EMET NEWS PRESS

Core Assessment

Washington is restructuring US force allocation around homeland defense and the Indo-Pacific, with China remaining the principal reference adversary for high-intensity conventional warfare. European NATO members, South Korea and regional partners in the Middle East are expected to assume a larger share of conventional defense, while the United States retains control of nuclear deterrence, strategic intelligence, global mobility, long-range precision effects and key air, maritime and space capabilities.

Implementation during the reporting period diverged repeatedly from previously announced or prepared measures. US rotations in Europe were reduced, delayed or left without replacement; American billets in NATO command and intelligence structures were cut; participation in Ulchi Freedom Shield was altered shortly before execution; and high-value naval forces were shifted from the priority Indo-Pacific theater toward the Middle East. Personnel decisions inside the Defense Intelligence Agency and reductions within intelligence-integration structures added a separate risk to analytic continuity and cross-agency fusion.

The operational assessment is clear: US global military capability remains high, while simultaneous availability of strategic enablers across several theaters is constrained. Carrier Strike Groups, integrated air and missile defense, strategic ISR, aerial refueling, strategic lift and selected C4ISR capabilities are demanded by several Combatant Commands at the same time. Force allocation therefore produces direct trade-offs in deterrence, reinforcement timelines and theater readiness.

For allies, assigned US capability now carries greater planning weight than aggregate US military strength. For adversaries, US deployment cycles, maintenance schedules, readiness states, exercise decisions and political decision patterns have become increasingly valuable intelligence indicators.

Situation Assessment I

The documented force-posture changes during the reporting period follow a common direction. The United States reduced or reconsidered selected conventional commitments in Europe, shifted greater responsibility toward regional allies, reduced selected American positions within NATO structures, continued force reductions in Syria and sought stronger allied burden assumption on the Korean Peninsula. At the same time, Washington retained the strategic capabilities that provide global reach, intelligence superiority and escalation control.

The force allocation record also shows substantial theater competition. Middle East operations continued to absorb high-value naval, air-defense, ISR and logistical assets, while the Indo-Pacific remained the declared priority theater. The redeployment of the USS George Washington from the Western Pacific toward the Middle East demonstrated the practical effect of this competition.

The intelligence component of the same policy period included leadership changes within DIA and personnel reductions affecting broader intelligence integration. These measures occurred while Washington was simultaneously reducing selected American billets in multinational NATO structures.

The factual pattern therefore consists of two concurrent developments: regional allies are receiving greater responsibility for conventional defense, while US strategic enablers remain essential to the operational architecture of those same alliances.

Situation Assessment II

The force-posture shift represents a deliberate strategic reallocation rather than an isolated sequence of regional reductions. Its military viability depends on the timing between US drawdowns and the achievement of full operational capability by allied replacement forces. Europe can generate conventional force mass faster than it can reproduce strategic ISR, aerial refueling, global mobility, missile warning, space-based support and high-end C4ISR.

The present transition therefore carries a measurable readiness risk. Any gap between US reduction and allied capability maturation creates a period in which nominal force strength can remain substantial while detection, command, reinforcement and sustainment functions operate with reduced depth.

The Middle East remains the principal external constraint on implementation. Every US high-value capability retained in CENTCOM reduces force-allocation freedom elsewhere, especially in INDOPACOM. The current force structure supports global intervention but requires prioritization when several theaters generate simultaneous high-end requirements.

Political intervention adds a second source of uncertainty. Changes to prepared exercises, rotations or force assignments alter the planning assumptions used by allied staffs and provide adversaries with additional indicators concerning US decision thresholds and response timelines.

Strategic Force-Planning Baseline

The US Armed Forces retain global power-projection capacity, but only a finite number of high-value capabilities can be sustained simultaneously in Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. Carrier Strike Groups, tanker fleets, strategic ISR platforms, integrated air and missile defense, strategic transport and specialized command structures operate within fixed training, maintenance and regeneration cycles; prolonged commitment in one theater consequently reduces available reserve for another.

Washington is addressing that constraint by transferring a larger share of regional conventional missions to allies. European NATO members are expected to provide additional land forces, air defense and munitions while also expanding logistics and regional presence. South Korea is expected to assume a greater share of conventional deterrence against North Korea, while Middle Eastern partners are being pressed to absorb more regional security requirements.

US power is consequently concentrating on strategic enablers whose replacement requires long acquisition cycles, advanced industrial capacity and extensive specialist training. Nuclear deterrence, SIGINT, GEOINT, space-based collection and warning, strategic airlift, aerial refueling, integrated air and missile defense, carrier aviation, submarine warfare, long-range precision effects and core C4ISR remain central US contributions.

The critical period is the interval between American reduction and allied full operational capability. During that interval, deficiencies can emerge in intelligence, command, air defense, strategic mobility and sustainment even where sufficient conventional formations exist on paper.

Europe and NATO

US policy toward Europe has moved burden transfer into actual force posture. Rotational forces have been left partially unreplaced, planned deployments have been altered and selected American contributions to NATO structures have been reduced.

Forward-deployed US forces provide combat power and political-military binding. Their presence raises the probability that any major Russian military action against NATO territory would immediately involve American casualties and therefore accelerate US entry into the escalation cycle. Reduced forward presence shifts a larger share of the opening phase of any contingency onto European forces.

Reductions in US billets within NATO command and intelligence structures carry greater operational significance than the personnel figures suggest. Intelligence effectiveness depends on sensor access, national intelligence holdings, release authorities, secure communications and established fusion procedures. European personnel can fill billets, while access to US satellite collection, SIGINT and nationally controlled intelligence products remains subject to American tasking and dissemination decisions.

The relevant capability question is whether a more European-manned NATO structure can preserve the same speed in situational awareness, indications and warning, target development and operational command support. Delays in these functions translate directly into slower decision cycles and reduced combat tempo.

Germany and Poland

Germany remains the principal European transit, logistics and command hub for reinforcement toward NATO's eastern flank. Roads, rail networks, ports and airfields interact with depots, command infrastructure and Host Nation Support to determine how rapidly additional forces can move toward Poland, the Baltic region or southeastern Europe.

A reduced US support footprint therefore transfers additional requirements to German and European logistics. Protection of military infrastructure, air defense and transportation capacity become more important alongside fuel distribution and maintenance, because bottlenecks in the German rear area would directly extend reinforcement timelines at the eastern flank.

The changing description of the planned US deployment to Poland also exposed a command-planning problem. A delayed rotation, a cancelled rotation and a structural force reduction produce different readiness and reinforcement assumptions, so changing political descriptions require allied staffs to carry additional contingency margins.

For NATO planning, the effect is reduced certainty over force availability. Whenever previously expected US formations can be reassigned or rescheduled on short notice, European reserves must cover a wider range of initial conditions.

NATO Force Model and Strategic Enablers

The military effect of US reductions depends on the capability segment affected. European formations can compensate conventional personnel and some firepower more rapidly than they can replace strategic ISR, aerial refueling or long-range mobility; the same constraint applies to parts of integrated air and missile defense, electronic warfare and C4ISR.

European defense investment therefore has to be assessed through operational output rather than aggregate expenditure or personnel figures. Additional brigades contribute combat mass, while strategic ISR, air-to-air refueling, resilient command networks and space-based warning determine how effectively that mass can be employed across a large theater.

The decisive test is the opening phase of a contingency. European forces must be capable of stabilizing the theater while US reinforcements cross the Atlantic and move through European corridors. Delays in ISR, air defense, aerial refueling or C4ISR would extend this vulnerable period and could temporarily alter the local correlation of forces.

NATO Eastern Flank

Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania require high readiness, pre-positioned munitions, effective air defense and rapid reinforcement. As US forward presence declines, European formations carry a larger share of combat power during the first days and weeks of a crisis.

Russia can exploit this transition for intelligence collection through graduated activity. Electronic warfare, GPS disruption and cyber operations can be combined with heightened military activity, air or maritime incursions and hybrid pressure against critical infrastructure to measure NATO alert times, political release procedures, sensor response and reinforcement sequences.

For Russian operational planning, NATO response speed carries substantial intelligence value. Large nominal force strength provides limited deterrent effect when authorization, mobilization and movement remain slow; European force growth therefore requires corresponding reductions in political and logistical reaction time.

South Korea

The late reduction in US participation in Ulchi Freedom Shield 2026 affects Combined Readiness on the Korean Peninsula because the exercise had already entered the execution cycle when the American contribution was politically altered.

Greater South Korean responsibility is consistent with the long-term US force-posture concept, while short-notice changes to an established readiness event introduce uncertainty into combined training and command planning. The effect is concentrated in interoperability, decision speed and command-process validation rather than simple troop numbers.

Ulchi Freedom Shield trains Combined Command and Control, intelligence sharing and targeting alongside cyber defense, electronic warfare and Counter-UAS activity under degraded navigation conditions. Lower US participation therefore affects procedures that would be required during the opening hours of a Korean contingency.

North Korea gains an additional observation window under these conditions. Missile activity, artillery demonstrations or electronic interference can be used to measure how rapidly the Combined Command Structure reacts when exercise intensity and US participation have been reduced.

Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific remains the primary external theater in US defense planning, but the actual force distribution shows that strategic priority does not guarantee continuous access to every high-value capability.

The movement of the USS George Washington from the Western Pacific toward the Middle East to relieve the long-deployed USS Abraham Lincoln reduced available US carrier presence in the region. Land-based air power and strategic bombers continued to provide substantial deterrence alongside attack submarines, Marine forces, regional bases and allied capabilities, while the carrier transfer exposed the competition between CENTCOM and INDOPACOM.

Carrier Strike Groups are governed by real readiness rather than political designation. Maintenance, training and aircraft availability combine with crew endurance and regeneration requirements to determine the number of groups available for simultaneous deployment.

China consequently receives valuable information from each redistribution. Beijing can assess the time required for US naval forces to return, the replacement capabilities available from land-based forces and the extent to which Japan, Australia and other regional partners can compensate for temporary reductions in US carrier presence.

Middle East

US strategy assigns greater regional responsibility to partners, while the Middle East continues to absorb substantial American high-value capability. The confrontation with Iran has generated demand for carrier aviation, air and missile defense and ISR while also requiring aerial refueling, strategic logistics and precision strike capacity.

The prolonged deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln illustrates the theater-wide consequences of sustained commitment because deployment duration drives maintenance requirements, flight hours, crew fatigue and the subsequent availability of the entire strike group. CENTCOM demand therefore produces direct downstream effects on other Combatant Commands.

Iran can exploit this structure through force binding. Maritime threats, missiles and drones can be combined with militia activity to sustain American requirements for air defense, ISR and naval presence, reducing the same capabilities available for reassignment elsewhere.

Tehran therefore gains strategic effect through the opportunity cost imposed on US force allocation. High-value systems committed to CENTCOM reduce the flexibility available to INDOPACOM and EUCOM.

Syria

The drawdown in Syria demonstrates a more controlled model of force-posture adjustment. Bases were vacated and missions transferred to regional partners while limited counterterrorism capabilities remained available, producing a sequenced transition between mission scope, partner capacity and US force reduction.

This case shows that reductions can be executed with greater operational predictability when transition criteria and residual response capabilities are established before implementation. The greater volatility observed in other theaters therefore reflects both resource constraints and short-notice political intervention.

Defense Intelligence Agency

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse was removed as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency after a period in which a preliminary DIA assessment of the effects of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities was more cautious than parts of the political presentation of the operation.

Open-source evidence does not establish direct causality between the assessment and the personnel decision. The event nevertheless carries intelligence significance because analytic organizations depend on institutional conditions that permit High-, Moderate- and Low-Confidence judgments as well as dissenting assessments to reach decision-makers without career-related distortion.

A perception that politically inconvenient assessments can affect senior personnel increases the risk of anticipatory analytic conformity. The resulting operational risk would appear through weakened warning, reduced presentation of alternative hypotheses and premature analytical convergence.

The politicization risk is therefore assessed as elevated, while systematic political control of DIA analytic production remains unconfirmed.

ODNI and Intelligence Integration

Personnel reductions within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence affect an integration architecture whose military value derives from combining multiple collection and analysis disciplines.

DIA contributes military assessments while NSA provides SIGINT and NGA contributes GEOINT, with NRO space-based collection and CIA strategic and HUMINT-derived intelligence adding further layers. Operational value emerges when these streams are fused into a common assessment.

A leaner coordination structure can reduce administrative friction, while excessive reductions can narrow analytic redundancy and slow alternative assessment or interagency fusion. The risk increases when several theaters generate high-priority intelligence requirements at the same time.

The relevant Military Intelligence indicator is therefore the ability to sustain Indications and Warning, strategic warning, adversary Order of Battle analysis and multi-theater intelligence fusion simultaneously, rather than the nominal size of ODNI alone.

Cyber and Space Domain

The US burden-transfer model reaches structural limits faster in the cyber and space domains than in conventional land warfare. European and Asian allies can procure additional brigades, air-defense systems and ammunition more rapidly than they can build equivalent space-based collection, strategic warning and global secure communications.

US systems continue to supply essential capability in missile warning, satellite communications, Positioning, Navigation and Timing and strategic GEOINT while supporting wider ISR functions. National forces can therefore reach high material readiness while still depending on American sensors and data fusion for full combat effectiveness.

Changes in US collection priorities can affect allied intelligence density when competing theaters require the same sensors. Slower release and dissemination of classified information can directly affect targeting, air defense and command decisions.

Cyber vulnerability is concentrated at interfaces linking national networks, NATO systems and US C4ISR architectures. An adversary can obtain operational effect through delayed data transfer, degraded navigation or corrupted situational information, extending the allied decision cycle without destroying major conventional systems.

China: Exploitation of US Force Binding

China possesses the broadest capacity to analyze US force-availability patterns systematically. High CENTCOM demand, maintenance periods for major naval platforms and lower carrier presence in the Western Pacific provide favorable conditions for increased Chinese military activity.

Beijing can use such periods for large-scale air and maritime operations alongside blockade or quarantine rehearsals, paramilitary maritime activity and cyber reconnaissance, while missile operations provide an additional means of measuring US and allied response.

The immediate intelligence objective would be US reaction time and regional alliance behavior. The higher-value strategic objective is identification of the forces Washington must draw from other commands and the time required for their return.

This information could support Chinese planning for a Taiwan contingency or another regional confrontation by identifying temporary periods of lower US force density.

Russia: Exploitation of European Transition Gaps

Russia gains operational latitude from any time gap between US reduction and European replacement capability. Moscow can exploit these periods to assess NATO air defense, reinforcement mechanisms and electronic resilience while also measuring political decision speed.

Electronic warfare, GPS disruption and cyber operations can be combined with sabotage against critical infrastructure and elevated military activity to impose graduated stress on the European security architecture.

A durable Russian advantage would depend on delayed European capability development. Higher European readiness, larger ammunition stocks, stronger air defense and greater sovereign ISR capacity would shift the regional military balance against Moscow.

North Korea: Testing Combined Readiness

North Korea gains additional opportunities to test US-South Korean command processes during periods of reduced combined exercise activity. Missile tests, artillery activity and electronic interference can be timed to measure alert procedures, information exchange and political response speed.

The operational value for Pyongyang lies in identifying command latency and changes in US commitment during periods when Washington is simultaneously managing other theaters.

That advantage declines as South Korea expands sovereign ISR, missile defense and long-range strike capability.

Iran: Binding Strategic US Capabilities

Iran can impose strain on US global force management without matching American global military power. Maritime threats, missile and drone activity and regional militia operations drive continued demand for US air defense, ISR and naval capabilities while increasing logistical requirements.

The military effect is created through opportunity cost. Every high-value capability tied to CENTCOM reduces the reserve available for rapid reassignment elsewhere.

Iran consequently benefits from multi-theater pressure even in the absence of formal operational coordination with China or Russia.

Multi-Theater Force Binding

Independent adversaries can place simultaneous demand on the same US high-value capabilities. Concurrent pressure in Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific increases requirements for ISR, aerial refueling and strategic mobility while also drawing on air defense, naval forces and command support.

This is the central force-planning risk in the current US strategy. Washington can shift priorities, but each shift requires physical redistribution of platforms and personnel, producing temporary reductions in presence or longer response times elsewhere.

US planning therefore depends on maintaining decisive superiority in the priority theater while preventing secondary theaters from falling below a credible deterrence threshold.

Strategic Assessment: NATO Europe

Europe is assuming a larger share of conventional defense while US high-value capabilities continue to support essential functions across the alliance. The most critical European requirements remain strategic ISR, integrated air and missile defense and aerial refueling, together with strategic mobility, long-range precision effects, electronic warfare, space support, resilient command networks and ammunition depth.

France and the United Kingdom gain strategic weight through nuclear forces, capable air and maritime components and national intelligence structures, while their combined capacity replaces only part of the US capability spectrum. Germany remains the primary reinforcement and logistics hub, while Poland and the Baltic states require immediately available combat power; Finland adds operational depth in the north and Romania remains important for the southeastern flank and Black Sea approaches.

European combat effectiveness therefore depends increasingly on integrated readiness and division of labor rather than national force totals. The decisive variable is the speed at which European replacement capabilities reach full operational capability.

Strategic Assessment: Germany

Germany functions as the principal European reinforcement, logistics and command space for a high-intensity eastern contingency. Operational performance depends on throughput capacity, critical-infrastructure protection and military movement control while also requiring air defense, repair capacity and Host Nation Support.

A smaller US support footprint transfers more of these functions to German and European structures. Delays inside Germany would directly extend reinforcement timelines to NATO's eastern flank.

Germany therefore constitutes part of NATO's operational depth in addition to its role as a force provider.

Strategic Assessment: Switzerland

Switzerland has no NATO Article 5 guarantee, yet its geography places it fully inside the wider European military environment. Missile and drone operations, cyber activity, electronic warfare and strategic intelligence collection all produce effects irrespective of neutrality status.

F-35A, Patriot, additional air defense, cyber capabilities and developing space competence increase national freedom of action, while strategic warning, the wider recognized air picture and satellite reconnaissance continue to benefit from international cooperation.

Reduced US availability in Europe raises the value of sovereign sensors, air defense and mobilization while also increasing requirements for secure command links and reliable information exchange with neighboring states.

The critical period extends through the implementation cycle of current modernization programs, as several major capabilities reach their intended operational effect only after full introduction.

Strategic Assessment: Austria

Austria likewise lacks a NATO collective-defense guarantee and remains operationally embedded in the same European air, cyber and information environment. Airspace surveillance, ground-based air defense and cyber defense form the core of national requirements alongside mobilization, command resilience and sustainment.

Participation in European air-defense and cooperation structures improves sensor coverage and interoperability, while national decision authority and national engagement capability remain essential to sovereign air-defense operations.

Austria possesses less depth than Switzerland in several strategic capability segments. Reduced US presence in Europe therefore increases pressure to accelerate development of layered air defense, strategic intelligence, resilient command structures, ammunition stocks and rapid mobilization.

Switzerland and Austria: Comparative Assessment

Both neutral states derive substantial security benefit from the stability of the surrounding NATO area while remaining outside automatic collective-defense mechanisms. Switzerland is pursuing a broader modernization path through F-35A, Patriot, cyber development and expanded technical cooperation, while Austria retains smaller reserves and lower capability depth in several key areas.

For both states, sensor coverage and command resilience gain importance alongside air defense, cyber defense, mobilization capacity and intelligence exchange because modern air, cyber, space and intelligence operations create military effects across alliance boundaries.

Neutrality therefore increases the importance of sovereign resilience whenever the availability of external support becomes less predictable.

Political and Military Reliability of the United States

The United States remains NATO's strongest military actor and provides central capability in nuclear deterrence, strategic intelligence and space support alongside air and maritime power, aerial refueling and strategic mobility. Changes in force posture primarily affect the predictability of specific assignments because Washington is reducing conventional contributions, increasing the European share and retaining national control over strategic enablers.

Short-notice changes to rotations, exercises and force allocations complicate firm assumptions concerning reinforcement timelines, assigned forces, command relationships and readiness. NATO staffs therefore require larger European reserves and additional redundancy in critical enabling capabilities.

US military capability remains high, while the operational predictability of specific regional force packages has declined.

Political Credibility

Political credibility within an alliance rests on alignment between declared commitment, military planning and execution. Planned burden transfer remains predictable when scope, timeline and affected capabilities are defined early; short-notice changes to prepared exercises or deployments increase political and military planning risk.

The effect becomes more significant when a defense activity in one theater is linked to political bargaining in another, because alliance readiness then becomes dependent on variables outside the agreed contingency plan.

Allies respond to this uncertainty through larger national reserves, stronger air defense and greater sovereign intelligence capacity while also expanding industrial preparedness.

Military Credibility

US military credibility continues to rest on global reach, nuclear deterrence, strategic intelligence, carrier aviation and air power, supported by submarine warfare, space capabilities and strategic mobility. Operational effect depends on Force Availability and Readiness because carriers, tanker forces, ISR systems and air-defense units exist in finite numbers.

Alliance planning therefore has to distinguish between capability held by the United States and capability actually available within the required response time.

A declared capability generates its full deterrent value when its allocation and deployment timeline can be incorporated into operational planning with high confidence.

Strategic Beneficiaries

The United States gains additional strategic flexibility when regional partners assume sufficient conventional combat power and sustainment. Washington can concentrate more high-value forces on homeland defense and the Indo-Pacific while retaining its central position in nuclear deterrence, intelligence and global power projection.

Europe can also gain strategic autonomy as higher defense spending produces deployable ISR, air defense and mobility alongside expanded munitions and command capacity. France and the United Kingdom gain additional strategic weight through their nuclear, maritime and intelligence capabilities, while Poland and other eastern-flank states benefit from European forces that can remain permanently available inside the theater.

Japan, Australia and South Korea can increase military depth through additional missile, ISR and air-defense capability together with stronger maritime forces. The US defense industry gains near-term benefit from higher allied procurement, while European and Asian defense industries can gain additional capacity as governments seek greater sovereign production of ammunition, sensors and strategic systems.

Adversarial benefit is concentrated in the transition period. Every gap between US reduction and allied replacement capability produces observable vulnerabilities that can be tested through military signaling, electronic warfare, cyber operations or controlled regional escalation.

China additionally benefits from sustained US force commitment outside the Indo-Pacific, while Russia benefits from delays in European capability development. Iran gains leverage through prolonged US force binding in the Middle East, and North Korea benefits from reductions in combined exercise and command activity.

A fully implemented burden-transfer model would reduce these advantages because stronger regional allies would release additional US capacity for the designated priority theater.

Strategic Overall Assessment

US military strategy is shifting regional conventional responsibility toward allies while concentrating American power on strategic enablers and the Indo-Pacific. The approach remains operationally viable when allied replacement capabilities achieve full readiness before further US reductions and when concurrent crises remain within the capacity of available American high-value forces.

The current vulnerability is implementation speed. Europe can replace conventional mass faster than strategic enablers; South Korea remains closely linked to US combined command and strategic deterrence; and the Middle East continues to absorb capabilities Washington intends to concentrate in the Indo-Pacific.

Short-notice political intervention increases operational uncertainty when prepared rotations, exercises or force allocations are altered after military planning has already advanced. This makes the US decision process itself a relevant adversary intelligence target.

NATO Europe can sustain the transition if European readiness, air defense and ISR expand faster than US contributions decline, while mobility and ammunition depth must grow at the same pace. Switzerland and Austria face parallel requirements for stronger national sensors, air defense, cyber resilience, command capability and mobilization because their security remains tied to the European operational environment without automatic NATO collective defense.

US aggregate military capability remains high. Simultaneous regional availability of strategic high-value capabilities is the decisive constraint and the principal focus for adversary collection and exploitation.

Intelligence Assessment

US prioritization of homeland defense and the Indo-Pacific is assessed with high confidence, as is the continued transfer of conventional defense burdens to allies. European dependence on US strategic ISR, aerial refueling, space support, strategic mobility and selected C4ISR functions also remains a high-confidence assessment.

The probability of temporary European capability gaps during further US reductions is assessed as moderate to high, while adversary collection against and exploitation of those transition periods is assessed as high. Multi-theater demand on US high-value capabilities represents a high strategic risk because Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific draw on overlapping pools of scarce systems.

Political influence on Military Intelligence processes is assessed as a moderate risk. Open-source evidence currently provides insufficient basis for an assessment of systematic political control over US intelligence production.

Key warning indicators are additional reductions in US contributions to the NATO Force Model, further carrier or air-defense transfers between Combatant Commands and changes to combined exercises with South Korea. Additional indicators include reductions in US ISR or intelligence-fusion presence in Europe, changes to collection priorities, extended carrier deployments, slower allied capability-delivery schedules and further senior-level personnel changes inside the US Intelligence Community.

The decisive intelligence requirement is the emerging ratio between US force reductions and allied operational capability. A widening gap increases opportunities for adversary testing and escalation; convergence between both timelines reduces that exposure and increases US freedom to concentrate combat power in the Indo-Pacific.

Glossary

C4ISR
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; the integrated command, communications, intelligence and information architecture supporting military operations.

Carrier Strike Group
A naval force centered on an aircraft carrier, its embarked air wing, escort vessels and assigned supporting capabilities.

CENTCOM
United States Central Command; the geographic Combatant Command responsible for the Middle East and parts of Central Asia.

Combined Readiness
The readiness of allied forces to conduct integrated command and combined military operations.

Counter-UAS
Capabilities used to detect, identify, disrupt and defeat unmanned aerial systems.

Force Availability
The actual availability of a military capability after accounting for operational commitment, readiness, maintenance and deployment timelines.

Force Posture
The geographic distribution, stationing and readiness of military forces for deterrence, defense and crisis response.

GEOINT
Geospatial Intelligence; intelligence derived from imagery and geospatial information.

Host Nation Support
Military and civilian support provided by a host state to allied forces for deployment, transit, sustainment and operations.

INDOPACOM
United States Indo-Pacific Command; the geographic Combatant Command responsible for the Indo-Pacific theater.

ISR
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; the integrated collection and surveillance functions used to build and maintain operational situational awareness.

SIGINT
Signals Intelligence; intelligence derived from communications, electronic and other electromagnetic signals.

Person Register

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse
Former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; his removal in August 2025 is assessed in relation to possible effects on analytic independence and organizational culture.

Donald Trump
President of the United States; presidential decisions during the reporting period directly affected force allocation, allied exercise participation and regional military prioritization.

References

United States Department of Defense
2026 National Defense Strategy
23 January 2026
media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF

Reuters
US to withdraw some troops from NATO's eastern flank, Romania says
29 October 2025
reuters.com/world/us-will-withdraw-some-troops-stationed-romania-eastern-flank-bucharest-says-2025-10-29/

Reuters
EXCLUSIVE: US to cut roughly 200 NATO positions, sources say
20 January 2026
reuters.com/world/us-cut-roughly-200-nato-positions-sources-say-2026-01-20/

Reuters
US withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany, US officials say
1 May 2026
reuters.com/world/us-withdrawing-5000-troops-germany-us-officials-say-2026-05-01/

Reuters
Vance says US troop deployment to Poland has been delayed
19 May 2026
reuters.com/business/finance/vance-says-us-troop-deployment-poland-has-been-delayed-2026-05-19/

Reuters
Poland says US troop deployment delayed, not canceled
20 May 2026
reuters.com/world/europe/us-will-temporarily-delay-troops-deployment-poland-polish-minister-says-2026-05-20/

Reuters
US plans to cut strategic bombers and warships available to NATO in a crisis, Spiegel reports
26 May 2026
reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-plans-cut-strategic-bombers-warships-available-nato-crisis-spiegel-reports-2026-05-26/

Reuters
Trump orders Pentagon to cut back military exercises with South Korea
16 August 2026
reuters.com/world/china/trump-instructs-pentagon-reduce-military-exercises-with-south-korea-2026-08-16/

Reuters
Trump seeks cuts to US-South Korea drills, reviving earlier objections
17 August 2026
reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-seeks-cuts-us-south-korea-drills-reviving-earlier-objections-2026-08-17/

Associated Press
US pulls last aircraft carrier in Asia as Trump focuses on Iran and the Western Hemisphere
16 August 2026
apnews.com/article/87cfb838de8c13464fa3cab1840ad87d

Reuters
In milestone, US pulls out of strategic Syria base and hands it over to Damascus
12 February 2026
reuters.com/world/middle-east/syria-says-it-has-taken-control-al-tanf-base-vacated-by-us-troops-2026-02-12/

Reuters
Some US troops departing Syria, official says
18 February 2026
reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-withdrawing-all-forces-syria-wsj-reports-2026-02-18/

Reuters
In latest purge, Hegseth removes head of Pentagon intelligence agency, other senior officials
22 August 2025
reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-removes-head-pentagon-intelligence-agency-other-senior-2025-08-22/

Reuters
US intelligence employees brace for cuts under new director
9 June 2026
reuters.com/legal/government/us-intelligence-employees-brace-cuts-under-new-director-2026-06-09/

State Secretariat for Security Policy SEPOS
Die Sicherheitspolitische Strategie 2026
Accessed: 17 August 2026
sepos.admin.ch/de/sicherheitspolitische-strategie

Swiss Armed Forces
Zielbild und Strategie für die Armee der Zukunft
March 2026
vtg.admin.ch/de/zielbild-und-strategie-fur-die-armee-der-zukunft

Swiss Armed Forces
Frühzeitige Informationen vor Bedrohungen: Bundesrat will den Austausch von Luftlagedaten mit Partnern stärken
February 2026
vtg.admin.ch/de/newnsb/B0daBcVGindOjscUYfPiA

Austrian Armed Forces
Risikobild 2026
Accessed: 17 August 2026
verteidigungspolitik.at/risikobild

Austrian Armed Forces
Luftverteidigung
Accessed: 17 August 2026
bundesheer.at/aktuelles/2026/luftverteidigung

Austrian Armed Forces
European Sky Shield Initiative
Accessed: 17 August 2026
inside.bundesheer.at/de/web/verteidigungspolitik/european-sky-shield-initiative-essi-

Autocratisation, alliance formation and private infrastructure power — testing the thesis of the nation-state's declining significance

I. Question and line of argument

The widespread diagnosis that the significance of nation-states is declining while global alliances and actors set the agenda combines two claims that can be separated empirically and that must be tested separately. The first concerns the capacity of the state to act as such; the second concerns the transfer of ordering functions to supra- and non-state actors. Alongside both stands a third claim carried within the original thesis: the corrosion of democratic statehood accompanied by the strengthening of authoritarian regimes and tendencies.

This essay argues that the evidence available for 2025 and 2026 broadly supports the third claim, confirms the second in modified form, and refutes the first. The state is losing no capacity to act; in several domains it is gaining. What is losing binding force is the treaty-based multilateral order within which state power was previously bound and proceduralised. 

Agenda-setting is migrating not away from states but away from treaties and organisations, towards occasion-specific formats whose rules of access the strongest participants write themselves — and, within one narrowly bounded technical segment, towards a small number of private infrastructure operators.

The argument follows this separation. Section II clarifies the conceptual and methodological premises. Section III assembles the regime-related evidence. Section IV tests its validity against an ongoing scholarly dispute over measurement. Sections V to VII develop the counter-test to the decline thesis along three fields of observation: state instruments of coercion, extra-treaty format-building, and private infrastructure power. Section VIII draws the findings together and sets out the remaining uncertainties together with verifiable indicators.

II. Conceptual and methodological premises

In comparative regime research, autocratisation denotes the decline of democratic quality irrespective of the starting point; it may begin in a democracy and proceed there as backsliding, or in an already authoritarian order as further regression. The definition is demanding, because it measures change rather than condition, and because it separates a country's assignment to a regime type from the question of whether it is moving. Testing the thesis of the nation-state's declining significance poses the harder problem, since no comparably developed measurement instrument exists for it.

 The test must therefore proceed from observable actions: from expenditure, from rule-making with extraterritorial reach, from interventions in communications infrastructure, and from the question of where binding decisions are actually taken.

Two methodologically independent bodies of evidence exist for the regime question. The V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg works with more than 4,200 country experts and an indicator set of over 600 attributes; the underlying dataset v16 comprises more than 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories. Freedom House relies on 25 indicators and editorial country assessment on a hundred-point scale. 

The independence of the two procedures is decisive for the weight of the evidence, since a shared systematic error is plausible only if it lies within expert perception itself. That objection is addressed in Section IV.

A third preliminary remark concerns weighting. The V-Dem Institute presents its time series either as a country average or weighted by population, territory and economic output. The choice of weighting alters the result considerably and is therefore no technical side issue but a substantive decision about what "democracy in the world" is meant to signify.

III. The empirical finding: regime development in 2025

The V-Dem Institute published the tenth edition of its Democracy Report in March 2026 under the title "Unraveling The Democratic Era?", written by a team around Staffan I. Lindberg, professor at the University of Gothenburg. The report counts 92 autocracies against 87 democracies at the end of 2025 and puts the share of the world population living under autocratic rule at 74 per cent, some six billion people; seven per cent, or 600 million, still live in liberal democracies. One derived relation deserves note: with 28 per cent, more people now live in closed autocracies than in electoral and liberal democracies combined, which together account for 26 per cent.

The movement data are sharper than the stock data. Forty-four countries are in an ongoing episode of autocratisation under the ERT methodology (Episodes of Regime Transformation), eighteen in an episode of democratisation. The 44 autocratising states are home to 41 per cent of the world population, cover 26 per cent of the land area and generate 39 per cent of global gross domestic product; the democratising states account for five per cent of the population and four per cent of economic output, with Brazil alone supplying more than half of those figures. Ten autocratisers were newly identified in 2025, among them five European cases — Croatia, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Seven member states of the European Union are in ongoing episodes by this count.

The case of the United States warrants separate treatment because it dominates the finding quantitatively. In 2025 the country lost the status of liberal democracy it had held for more than fifty years. The institute's press release of 17 March 2026 puts the fall on the Liberal Democracy Index within a single year at 24 per cent and the loss of rank from 20th to 51st among 179 states. The liberal components are chiefly affected; Lindberg names rule of law and checks on executive power, which on his account are deteriorating in 22 countries including the United States. Election-related indicators remained unchanged, since they are re-evaluated only in national election years — a methodological circumstance of considerable weight for any forecast.

Freedom House reached a convergent result days later. Its report "Freedom in the World 2026" records the twentieth consecutive year of global decline in freedom, with 54 countries deteriorating and 35 improving; the declines of 2025 affected more than 40 per cent of the world population. Twenty-one per cent of humanity now lives in states rated Free, against 46 per cent two decades ago. Among the 88 countries rated Free, the United States recorded the sharpest single decline at minus three points to 81, its lowest value since the hundred-point scale was introduced in 2002. The organisation names military coups, violence against peaceful demonstrators and the weakening of constitutional safeguards as drivers.

The real point of these figures lies in the divergence between weightings. By plain country average, the global level of democracy in 2025 stands where it stood in 1995; weighted by territory, at 1989; weighted by population, at 1978; and weighted by economic output, at its lowest level in over fifty years, down more than 36 per cent from the peak of 2000. The shift therefore lies less in the number of affected states than in their weight. 

Four of the world's five most populous countries are classed by the institute as autocracies at the end of 2025, and it infers that several of these states possess sufficient economic and political weight to reshape international organisations, norms and trade. That inference is an assessment by the editors rather than a measurement; it nonetheless names precisely the mechanism linking the third claim of the original thesis to the second.

IV. The measurement dispute: reach and limits of expert-coded indices

The robustness of this finding is contested within the discipline, and an essay with scholarly ambitions must disclose the dispute rather than pass over it. The political scientists Andrew Little and Anne Meng published in the journal PS: Political Science & Politics a study examining objective indicators — in particular the performance of incumbents and governing parties at elections — and finding little evidence of a worldwide democratic decline over the past decade. To explain the discrepancy with expert-coded indices, the authors weigh two possibilities: a bias in coder judgement that varies over time, or more subtle undemocratic methods that objective metrics fail to capture. They do not exclude the second explanation but consider it insufficiently supported.

The rejoinders appeared in the same journal and target the test procedure rather than the trend as such. One group of authors regards the chosen measurement approach as unsuited to capturing global democratic trends and presents its own analyses of the coder-bias question. The political scientist Michael K. Miller argues that the objective metrics invoked are blind to variation in quality within democracies, which is precisely where the bulk of recent decline occurs; a procedure that distinguishes only between regime types cannot measure a process taking place below the boundary between them.

A refinement follows from this dispute that sharpens rather than weakens the finding. The statement that elections continue to be held and incumbents continue to lose them is compatible with the statement that rule of law, media freedom and checks on executive power are deteriorating. The V-Dem Institute describes exactly this configuration for the United States in 2025: substantial losses across all non-electoral dimensions with electoral indicators unchanged. Whoever measures authoritarian consolidation by election results will detect it systematically too late; the diagnostically reliable early indicators lie in media censorship, politicisation of the civil service and the investigative capacity of legislatures.

Two further reservations must be carried. The V-Dem Institute gives an uncertainty range of 74 to 95 for the number of democracies, with 87 as its best estimate, and 84 to 105 for autocracies with 92 as its best estimate; the claim that autocracies now outnumber democracies can therefore be advanced only with that band attached. Eleven previously ongoing autocratisation episodes are moreover classed as concluded under the rules of the ERT methodology, in some cases because autocratisation achieved its aim; the institute names Russia and Türkiye as examples of stabilised authoritarian order. A falling count of ongoing episodes is accordingly no sufficient sign of a turning point.

V. Counter-test I: the expansion of state instruments of coercion

Testing the first sub-claim — the decline of state capacity to act — yields the opposite result. On 27 April 2026 SIPRI reported world military expenditure of 2,887 billion US dollars for 2025, a real increase of 2.9 per cent and the eleventh consecutive year of growth. The global military burden reached 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product, the highest level since 2009. Europe raised its spending by 14 per cent to 864 billion US dollars, Asia and Oceania by 8.1 per cent to 681 billion; Russia reached 190 billion at a military burden of 7.5 per cent, Ukraine 84.1 billion at 40 per cent of economic output. Excluding the United States, whose spending fell in 2025, world expenditure grew by 9.2 per cent. A polity mobilising resource shares of that order is not losing significance.

The finding is sharper still in the field of rule-making with extraterritorial reach. On 9 October 2025 China's Ministry of Commerce issued Announcement No. 61 together with further orders on rare earths, battery materials and superhard materials. According to the translation by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University, the rules subject foreign-manufactured goods to Chinese licensing where the value share of Chinese rare earths reaches 0.1 per cent, and likewise goods produced abroad using Chinese extraction, separation, smelting, magnet-manufacturing or recycling technology; exports to foreign military end-users are in principle not licensed. S&P Global reported on 27 January 2026 that the restrictions imposed in April 2025 on seven elements remained in force and that the licensing system continued to bite for military end-users in the United States and allied states.

In terms of the theory of order this is the most interesting development of the observation period, because Beijing mirrors the legal constructs of American export control — the de minimis threshold and the Foreign Direct Product Rule. Two states thereby claim regulatory authority over flows of goods in which they figure neither as exporter nor as recipient. The reach of national rule-making here grows beyond national territory, and it does so by imitation, that is, by developing a shared instrument set in the service of opposing aims.

On the tariff side the Munich Security Report 2026 records an average US tariff rate of 15 per cent, a level last reached in the 1930s and close to eight times the previous year's figure, and describes the use of tariffs as an instrument of coercion against governments; this figure comes from a single institutional publication and must be carried with that qualification. Here, however, the counterforce systematically underestimated in the original thesis also becomes visible. On 20 February 2026 the Supreme Court of the United States held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, by six votes to three and in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise the President to impose tariffs; on the majority's reasoning, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress. The Congressional Research Service records that before 2025 no president had invoked IEEPA as a basis for tariffs. In this instance the limitation of state power came from a national institution, not an international one.

A fourth field concerns access to communications infrastructure. Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition document at least 313 internet shutdowns across 52 countries for 2025, the highest figure recorded to date after 304 cases in 55 countries in 2024. Conflict was the most frequent trigger for the third year running, accounting for 125 shutdowns in 14 countries; Myanmar heads the country list with at least 95 cases, and in 70 cases across 21 countries shutdowns coincided, on the organisation's findings, with grave human rights violations. The capacity to switch off the information space of a territory is an originally state capacity, and it is being exercised more often than at any point since records began.

VI. Counter-test II: format-building around the treaty order

The second sub-claim — the migration of agenda-setting to global alliances — holds, though in a form that does not weaken the state but circumvents the procedures that bound it. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation met in Tianjin from 31 August to 1 September 2025. According to the analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a Global Governance Initiative in the "SCO Plus" format, on the institute's account the fourth such initiative after those on development, security and civilisation, and members resolved to establish an SCO Development Bank; Xi held talks with at least fifteen further heads of state and government on the margins of the summit.

 The Tianjin Declaration obliges no one to anything. It orders expectations, and therein lies its purpose: format-building without treaty force permits coordination while preserving the option of withdrawal at any time.

The opposite route — treaty obligation outside the established alliance architecture — was taken by Russia and North Korea, which concluded a treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership in Pyongyang on 19 June 2024 containing an assistance clause for the event of armed aggression. 

Defense News reported on 7 August 2026, citing Ukrainian and South Korean estimates, that some 14,000 to 15,000 North Korean soldiers were deployed to Russia's Kursk region and that around 9,500 remain there; Moscow and Pyongyang confirmed the deployment in April 2025, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un justified it in May 2025 as an exercise of sovereign rights on behalf of a fraternal nation. The figures originate with conflict parties and neighbouring states and carry corresponding uncertainty. The episode shows that interstate treaty obligation as an instrument is by no means eroding; it is merely being deployed outside the order that once monopolised it.

The analytically most revealing case is supplied by the United Nations Security Council itself. On 17 November 2025 it adopted Resolution 2803 by 13 votes in favour with two abstentions — China and Russia — endorsing the plan presented by the United States for ending the Gaza conflict and authorising a "Board of Peace" as a transitional administration together with an International Stabilization Force. 

The body's founding charter was signed by its chairman, US President Donald Trump, on 16 January 2026; Nickolay Mladenov was named High Representative for Gaza and Major General Jasper Jeffers commander of the stabilisation force at the same time. The mandate runs to 31 December 2027 with a six-monthly reporting obligation.

The American Society of International Law records in its Insights that the resolution establishes neither selection criteria for the body's members, nor guaranteed Palestinian representation, nor any mechanism of United Nations oversight; China's representative called the text unclear as to structure, composition and terms of reference, and Slovenia demanded precise provisions. Here the central organ of the world organisation delegates governmental authority to a body outside its own apparatus, chaired by the sitting head of state of a permanent Council member. The episode is the institutional confirmation of the thesis that ordering functions are migrating — and simultaneously its refutation on the question of who benefits.

The organisation's self-description supports this reading. The President of the UN General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, described the recurring paralysis of the Security Council in November 2025 as the emblem of a wider global gridlock and pointed to the Assembly's Veto Initiative. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, in its analysis marking the organisation's eightieth anniversary, cites a speech by Secretary-General António Guterres of 24 October 2025 lamenting the growing disregard of the Charter by states.

VII. Counter-test III: private infrastructure and the diffusion of reconnaissance capability

The one field in which non-state actors have genuinely assumed ordering functions is technical infrastructure — and even there the development now runs the other way. Foreign Policy described in March 2026 the role of Starlink as strategic infrastructure shaping the conduct of war, the state's handling of internal unrest and the operating spaces of criminal networks alike, recalling the precedent of 2022 when SpaceX owner Elon Musk declined to enable connectivity near occupied Crimea for a Ukrainian naval drone operation on his own assessment of escalation risk. A private supplier thereby decided on the feasibility of a military operation conducted by a sovereign state.

The response is more revealing than the episode itself. The Centre for International Governance Innovation reported in July 2026 that the Ukrainian government, working with SpaceX, introduced a national whitelist procedure in early 2026 requiring Starlink terminals to be registered through state platforms such as Diia. The state is recovering control over a private infrastructure on which it had previously relied without any regulatory framework. 

The European Commission displays the same movement, having imposed a fine of 120 million euros on the platform X on 5 December 2025 for breaches of transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act; this is the first non-compliance decision under that regulation, and the responsible Executive Vice-President, Henna Virkkunen, heads a portfolio whose very title — tech sovereignty, security and democracy — carries the claim in its name.

In the reconnaissance domain the contest runs along the same line. The Small Wars Journal puts the cost asymmetry of commercial satellite imagery at sub-metre resolution at a few thousand US dollars per month, against a national satellite programme twenty years ago, naming Maxar, Planet and BlackSky as providers; the account comes from a specialist publication of the Irregular Warfare Initiative and is to be treated as assessment rather than measurement. 

Lawfare sets out the legal obverse in three points: belligerents may declare commercial space systems military objectives by invoking their military utility; states may use nominally commercial reconnaissance to avoid the political consequences of direct action; and governments may restrict access to open imagery and thereby impair journalism, humanitarian monitoring and the documentation of war crimes.

The strongest refutation of the decline thesis, however, comes from the renationalisation of private actors of violence. The Congressional Research Service reports up to 2,500 Russian personnel in Mali as of early 2026, along with deployments in Burkina Faso, Niger and Equatorial Guinea. The Carnegie Endowment classifies the Africa Corps as a rebranding of the Wagner structure under direct state control and estimates the Malian deployment at roughly 1,000 Russian combatants; it also points to the selective blockade of Bamako maintained since September 2025 by the jihadist coalition Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, whose effect on fuel supply persisted into early 2026. A commercially organised mercenary enterprise became a formation of the Russian defence ministry. Whoever read the 2010s as the age of privatised violence must record the counter-movement for the 2020s.

VIII. Synthesis, uncertainties and indicators for testing

The synthesis yields a threefold result. The claim of autocratisation is broadly supported by two methodologically independent bodies of evidence, the decisive shift lying in the population, territorial and economic weight of the affected states rather than in any mere increase in their number. The claim of migrating agenda-setting holds for the procedures in which binding decisions are taken:  ordering functions are moving out of treaties and organisations into occasion-specific bodies whose rules of access the strongest write themselves. The claim of diminishing state significance does not survive testing; defence expenditure, extraterritorial export control, tariff policy as coercion, network shutdowns, terminal registration and the return of mercenary structures to ministerial formations are all extensions of state reach.

The interests of the principal actors differ; their behaviour converges. Beijing pursues the construction of parallel institutions through the governance initiative and the development bank while retaining the Security Council as a veto position. Moscow replaces deniable mercenary structures with ministerially led formations and trades troop contributions for defence technology. Washington relocates ordering functions into bodies of its own construction whose supervision rests with its own head of state. Brussels relies on regulatory enforcement against platform operators. The same operation underlies all four approaches: the replacement of multilateral obligation by controllable formats.

For observation, a shift in points of access follows. Negotiated outcomes increasingly fall within bodies that have no published rules of procedure, no admission criteria and no reporting duty towards third parties; the Board of Peace's six-monthly obligation to report to the Security Council is the exception here and supplies one of the few verifiable openings. For technical reconnaissance a double effect arises whose net balance remains open: commercial sensing lowers the threshold of entry for non-state observers, while network shutdowns, terminal registration and restrictions on access to imagery raise the same threshold again.

Four uncertainties remain and limit the reach of the argument advanced here. Regime classification carries substantial measurement uncertainty at the thresholds, and the dispute over expert-coded indices is unsettled. The troop figures for the North Korean deployment originate with conflict parties and are not independently verified. Reliable export data for the current year on the actual trade effect of the Chinese export controls are not yet available. Whether the Supreme Court's decision durably constrains tariff policy depends on the use made of the remaining statutory authorities and cannot presently be judged.

Four indicators permit the thesis developed here to be tested within a foreseeable period. First, the election-related indicators for the United States in connection with the 2026 midterm elections, which the V-Dem Institute expressly names as a test and which are re-evaluated only in a national election year. Second, whether the number of autocratisers falls while the number of democratisers rises, since only that combination signals a turning point, whereas a mere decline may equally follow from completed authoritarian consolidation. 

Third, the six-monthly reports of the Board of Peace to the Security Council up to the end of the mandate on 31 December 2027, whose level of detail will show whether the delegation of governmental authority to extra-institutional bodies remains accountable. Fourth, the licensing practice of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce towards European applicants, which serves as an indicator of the state of negotiations between Beijing and Washington.

The diagnosis that emerges is less comfortable than the original thesis. A decline in the significance of the nation-state would be a question of order with institutional answers. What the data show is the concentration of growing state power in ever fewer and ever larger units, alongside the dismantling of the procedures that kept that power reviewable. The first problem could have been solved through organisations. The second can be solved only by states that want their own binding.

Glossary

Autocratisation
Process of declining democratic quality irrespective of the starting regime; it may begin in a democracy (backsliding) or in an autocracy (regression).

Liberal Democracy Index (LDI)
Measure of the V-Dem Institute on a scale from 0 to 1 combining electoral quality with checks on executive power, rule of law and civil liberties.

ERT methodology (Episodes of Regime Transformation)
Procedure for identifying episodes of regime transformation; it registers annual changes from 0.01 points and recognises an episode where these accumulate beyond 0.1 points.

De minimis rule
Export-control rule subjecting foreign-manufactured goods to domestic licensing once the value share of controlled inputs reaches a threshold.

Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR)
Export-control rule capturing foreign-manufactured goods where these were produced using controlled technology of the rule-setting state.

IEEPA
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, US federal statute of 1977 governing the President's exercise of economic emergency powers.

Digital Services Act (DSA)
European Union regulation on digital services imposing specific obligations on very large online platforms.

Board of Peace
Body welcomed by Resolution 2803 (2025) as a transitional administration for the Gaza Strip.

International Stabilization Force (ISF)
Temporary stabilisation force for the Gaza Strip authorised by Resolution 2803 (2025).

Africa Corps
Formation under the control of the Russian defence ministry that has replaced the Wagner Group's structures on the African continent.

References

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg
Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling The Democratic Era?
März 2026
v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

V-Dem Institute
Press Release: Democratic Backsliding Reaches Western Democracies, with U.S. Decline "Unprecedented"
17. März 2026
v-dem.net/news/press-release-democratic-backsliding-reaches-western-democracies-with-us-decline-unprecedented

Freedom House
New Report: Global Freedom Declined for 20th Consecutive Year in 2025
19. März 2026
freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-freedom-declined-20th-consecutive-year-2025

Freedom House
Freedom in the World 2026: The Growing Shadow of Autocracy
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2026/growing-shadow-autocracy

SIPRI
Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2025
27. April 2026
sipri.org/publications/2026/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2025

SIPRI
Global military spending rise continues as European and Asian expenditures surge
27. April 2026
sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-military-spending-rise-continues-european-and-asian-expenditures-surge

Cambridge University Press, PS: Political Science & Politics
Measuring Democratic Backsliding (Andrew Little, Anne Meng)
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-democratic-backsliding/9EE2044CDA598BD815349912E61189D8

Cambridge University Press, PS: Political Science & Politics
Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/conceptual-and-measurement-issues-in-assessing-democratic-backsliding/7A620BD91885C932B48E6783BC32CA24

Cambridge University Press, PS: Political Science & Politics
How Little and Meng's Objective Approach Fails in Democracies (Michael K. Miller)
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/how-little-and-mengs-objective-approach-fails-in-democracies/3DB3824785F06E7D971772B28CC8CBCE

Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown University
Ministry of Commerce Notice 2025 No. 61: Announcement of the Decision to Implement Controls on Exports of Rare Earth-Related Items to Foreign Countries
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mofcom-notice-2025-61/

S&P Global
Rare earth supply bottlenecks set to persist in 2026
27. Januar 2026
spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/metals/012726-rare-earth-supply-bottlenecks-set-to-persist-in-2026

Supreme Court of the United States
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (majority opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts)
20. Februar 2026
supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Congressional Research Service
Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11398

Congressional Research Service
Russia's Security Operations in Africa
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
congress.gov/crs-product/IF12389

Munich Security Conference
Munich Security Report 2026: Global Economy — Terms of Trade
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report/2026/global-economy/

United Nations Meetings Coverage
Security Council Authorizes International Stabilization Force in Gaza, Adopting Resolution 2803 (2025)
17. November 2025
press.un.org/en/2025/sc16225.doc.htm

United Nations, Question of Palestine
Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025): Report of the Board of Peace through the Office of the High Representative for Gaza (S/2026/418)
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
un.org/unispal/document/implementation-of-united-nations-security-council-resolution-2803-2025-report-of-the-board-of-peace-through-the-office-of-the-high-representative-for-gaza-s-2026-418/

American Society of International Law
The Security Council as Architect? Resolution 2803, the Board of Peace, and the Limits of Transition in Gaza
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/16

UN News
Security Council's veto power is 'poster child' of global gridlock, says Baerbock
21. November 2025
news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166412

International Institute for Strategic Studies
The UN at 80: repairing the multilateral order
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/11/the-un-at-80-repairing-the-multilateral-order/

Center for Strategic and International Studies
China Showcases Global Ambitions at Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit
26. September 2025
csis.org/analysis/china-showcases-global-ambitions-shanghai-cooperation-organization-summit

Access Now / #KeepItOn
Rising repression meets global resistance: Internet shutdowns in 2025
31. März 2026
accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf

Foreign Policy
Starlink Has Privatized Geopolitics
20. März 2026
foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/20/starlink-spacex-musk-geopolitics-war-ukraine-russia-iran/

Centre for International Governance Innovation
Digital Sovereignty and the Rise of Orbital Warfare
3. Juli 2026
cigionline.org/articles/digital-sovereignty-and-the-rise-of-orbital-warfare/

Lawfare
When Commercial Satellites Become Wartime Intelligence
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
lawfaremedia.org/article/when-commercial-satellites-become-wartime-intelligence

Small Wars Journal / Irregular Warfare Initiative
Democratized Intelligence: How Open-Source Intelligence is Reshaping Asymmetric Advantage
17. Oktober 2025
smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/17/democratized-intelligence-open-source-osint-revolution/

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Russia in Africa: Examining Moscow's Influence and Its Limits
Abgerufen: 8. August 2026
carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/02/russia-role-west-southern-africa-junta-wagner-africa-corps

Defense News
How North Korean forces are bolstering Russia's war against Ukraine
7. August 2026
defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/08/07/how-north-korean-forces-are-bolstering-russias-war-against-ukraine/

European Commission
Commission fines X €120 million under the Digital Services Act
5. Dezember 2025
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-fines-x-eu120-million-under-digital-services-act

I. Definitional Status and the Attribution Problem

The term Islamism remains contested in both the German and international security debate. Islamic studies scholar Gudrun Krämer assessed the 2016 CSU policy motion with the finding that it "creates a monster that is everywhere and nowhere" – a warning against conceptual overreach, in which unlimited applicability erodes attribution in individual cases. Burkhard Freier, then head of the North Rhine-Westphalia domestic intelligence service, rejected in 2020 for comparable reasons the use of "Political Islam" as a label for Muslim opponents of the constitutional order.

An overly broad definition captures religious practice as political intent; the resulting rights restrictions then target mere value conformity rather than its political systematization. An overly narrow definition leaves legalistically operating organizations below the threshold of monitoring as long as no criminally relevant act has occurred. The debate in the French National Assembly on January 22, 2026, illustrates this fault line: the left-wing bloc pointed to the absence of any documented link between the Muslim Brotherhood and the offenses defined under Article 421-1 of the Code pénal; the governing coalition and the Rassemblement National characterized the resolution as a response to a documented, if not criminally actionable, transformation strategy.

This analysis applies the framework sharpened by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) in its 2025 report: violence-oriented jihadism, proselytizing Salafism, and the spectrum termed "strategic Islamism" since 2025 – formerly "legalistic Islamism." This typology replaces the binary violence/non-violence distinction with a continuum of means directed at a shared objective: the displacement of positive law by sharia-based normativity.

II. Ideological Genesis and Organizational Bifurcation

Hasan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in March 1928 in Ismailia; according to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the catalysts were the 1924 abolition of the caliphate under Atatürk and British colonial rule in Egypt. Its programmatic core, per the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, was Islam as a total ordering category encompassing all spheres of life, directed against both the colonial and the secular-nationalist model.

The decisive ideological turning point was Sayyid Qutb's radicalization following his imprisonment in the context of the failed 1954 assassination attempt on Nasser. Qutb's concept of jahiliyya, developed in "Milestones," transposes the term for pre-Islamic ignorance onto contemporary, nominally Muslim societies and functions as an attribution operation: it defines who counts as Muslim and who falls outside that category through acceptance of secular ordering principles. This theory of gradual apostasy, per the assessment of the Counter Extremism Project, forms the ideological foundation for the later legitimation of violence by the al-Qaeda leadership influenced by Qutb.

From this shared root emerged, from the 1960s onward, an organizational bifurcation with distinct mechanisms of influence: a legalistic-transnational strand via the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, founded in 1983 and operating since 2020 as the Council of European Muslims, alongside the Millî Görüş movement aligned with Necmettin Erbakan; and a jihadist-territorial strand running through al-Qaeda to the caliphate proclaimed by the Islamic State in 2014 and its present-day regional affiliates. Both strands require separate intelligence approaches and countermeasures.

III. Mechanism of the Legalistic Strand: Entryism

Reference source: Lorenzo Vidino, George Washington University Program on Extremism. Model: not a hierarchical apparatus but a decentralized web of relationships spanning mosques, associations, foundations, parties, institutes, think tanks, and universities, linked by personnel, financial, or ideological ties without a unified command structure, per the summary given by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Consequence for the intelligence picture: a ban under conventional association law presupposes a delineable organization with identifiable membership – a factor that structurally impedes the implementation of parliamentary ban mandates, as in the Dutch case of March 2026.

The 2017 study "The Muslim Brotherhood in Austria," produced with the involvement of the Austrian Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counter Terrorism, describes the mechanism as the gradual capture of structural key positions – for instance in the training of religious educators – combined with an us-versus-them discursive strategy that exploits inter-communal tensions. Limit of the method: Anas Schakfeh, former president of the Islamic Faith Community in Austria, publicly denied, per the Wiener Zeitung, a Brotherhood connection attributed to him in the study. Network reconstruction based on indirect biographical linkages produces misattribution in individual cases.

IV. Comparative Situation Report on State Countermeasures

France, executive-initiated: the report submitted to the Defense Council in May 2025 by the Interior Ministry documents 280 associations attributed to the Brotherhood, 21 affiliated private schools with roughly 4,200 students, 114 attributed Quranic schools, and an estimated 91,000 adherents linked to Brotherhood-affiliated mosques out of 2,800 Muslim places of worship nationwide. On January 22, 2026, the National Assembly adopted the resolution calling for EU terror listing, without immediate legal effect, functioning as a political signal.

Netherlands, legislature-initiated against the executive assessment: the government held that the movement's influence in the country was limited and did not constitute an acute threat. Parliament nonetheless passed the ban mandate on March 17, 2026, by 76 of 150 votes. The divergence between executive and legislative threat assessment indicates an independent political dynamic decoupled from the underlying evidence base.

Austria, early symbolic-legal response: the 2021 expansion of the Symbols Act to include the Brotherhood. Parliamentary criticism at the time of passage, per the parliamentary record: arbitrary selection of covered organizations, questionable effectiveness of a purely symbol-based prohibition.

United Kingdom, institutional persistence: the 2015 government review conducted under Ambassador John Jenkins resulted in no ban. The post of Commissioner for Countering Extremism has remained vacant since the 2024 change of government. Assessment by terrorism researcher Katherine Littlewood, per the Times of Israel: low political willingness to act, coinciding with growing presence of Islamist discursive patterns in the mainstream.

United States, executive with immediate legal effect: per the US Treasury Department, the State and Treasury Departments on January 13, 2026, designated the Lebanese branch as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and the Egyptian and Jordanian branches as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, based on documented material support for Hamas. Per research by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the US Treasury additionally designated the Sudanese branch as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in spring 2026; designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization had at that point, per MEMRI, only been announced, not carried out. Attribution standard: individualized terrorism support – narrower than the French and Dutch category of diffuse transformation strategy.

V. The Jihadist-Territorial Strand: State Weakness as an Amplifier

Sahel: JNIM (Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin), formed in 2017 through the merger of several al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, benefits, per the assessment of the International Crisis Group, from the weakness of local armed forces and the legitimacy deficit of the military governments installed after the 2020–2023 coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.

South Asia: the Global Terrorism Index 2026 identifies the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict, which escalated in February 2026, as a factor generating security vacuums in which both Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Islamic State – Khorasan Province operate.

The causal chain is identical in both theaters: coup or state conflict, legitimacy deficit, security vacuum, jihadist expansion. Distinction from the legalistic strand: legalism exploits the functionality of democratic institutions; jihadism exploits their failure. Countermeasures accordingly diverge – institutional vigilance in the first case, stabilization of fragile statehood in the second. 

VI. The German Case: Population Estimates, Ban Practice, Attack Pattern

The islamist population estimate for 2025, per the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, stands at 28,645 persons (2024: 28,280). The increase is attributed to identified supporters of Hamas and Hizb ut-Tahrir. The violence-oriented subset declined: 9,110 (2024: 9,540). A limitation on data granularity, per a July 2026 commentary by the Humanistischer Pressedienst: declining official detail specifically regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, affecting the interpretability of the time series.

The ban on the Islamic Center Hamburg on July 24, 2024, by the Federal Ministry of the Interior constitutes the most far-reaching executive intervention to date, grounded in documented support for Hezbollah and aggressive antisemitism. Attribution standard narrower than in France and the Netherlands: a ban requires proof of aggressive-militant conduct or concrete support for listed terrorist organizations.

The attack series since 2024 – Mannheim, Solingen, Munich, Berlin: analysis by the Hamburg research project led by Martin Kahl, published in the Solinger Tageblatt, identifies a perpetrator profile diverging from the centrally directed IS attack planning of 2015–2017: low preparation depth, everyday means of attack, an overlay of religio-political motivation with individual crisis situations. Consequence for intelligence work: signal-based early detection through network surveillance reaches its limits; individualized threat assessment gains weight.

VII. Evidentiary Basis and Limits of Attribution

Network analyses of the legalistic strand – particularly of Austrian and German provenance – rely predominantly on indirect biographical, familial, and institutional linkages with limited evidentiary force in individual cases, the Schakfeh case serving as an example. The political controversy over the subject matter is itself part of the evidentiary picture: critics of the French resolution point to the absence of criminally actionable links to the terrorism definition of the Code pénal; proponents treat precisely this non-capture by conventional offenses as evidence of the need for new legal categories – a circular-reasoning risk warranting methodological caution. Terminological scope further varies by country: "islamisme séparatiste" in France does not align with the German category of "strategic Islamism," which constrains direct cross-country comparison.

VIII. Assessment

First: the distinction between legalistic-institutional and jihadist-territorial threat production is warranted despite a shared ideological root in the Muslim Brotherhood and its milieu – the two forms follow different causal mechanisms and require different countermeasures.

Second: the variance in state responses across France, the Netherlands, Austria, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany derives primarily from differing national legal traditions, attribution standards, and political constellations.

Third: the evidentiary basis for the legalistic strand remains more contestable than that for the jihadist strand, as it relies on network reconstruction rather than individually actionable offenses. This finding accounts for both the political controversy over the term and the difficulty of implementing parliamentary ban mandates, as in the Dutch case.

Early indicators for further developments: implementation of the Dutch ban mandate by the government in The Hague; a possible EU-wide terror listing following the French initiative; the trajectory of JNIM's expansion into West African coastal states; and the development of German attack figures following the Berlin attack of July 2026.

Glossary

Islamism
Per the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's definition, a form of political extremism that, invoking Islam, places a divinely ordained, absolute order above one set by human beings and aims at the partial or complete abolition of the free democratic basic order.

Strategic Islamism
Term used since the 2025 BfV report for the legalistic spectrum of Islamism, formerly "legalistic Islamism"; covers organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Millî Görüş that pursue anti-constitutional goals through legal means – associations, education, and social networks.

Salafism
A proselytizing Islamist current claiming a literal understanding of the Quran and Sunna, and of the practice of the early Islamic community, as the sole valid norm; by population estimate the numerically largest Islamist current in Germany.

Jihadism
A violence-oriented Islamist current seeking the establishment of an Islamic state by military means; principal actors are the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and their regional affiliates.

Jahiliyya
A term applied by Sayyid Qutb to the present day, denoting the pre-Islamic state of ignorance; an attribution category by which nominally Muslim societies can be defined as un-Islamic.

Entryism
An organizational concept describing the influence strategy of legalistic Islamist networks: the gradual capture of structural key positions in education, associations, and municipal politics without open confrontation with state institutions.

Caliphate
A politico-religious form of rule proclaimed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Mosul on June 29, 2014, claiming universal leadership over all Muslims; ended territorially in 2019, persisting ideologically as a long-term goal of jihadist groups.

JNIM (Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin)
An alliance formed in 2017 from the merger of several al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; the dominant militant force in the central Sahel, with expansion efforts into West African coastal states.

ISKP (Islamic State – Khorasan Province)
A regional affiliate of the Islamic State founded in Afghanistan in 2015; positions itself as a jihadist rival to the Taliban, with propaganda increasingly directed at Europe.

SDGT/FTO (Specially Designated Global Terrorist/Foreign Terrorist Organization)
US legal categories for the terror listing of organizations, entailing asset freezes or criminal prosecution of supporters respectively; applied since January 2026 to individual branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Register of Persons

Hasan al-Banna (1906–1949)
Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Ismailia, Egypt; shot dead in Cairo in 1949.

Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966)
Chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, author of "Milestones"; executed in Egypt in 1966, a foundational ideological reference point for later jihadist movements.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (1971–2019)
Leader of the Islamic State, proclaimed the caliphate in Mosul in 2014; killed in a US military operation in Syria in 2019.

Gudrun Krämer
Islamic studies scholar, critic of the conceptual overreach of the term "Political Islam" in the German security debate.

Burkhard Freier
Former head of the North Rhine-Westphalia domestic intelligence service, rejected in 2020 the use of the term "Political Islam" for Muslim opponents of the constitutional order.

Lorenzo Vidino
Director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, author of the study "The Muslim Brotherhood in Austria" (2017), a principal reference author for the entryism model.

Anas Schakfeh
Former president of the Islamic Faith Community in Austria, publicly denied a Brotherhood connection attributed to him in the Vidino study.

Martin Kahl
Terrorism researcher, University of Hamburg, head of the research project on perpetrator patterns in Islamist-motivated attacks in Germany since 2015.

Katherine Littlewood
Terrorism researcher, formerly with the UK's Prevent counter-terrorism program, analyzes the mainstreaming of Islamist discursive patterns in the United Kingdom.

References

Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz: Begriff und Erscheinungsformen. Accessed: August 3, 2026. verfassungsschutz.de/DE/themen/islamismus-und-islamistischer-terrorismus/begriff-und-erscheinungsformen/begriff-und-erscheinungsformen_artikel.html

Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz: Zahlen und Fakten. Accessed: August 3, 2026. verfassungsschutz.de/DE/themen/islamismus-und-islamistischer-terrorismus/zahlen-und-fakten/zahlen-und-fakten_node.html

Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz: Verfassungsschutzbericht 2024. Published: June 10, 2025. verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE/verfassungsschutzberichte/2025-06-10-verfassungsschutzbericht-2024.pdf

hpd.de: Verfassungsschutz: Mehr Fokus auf legalistische Ansätze. Published: July 2026. hpd.de/artikel/verfassungsschutz-mehr-fokus-legalistische-ansaetze-24197

Verfassungsschutz Baden-Württemberg: Islamistischer Extremismus und Terrorismus. Accessed: August 3, 2026. verfassungsschutz-bw.de/,Lde/Startseite/Arbeitsfelder/Islamismus

Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat: Bundesinnenministerin Faeser verbietet das "Islamische Zentrum Hamburg" und dessen Teilorganisationen. Published: July 24, 2024. bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/07/exekutive3.html

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: Die Muslimbruderschaft. Accessed: August 3, 2026. kas.de/de/web/extremismus/islamismus/die-muslimbruderschaft

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: Qutb, Sayyid (1905–1966). Accessed: August 3, 2026. kas.de/de/web/extremismus/islamismus/qutb-sayyid

Counter Extremism Project: Sayyid Qutb. Accessed: August 3, 2026. counterextremism.com/extremists/sayyid-qutb

Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Unheimliche Brüder, bigotte Schwestern – wie die Muslimbruderschaft die Öffentlichkeit und die islamischen Verbände beeinflusst. Published: November 29, 2021. nzz.ch/feuilleton/muslimbruderschaft-die-unheimlichen-brueder-ld.1653391

Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Ein Bericht warnt vor dem Einfluss der Muslimbrüder in Frankreich. Published: May 22, 2025. nzz.ch/international/ein-bericht-warnt-vor-dem-einfluss-der-muslimbrueder-in-frankreich-ld.1885588

Assemblée nationale: Résolution européenne visant à inscrire la mouvance des Frères musulmans sur la liste européenne des organisations terroristes. Published: January 22, 2026. assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/textes/l17t0215_texte-adopte-seance.pdf

NL Times: Parliament approves PVV motion to ban Muslim Brotherhood, despite controversy. Published: March 17, 2026. nltimes.nl/2026/03/17/parliament-approves-pvv-motion-ban-muslim-brotherhood-despite-controversy

MEMRI: The Muslim Brotherhood Has Been Designated In Three Arab Countries But Not In The U.S. – What Should Come Next? Published: April 16, 2026. memri.org/reports/muslim-brotherhood-has-been-designated-three-arab-countries-not-us-%E2%80%93-what-should-come-next

International Crisis Group: Understanding JNIM's Expansion Beyond the Sahel. Published: February 20, 2026. crisisgroup.org/rpt/africa/sahel-west-africa/321-le-jnim-et-le-dilemme-de-lexpansion-au-dela-du-sahel

South African Institute of International Affairs: Islamic State Expands Reach in Sahel. Published: May 7, 2026. saiia.org.za/research/islamic-state-expands-reach-in-sahel/

Vision of Humanity/Global Terrorism Index 2026: Jihadist Expansion in the Sahel: Risks and Implications for Coastal West Africa. Published: April 2, 2026. visionofhumanity.org/jihadist-expansion-in-the-sahel-and-threats-to-coastal-west-africa/

Combating Terrorism Center at West Point: The Evolution of the Islamist Terror Threat Landscape in Germany Since 2020. Published: June 2, 2025. ctc.westpoint.edu/the-evolution-of-the-islamist-terror-threat-landscape-in-germany-since-2020/

Mediendienst Integration: Islamistische Anschläge in Deutschland. Accessed: August 3, 2026. mediendienst-integration.de/extremismus/extremistischer-islamismus/islamistische-anschlaege-in-deutschland/

Solinger Tageblatt: Islamistischer Terror: Was den Anschlag in Solingen mit Mannheim, München und Berlin verbindet. Published: April 23, 2025. solinger-tageblatt.de/lokales/solingen/islamistischer-terror-was-den-anschlag-in-solingen-mit-mannheim-muenchen-und-berlin-verbindet-VSWT7PK6PZG7PGEXLHUFLCSO2A.html

SIAK-Journal: Legalistischer Islamismus in Europa. Published: November 2, 2025. bmi.gv.at/104/Wissenschaft_und_Forschung/SIAK-Journal/SIAK-Journal-Ausgaben/Jahrgang_2025/files/Goertz_3_2025.pdf

Parlament Österreich: Symbole-Gesetz, Änderung – Erläuterungen. Accessed: August 3, 2026. parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXVI/ME/81/fnameorig_712103.html

Österreichischer Integrationsfonds: Studie "Muslim Brotherhood in Austria" (Lorenzo Vidino). Published: August 9, 2017. integrationsfonds.at/mediathek/mediathek-publikationen/publikation/studie-muslim-brotherhood-in-austria-202/

Wiener Zeitung: "Muslimbrüder verbreiten ein Opfernarrativ" – Interview mit Lorenzo Vidino. Published: September 29, 2022. wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2163292-Muslimbrueder-verbreiten-ein-Opfernarrativ.html 

The Times of Israel: UK extremism expert: As Islamist narratives go mainstream, politicians fear confrontation. Published: March 14, 2026. timesofisrael.com/uk-extremism-expert-as-islamist-narratives-go-mainstream-politicians-fear-confrontation/

religion.ORF.at: Studie über Muslimbruderschaft: Beträchtlicher Einfluss. Accessed: August 3, 2026. religion.orf.at/v3/stories/2866308/