From Davos to Munich, leaders have spoken. The trajectory they are drawing for the EU is clearer — and deeply concerning. More "competitiveness" meaning lower wages and prices. More national rearmament and arms shopping in the US. More subsidies and flexibility for industry. Far less welfare. Far less green economy. Almost nothing on democratic participation. The EU is fast becoming a coordination space between national governments and large industrial interests, competing with the US and China on *their* terms. And unfortunately, the Von der Leyen2 Commission is complicit.

 ???????? Marco Rubio: The West, my way: At Munich, Rubio used polished language to deliver the same message as JD Vance last year: we love you, but on our terms — economic, cultural, commercial, ideological. He proposes an identity-driven West, US-led, hostile to migration, dismissive of climate action and by the way forgetful of  the great pre-colombian cultures in America. A man of Cuban, Italian and Spanish descent demonising migration as an "urgent threat to civilisation" is a paradox. His rebranding of climate denial as "economic pragmatism" — calling for a Western critical minerals supply chain — fools no one. The message is clear: submission dressed up as partnership. If Europe responds by adopting its own "continental" version of that logic, as Meloni would like, it would lose everything that makes it distinctive: pluralism, universal rights, shared regulation, climate ambition, welfare and redistribution.

 ???????? Friedrich Merz: Guns and deregulation: Merz was explicit at Munich: MAGA culture is not ours. Fine: but his vision of Europe is one that leaves member states free to do as they please. He announced his intent to build Europe's strongest conventional army by 2029, but not as a European project: a German army. On the economy, he wants to "free Europe's potential" by slashing regulation, allowing unconditional state aid, and hiding a green transition slowdown behind the catch-all of "technological neutrality." He proposes an "emergency brake" on legislation and a budget centred on competitiveness — meaning deregulation, reopening adopted files, curtailing EU institutions, and no common debt. On the ETS, he floats revision or delay, conveniently ignoring the system's track record since 2005: -39% emissions, +71% growth in ETS sectors, €260bn in revenues. The result? Countries with more national resources subsidise their industries. The single market fragments. There is no real energy or technological autonomy without a rapid transition to renewables and European green value chains.

???????? Emmanuel Macron: European rhetoric, French grandeur as usual: At Davos, Macron called for European preference, simplification, and investment in AI and clean tech. At Munich, he declared it was time for Europe to become a geopolitical power, including by extending France's nuclear deterrent. The rhetoric is impeccable; the reality is telling. Macron offers to extend France's nuclear umbrella to Europe — while keeping the launch decision exclusively in the hands of the French President. Behind the stalled Franco-German defence agreement lies France's insistence on 80% control. Macron rightly warned that US threats and intimidation are not over, and that the Trump administration is actively seeking EU fragmentation. Yet his actions consistently prioritise French national interests — protecting the nuclear industry rather than building an integrated European energy chain. On migration: silence. As long as key levers stay in national capitals, Europe cannot become a genuine shared democratic power.

???????? Ursula von der Leyen: Formal power, unnecessary surrender: At Munich, VDL invoked Article 42(7)'s mutual defence clause and cited €800bn mobilised for European defence by 2025, including the €100bn SAFE joint procurement programme. She pushed NATO spending to 3% of GDP and proposed removing EU fiscal constraints for defence spending — but proposed nothing equivalent for social or economic policies. Her entire speech was about military security. Yet the Commission does have real powers to strengthen the EU: defending the Green Deal, protecting the single market from a subsidy race, resisting ineffective deregulation, and upholding the asylum system. Instead, the Commission has voluntarily shifted rightward, dismantling what UVDL herself built in the previous term. On migration, it has abandoned rights and integration  in favour of a dubious deterrence and externalisation — deals with third countries, fast-track border procedures, and labelling autocracies as "safe countries." An ageing Europe needs legal pathways, common quotas, skills recognition and inclusion policies. Not criminalisation.

???????? Giorgia Meloni: Consistent nationalism, damaging consequences: Meloni's political reference point is Trump. Rather than attend Munich, she went to the Italy-Africa summit in Addis Ababa and announced Italy's participation as an "observer" in the so-called Board of Peace — from which Palestinians were excluded, amid ongoing, unpunished Israeli violence in Gaza and the West Bank. When asked about Merz's MAGA critique, she was blunt: "I don't share those views — this is not an EU competence." That is simply false: freedom of expression, civil rights, the rule of law are all central EU competences. Her relationship with Europe is purely transactional — EU money, little more. She defends unanimity because it preserves the national veto. She sees EU fragmentation not as a structural problem, but as room to manoeuvre. This is coherent with her nationalist, corporatist vision; it is a direct obstacle to a stronger, more integrated, more capable Europe. And it runs entirely against the interests of an indebted, weakening Italy.

???????? Pedro Sánchez: Secure because united: The Spanish Prime Minister — the first Spanish PM to attend the Munich Security Conference — was the exception. He warned against nuclear rearmament and called for a "moral rearmament" against Putin. Nuclear powers spend over $11 million per hour on nuclear weapons; the US alone will spend $946bn on them in the next decade — "enough to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide," he noted. He raised the risks of AI applied to nuclear arsenals. Most importantly, he insisted that security means welfare, public services, social rights and a just transition — that without investment in health, education and green jobs, even military security is an illusion. On migration, he spoke of Europe as it really is: an ageing continent that needs workers, not walls. He called for a genuinely coordinated European army, reform of multilateral institutions, and enlargement to Ukraine. His conclusion: The rearmament we need most, today more than ever, is a moral one.

 What can we — Greens, federalists and progressives — do with all this?

The leaders gathered in Davos and Munich are drawing a clear map. Almost all of them point in the wrong direction. Here are three priorities to fight back:

1. ???? The Green Deal as a tool for independence and security, not just ecology. Low-carbon energy and energy efficiency are not ideological luxuries: they reduce costs, build autonomy, and break dependence on Russian, American or Qatari gas. Investing in renewables, circular economy and green value chains means building a genuinely sovereign Europe. This is also the answer to the right wing — and too many in the liberal-progressive camp haven't grasped it yet.

2. ????️ Security is not only military, it means tackling climate change, guaranteeing universal welfare, managing migration humanely, building intergenerational solidarity and organising a shared European defence — pooling technology and armaments, not building bigger national armies. Every purely national rearmament that ignores these dimensions will make us meaner, poorer and less safe.

3. ????️ Citizens must be at the centre, not as rhetoric, but as a concrete, organised programme. Every speech in Davos and Munich (except Sánchez's) was top-down: governments, corporations, and lobbies deciding for everyone. We need citizens, associations, universities, trade unions and local administrations involved. The 2027 Italian elections and the 2029 European elections are the targets, to build a stronger ecologist, federalist, progressive majority.

As the latest Eurobarometer shows, European citizens understand and are ready for a more effective EU — one that helps solve their problems: housing costs, job quality, wages, prospects for young people, healthcare, urban safety. Not just competitiveness for energy-hungry corporations, or stronger armies.

The Davos and Munich speeches confirm that the dominant path leads toward re-nationalisation disguised as competitiveness, fragmented militarisation, and geopolitical submission to the US wrapped in the language of "Western civilisation." But the current European Commission and Parliament — despite the PPE's balancing acts — remain open to strong pressure from progressive businesses, citizens, unions, and Greens. Europe cannot be just a market, just competitiveness and weapons. It must return to being a political, social and civilisational project. Or it will lose its soul along with its relevance.

Monica Frassoni, 17 February 2026

Original in Italian: [monicafrassoni.eu](https://monicafrassoni.eu/it/posts/da-davos-a-monaco-leuropa-che-non-ci-piace-e-quella-che-vogliamo-costruire)*