Top Risks for 2026 - Part 1 – Eurasia Group Report – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1210

Top Risks for 2026 - Part 1 – Eurasia Group Report – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1210

Dear Colleagues! This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1210 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma Veterans Blogs are published by Asrar Qureshi on its dedicated site https://pharmaveterans.com. Please email to pharmaveterans2017@gmail.com  for publishing your contributions here.

Credit: Google Images

Credit: Google Images

Preamble

This 3-part blog post is based on a Eurasia Group report titled ‘Top Risks for 2026’. Link at the end.

About Eurasia Group. [Quote]. Today's geopolitical environment is increasingly complex, with risks coming at an accelerated pace as the world order undergoes significant change.  It has never been more important for business decision-makers and investors to incorporate political risk into their strategies to spot the opportunities and manage the risks that politics creates—and to lead their organizations through turbulent times. Eurasia Group's advisory and consulting business is built upon a research platform of leading political risk analysts and management consultants with deep country and sector expertise. [Unquote] 

Part I: The Global Political Terrain in 2026 – A Year of Uncertainty and Transformation

2026 as a Tipping Point

As the world enters 2026, geopolitical risk isn’t defined by isolated crises but by systemic shifts in political power, global governance structures, and national priorities that could reshape international order itself. According to Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2026, istilled from expert forecasts by global political firm Eurasia Group, this year marks a historic inflection point.

Rather than a predictable international landscape, the world now faces multiplying risks rooted in domestic politics, leadership volatility, shifting alliances, and hybrid security challenges. Understanding these forces is essential for policymakers, investors, and global citizens alike.

Risk #1: The United States’ Political Revolution

Eurasia Group identifies the No. 1 risk for 2026 as what it terms a “U.S. Political Revolution.” This refers to deep structural shifts inside the United States, particularly efforts to fundamentally reshape political institutions and the distribution of executive power, that are projected to have wide-ranging global consequences.

Why This Matters Globally

The U.S. has long been central to the post–World War II international order, supporting democratic norms, economic integration, and collective security alliances. When the internal political structure of the United States becomes unstable or unpredictable, the entire global order shakes, because:

• Global markets rely on U.S. economic leadership.

• Alliances like NATO depend on a consistent U.S. foreign policy role.

• Multilateral institutions are influenced by U.S. engagement.

In 2026, Eurasia Group’s forecast suggests that the civil transformation at home could become the chief source of instability abroad, not just for Washington’s partners, but for global governance frameworks that hinge on predictable American leadership.

Risk #2: “Overpowered” – The Rise of the ElectroState

The second major risk underscores a deepening economic and technological divide between powers defined by their leadership in 21st-century technology and those tied to 20th-century energy systems. Eurasia Group describes this as the competition over the “electric stack”, encompassing electric vehicles, AI infrastructure, robotics, battery technology, and other foundational technologies shaping the future economy.

China as the ElectroState

China is increasingly seen as the first “ElectroState”, a nation whose strategic investments in electric and digital technologies give it structural leverage across key industries. Beijing’s ability to mass-deploy infrastructure at scale positions it as a technological anchor in global markets.

The U.S. as a PetroState

By contrast, the report argues that the U.S. risks acting more like a 20th-century petrostate, despite its strengths in innovation, because of slower transition away from fossil fuels and uneven industrial strategy. This divergence could reconfigure global supply chains, alliances, and economic preferences.

The implications are profound:

• Emerging economies may favor technology systems built on Chinese platforms.

• Economic influence may shift away from historic Western centers.

• Traditional alliances based on energy and military power may lose cohesion in technological spheres.

This risk isn’t only about national competition; it’s about who controls the infrastructure of the future economy.

Risk #3: The “Donroe Doctrine” and the U.S. Foreign Policy Shift

Eurasia Group coins the term “Donroe Doctrine” to reflect a U.S. foreign policy reorientation emphasizing hemispheric primacy, especially in Latin America, over broader global engagement. The term ‘Donroe’ comes from the original Monroe Doctrine. 

The Monroe Doctrine is a key U.S. foreign policy statement made by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823. It established the Western Hemisphere as a zone free from European colonization and interference. The doctrine was articulated during Monroe's annual message to Congress and has had a lasting impact on U.S. relations with Latin America.

Main Tenets

• Non-Colonization: The Americas are no longer open to further European colonization.

• Non-Interference: The U.S. will not interfere in the internal affairs of European countries.

• Protection of Sovereignty: Any European intervention in the Americas would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security.

• The doctrine has been invoked in various U.S. interventions in the region, including actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and now Venezuela.

The forecast suggests Washington may pursue aggressive regional goals that test diplomatic norms and risk backlash throughout the Western Hemisphere.

This trend matters because it signals:

• A preference for direct, transactional influence versus multilateral engagement.

• Rising regional friction that could destabilize neighbors and create opportunities for rival powers.

• A shift in U.S. diplomatic bandwidth away from other global theaters.

Such realignments not only affect regional stability but also presage broader questions about how the U.S. defines its role in the world.

Risk #4: Europe Under Siege – Fragmentation and Pressure

Europe’s political center is under strain on multiple fronts. Fragmentation in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom reflects deeper societal pressures and political polarization across the continent. Meanwhile, the ability of countries like Germany and France to lead a cohesive European agenda, particularly on defense, economic policy, and technological competitiveness, is weakening.

Challenges for Europe in 2026

• Weak governments struggle with public confidence.

• Economic malaise exacerbates political polarization.

• Security alliances face stress as global alignments shift.

Europe’s internal turbulence undermines its capacity to lead as U.S. attention shifts elsewhere and China pursues strategic partnerships. The net effect is a region that must contend with external threats while facing internal governance challenges.

Risk #5: Russia’s “Second Front” – Hybrid Warfare with NATO

While traditional battlefield conflict may continue in Ukraine, the Eurasia Group forecast highlights a second front emerging from hybrid conflict between Russia and NATO.

What Hybrid Conflict Means? Unlike kinetic war alone, this “second front” encompasses:

• Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure

• Disinformation campaigns

• Political subversion operations

• Drone and unmanned systems engagement

These modes of confrontation blur the line between war and peace, risking dangerous miscalculations while eroding stability in Europe and beyond.

Sum Up Part I

These core risks, domestic unrest in the U.S., economic and technological rivalry, regional reconfigurations, European fragility, and hybrid conflict, demonstrate why 2026 is described as a tipping-point year by Eurasia Group.

Rather than isolated events, these risks are interconnected tendencies that amplify one another:

• Domestic political instability weakens global leadership.

• Economic competition fuels geopolitical contestation.

• Regional pressure points become nodes of global stress.

Taken together, they form a landscape where decision makers must manage complexity, uncertainty, and shifting norms. In Part II, we will examine the economic and trade dynamics that underlie these geopolitical risks and what they mean for global markets.

Concluded.

Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.

For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intent to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, any claim is lodged, it will be acknowledged and duly recognized immediately. 

Reference:

https://www.eurasiagroup.net/issues/top-risks-2026