European countries are now facing one of the most significant turning points since World War II. If a collapse occurs, it will not happen in a single day but through a gradual process of erosion, step-by-step, decision by decision, with a consistent preference for denial over courageous confrontation.
What began as hesitation has turned into policy. Europe today appears to struggle to defend itself, not from external enemies but from a deep internal weakness. Countries such as Sweden, France, Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom are showing a series of troubling trends, including loss of control, erosion of identity, and weakening of the principles on which modern Europe was built.
At the center of this process is the issue of immigration. For years, immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, has been presented as a moral necessity and an expression of humanitarian values. There is no doubt that many immigrants seek to integrate and build new lives. At the same time, however, centers of extremism, cultural isolation, and at times hostility toward the values of the host society have also developed.
In Sweden, authorities were warned for years about the emergence of areas where the state would struggle to enforce the law. The response was denial. Only when shootings, organized crime, and riots became recurring phenomena did recognition of the problem begin, but it now appears to be a deeply rooted reality that is very difficult to address.
The suburbs of major cities in France have become arenas of ongoing confrontation. Each wave of violence is accompanied by declarations of comprehensive action to be taken, yet in practice, the response is postponed time and again. Instead of setting clear boundaries, an approach of containment is sometimes chosen, even when dealing with actors who do not accept democratic rules. The result is an erosion of state authority and of citizens’ sense of security.
Belgium reflects a similar pattern. Certain areas, particularly in large cities, have become symbols of lost control, combining crime, ideological radicalization, and a persistent difficulty for law enforcement authorities. For years, a policy of turning a blind eye was chosen, until reality no longer allowed it.
In the United Kingdom, sharp public debates are taking place over personal security, crime, and social integration. Here, too, the same familiar pattern appears: early warnings, political denial, delayed decisions, and ultimately a crisis that requires a late and costly response.
It should be emphasized that the problem is not immigration itself, but the inability to manage it, to set clear boundaries, and to prevent the infiltration of extremist elements that exploit European openness. When a state fails to distinguish between responsible absorption and a loss of control, it harms itself.
Above all of this hovers the question of leadership. French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez are seen by many critics as representing a hesitant and defeatist approach, one that prefers general statements over clear decisions. Instead of confronting challenges directly, they tend to postpone decisions due to internal political considerations.
European response to Iran is restrained, hesitant
This is also evident on the international stage. While Iran continues with an aggressive policy and harsh statements against Israel, the European response is often restrained and hesitant. Instead of presenting a clear stance toward a regime defined by many as destabilizing and linked to terrorism, European leaders speak in softer diplomatic language and issue general calls for de-escalation.
European demands for the cessation of conflicts, even when dealing with terrorism, are seen by many critics as disconnected from reality. This is not only naivete but a pattern of weakness and a postponement of recognizing that these threats may ultimately reach Europe itself.
At the same time, many citizens across the continent report a growing sense of insecurity. Public discourse is changing, and issues that were once pushed to the margins are becoming central. The gap between the public and leadership is widening, undermining trust in state institutions.
When questions of identity, religion, and Judaism arise in Spain, it is difficult to ignore the shadow of the Spanish Inquisition. History demands caution, sensitivity, and responsibility, yet it appears that its lessons are not being fully internalized.
The central problem is not any single event but an ongoing pattern: delayed response, if any; avoidance of decisive action; and a preference for temporary quiet over long-term solutions. European history shows that postponement does not resolve crises but deepens them.
Europe can still change course. It has the tools, the knowledge, and the strength. However, this requires courageous leadership willing to recognize reality, set clear boundaries, and act decisively.
The central question is whether the continent’s leaders will choose this path or continue along the road of denial, until the crisis becomes uncontrollable and its consequences extend beyond Europe’s borders.
The author is the CEO of Radios 100FM, an honorary consul and deputy dean of the consular diplomatic corps, president of the Israel Amateur Radio Club, and a former Army Radio monitor and NBC News television correspondent.