On 26 March 2025 in Berlin, NAVIGATOR researchers and external experts engaged in 3 scenario exercises designed to challenge assumptions and stimulate strategic thinking around Europe’s evolving role in a shifting global order. The session took participants through three plausible futures: a rules-based cooperation scenario, a transactional world, and a contentious, fragmented international system.
Each scenario served not only as a mirror to current geopolitical dynamics but also as a lens to interrogate how Europe can (and should) position itself in a world of increasing complexity, competition, and contestation. This exercise was built upon NAVIGATOR’s first forecasting report.
Scenario 1 - Rules-Based Cooperation: Can Europe Lead a New Multilateralism?
Chaired by ECFR’s Anthony Dworkin, the first scenario envisioned a best-case future in which cooperation, anchored in rules and mutual interest, guides international affairs. Yet even this “ideal” future raised tough questions. Participants reflected on Europe’s tendency to approach global engagement from a place of superiority, noting that such posturing risks alienating potential partners and undermining trust.
A key theme was the need to re-legitimise multilateralism. Participants highlighted that any successful system must show citizens, especially in the face of far-right narratives that cooperation genuinely serves their interests. The focus shifted from abstract values to pragmatic implementation: How can the EU cut through bureaucratic complexity? How can it ensure regional partnerships, like with the African Union, are equitable and not prescriptive?
Flexibility emerged as a core principle. Europe must be ready to “agree to disagree”, share power more willingly, and move toward a model of adaptable cooperation, what one might call a “softer” rules-based order. The challenge, however, lies in defining mutual interests beyond short-term gains, especially in contentious areas like migration.
Scenario 2 - A Transactional World: Making Deals in a Post-Normative Environment
The second scenario, which was chaired by ULB’s Prof. Chloé Brière, confronted participants with a far more realist, interest-driven future. This world is marked by deals over ideals, in which transactionalism becomes the dominant diplomatic logic. But rather than dismissing this future as dystopian, participants took a more nuanced view: transactionalism, if well-structured, need not be zero-sum.
Discussions surfaced the double-edged nature of Europe’s foreign policy. While built on values, the EU increasingly acts in ways that contradict its normative claims, particularly in migration, where legal commitments often yield to political expediency. The scenario raised the uncomfortable but critical question: Is the EU ready to embrace a more egoistic, interest-driven role in the world? If so, what does that mean for its legitimacy?
In this future, organisational design becomes strategic. Europe must build coalitions, clarify its goals, and develop a sharper vision for 2030. Transactionalism could, in theory, work in favour of middle-power coalitions and pragmatic cooperation, if it is transparent, intentional, and based on clear values. But without this clarity, the risk of fragmentation looms large.
Scenario 3 - Contentious Futures: Nationalism, Fragmentation, and the Breakdown of Global Systems
Chaired by the author of NAVIGATOR’s first forecasting report, GMF’s Alberto Tagliapietra, the final scenario imagined a more fragmented and volatile world. Multilateral institutions are stalled, informal alliances proliferate, and Europe faces rising internal divisions, with some Member States veering toward US-style transactionalism. In this world, security becomes the top priority, not only because of geopolitical tensions (notably with Russia) but also because of technological disruption and digital finance volatility.
Here, defence investments are reframed as economic levers, investments in AI and semiconductors that boost competitiveness, not just military might. But participants cautioned against allowing these investments to erode social programmes or deepen inequality, warning that such a path would only feed political extremes.
This scenario also forced a reconsideration of diplomatic tools: in a world where global cooperation is replaced by informal, ad hoc arrangements, how does the EU maintain influence? What role can it play in digital governance, cybersecurity, or health diplomacy if formal multilateralism collapses?
Key Takeaways Across All Scenarios
Across the scenarios, one thread remained consistent: Europe must be more agile, more self-aware, and more strategically honest about its capabilities and its contradictions.
- The world is competitive even in cooperative futures. Rules-based systems require enforcement and flexibility.
- Transactionalism is not necessarily bad unless it’s cynical and zero-sum. Europe needs to define what kind of deals it wants and what values it will uphold.
- Europe’s strength lies in coalition-building and convening power, but it must listen more and lecture less, especially in the Global South.
- Middle powers matter. In a world of shifting alliances, Europe’s ability to lead from the middle could be a key asset.
- The EU must balance power with principle, knowing that even “benevolent power” is no longer accepted uncritically.
As the world grapples with uncertainty, scenario exercises like this are more than academic games. They offer a sandbox for policy imagination, and a space to confront hard truths before they become hard realities. In the words of one participant, “We don’t just need a plan. We need to know what we want to use our power for.”
That challenge – of clarity, courage, and coherence – may just define the EU’s global role in the decade ahead.
