On 19 July, the world experienced ‘Blue Friday’ when 8.5 million PC screens worldwide were hit by the infamous Blue Screen of Death (BSOD), a critical error message displayed by Microsoft Windows when the system encounters a serious issue that it cannot recover from.

This unprecedented outage was triggered by a faulty update from CrowdStrike, a leading cybersecurity provider. The disruption affected government services, emergency operations, transport, payment systems and financial markets across the world.

While not a cyberattack, its scale was historic and raised two major concerns. First, the failure stemmed from a CrowdStrike update that was meant to protect networks. Second, fixing the problem required manual intervention – rebooting each computer into Windows’ Safe Mode and applying a patch, a very time-consuming process when you’re talking about millions of devices.

Some have since argued that new regulation is necessary to ensure such a shock doesn’t happen again – in the EU, this isn’t necessary. We already have what we need in the form of two strong pieces of legislation, the Network and Information System 2 Directive (NIS2) and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). They just need to be implemented properly, combined with better preparedness and a concerted effort to expand the number of trusted security software providers.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With Israel on the warpath around the region, despite international efforts to shift the conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiation table, there are growing fears about the consequences for the wider world, including in the EU.

Whether the US can rein in Israel’s military machine is an open question. The record doesn’t bode well. Months of US-facilitated talks on ceasefires in Gaza and lately at the UN on Lebanon have had very little effect on Israel. That’s because Benjamin Netanyahu has realised that it’s in his interests to undermine these negotiations – perhaps believing that endless fighting rather than sitting down to actually talk helps to keep him and his extremist allies in power.

He may be right. Spurred by perceptions of military prowess and a classic ‘rally round the flag’ mentality, recent polls in Israel show growing public support for his government, as the memory of his intelligence failures a year ago fades.

One thing is clear – this Israeli administration is probably the least interested in peace since Israel’s founding in 1948 when it comes to addressing the conflicts’ root cause, namely peace with the Palestinians. Netanyahu is on the record as being fiercely opposed to any two-state solution and has constantly eschewed any peace process.

To make matters worse, a year on from 7 October, Israel has yet to articulate a longer-term political strategy for ‘the day after’ the guns fall silent. Many fear that their intentions might involve the (re)occupation of Gaza and south Lebanon, and the theft of more Palestinian land for illegal West Bank settlements, a recipe for a true ‘forever war’. Yet another angry generation is growing up amidst the unprecedented carnage and rubble of Gaza and elsewhere.

With the US preoccupied with its upcoming election, Washington’s impotence will probably continue for some time. Should Trump prevail, American support for peace efforts may well evaporate entirely.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During these frantic days at the beginning of a new mandate, at a time when the new College of Commissioners is being formed, Ursula von der Leyen’s commitment to achieve full gender balance – shown as being important to her since the very beginning of her first mandate – is not being realised. Despite her request for one male and one female candidate and some last-minute changes, many Member States still only nominated men.

We now know who has been selected to form the new College (pending the European Parliament’s approval) – and it doesn’t look good.

First, there’s no dedicated Commissioner for Equality, as this will be handled together with the crisis management and preparedness portfolios. Secondly, out of a College of 27, only 11 (or around 40 % and including von der Leyen herself) are women. Technically speaking, this would satisfy the gender balance criterion – but just barely.

So maybe this isn’t the worst outcome imaginable but the cold hard reality is that von der Leyen failed in her quest to achieve meaningful gender balance – because Member States simply decided to ignore her (not unreasonable) request.

To be sure, it’s challenging to advocate for gender equality in a highly political landscape where several countries have shifted to the right and the ‘success’ of some anti-gender movements has been an unsettling development. And if Member States openly disregard the importance of a simple yet crucial gender-balance request from the President of the European Commission no less, the starting point for continuing progress is not ideal.

Even worse, the risk is that the EU waters down – or even backslides on – some of the key achievements of the past few years in this crucial domain. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If Europe wants to stay ahead of the curve and be able to follow – and eventually lead – its international counterparts, the new European Commission should have a focused agenda that balances regulatory simplicity with forward-looking strategies. This is particularly the case in capital market integration, bank competitiveness, digital finance and sustainability.

Over the past few decades, Europe’s financial system has grown in size and complexity but remains largely bank-centric compared with more market-oriented systems. Important efforts have been made to diversify, deepen and integrate the EU’s financial markets, including significant legislative initiatives like the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the Banking Union.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Landing on Ursula von der Leyen’s desk just as she’s putting together the new College of Commissioners, the long-awaited report by Mario Draghi on ‘the future of European competitiveness’ totals almost 400 pages collaboratively drafted by two (invisible) teams in Brussels and Rome.

Draghi‘s opus magnum doesn’t disappoint when it comes to length and ambition, and is full of interesting proposals, especially in its ‘Part B’. Yet given the vision it puts forward, it will have no doubt also raise some eyebrows given its emphasis on growth and competitiveness over social and environmental stances. It’s also a loud wake-up call that too much might end up being proposed – perhaps too late – and without any form of ‘Plan B’.

The first part of the report, which outlines a competitiveness strategy for Europe, could be seen as merely restating the many challenges the EU has faced over the past two decades. These include sluggish productivity growth; encumbered and impaired decision-making; increased dependency on other world powers; the piling up of massive regulatory burdens on businesses, impairing innovation; Europe’s outrageously high energy prices; and the EU’s fragmentation and related inability to deepen integration in key areas of the economy.

Thus, nothing new at the end of the day – if anything, this part of the report reads like many dozens of analyses produced by international consultancy firms or the International Monetary Fund. Yet Draghi adds a more dramatic tone as he explains that the EU faces an ‘existential challenge‘ and that failure to act will lead to its eventual collapse.

That said, the report is centred around a rather narrow notion of competitiveness – and in a rather uncompromising way. Other objectives, such as decarbonisation and social cohesion, appear ancillary at best. In fact, 400 pages down, the reader still lacks a precise definition of competitiveness.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s the same old story – when push comes to shove, no one wants to pay, especially for sustainability. We want more sustainable practices, production and supply chains but there are few who are willing to actually open their wallets for such a cause.

In the last few weeks several actors have urged the European Commission to delay implementing the EU’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), including the US. and various industry associations.

Preparations are in full swing for the regulation to come into effect at the end of this year. And as the public sector and industry each experience their own difficulties to ensure they’re ready, there are still unresolved questions over who should pay for the regulation’s additional requirements.

Supply chain regulations aim to prevent companies from using environmental or social malpractices as a competitive advantage. The EUDR specifically targets deforestation driven by agriculture, aimed at minimising the EU’s contribution to deforestation and forest degradation worldwide.

Public debate on the EUDR is marked by controversy. Indonesia and Malaysia have been very vocal in condemning it as a neo-colonial protectionist instrument. Many NGOs, on the other hand, have welcomed the regulation as a way to take responsibility for deforestation from the demand side. Still, this support doesn’t come without concerns and dissatisfaction over the EU’s unilateral approach, smallholder livelihoods, human rights and overall design loopholes.

While these are important elements to consider, one group is conspicuously missing in the whole debate – multinational corporations. And this needs to be rectified if regulations such as the EUDR are to successfully achieve their aims and purpose.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After last week’s Democratic National Convention (DNC), Europeans may start studying the polling data coming out of rural Pennsylvania or Michigan to gauge their fate. While recent polling suggests President Biden’s decision to pass the torch has provided a much-needed boost to the Democrats, that doesn’t negate the real possibility of a second Trump presidency.

Rather than frantically trying to read the tea leaves, Europeans should instead look to candidates’ recent records as well as their national convention performances to understand how they see the future of US foreign policy – and how it will impact transatlantic security, trade and climate cooperation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Digital technology is often accused of enabling surveillance and abuse. From China’s Big Brother social credit system to Silicon Valley’s surveillance capitalism, experts have warned of the enormous power that governments and large platforms can gain by controlling online content. Yet it would be a mistake to call the technology itself responsible.

Rather, its malicious design and use is to blame – a well-designed, digitally-enabled democratic process can actually protect and empower citizens in the face of corrupt or rotten institutions. In short, technology is both a problem and a solution when it comes to protecting democracy. It can allow non-democratic regimes to claim they won an election, even when they clearly didn’t; or it can help bring the truth to the surface, proving that the king isn’t wearing new clothes and is actually stark naked.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Developing disruptive ways of warfare and advanced technological capabilities is a critical function for any military organisation, including NATO. Yet relying exclusively on technological superiority and novel technologies to sustain outdated ways of fighting has significant drawbacks.

That is why understanding all the socio-technical factors that cause disruptive innovation should be a vital concern for NATO leaders. Indeed, ‘disruptive innovation’ doesn’t just happen – rather it starts with a mission-oriented vision, organisational changes and managing uncertainty.

In an increasingly uncertain era, from rapid advancements in Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDTs) to shifting geopolitical tensions, NATO faces many challenges. Threats are constantly evolving, from small and agile groups inventively exploiting commercial technology, to vast civil and military resources being operated by corporate giants and great powers.

In this respect, innovation is the lifeblood of defence organisations like NATO and why the Alliance’s approach to harnessing cutting-edge technologies will define its future operational success and relevance.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Labour’s stonking general election victory on 4 July could raise hopes on both sides of the Channel that the UK may now seek to reverse at least some aspects of Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit. Alas, new prime minister Sir Keir Starmer won’t be clambering for closer (re)integration anytime soon. The key EU message from Labour’s election manifesto can be summarised as: no single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement. Starmer even said just before the election that Britain ‘would not rejoin the EU in my lifetime’ (he’s 61).  

And with a clear emphasis on domestic priorities, Labour’s electoral coalition being on shakier ground than its large majority would have you believe and the post-election threat from the populist right, it’s safe to assume Starmer isn’t bluffing. He won’t be seeking deeper economic or political reintegration with the EU anytime soon – even if it does rationally make economic sense. 

But the manifesto did pledge to ‘reset the relationship and seek to deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies’. Labour has now begun to outline what it means by this. In a deeply unsettled world, its initial suggestions and ideas are cautiously positive – and the EU needs to sit up and listen to them.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.