-strategic divergence 4.5 Priority mismatch Tech–industrial conflict 5.0 Structural tension Threat perception gap 4.0 Different focuses Energy-economic disputes 3.5 Asymmetric dependencies Political-cultural differences 3.0 Moderate but persistent Information-regulatory issues 3.0 Different rule philosophies

3/a. NATO–EU Perspective Comparison (Based Solely on Dissertation Derived Reasoning)

Dimension NATO Perspective EU Perspective Tension Point Threat priorities Global focus Regional Russian focus Priority clash Military load-sharing Capability-driven Budget & autonomy focus Burden-sharing debates Strategic autonomy Accepted within limits Core EU objective Overlap risk Tech policy Control & security Sovereignty goals Subsidy conflict Information regulation Operational Regulatory Philosophical gap

3/b. IRA–EU Industrial Policy Interactions (IRA = Inflation Reduction Act)

Item U.S. approach (IRA) EU interpretation Compromise option Green subsidies Domestic manufacturing push Distortion concern Joint green clusters Buy American Security rationale Market access limits Selective opening Export controls Tech advantage retention Reduced flexibility Targeted harmonization Tax incentives Boost production Internal competition risk Coordinated support Data/platform rules Market-driven Protection-driven Converging standards

3/c. Threat Perception Comparison (Derived from Dissertation Framework)

Category USA N/E Europe W Europe S Europe Great power rivalry China focus Russia focus Mixed Mixed Direct military risk Low High Medium Medium Energy dependence Minerals Post-Russia shift Green transition LNG reliance Migration pressure Low Medium Medium High Cyber/info threats Critical infra Proxy actors Disinformation Hybrid pressure

 

 

References

Németh, J. L. (2006). A transzatlanti kapcsolatok néhány vitás kérdése biztonságpolitikai megközelítésben (PhD‑disszertáció). Zrínyi Miklós Nemzetvédelmi Egyetem, Hadtudományi Doktori Iskola.

A Transatlantic Debate Intensity 2006–2026: Extended Analytical Study bejegyzés először Biztonságpolitika-én jelent meg.

Amerika-Experte Lohmann zieht eine düstere Bilanz – und nennt zwei Faktoren, die für den US-Präsidenten sehr gefährlich werden könnten.

China hält die Zeit für gekommen, die nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg eingerichtete Pax Americana durch eine neue globale Ordnung unter eigener Führung abzulösen. Ideeller Hintergrund ist das alte Konzept einer Vielvölkerharmonie unter den Fittichen des Kaisers.

Ongoing floods in the north-eastern provinces of South Africa has led to the closure of the world-famous Kruger National Park.

Eine Simulation zeigt, wie schwierig die Flucht aus der Bar in Crans-Montana gewesen sein könnte. Neue Erkenntnisse aus den Ermittlungsakten stützen diese Annahmen.

C'est « un tournant pour la coopération militaire internationale », reconnaît le ministère français des armées, à propos de la parution assez discrète, le 31 octobre dernier, d'un décret signé du premier ministre Sébastien Lecornu, qui revient à reconnaître le privé — ou le civil — comme un acteur de la souveraineté… ce que les intéressés n'espéraient plus.

- Défense en ligne / France, Armée, privatisation

Ce livre est le résultat des recherches d'un collectif : douze chercheurs albanais, bulgares, français et grecs, anthropologues et géographes travaillant au sein d'un projet de recherche sur les Balkans au début des années 2010.
L'objectif est alors d'étudier les expériences du changement dans cette région de l'Europe, à partir de perspectives « par le bas ». Des terrains se forment, des objets se dessinent, des idées s'échangent.
Les expériences communes dont il est question dans cet (…)

- Livres / Grand Bazar - Diaporama, Albanie, Bulgarie, Société, Ethnologie, Essai, Géographie, Sociologie, Grèce, Macédoine du Nord, Kosovo, Serbie, Turquie

EU schließt das Mercosur‑Abkommen ab – Bauern fürchten Billigimporte, Experten sehen Schutzmechanismen und neue Chancen für Europas Agrarwirtschaft.

Europaweit gehen Landwirte gegen das Mercosur-Abkommen auf die Barrikaden. Eine Agrarökonomin erklärt, woher die Wut der Bauern wirklich kommt und wie der Handelspakt mit Südamerika den Verbrauchern nutzt.

Die aktuellen Proteste im Iran sind anders und massiver als zuvor. Steht das Mullah-Regime so kurz vor seinem Ende, wie viele glauben?

Menschen auf der Flucht sind nicht nur physischen Gefahren, sondern auch schweren psychischen Belastungen ausgesetzt, von der Vertreibung selbst über Gewalt­erfahrun­gen bis zu unsicheren Lebensbedingungen und Perspektivlosigkeit am Zielort. Die Folgen dieser Erschütterungen beeinträchtigen nicht nur die Betroffenen, sondern auch den sozialen Zusammenhalt einer Gesellschaft und deren wirtschaftliche Ent­wicklung und Stabilität. Dennoch wird psychosoziale Unterstützung (Mental Health and Psychosocial Support, MHPSS) in Fluchtsituationen sowohl im politischen Dis­kurs als auch in internationalen Hilfsprogrammen oft vernachlässigt. Dabei können sich entsprechende Maßnahmen positiv auf das Zusammenleben in den Aufnahmeländern, aber auch auf Friedensprozesse in den Herkunftsländern auswirken und damit der dritten Dimension des Humanitarian-Development-Peace-Nexus (HDP-Nexus), der sogenannten Friedenssäule, zugutekommen. Der HDP-Nexus soll humanitäre Hilfe und Entwicklung mit Friedensförderung verzahnen. Dieser Ansatz ist gerade in Flucht­situationen von großer Bedeutung.

Die fossile Außenpolitik der USA unter Präsident Donald Trump hat den Konflikt zwi­schen Elektro- und Petro-Staaten in der internationalen Klimapolitik verschärft. Auf der 30. Weltklimakonferenz (COP30) in Belém trat diese Blockbildung insbesondere in der Auseinandersetzung um einen Fahrplan zur Abkehr von fossilen Brennstoffen (TAFF) offen zutage. Während eine wachsende Zahl von Staaten TAFF als notwendige Konsequenz der Energiewende betrachtet, verhinderten fossile Produzenten substan­tielle Fortschritte. Auf der Konferenz wurde deutlich, dass der UNFCCC-Prozess aus strukturellen Gründen nur begrenzt in der Lage ist, diesen Verteilungskonflikt zu moderieren. Für die EU ergibt sich daraus ein strategisches Dilemma zwischen den Zielen, den COP-Prozess weiter auf TAFF auszurichten oder zentrale Mechanismen des Pariser Abkommens zu stabilisieren. Im Hinblick auf die nächste globale Bestandsaufnahme im Rahmen der COP33 wird sich entscheiden, ob dieses Dilemma auflösbar ist.

Das übergeordnete Prinzip im Handeln von Präsident Donald Trump ist die Konsolidierung der eigenen Macht. Weder in der Innen- noch in der Außenpolitik respektiert er institutionelle oder rechtliche Grenzen seiner Handlungsfreiheit. Ermöglicht wird dies durch eine loyale republikanische Kongressmehrheit und einen ihm wohlgesinnten Obersten Gerichtshof. Die USA entwickeln sich derzeit in Richtung eines kompetitiven Autoritarismus. Um Kritik zu unterbinden, übt der Präsident Druck auf Andersdenkende aus und setzt den Regierungsapparat gegen politische Kontrahenten ein. Es ist nicht sicher, dass die Zwischenwahlen 2026 und die Präsidentschaftswahlen 2028 frei und fair ablaufen werden. Trumps innenpolitische Prioritäten sind die politische Kontrolle über den Regierungsapparat und die Ausweisung undokumentierter Migrantinnen und Migranten. Davon abgesehen entspricht sein Programm trotz ökonomisch-populistischer Rhetorik der konservativen Agenda von Steuer­erleichterung, Deregulierung und Sozialstaatsabbau. Eine außenpolitische Priorität ist die Neustrukturierung der Handels­beziehungen durch eine aggressive Zollpolitik. Dabei agiert Trump nicht »transaktional«, sondern setzt auf Zwang. Multilaterale Organisationen und globale Ziele wie Klimaschutz oder Entwicklung werden nicht mehr unterstützt. Allein in der Beilegung gewaltsamer Konflikte und der Kontrolle der westlichen Hemisphäre reklamieren die USA unter Trump noch eine – allerdings nicht liberale – Führungsrolle für sich. Ob die US-Demokratie den Angriffen des Präsidenten standhält, ist ungewiss. Die Beziehung Deutschlands und Europas zu den USA muss grundlegend neu gedacht werden. Bei der Abwägung, inwieweit man Trumps Erpressung nachgibt, gilt es, die Wechselwirkungen zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik zu beachten.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

- Agenda / France - Régions, Croatie

Claims circulating in various media outlets that Russia has betrayed Syria, Iran, and Venezuela do not withstand serious scrutiny. They overlook both historical lessons and the evolving realities of global politics. One-Sided 'International Duty' No Longer Works Ideally, Russia's relations with other countries should be structured so that economic and political ties remain stable regardless of changes in government. Ideological motivations, including anti-Western solidarity, still matter, but they are no longer decisive. Russia is moving away from the mindset that once justified the fulfillment of a one-sided "international duty,” as seen in Afghanistan and Angola. To a large extent, it was precisely the costly support of allied states during periods of falling oil revenues that exhausted the Soviet economy and contributed to its collapse. Priorities were misjudged, and debts owed by former "brotherly” capitals were almost never repaid, with rare exceptions such as India, Turkey, Jordan, and the UAE.

At the edge of Davos, the 19th-century church-turned-‘USA House’ seems to be the architectural epitome of Weberian ethics and American techno-capitalism (Source: Financial Times)

The White House’s confirmation that President Donald J. Trump will attend the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2026 instantly reframed the meeting’s stakes. Davos has long been caricatured as a champagne-soaked conclave of globalist elites—precisely the kind of venue Trump once mocked. Yet his return is neither ironic nor accidental. According to the Observer, Trump now openly eyes a “U.S. conquest of Davos,” using the forum to sell American capitalism back to the very elites who once dismissed it as politically toxic.

This is not Trump’s first Davos gambit. In a virtual 2025 address to the World Economic Forum, Trump delivered a blunt carrot‑and‑stick message to global business leaders: bring production and investment to American soil or face tariffs on goods sold into the U.S. market. He promised lower corporate taxes and regulatory certainty for companies that manufacture in the United States, while warning that those that did not would “very simply… have to pay a tariff” on their exports—potentially generating hundreds of billions of dollars to strengthen the U.S. economy and reduce debt.

Davos 2026, however, will be about more than tariffs. Backed by corporate heavyweights such as Microsoft and McKinsey—each reportedly pledging up to $1 million to support the US Davos hub—the United States is set to stage a precise and confident showcase of its economic and technological clout. Most events will unfold in a 19th‑century English church just outside the forum’s security perimeter, reimagined as “USA House” and adorned with imagery celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Its chosen themes—“peace through strength,” “digital assets & economic resilience,” and “faith‑based initiatives”—reflect a blend of economic patriotism and techno‑pragmatism, crafted to underline America’s central role in shaping the twenty‑first‑century order. Within this carefully choreographed setting, Trump’s appearance could fuse a revived American capitalist narrative with an emerging club-based techno‑geopolitical initiative called Pax Silica—turning Davos into a stage for a new convergence of power, capital, and innovation.

(Source: US Department of State)

What Is Pax Silica?

Formally launched by the U.S. State Department on December 12, 2025, through the adoption of the Pax Silica Declaration, the initiative brings together a core group of U.S. allies and trusted partners—including the United Kingdom, Singapore, Israel, and the Netherlands—around a shared set of mission values: securing supply chains, protecting sensitive technologies, and building collective resilience against coercive or non-market practices. Pax Silica builds directly on earlier U.S. industrial policy, most notably the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors(CHIPS) and Science Act of 2022, while extending those domestic commitments into a coordinated diplomatic framework. By embedding industrial policy within alliance coordination, it seeks to align private capital, public regulation, and strategic planning across borders, transforming what were once national initiatives into a shared geopolitical architecture.

Within Pax Silica, participation is not defined by ideological alignment, but by adherence to common standards governing compute infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing, energy reliability, and critical minerals sourcing. In this regulatory- and incentive-based sense, the framework operates as a selective coordination mechanism, privileging those both willing and able to meet its governance and security thresholds. From this politico-economically selective base, Pax Silica articulates ambitions that extend beyond immediate supply-chain risk mitigation. As artificial intelligence consolidates its role as a general-purpose technology, the framework treats sustained control over the full technology stack—not only algorithms, but hardware, energy, and upstream inputs—as the foundation of future economic power. Its enduring objective is therefore neither wholesale decoupling nor indiscriminate reshoring, but a rules-based reordering of global production that channels investment, innovation, and growth through trusted networks capable of sustaining competitiveness and security over time.

The implications for Davos 2026 follow naturally. Pax Silica’s appeal lies in its club-based logic: privileged access to advanced innovation ecosystems, capital markets, and technology platforms for those inside the framework, paired with rising frictions and exclusion risks for those outside it. In this light, the initiative functions less as a formal alliance than as the organizing backdrop for debates over tariffs, reshoring, and AI leadership—precisely the terrain on which Trump’s return to Davos is likely to unfold.

Could Davos 2026 Herald the New Start of Trumpian Expansionary(Scalable) Club Diplomacy?

Davos 2026 convenes under the banner of “A Spirit of Dialogue,” yet its underlying imperative is sharply pragmatic: sustaining growth and trust as compute capacity and strategic supply chains increasingly function as instruments of state power. Within this environment, Pax Silica may emerge not merely as a discrete policy agenda, but as the principal institutional lens through which the global tech‑industrial divide is interpreted. By lowering coordination costs and harmonizing standards, its club‑based logic aims to expand participation over time—quietly furnishing a strategic framework that could, in turn, shape the context of Trump’s return.

As AI shifts from experimentation to scaled deployment, decisions involving compute capacity, data‑center siting, and energy infrastructure now dictate both national competitiveness and corporate valuation. Consequently, at Davos 2026, AI represents the central axis along which growth, capital allocation, and strategic dependence converge—precisely the set of issues poised to dominate the discussions among executives, investors, and policymakers.

For Trump, AI thus constitutes the most pragmatic policy lever. When filtered through Pax Silica’s logic of scalability, strategic leverage concentrates upstream—across compute, platforms, energy, and ecosystem governance—the very domains Pax Silica seeks to standardize among trusted networks. Given U.S. primacy in frontier models and cloud infrastructure, the Trumpian approach is likely to be integrative rather than coercive: aligning AI investment, infrastructure build‑out, and regulatory expectations within a shared framework that broadens participation while anchoring it in U.S.‑centered technological norms.

Under these conditions—and driven by the urgency of scaling AI governance among like‑minded partners—Davos 2026, when accompanied by Pax Silica‑themed events, is poised to act less as a forum for persuasion than one for consolidation. Within this elite nexus, asymmetric technological advantages can be translated into durable commitments—joint ventures, shared infrastructures, and long‑term partnerships—rooted in an American‑centered AI stack. Ultimately, Trump’s presence would amplify this dynamic, positioning Pax Silica as an emergent paradigm through which technological preeminence matures into enduring economic cohesion.