The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos in 2026 unfolded amid unprecedented geopolitical turbulence, marking a critical juncture in global debates over power, legitimacy and order. Held in the Swiss Alps under relentless snowstorms that seemed to echo the disorder of international politics, the forum convened more than 3,000 leaders from government, business and civil society to confront a world increasingly defined by fragmentation, strategic rivalry and eroding trust. Organized around the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue,” the gathering offered a sobering diagnosis of the weakening post–World War II order.
Particular attention was devoted to the growing agency of middle powers, the assertive rise of the Global South and the sharp transatlantic tensions triggered by renewed disputes over Greenland. Across formal panels and informal exchanges, Davos 2026 captured a world in transition, where economic interdependence collides with resurgent nationalism and emerging coalitions begin to challenge the prerogatives of traditional superpowers.
Middle powers emerged as one of the defining narratives of the forum, no longer content to operate on the margins of great-power competition. Countries such as Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, France, Türkiye and Indonesia have framed themselves as pivotal actors navigating what many described as a moment of “global rupture,” in which strategic rivalry has exposed smaller and mid-sized states to coercion, sanctions and economic weaponization. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s keynote address crystallized this sentiment. Rejecting what he termed the “performance of belief” in hollowed-out international norms, Carney urged middle powers to pursue coalitions grounded in legitimacy, resilience and consistency rather than blind faith in multilateral institutions. He noted that trade restrictions now affect more than 30% of global commerce, compelling states to prioritize strategic autonomy over abstract commitments to openness. This argument resonated widely in discussions on sovereignty, supply chain diversification and technological independence, where delegates emphasized pragmatic cooperation and ad hoc alignments as necessary responses to volatility emanating from both Washington and Beijing. In contrast to the optimistic globalization rhetoric of previous Davos meetings, the tone in 2026 was distinctly realist, reflecting a shared recognition that adaptability, not idealism, has become the currency of survival.
Interwoven with these debates was the increasingly confident voice of the Global South, which asserted itself not as a passive beneficiary of reform but as an agenda-setting force. Leaders from Africa, Latin America and South Asia openly challenged the Global North’s record on development financing, climate commitments and institutional reform, arguing that global forums often reproduce narratives of inclusion without dismantling structural inequalities. Discussions on geo-economic fragmentation highlighted concerns that artificial intelligence (AI)–driven productivity gains, coupled with the consolidation of trade blocs, could further entrench disparities between and within nations. India’s positioning as a beneficiary of supply chain diversification, anchored in manufacturing expansion and strategic non-alignment, illustrated the shifting geometry of global economic power. Calls for reformed multilateralism echoed throughout the forum, with demands for greater flexibility in global trade rules and financial governance to preserve predictability amid intensifying geopolitical stress. Beyond rhetoric, these interventions translated into concrete proposals on debt relief, technology transfer, energy security and digital infrastructure, signaling that the Global South is no longer willing to accept peripheral roles in a multipolar order.
Saudi Arabia’s presence at Davos stood out as a particularly striking example of agile middle-power diplomacy. Leading a high-level delegation, the kingdom positioned itself as both an economic powerhouse and a geopolitical broker amid shifting regional and global alignments. Saudi officials engaged prominently in discussions on Middle Eastern realignments, post-conflict reconstruction and economic diversification, promoting an ambitious agenda centered on large-scale investment in AI, infrastructure and new industries. The announcement that Saudi Arabia would host a Global Collaboration and Growth Meeting in Jeddah between April 22 and April 23, 2026 underscored its growing convening power and its ambition to act as a bridge between established powers and rising economies. In parallel, Saudi representatives addressed regional conflicts, including the war in Gaza, advocating for new security architectures that integrate advanced technologies to manage instability while sustaining economic growth. Bilateral meetings with technology firms and sovereign wealth funds further highlighted how the kingdom is leveraging its energy dominance to shape debates on the global energy transition. Saudi Arabia’s efforts to move beyond a “forever war” paradigm while capitalizing on reconstruction and investment opportunities injected a distinctly pragmatic tone into discussions often marked by ideological polarization.
No issue, however, encapsulated the fragility of the current international order more vividly than the transatlantic dispute over Greenland. US President Donald Trump’s renewed threats to acquire the Arctic territory, framed as a strategic imperative linked to energy security, critical minerals and geopolitical dominance, provoked sharp backlash from European leaders and dominated conversations throughout the forum. Widely described as an attempt to treat sovereignty as a transactional asset, the proposal was condemned as a breach of international norms and alliance solidarity. In response to mounting tensions, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sought to contain the fallout by reaffirming, alongside Trump, NATO’s collective commitment to Arctic security and deterrence, emphasizing coordination within the alliance rather than unilateral action. Yet for many European delegates, the episode served as a wake-up call, reinforcing perceptions of US unpredictability and accelerating debates over strategic autonomy, defense consolidation and resilience against coercive diplomacy. While US officials privately downplayed the likelihood of escalation, presenting the rhetoric as leverage rather than a prelude to force, the controversy exposed deeper anxieties about a world in which power increasingly dictates outcomes. These concerns were further amplified by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presence at Davos, where he warned that Russia’s war in Ukraine remained a central test of Western resolve and credibility, linking Arctic tensions and Eastern European security to a broader erosion of constraints on the use of power. Greenland’s strategic resources, critical for both energy transitions, thus became emblematic of a global order in which geopolitics is steadily subordinating economics, forcing states to reassess alliances and assumptions in the Arctic and beyond. Taken together, Davos 2026 emerged as a microcosm of a world at a crossroads. Middle powers are coalescing around strategies of resilience, the Global South is demanding equity and influence, Saudi Arabia exemplifies flexible and assertive diplomacy and transatlantic strains over Greenland highlight the erosion of a once-stable unipolar order. While dialogue remains indispensable, few illusions persisted about a return to harmonious globalization. Instead, managed competition, selective cooperation and power-aware coalitions dominated the mood. Business leaders grappled with AI as a new gatekeeper of global influence, closely tied to access to affordable energy and state support, raising concerns about widening inequalities. At the same time, growing acknowledgment of inequality’s destabilizing effects on capitalism itself opened space for debates on redistribution and reform. As delegates departed the snow-covered Alps, Davos left behind a clear message: in a fractured world, trust will not be rebuilt through ideals alone, but through adaptable, resilient alignments that reflect the raw dynamics of power shaping the 21st century.
