European Politics Faces Existential Threats Amid Media Fear Narratives

European nations and the European Union find themselves mired in complex political challenges as 2026 approaches, with leaders struggling to formulate coherent solutions to mounting problems. This political uncertainty has led to a familiar strategy: the identification and amplification of existential threats to unite citizens behind government agendas.

In France, where persistent internal conflicts have created political paralysis, the pattern is particularly evident. Political leaders across Europe have increasingly adopted a strategy of threat amplification—a tactic that requires media complicity to succeed.

“One of the known recipes for reducing political confusion is to designate and focus on a threat, preferably one that can be framed as existential,” notes a political observer based in France. “If no easily identifiable threat is available, it’s always possible for enterprising leaders to create one.”

This strategy carries significant advantages for media organizations as well. Publicizing threats generates emotional engagement and audience attention, while echoing government narratives ensures continued access to official information channels. Media outlets that question these narratives risk being excluded from briefings or, in more extreme cases, being characterized as sympathetic to the designated threat.

The recent statements by Lord Robertson, former NATO chief and lead author of the UK’s Strategic Defence Review, exemplify this approach. Robertson claimed that “the United Kingdom is being seen as a proxy for America” by Russia and that the UK is “in the crosshairs” because “it’s inconvenient to attack America on a broad scale because of the relationship between Trump and Putin.”

Robertson further argued that European nations should be “very, very worried” about Russia potentially reconstituting its armed forces, stating that “clearly the rest of Europe is in danger” if this occurs. He specifically mentioned Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as countries that should be “very, very worried.”

Critics have pointed out significant logical flaws in Robertson’s assessment. His argument moves from Russian media criticism of the UK to an implied imminent military threat without establishing evidence of actual military capabilities or intentions directed at NATO members. This conflation of verbal hostility with military danger appears designed to justify increased military spending.

Lord Robert Skidelsky offered a counterpoint in his response titled “Ukraine – the delusion of the warmongers,” challenging Robertson’s assessment and highlighting the danger of threat inflation in policy-making.

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, has been advocating for a return to nuclear arms controls that recent administrations have abandoned. Paradoxically, Ritter calls for a “New Cold War” to reinvigorate interest in reducing apocalyptic risk, hoping for “mainstream media altering its coverage of Russia” to influence their “masters in government” to “focus on real solutions to real problems, and not pretend solutions to manufactured problems.”

The debate highlights a fundamental question about democratic governance: Why do governments in liberal democracies frequently dismiss or fail to engage with historical realist perspectives in foreign policy? Political realists like John Mearsheimer offer analytical frameworks that could provide balanced assessments but are often sidelined in favor of more emotionally charged narratives.

This tendency raises concerns about the health of democratic institutions. Effective democracy requires serious debate incorporating diverse viewpoints, yet the current pattern of threat amplification and media compliance appears to undermine this essential process.

The situation in Europe reflects a broader global challenge: balancing legitimate security concerns with factual analysis while resisting the temptation to inflate threats for political advantage. As 2026 approaches, the ability of European democracies to foster genuine public discourse about complex geopolitical challenges may determine their resilience in the face of actual threats, both internal and external.