“Triple shock" challenges for European security according to survey with 501 experts from Robert Schuman Institute

The Global Risks to the EU 2026 survey, led by Veronica Anghel at the Robert Schuman Centre, reveals a European Union facing a “triple shock” to its critical infrastructure, its immediate neighborhood, and its historically core security alliance. Rather than fearing a single, cataclysmic war, European security experts are now bracing for a more insidious era of overlapping crises designed to test the continent’s resilience. This landscape is defined by the shift toward a “gray zone” of conflict where the lines between peace and provocation have effectively blurred.

The Rise of the Invisible Battlefield

The most pressing shadow over Brussels today is not a conventional army at the gates, but the pervasive threat of hybrid warfare. For the first time, a disruptive hybrid attack on critical infrastructure—ranging from the sabotage of subsea cables to the sudden shutdown of electrical grids—is ranked as the top risk for the EU. There is a growing consensus among experts that hostile states will continue to probe Europe’s digital and physical networks, viewing them as soft targets. Consequently, the very definition of defense is evolving; security now relies as much on the redundancy and rapid repair of transport and energy systems as it does on traditional military strength.

European security: The Eastern Flank and the Transatlantic Anchor

Russia remains the central gravity of European anxiety, but the nature of the concern has matured into a fear of a “Russian Peace”. A ceasefire in Ukraine on terms favorable to Moscow is viewed as a significant threat that would not only reward aggression but also undermine the long-term viability of democratic sovereignty in the region. Beyond Ukraine, the attrition of security for non-NATO neighbors is a recurring nightmare, with experts highlighting the potential for the Georgian government to fully submit to a Kremlin-directed agenda.

Simultaneously, the EU’s “anchor ally,” the United States, is increasingly perceived as a source of structural risk rather than just a provider of protection. While the likelihood of an all-out NATO-Russia war remains remote, the prospect of a US withdrawal from security guarantees is seen as an impactful shock that is significantly more probable than in years past. This shift points toward a growing vulnerability: the EU remains far from possessing the independent defense capacity needed to replace the American umbrella in the short term.

A Comparative Perspective: The Mirror of Global Risks

When mirrored against the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) Preventive Priorities Survey—the American instrument that served as the methodological inspiration for this study—distinct priorities emerge. While US-centric studies often focus on direct military confrontations or interventions, the European outlook is uniquely sensitive to the internal political fractures caused by external spillovers. For instance, instability in the Middle East and North Africa is viewed primarily through the lens of how irregular migration and radicalization might instrumentalize polarized politics within the EU itself.

This expert community—a high-knowledge sample of 501 individuals dominated by academia and think-tank professionals—suggests that the EU is being forced to transition from a focus on local crisis management to operating as a geopolitical actor in a great-power arena dominated by the US, China, and Russia. The 2026 Global Risks map ultimately depicts a Union that must remain hyper-vigilant on multiple fronts, balancing its strategic anxiety between its eastern borders and the future reliability of its oldest allies.

Written by

LarsGoran Bostrom

Developer of the online course “Data Ethics – Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Emerging Technologies and a book on Data Ethics