Grey Swan #5: The European Union Fractures Under the Weight of War, Debt, and Bureaucracy

“Do you know that one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.”

–Margaret Thatcher

December 29, 2025 — There are political projects that survive on momentum long after conviction has faded. By 2026, the Esperanto experiment we know as the European Union will enter that phase.

This Grey Swan does not arrive as a treaty collapse or dramatic Brexit-style vote. Nor will it involve tanks rolling across borders.

At least not yet.

This one will arrive like a French waiter with your next glass of wine at bistro closing time, with a slow, unmistakable loss of consent.

Voters drift. Governments wobble. Bureaucracy hardens for the assault.

Nationalist movements gain ground not because they promise utopia, but because they promise escape from expensive quagmire and immigrants draining the public purse.

The thing that really sticks in the craw of European voters will be the fact that Brussels is trying to manage outcomes of constituent countries… rather than doing the hard work of creating a level playing field and actively pursuing a laissez-faire approach to the economy.

Looking at Europe from afar, especially in the face of the Russian threat of digital war on their borders, the weight of the conflict makes the apathetic isolationist in America go “hmm, that’s unfortunate.”

The European Union will not fail. It’ll fracture—functionally, politically, and financially—under pressures it no longer has the tools to resolve. The infrastructure itself is burdensome, expensive and dismissed way too easily.

The first straw in our opinion was the Trump administration leaning on Nato member states to pony up 5% of their respective GDPs for weapons of war.

There’s also a good argument to be made that European citizens had given up on a unified government a long time ago. Like dealing publicly with Social Security and Medicare in the United States, voters will simply choose the candidates based on other factors. We can name them, but it’s immaterial.

History has projected this narrative on the wall before.

Europe was the epicenter of systemic breakdown in the 1930s. An 80-year metacycle later, the same ingredients are back on the table: debt saturation, prolonged war financing, demographic stagnation, and institutions that mistake permanence for legitimacy.

At some point, even academics are going to admit that the promises of democratic socialism are too expensive, even with the compliance of a tax-paying, peace-loving people.

 The Structural Fault Line: War Without End

Europe entered the Ukraine conflict with moral clarity and financial confidence. From the Journal of Energy Transition:

As the move to climate neutrality advances, Germany and the EU still rely heavily on imports of fossil fuels as domestic resources are often largely depleted or their extraction is too costly. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the energy crisis have put the question of import dependence front and centre of the debate, with renewables expansion seen as a key solution.

By 2026, the prospects of providing the necessary resources to fuel the domestic economy seem distant from the political debate.

Meanwhile, as you might expect, defense commitments have expanded sharply. NATO members, under sustained pressure from Washington, have pledged toward the 5% of GDP threshold.

Poland and the Baltic states were the first to move. Germany followed with historic defense appropriations. Southern Europe complied on paper, with creative accounting doing the rest.

The Financial Times reported early in 2025 that Europe’s military outlays now resemble “permanent wartime budgeting without wartime economic mobilization.” That distinction matters. Europe funds war through debt, not growth. Historically, the losers of wars have been left to bear the financial burden. What happens today, when the debt has grown noticeably during a period of relative peace?

Some of these questions are rhetorical.

Wars of attrition reward scale, energy, and industrial throughput.

As Larry Fein noted in his contribution to the Grey Swan forecasts, Russia, China, and Iran continue to outproduce NATO in drones, ammunition, and steel.

Europe’s strength lies in regulation and consensus—neither of which manufactures artillery.

 Debt Crowds Out Legitimacy

European voters are not rebelling against democracy. They are rebelling against tradeoffs imposed without consent. The centrists also feel like they’ve been duped by the green wave that swept across entire voting blocks while the U.S. paid NATO’s way.

Energy subsidies, refugee support, military aid, green-transition spending, and legacy welfare systems now compete for the same borrowed euros. The European Central Bank continues to manage yields delicately, but inflation scars from 2022–2024 have not healed politically.

Prolonged deficit financing at the national level eventually leads to distributional conflict.

Europe now lives adjacent to the Ukrainian conflict, and it’s giving the bundesburgers a rash. Heating bills and grocery prices carry more political weight than bureaucratic directives from Brussels.

Germany offers the clearest signal.

Once the continent’s fiscal anchor, Berlin now runs structural deficits while simultaneously subsidizing energy, defense, and industry. The Wall Street Journal recently observed that Germany’s economic model is “recalibrating under strain from all directions at once.”
France faces a different version of the same arithmetic. High public spending collides with stagnant growth. Gun to head, voters feel taxed without benefits… even before Putin rolls his tanks and flies drones beyond the entrenched border in the Donbas Region.

Italy simply shrugs and borrows.

The UK, having already gone through the political turmoil of separation from Brussels, is in disarray because it still has pre-Brexit bills to pay.

 The Rise of Authoritarian Nationalism

Into this vacuum step nationalist movements—disciplined, opportunistic, and increasingly normalized.

In France, the National Rally frames Brussels as an unaccountable tax authority. In Germany, the AfD gains traction by linking energy costs, migration, and war spending into a single narrative of elite failure. In the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, and Scandinavia, similar patterns repeat with local accents.

These movements do not need to win outright to fracture the European Union. They only need veto power.

The Economist noted recently that Europe’s political center is “losing altitude across multiple countries at once.” Coalitions, by their nature, grow unstable. Policy coherence becomes a “would be nice to have” on any politician’s to-do list.

Brussels responds with more rules, stricter enforcement, and an increased body of technicians busying themselves with telling everyone else on the continent what to do.

An armchair view of European history suggests empires rarely collapse due to invasion. They unravel when the central governing structure fails to address the incentives for serfs to comply, even within their sphere of influence.

Europe is entering that phase again.

 Bureaucracy as a Substitute for Authority

Brussels will not go quietly, of course. There’s a lot of money at stake for the do-gooder class.

As national governments wobble, EU institutions will assert themselves more aggressively—on fiscal rules, climate policy, migration enforcement, and digital regulation.

The instinct is predictable: centralize to survive.

This response accelerates backlash.

The European Commission increasingly resembles what late-Soviet ministries became in the 1980s: technically competent, procedurally confident, and politically isolated. Rules multiply. Compliance costs rise. Public patience erodes.

The comparison to the Soviet collapse is not rhetorical.

In 1988, few believed the U.S.S.R. would dissolve within four years. Its institutions appeared permanent. Its bureaucracy looked entrenched. Its debt obligations seemed manageable—until legitimacy evaporated.

Europe’s fracture will not mirror that collapse exactly. Of course, not. But it will surprise the mainstream as much as the Fall of the Berlin Wall did in 1989.

 Markets Will Signal Before Treaties Break

Financial markets will recognize the fracture before politicians campaign on it.

Expect widening spreads between core and peripheral sovereign bonds. Expect capital to favor jurisdictions with energy security, defense capacity, and demographic resilience.

Expect multinational firms to further regionalize their operations, thereby reducing exposure to international regulatory volatility.

Bloomberg has already described Europe’s investment landscape as “increasingly bifurcated between rule-makers and rule-takers.”

That gap widens in 2026.

The euro survives. The promise of convergence does not. Europe’s money may hold together even as its politics drift apart.

 Fracture Without Formal Breakup

Grey Swan #5 does not require an EU dissolution vote.

It requires:

• More opt-outs
• More exemptions
• More emergency measures
• More national overrides

The Union becomes a menu rather than a mandate.

Defense coordination weakens. Fiscal rules become negotiable. Migration enforcement splinters. Energy policy fragments by geography. It’s not nothing that Northern Europe is cold in the winter.

Europe continues to exist. The confusing set of rules and regulations set by a pan-European congress of leaders does not.

In 2026, Europe will cease to function as a coherent, unified strategic actor.

 Why This Is Grey Swan #5

This forecast feels obvious to voters and unthinkable to institutions. That gap helps define a Grey Swan.

The EU was established during a period of expanding credit, American security guarantees, cheap energy, and favorable demographic trends.

By 2026, all four supports will demonstrate that they’ve weakened simultaneously. As true as it may or may not be, it’s not likely to be understood, let alone covered by old-school national media.

Debt narrows choices. War hardens politics. False bureaucratic authority substitutes for something, trust, maybe. Nationalists will be more than willing to fill the vacuum.

Europe’s fracture will feel gradual. Policy coherence will erode further. Markets will adapt and look to the Middle and/or Far East to finance the Ponzi finance on display in New York and London.

Voters will disengage or, more likely, radicalize. The 1930s taught Europe what happens when debt, war, and institutional rigidity collide. It’s awful. There are plenty of citizens of their respective countries who remember that violence is destructive and doesn’t solve anything.

Here we are again. Eight decades later, the political and debt cycles return.

~ Addison

Next up: Grey Swan #4 — America’s Covert Resource War in South America.

Continued Below…

P.S. Tomorrow’s the day…

We’re unveiling the AI-powered patent we acquired to use in our Grey Swan Trading Fraternity.

Since launching the Trading Fraternity earlier this year, Andrew Packer has identified a number of triple-digit winners – ranging from uranium and gold to short-term bets on a market downturn – including a position he closed on December 26 for a 125.9% return!

As Andrew admits, “We’ve had a few down positions too, since the market doesn’t always move as expected. But with this new AI-powered tool, we can separate genuine market signals from false positives.”

How does this work? This patent allows us to harness knowledge about what’s moving in the options market – filtering out a lot of the typical “noise” in unusual options activity to detect actual big-money moves.

Big moves in the options market often precede a big move in an underlying stock – providing better opportunities.

Our research going into more details on this new tool, and how we’ll use it to rack up more wins in 2026, goes live tomorrow – click here to sign up and get on the waitlist.