The Last Year of War or Peace?

On 15 January, we sat down with Monika Sus, a professor of political science at the Institute of Political Studies at the Polish Academy of Sciences to discuss the following questions: 

• How do societies across Europe brace for the global turbulence? 
• Impact of the US,  Russia, and China on Europe’s security system
• How can CEE countries navigate existential choices that will shape the region’s democratic and economic security?
• Political dynamics and scenarios for 2026-2029

Find the video from the first part of the event at the bottom of the page.

The big picture

Wojciech Przybylski set the tone by warning that European leaders increasingly describe the moment as a ‘pre-war period’, with 2026 potentially the last year in which European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members avoid direct military engagement beyond the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. He framed Central Europe’s post-1989 bargain as a triad of security guarantees, democratic freedoms and economic prosperity, arguing that external shocks and domestic politics are putting pressure on all three at once.

Driving the story

The discussion focused on how Europe should brace for geopolitical turbulence in 2026, including uncertainty in United States (US) policy, Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine, China’s long game and the domestic political cycles that can either sustain or fracture European cohesion.

State of play

• Speakers characterised 2026 as a year in which Europe’s political alignment will be tested through electoral cycles and the information pressure that accompanies them
• Monika Sus argued that a full end to the Russia-Ukraine war in 2026 is hard to envisage, with a ‘pause’ more plausible and potentially more dangerous if Russia can sell it domestically as success
• Both speakers treated hybrid operations, sabotage and election interference as a persistent risk factor for European resilience
• The conversation linked Europe’s security posture to industrial output, arguing that capability delivery and defence production volumes matter at least as much as strategies
• Enlargement was discussed as a strategic choice, with speakers emphasising the ‘cost of non-enlargement’ for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans

What they’re saying

• Sus: a war ‘pause’ is more realistic than an end in 2026, with the key variable being the terms and the story Russia can tell at home
• Sus: hybrid warfare is still warfare and Europe underestimates its cumulative impact on institutions, social cohesion and elections
• Przybylski: ‘It is just too late to have the power of ideas’, arguing for a shift from planning to delivery of capabilities
• Sus: Europe should begin imagining a security architecture that functions without the US, not as a preference but as contingency planning
• Przybylski: Europe’s economic security agenda is inseparable from enlargement, internal market barriers and trade partnerships, including India and Mercosur

Zoom out:

A recurring theme was that Europe is being pushed into a more transactional world, where alliances, supply chains and deterrence are negotiated under pressure rather than designed at leisure. The speakers described China as a ‘silent power’ that benefits from Western polarisation and warned against strategic dependency, especially in critical supply chains.

Between the lines:

The event’s subtext was blunt: Europe can keep issuing communiqués, but adversaries count shells, drones and political disruption. The ‘balance of power’ language, which many Europeans hoped was a museum exhibit, is back in circulation.

Catch up quick:

• The speakers treated 2026 as a stress test for Europe’s deterrence posture and societal mobilisation, not only for budgets but also for political consent
• They argued that Ukraine’s pathway into the EU is part of credible long-term deterrence by reducing ‘grey zones’ Russia can exploit
• Participants raised the Global South perspective, with Sus noting that many outside Europe see Ukraine as ‘another conflict’ and judge Europe by how it manages it and how it builds selective partnerships

Yes, but:

Several interventions highlighted constraints that slogans do not resolve: manpower shortages, contested debates on conscription and the limits of symbolic deployments. Sus noted that even if conscription is ‘unfrozen’, it will be politically difficult.

The bottom line:

The speakers’ core message was that Europe’s 2026 choices will be judged by outcomes, not intentions, especially on deterrence, resilience against hybrid threats and the credibility of enlargement.

What’s next:

• Watch the early-2026 economic security agenda, including debates around critical minerals and the EU’s internal market bottlenecks
• Track how European governments communicate options on security commitments, including the symbolism of deployments and coalition signalling

Speakers:

Monika Sus is a professor of political science at the Institute of Political Studies at the Polish Academy of Sciences (Warsaw, Poland) and part-time professor at the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute in Florence, as co-leads the European Union’s Security Initiative (EUSI). She is also an adjunct faculty member at the Hertie School (Berlin, Germany) and member of Team Europe Direct Poland.

Wojciech Przybylski is leading strategic foresight on EU affairs to improve democratic security of Poland in Europe. He organises EuropeFuture.Forum as the Editor-in-Chief of Visegrad Insight and the President of Res Publica Foundation. An advisory board member at LSE IDEAS Ratiu Forum, European Forum of New Ideas. A guest lecturer at the Foreign Service Institute for the U.S. Government, Warsaw University and CEU Democracy Institute.