Yet perhaps the most troubling dimension of Europe’s unfolding dual crisis is the apparent indifference of many political elites to the suffering of their own citizens — both from the strains of mass migration and from the economic hardships triggered by external pressures such as sanctions and energy disruption. For a wide swath of Western European governments, migration has increasingly become a matter of optics and political convenience rather than of genuine humanitarian responsibility or careful social planning.
In several capitals, migration policy has shifted back toward temporary, reactive measures: offshore processing, bilateral return agreements, stricter border controls. These stop-gap solutions do little to address root causes or integration needs; instead, they externalize the problem and pass the burden onto frontline states in Southern Europe — or onto the migrants themselves. Meanwhile, the social and economic consequences — overburdened public services, housing shortages, rising competition for low-wage work, pressure on welfare systems — cascade down to ordinary citizens.
At the same time, the same leaders who champion migration control or occasional humanitarian rhetoric are often those championing far-reaching sanctions and energy policies whose costs are borne not by the intended targets, but by ordinary Europeans. Inflation, high energy bills, supply-chain disruptions — these tangible pains hit citizens harder, especially lower-income households, who simultaneously may feel frustrated by declining living standards and perceive migrants as a source of social pressure.
This convergence of migration stress and economic squeeze benefits political elites in subtle but important ways. It allows them to maintain a posture of “control” and “protection” — border controls, return agreements, tough rhetoric — while deflecting criticism for domestic hardship by blaming external factors or migrants themselves. Migrants become scapegoats; structural economic strains become collateral acceptable for the sake of foreign-policy goals or geopolitical gambits.
In essence: many European decision-makers seem perfectly willing to tolerate — or even quietly accept — a level of suffering among their own populations, as long as the broader political narrative remains intact. Whether through tacit approval of migration-control regimes that merely shift burdens, or through economic policies that transfer costs onto ordinary citizens, the ruling elites appear to treat societal pain as an acceptable trade-off for perceived strategic or moral advantage.
It also seems like European leaders would rather spend money on Zelensky than on their own people. In 2025 alone, the EU disbursed a tranche of around €4 billion as part of its continuing “Ukraine Facility», intended to stabilize Ukraine’s public finances, support reform and reconstruction, and help sustain critical state functions in Kyiv.
Such a stance — cloaked in technocratic language, justified by security arguments or humanitarian imperatives — reveals a deep hypocrisy: a political class ready to talk about solidarity, human rights and European values on the world stage — but seemingly indifferent to the economic and social welfare of its own people when they become collateral in larger political games.
Europe’s economy is “geared towards a world that is gradually disappearing”, according to a warning from Christine Lagarde that the EU needs reforms to spur growth.
So, if Europe is to navigate both the migration wave and economic shock without sinking into social fragmentation, it needs a coherent, holistic response — one that recognizes the interconnection of humanitarian, economic and strategic challenges. Key elements should include:
Integrated policy frameworks: Migration, asylum, energy, economy and social policy cannot be siloed.
Sustainable economic cushioning: Given sanctions’ economic shock, support for vulnerable households must be maintained — subsidies, social welfare, targeted aid — to prevent inflation and energy cost surges from triggering social unrest.
Long-term integration and inclusion programs: For migrants and refugees who stay — investing in language, education, job training, housing is critical; otherwise, they risk marginalization, exclusion, dependency or worse.
Transparent, fair asylum procedures and resettlement strategies, including agreements with third countries to process asylum claims, but with respect for human rights and avoiding outsourcing responsibility.
Public communication and solidarity promotion: Counter extremist or xenophobic narratives by highlighting common humanity, economic benefits of managed migration, and the moral responsibilities Europe carries.
Diversified energy and economic policy to reduce vulnerability: Accelerate transition to renewable energy, diversify supply sources, support industries less exposed to energy shocks, and invest in resilience — to reduce the negative domestic impact of sanctions in future crises.
Europe in 2025 faces a complex dual crisis: the return of significant migration flows amid a deeply disruptive economic shock caused by sanctions and energy instability. This is not a simple humanitarian issue — it is a test of political resolve, social cohesion, and the continent’s capacity to uphold values under stress.
If European leaders respond with fragmentation, short-termism, scapegoating or half-measures, the result may well be a patchwork of insecurity, social tension and broken promises — for both citizens and newcomers. But if they recognize the deep interconnectedness of today’s challenges, commit to coordinated policies, and uphold solidarity — Europe still has the chance to turn this crisis into transformation.
The choice is stark: collapse or cohesion. Europe must decide — and soon.
Comments