Send us a message, and we will definitely consider your suggestions and comments.
All
Agribusiness & Winemaking
Art & Culture
Banks & Finance
Business & Companies
City & Regions
Economy & Law
Energy
European Integration
Events
Export & Import
Global Economy
Green Economy
Investments & Markets
Logos Press Exclusive
Moldova’s Economy
Point of View
Politics & Economy
Pro Business
Retail & HoReCa
Society
Sport & Tourism
Technology & Innovation
Top News
Tourism
Articles
The North Atlantic region is undergoing radical historical changes as the rift between Europe and America deepens. Under the leadership of President Donald Trump, the United States seeks to create a world order based solely on spheres of interest and dominated by the “big three” world powers: the United States, China and Russia. To achieve this goal, the Trump administration is ready to abandon the traditional foundations of U.S. influence: the network of alliances and values that have underpinned American democracy for 250 years.
In early December, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov gave a succinct characterization of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), calling it “generally consistent with our vision.” He’s right. The NSS does not contain even a hint of criticism of Russia, either for its increasing authoritarianism in domestic politics or for its blatant military aggression against Ukraine. Instead, it chooses Europe – America’s longtime democratic friend and ally – to hurl particular insults at.
On the eve of the AI Impact summit in India in February, it is clear that most countries still do not have a workable model for managing this technology. The US has pretty much left the issue to market forces, the EU relies on regulatory oversight, and China relies on the concentration of power with the state. But none of these options are realistic if your country, like many others, has to manage AI without large regulatory structures or massive computer power. No, we need a different system that embeds the principles of transparency, consent and accountability directly into the digital infrastructure.
US President Donald Trump’s adoption of so-called stable coins as a means of projecting America’s financial power and maintaining the dollar’s global dominance has prompted calls for a “strategic response” from the EU. If Europe does not take a stand in this techno-financial revolution, it is argued that its monetary sovereignty and financial stability will deteriorate. But these warnings are as unfounded as they are ominous.
Europeans have long lamented the continent’s lack of globally competitive technology companies. But with Donald Trump back in the White House, the goal of ending Europe’s dependence on U.S. tech giants has taken on new urgency. With U.S. tech oligarchs interfering in European elections and the Trump administration seeking to sabotage European digital regulation, this dependence is no longer just an economic problem; it is a serious threat to security, sovereignty and democracy in Europe.
The national security strategies periodically released by all U.S. administrations usually don’t say much and are quickly forgotten. But the newest strategy, unveiled by the Trump administration late last week, is an exception. It is a must-read because it outlines the largest reorientation of U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War began 80 years ago.
Public procurement accounts for about 14% of the EU’s GDP, making it one of the most powerful tools for the EU to shape markets and move towards its political goals. However, a recent analysis by the European Commission has confirmed what many governments and companies had already guessed: the current system is not helping to simplify public spending procedures, make them more strategic and green. More than 75% of public contracts still do not include environmental parameters, so it is not surprising that current spending is so poorly aligned with the EU’s stated industrial and climate goals.
Ask a room of central bankers how many of them want a less stable financial system, and you will find that few (if any) will raise their hand. Ask how many of them support intrusive, costly supervision, endless box-filling and process-heavy enforcement, and the result will be the same. This contradiction is at the heart of the Basel Committee’s recent statement, supported by all members, including U.S. members, calling for the Basel III rules to be implemented “fully and consistently.”
Calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels are becoming impossible to ignore. At the UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30), major producers are being asked to start planning for a gradual and orderly phase-out of oil, gas and coal.
There can be no doubt that Europe owes much to the United States. No one should forget that America defended freedom in Western Europe and West Berlin for decades, successfully financed reconstruction after World War II, won the Cold War and united Europe under the NATO security umbrella.
Calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels are becoming impossible to ignore. At the…
Power systems around the world are undergoing a profound and rapid transformation that will make…
It was once common to speak of a “liberal international order”. This term was used…
In July, a new report by Microsoft researchers caught the attention of the press, listing 40 professions most at risk of being replaced by artificial intelligence (AI). The list includes sales representatives, translators, proofreaders and other knowledge workers, indicating that a labor apocalypse for white-collar workers is approaching.
During a recent trip to Kazakhstan, I was struck by people’s enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI). Virtually everyone I met (scientists, politicians, entrepreneurs) was clearly convinced that this technology would help solve complex problems, from diversifying the economy and reducing dependence on natural resource exports to increasing access to key services, especially for people in remote regions. I expected AI knowledge to spread more slowly, and yet this positive attitude probably shouldn’t have surprised me. After all, the rapid development of AI offers great opportunities for developing countries.
US President Donald Trump spent almost the entire last week of October in Asia. He managed to achieve ceasefires on several fronts of the trade war, which he started by imposing duties on friendly and unfriendly countries. But he failed to create long-term economic structures and to dispel doubts about the U.S. strategic commitment to the region.
Over the past year, traditional financial donors have sharply reduced their commitments to assist developing countries, with some, such as the United States, effectively eliminating aid programs. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the amount of official development assistance provided by its member countries fell by 7.1% in 2024. This is the first time in the last six years that the annual figure has fallen.
Is artificial intelligence transforming the economy in any real sense, or are promises of rapid growth just hype? U.S. stock markets certainly lean toward the former view: AI and technology stocks have accounted for about three-quarters of the gains in the S&P 500 index this year. Venture capitalists seem convinced as well, with one estimate suggesting that $200 billion has been injected into the AI sector in 2025 alone.
Demographic studies by numerous think tanks correctly warn that by 2050 Europe will face unsustainable costs and social burdens due to an aging population. But they are ignored, calling them speculation and alarmism. European officials react with silence. The continent’s political parties studiously avoid the topic, fearing the electoral consequences of the necessary reforms.
Decarbonization of energy systems relies heavily on wind and solar power. Fortunately, the cost of solar energy is falling rapidly, and combined with the inexpensive batteries that are now available, solar power has become a competitive and reliable source of energy in sunny areas. But while wind power provides more energy than solar, its use has been slower to expand, in part because of opposition from politicians and local communities.
