The analysis strips the gloss off Europe’s long-running quest for “strategic autonomy” and finds a project stuck between ambition and dependence. Brussels talks about freedom of action, resilience and sovereignty. In reality, Europe is squeezed by US security guarantees on one side and deep economic exposure to China on the other. The piece argues that autonomy has become a slogan masking hard constraints Europe has not resolved.

The commentary takes aim at Friedrich Merz’s recent foreign policy moves and finds a style that looks improvised, abrasive and politically risky. What is presented as tough realism comes across as clumsy “dirty work” that raises eyebrows at home and abroad. The piece argues that Germany is projecting firmness without coherence, and paying the price in credibility.

The analysis takes stock of Germany’s security and defence policy after the Zeitenwende and finds a country still struggling to turn shock into sustained change. A new government brings new language and fresh emphasis, but the paper argues that the deeper constraints remain firmly in place. Germany talks more openly about power and responsibility. Delivering on it is another matter.

The commentary frames Europe as standing at a critical stress point where democratic resilience is no longer an abstract ideal but a live security issue. Elections, institutions and public trust are under pressure from disinformation, polarisation and foreign interference. The piece argues that Europe talks confidently about defending democracy, yet the shield it relies on is thinner, slower and more uneven than leaders admit.

The website of the Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB) has posted the January issue of its CIDOB Opinion newsletter containing an article “How Europe can reduce dependence on the United States” by Francis Ghilès, the Center’s non-resident Senior Fellow.

The analysis takes a close look at the principles guiding German foreign policy and exposes a widening gap between aspiration and impact. Berlin speaks the language of responsibility, multilateralism and restraint. The problem, the piece argues, is that these principles increasingly look like comfort blankets in a world that rewards speed, leverage and hard choices. What once sounded virtuous now risks sounding evasive.

The analysis tears into the EU’s handling of trade policy and finds a familiar pattern of overconfidence followed by underdelivery. Faced with a tougher global trade environment, Brussels talked up strategic autonomy and defensive tools. What it delivered instead was delay, confusion and diluted action. The piece argues that Europe did not just struggle to respond – it actively mishandled the moment.

There is a so-called circular migration programme (also known as collective migration) that has been used in Spain for many years. Officially it is called Gestión Colectiva de las contrataciones en Origen (Collective Management of Recruitment at Origin) or GECCO. The programme is often presented as an advanced one. The European Commission even took the “Spanish model” as the basis for drawing up the EU’s directive on seasonal workers.

The analysis takes stock of Europe’s position one hundred days into Donald Trump’s return to the White House and finds a Union talking geopolitics while bracing for turbulence it cannot control. The EU wants to act like a strategic power, but Trump’s early moves expose how thin that ambition still is. The piece argues that Europe is navigating the storm with limited instruments, fragile unity and heavy dependence on decisions made in Washington.

The analysis delivers a blunt assessment of Europe’s China policy and finds a continent stuck in the middle with shrinking room to manoeuvre. Brussels talks about de-risking, resilience and strategic realism. In practice, Europe remains deeply entangled with China economically while lacking the power or unity to shape the relationship on its own terms. The paper argues that Europe is trying to manage a rivalry it did not choose, with tools that are not strong enough.