Dr. Daniel Steiners This is not an obituary for Germany’s economic standing. It is an invitation to shift perspective: away from the language of crisis and toward a clearer view of our opportunities — and toward the confidence that we have more capacity to shape our future than the mood indicators might suggest. For years, Germany seemed to be traveling along a self-evident path of success: growth, prosperity, the title of export champion. But that framework is beginning to fray. Other countries are catching up. Parts of our industrial base appear vulnerable to the pressures of transformation. And global dependencies are turning into strategic vulnerabilities. In short, the German model of success is under strain. Yet a glance at Europe’s economic history suggests that moments like these can also contain enormous potential — if strategic thinking and decisive action come together. One example, which I find particularly striking, takes us back to 1900. At the time, André and Édouard Michelin were producing tires in a relatively small market, when the automobile itself was still a niche product. They could have focused simply on improving their product. Instead, they thought bigger; not in silos, but in systems. With the Michelin Guide, they created incentives and orientation for greater mobility: workshop directories, road maps, and recommendations for hotels and restaurants made travel more predictable and attractive. What began as a service booklet for motorists gradually evolved into an entire ecosystem — and eventually into a globally recognized benchmark for quality. > In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape > them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. What makes this example remarkable is that the real innovation did not lie in the tire itself or merely even a clever marketing idea to boost sales. It lay in something more fundamental: connected thinking and ecosystem thinking. The decision to see mobility as a broad space for value creation. It was the courage to break out of silos, to recognize strategic connections, to deepen value chains — and to help define the standards of an emerging market. That is precisely the lesson that remains relevant today, including for policymakers. In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. Germany’s industrial health economy is still too often viewed in public debate in narrowly sectoral terms — primarily through the lens of health care provision and costs. Strategically, however, it has long been an industrial ecosystem that spans research, development, manufacturing, digital innovation, exports and highly skilled employment. Just as Michelin helped shape the ecosystem of mobility, Germany can think of health as a comprehensive domain of value creation. The industrial health economy: cost driver or engine of growth? Yes, medicines cost money. In 2024, Germany’s statutory health insurance system spent around €55 billion on pharmaceuticals. But much of that increase reflects medical progress and the need for appropriate care in an aging society with changing disease patterns. Innovative therapies benefit both patients and the health system. They can improve quality and length of life while shifting treatment from hospitals into outpatient care or even into patients’ homes. They raise efficiency in the system, reduce downstream costs and support workforce participation. > In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care > system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and > the financing of our social security systems. Despite public perception, pharmaceutical spending has remained remarkably stable for years, accounting for roughly 12 percent of total expenditures in the statutory health insurance system. That figure also includes generics — medicines that enter the ‘world heritage of pharmacy’ after patent protection expires and remain available at low cost. Truly innovative, patent-protected medicines account for only about seven percent of total spending. Against these costs stands an economic sector in which Germany continues to hold a leading international position. With around 1.1 million employees and value creation exceeding €190 billion, the industrial health economy is among the largest sectors of the German economy. Its high-tech products, bearing the Made in Germany label, are in demand worldwide and contribute significantly to Germany’s export surplus. In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and the financing of our social security systems. Its overall balance is positive. The central question, therefore, is this: how can we unlock its untapped potential? And what would it mean for Germany if we fail to recognize these opportunities while economic and innovative capacity increasingly shifts elsewhere? Global dynamics leave little room for hesitation Governments around the world have long recognized the strategic importance of the industrial health economy — for health care, for economic growth and for national security. China is demonstrating remarkable speed in scaling and implementing biotechnology. The United States, meanwhile, illustrates how determined industrial policy can look in practice. Regulatory authorities are being modernized, approval procedures accelerated and bureaucratic barriers systematically reduced. At the same time, domestic production is being strategically strengthened. Speed and market size act as magnets for capital — especially in a sector where research is extraordinarily capital-intensive and requires long-term planning security. When innovation-friendly conditions and economic recognition of innovation meet a large, well-funded market, global shifts follow. Today roughly 50 percent of the global pharmaceutical market is located in the United States, about 23 percent in Europe — and only 4 to 5 percent in Germany. This distribution is no coincidence; it reflects differences in economic and regulatory environments. At the same time, political pressure is growing on countries that benefit from the American innovation engine without offering an equally attractive home market or recognizing the value of innovation in comparable ways. Discussions around a Most Favored Nation approach or other trade policy instruments are moving in precisely that direction — and they affect Europe and Germany directly. For Germany, the implications are clear. Those who want to attract investment must strengthen their competitiveness. Those who want to ensure reliable health care must appropriately reward new therapies. Otherwise, these global dynamics will inevitably affect both the economy and health care at home. Already today, roughly one in four medicines introduced in the United States between 2014 and 2023 is not available in Europe. The gap is even larger for gene and cell therapies. The primacy of industrial policy: from consensus to action — now Germany does not lack potential or substance. We still have a strong industrial base, a tradition of invention, outstanding universities and research institutions, and a private sector willing to invest. Political initiatives such as the coalition agreement, the High-Tech Agenda and plans for a future strategy in pharmaceuticals and medical technology provide important impulses, which I strongly welcome. > A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is > the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient > health system. But programs must now translate into a coherent action plan for growth. We need innovation-friendly and stable framework conditions that consider health care, economic strength and national security together — as a strategic ecosystem, not as separate silos. The value of medical innovation must also be recognized in Germany. A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient health system. Faster approval procedures, consistent digitalization and a determined reduction of bureaucracy are essential if speed is once again to become a competitive advantage and a driver of innovation. Germany can reinvent itself, of that I am convinced. With courage, strategic determination and an ambitious push for innovation. The choice now lies with us: to set the right course and unlock the potential that is already there.

LONDON — The U.K. government last year awarded contracts worth more than £70,000 to a company headed by the brother of the energy department’s most senior civil servant.  Three contracts were awarded to Amelio Enterprises to install solar panels on schools, according to documents acquired under a Freedom of Information request.  The procurement process was led by the Crown Commercial Services, an agency inside the Cabinet Office. The funding for each school, announced by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in September 2025, was provided by the government’s publicly-owned clean energy company Great British Energy (GBE). GBE — which is funded by DESNZ and of which Ed Miliband, in his role as energy secretary, is the sole shareholder — has a budget of £8.3 billion to spend on clean power projects, including nuclear. Amelio Enterprises was bought by the renewables company Good Energy Group — headed by chief executive Nigel Pocklington — in October 2024. At the time the contracts were awarded, his brother, Jeremy Pocklington, was permanent secretary at DESNZ.  Pocklington was the top official at DESNZ between February 2023 and November 2025, when he left the department to become permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.  He declared his brother’s position at Good Energy on his register of interests. The register stated that he would “recuse himself from any direct engagement with Good Energy” as permanent secretary at DESNZ, with any engagement “delegated to a director general.” DESNZ did not comment on the record about the procurement process. An official from the Department for Education said the contracts, issued under government plans to fund the roll out of solar panels on schools and hospitals, had complied with U.K. procurement rules. A spokesperson for Good Energy said: “We strongly reject any suggestion of a conflict of interest in this contract. The work was awarded following an open, competitive tender process and assessed against the same objective criteria applied to all suppliers.” They added: “Amelio Solar Enterprises had already built a strong track record delivering solar projects for schools and had secured similar work for several years before Good Energy acquired the business.” The contracts awarded to Amelio Solar were part of the latest tranche of GBE funding to install solar panels on schools and hospitals across the U.K., in a bid to bring down energy bills in public buildings. DESNZ argues this will free up cash to be invested back into education and the NHS. Announcing the grants in September, Miliband said the funding would help schools and hospitals “save money on its bills, to be reinvested into the frontline, from textbooks to teachers to medical equipment.” In the case of the contracts with Amelio Solar, a separate company was appointed to manufacture the solar panels used. 

Every day across Europe, millions of citizens wear, sleep on, eat off or rely on rental textiles provided by industrial laundries. From hospital linens and reusable surgical gowns to industrial workwear, hotel bedding, restaurant textiles and hygiene products, textile services operate quietly but indispensably at the heart of Europe’s economy. In many countries, more than 90 percent of hospitals and hotels would be forced to close within days without a continuous supply of hygienically cleaned textiles, while pharmaceutical and food production facilities would halt operations within 24 hours. Behind this essential service stands a highly organi z ed European industry that combines operational excellence with a circular, service-based business model — washing and keeping textiles in use for longer, reducing waste and lowering environmental impact while safeguarding public health. By relying on reuse, repair and professional maintenance, the system significantly reduces the need for virgin raw materials sourced from outside Europe. At the same time, these locally anchored service models create skilled jobs, generate tax revenues in the communities where companies operate and drive continuous innovation in circular solutions — supporting new business opportunities and industrial development across the European Union . > In this time of on going and challenging geo-political change, it will become > crucial to fully recogni z e the strategic value of circular, service-based > business models, which strengthen competitiveness and resilience while > delivering on Europe’s sustainability objectives. > > Hartmut Engler, CEO of CWS Workwear As several important legislative files move forward in Brussels, it is time to reflect on what textile services need to continue to implement sustainable solutions. Public procurement rules are a great vector to promote and encourage circular business models while delivering on the strategic autonomy ambition of the EU. Public authorities across the EU spend over € 2.6 trillion annually on purchasing services, works and supplies, accounting for around 15 percent of the EU ’s GDP. However, too much of this investment is directed toward linear services and disposable goods, slowing down progress toward Europe’s environmental and industrial objectives. With the revision of the EU public procurement rules, it should be recogni z ed that the EU’s circular economy and environmental aims are greatly advanced by the textile rental industry. Specifically, g reen p ublic p rocurement should become mandatory across all EU m ember s tates and should also encourage alternatives to direct purchase such as leasing models or product-as-a-service business models. Public procurement should not be driven solely by value-for-money considerations, but by a holistic lifecycle approach that reflects long-term environmental and social performance. Introducing mandatory lifecycle costing as an award criterion would ensure that sustainability is measured over the full duration of a contract, not just at the point of purchase. > Longevity of product should be the first priority of the upcoming Circular > Economy Act. The most sustainable product is ultimately the one that is kept > in use the longest, putting durability and repairability at the centre of > environmental benefits. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association European Textile Services Association (ETSA) members already deliver sustainable business models with product-as-a-service models implementing repair, reuse and extended use. Such business models should be empowered and further supported in legislation, hand in hand with recycling. Extending a product’s useful life delivers far greater climate and resource benefits than breaking products down for recycling after short use cycles. It preserves the embedded energy, water and raw materials already invested. However, prioriti z ing longevity does not mean neglecting end-of-life solutions. At the same time, ETSA members are joining forces to invest in a joint recycling pilot project, translating circular ambition into practical industrial solutions. They are developing innovative processes to transform end-of-life textiles into recycled fib er s suitable for insulation materials, industrial wipers and other high-value applications — with the long-term vision of advancing closed-loop systems in which recycled fib er s can increasingly serve as raw materials for new textile production. Recycling requires stable markets and long-term policy certainty, and the sector is actively investing in building both. By developing concrete use cases for recycled content, these initiatives help strengthen European recycling value chains while further reducing dependency on third-country suppliers. > Europe does not need to invent circular solutions from scratch. They already > exist. The priority now is to put in place policies that support circular, > service-based business models. These models are built on durability and > extending product lifespans to get more value from the resources we already > use. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association Textile services are not an emerging concept but a proven, scalable European solution — reducing consumption, anchoring jobs locally, safeguarding public health and lowering emissions. By recogni z ing and supporting service-based reuse models in forthcoming legislation, the EU can accelerate its sustainability ambitions while strengthening competitiveness and strategic autonomy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * The ultimate controlling entity is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * This political advertisement advocates for the recognition and support of circular, service-based business models within forthcoming EU legislation; by addressing the Circular Economy Act, the revision of EU Public Procurement rules, Green Public Procurement requirements and lifecycle costing criteria, it seeks to influence policymakers and the public debate on EU sustainability, industrial policy and procurement frameworks, bringing it within the scope of the TTPA. More information here.

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of ten patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU health and budgetary policy. It calls for sustained EU funding and political commitment to renew and strengthen Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in the upcoming 2028–34 budget cycle, and urges integration of medical nutrition into EU cancer policy frameworks. The article explicitly addresses EU leaders and institutions, advocating policy and funding decisions to close gaps in cancer care across Member States. More information here.

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of 10 patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The ultimate controlling entity is Danone More information here.

Europe enters a more contested decade than any since the end of the Cold War. Yet the frontline shaping its security is no longer limited to land, sea, air or even space.   It runs directly through the digital backbone that powers modern life: the networks, data infrastructures and connectivity systems on which governments, economies and armed forces depend.  But Europe will not be secure until it takes this digital backbone’s security seriously, and governs its openness through risk-based, verifiable sovereignty rather than isolationism or complacency.  >  Europe will not be secure until it takes this digital backbone’s security > seriously, and governs its openness through risk-based, verifiable sovereignty A digital frontline that remains dangerously exposed  Hybrid threats no longer sit at the margins of European security. In reality, they cut straight through its core systems. Hospitals, energy grids, transport networks, financial markets and military command-and-control all rely on constant, resilient connectivity.   Via Vodafone. Joakim Reiter, group chief external and corporate affairs officer, Vodafone. And when those systems falter, nations falter. Recent blackouts in Portugal and Spain revealed what this means in practice. A ‘digital failure’ is not an IT incident. It is a national security event.   Adversaries have already drawn the lesson. Subsea cables carrying 95 percent of the world’s internet traffic face mounting sabotage risks. Satellites have become open theatres of geopolitical competition. And cyberattacks now routinely target both critical national infrastructure and the commercial networks that underpin defense readiness.   Despite this, much of Europe’s digital backbone is still approached as a utility, not a strategic asset. Market forces, on their own, cannot deliver the resilience, redundancy and diversity that modern deterrence requires. Piecemeal upgrades and fragmented responsibilities across civil, military and regulatory silos leave avoidable gaps that adversaries will inevitably exploit.  > A ‘digital failure’ is not an IT incident. It is a national security event.   Europe must therefore elevate secure connectivity to the level of defense preparedness — politically, financially and operationally. It requires moving beyond incrementalism to a coordinated framework that fosters and defends critical digital infrastructure — one that enables governments and operators to plan, train and respond together before, not during, the next crisis.  Sovereignty is about control, not isolation  Connectivity alone is not the issue. Europe’s strategic vulnerability also stems from how it governs the technologies on which its digital backbone depends.  And while digital sovereignty is one pillar of Europe’s wider resilience agenda — spanning critical value chains such as defense, automotive, chemicals and energy — it is the pillar without which none of the others can function.  Europe cannot attain digital sovereignty by continuing excessive dependence on a small number of non-European providers. But it also cannot achieve it by walling itself off from global innovation. Both extremes weaken resilience.  That’s why sovereignty done right means governing openness on Europe’s terms. Europe must keep critical operations in trusted European hands while maintaining access to the scale, performance and innovation that global platforms can provide.   This approach starts with understanding sovereignty across three dimensions:  — Data sovereignty: who has lawful access to information.  — Operational sovereignty: who runs and can intervene in critical systems.  — Technological sovereignty: which capabilities Europe must own or control.  The false choice between ‘ban foreign tech’ and ‘do nothing’ is a trap. The real path forward is risk-based, proportionate and verifiable. We must define what truly requires European control and work with like-minded international partners to build a trusted technology ecosystem. Sovereignty needs to be demonstrated in practice, not merely asserted in policy.  This approach would also enable Europe to pool industrial capacity with trusted partners such as Japan, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and South Korea. This is cooperation that strengthens Europe rather than diluting control.   From principles to verifiable control  Europe should reject blanket bans based on EU borders that raise costs, slow next-generation deployment and fail to deliver true control. Instead, sovereignty must be translated into concrete, auditable mechanisms that strengthen resilience.   To deliver it, Europe should follow four core principles:   1. Harden the backbone: Europe must create a much better business case for investing in resilient fiber, advanced 5G technologies and future networks built with defense-grade security. And it must fortify subsea cables, satellite systems and cross-border infrastructure against hybrid threats. This is defense spending by another name.  2. Engineer sovereignty into operations: ensure Europe retains verifiable control over access to sensitive systems and require European oversight of critical operations. Authorities must be able to verify who operates critical systems, where data is processed and which legal jurisdiction applies.  3. Certify ‘Trusted European Operators’: establish an EU-wide certification enabling European-anchored providers to manage access to global platforms within EU-governed environments. Make interoperability and portability mandatory to prevent lock-in and ensure resilience.  4. End ‘sovereignty washing’: providers claiming sovereign capabilities must prove it. Europe must require auditable disclosures and rigorous, risk-based assessments. If claims cannot be verified, they should not determine Europe’s critical infrastructure decisions.  In parallel, Europe should adopt a single EU framework defining practical levels across the data, operational and technological dimensions. This would give CIOs, regulators and public bodies clarity and consistency.   From doctrine to delivery  As the dust settles on the annual Munich Security Conference, Europe faces a defining choice. It can carry on treating its digital backbone as regulatory plumbing and watch vulnerabilities compound. Or it can recognise this backbone for what it is — a core line of defence.  > The real test of seriousness is whether governments and operators can plan > together, train together and respond together when systems are stressed.  The real test of seriousness is whether governments and operators can plan together, train together and respond together when systems are stressed. And this depends on whether investment, procurement and certification systems finally move at the speed security demands.  The way forward lies neither in dependence nor in fantasies of self-sufficiency. It must be grounded in risk-based sovereignty, delivered through verifiable control, modernized infrastructure and deeper public–private cooperation, aligned with trustworthy allies.  Ultimately, Europe cannot defend what it cannot connect, and it cannot compete if it closes itself off. Europe will fail this critical strategic test if the regulatory agenda for connectivity — the Digital Networks Act, Cybersecurity Act and merger guidelines revisions — does little to strengthen the very networks its security depends on.  If Europe gets this right, it can build a digital backbone capable of deterring adversaries, supporting allies, protecting citizens and powering innovation for decades to come.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Vodafone Group plc * The ultimate controlling entity is Vodafone Group plc * The political advertisement is linked to EU-level security and digital policy with particular focus on the Digital Networks Act, Cybersecurity Act, merger guidelines and broader digital sovereignty strategy. More information here.

BRUSSELS — Slovakia’s opposition is suing Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico over his decision to halt emergency power supplies to Ukraine amid a growing diplomatic spat over a key Russian oil pipeline. The chairman of the center-right Freedom and Solidarity party, Branislav Gröhling, said his party had filed a criminal complaint against Fico, accusing him of abuse of his office, treason, terrorism and the “violation of duties in the management of other people’s property,” according to Slovak newspaper Dennik N. Opposition MP Karol Galek accused Fico of opening up a “new front” against Ukraine on the side of Russia, arguing that cutting off oil flows could endanger Ukrainian civilians and shut down its hospitals. Slovakia has been providing emergency electricity exports to Kyiv to help support its energy sector, which has been crippled by a months-long Russian bombardment. On Monday Bratislava cut off those exports in retaliation for what it claims to be Ukraine’s refusal to resume flows of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline, a major source of oil supplies for both Slovakia and Hungary. Ukrainian authorities insist the pipeline was damaged in a Russian airstrike in late January and is undergoing repairs. The dispute snowballed into a major diplomatic spat after Hungary threatened to block the EU’s new sanctions package against Russia as well as €90 billion in emergency funding. Slovakia has also expressed reservations about the sanctions. Bratislava has separately asked the EU to inspect the pipeline to determine the level of damage.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday said he is going to dispatch a hospital ship to Greenland, the Arctic island Trump has said he wants to acquire. “Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump said in a post on social media alongside an illustration of the U.S. hospital ship the Mercy. Trump appointed Landry as his special envoy to Greenland just before Christmas, as the U.S. president continued his push for control of the self-ruling Danish territory, which he has said is vital for American national security. Trump announced the plan just before hosting a dinner for Republican governors at the White House, where he sat next to Landry.

NATO countries’ restrained response to hybrid attacks is at odds with public opinion, new polling shows: Broad swaths of the public in key allied countries say actions such as cyberattacks on hospitals should be considered acts of war. The POLITICO Poll, conducted in the United States, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, showed a majority of people agreed that a cyberattack that shuts down hospitals or power grids constitutes an act of war. Canadians felt the strongest about the issue, with 73 percent agreeing. Respondents from all five countries also rallied behind the idea that sabotaging undersea cables or energy pipelines — which has occurred more frequently in recent years — should be considered be an act of war. The online survey was conducted from Feb. 6 to 9 by the independent London-based polling company Public First. State-backed hackers — often linked to Russia — have increasingly targeted critical sectors in recent years. But NATO allies are struggling to respond effectively. In 2024, a Russia-based ransomware gang conducted a massive cyberattack on U.S.-based medical bill clearinghouse, Change Healthcare, which exposed sensitive data on more than 190 million people. The U.K.’s National Health Service confirmed last year that a cyberattack on its systems, also committed by a Russian hacking group, contributed to a patient’s death. And in 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation accused Iranian government-backed hackers of attempting to infiltrate the Boston Children’s Hospital computer network. While these actions have not been officially labeled as acts of war, global governments are taking attacks on critical systems more seriously. NATO in 2014 said that a foreign cyberattack could trigger the alliance’s mutual defense clause, Article 5, effectively calling for multilateral action in response to hacks. But a NATO official said in 2022 that it’s unclear how severe a cyberattack would have to be to trigger a response, which could include “diplomatic and economic sanctions, cyber measures or even conventional forces, depending on the nature of the attack.” Security services in Europe have also more firmly called out the Kremlin for orchestrating digital attacks in the West, most recently targeting Poland’s energy infrastructure. But views on Russia as a global threat vary greatly between Europe and North America. A majority of respondents in Germany, France and the U.K. said Russia represents the biggest threat to peace, while fewer in the U.S. (39 percent) and Canada (29 percent) agreed. While the people surveyed in these five countries overwhelmingly considered major cyberattacks by adversaries against public infrastructure as acts of war, they felt less strongly about smaller-scale acts of digital sabotage. Less than half of the respondents across all five countries said that hacking and leaking the private conversations of political leaders should be considered an act of war. Even fewer considered spreading misinformation to influence an election to be an act of war. Still, there is a clear understanding that governments need to incorporate cyber capabilities and AI into their defense strategies. A plurality of respondents from all countries said that cyber, AI and traditional military power all matter equally. At least a third of respondents in each country agreed that cybersecurity and defense against cyber attacks should be among their countries’ highest priorities for defense spending. “Just being resilient alone, you can’t absorb all threats,” Dag Baehr, Vice President of Germany’s federal intelligence service (BND), said at the Munich Cyber Security Conference last week. “You need to be active in defending.” U.S. officials are pushing for more offensive military responses to cyberattacks, particularly following the massive 2024 hack of global telecommunications networks by the China-linked hacking group Salt Typhoon. The White House is due to release a new national cyber strategy in the coming weeks that would encourage the U.S. to be less “reactive” in cyberspace. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross told an audience at the Munich Security Conference last week that a “mindset change” was needed to make it harder for attackers to succeed. In recent months, the Trump administration has become more vocal about using its cyber strength to attack, revealing that U.S. cyber forces helped turn off the lights in Caracas during the January strikes that resulted in the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency were also involved in last year’s U.S. missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and reportedly helped to disable Iranian air defense systems. In Germany, the government is preparing an overhaul of its intelligence and cybersecurity powers to strike back against foreign hackers and spies.