The World Economic Forum in Davos is traditionally seen as a neutral platform for discussing global issues and finding compromises between states, businesses and international institutions. However, in 2026, this format increasingly revealed its limitations. The forum, held under the motto ‘The Spirit of Dialogue,’ reflected the growing geopolitical tensions and deep economic uncertainty in which the very idea of global consensus is becoming increasingly formal.
The structure of the Davos 2026 agenda already showed a shift in focus. Instead of agreed anti-crisis solutions and long-term development strategies, key discussions focused on issues of national security, control over resources, technological sovereignty and the redistribution of economic influence. Davos increasingly resembled a public arena for competing political and economic models rather than a platform for coordinating interests.
The forum was held from 19 to 23 January 2026 in Davos, Switzerland, and brought together more than 60 heads of state and government, dozens of ministers of economy and finance, as well as leaders of major transnational corporations and international organisations. Switzerland, as the host country, tried to maintain the forum’s status as a space for dialogue by actively organising bilateral meetings, but the general tone of the discussions was set by the confrontation between the world’s major power centres.
The delegations from the United States, the European Union and China played key roles. Their statements and reactions set the political and economic tone of the forum. Representatives of global business and the financial sector acted not as experts, but as independent political players shaping narratives about the future of the global economy.
The central event of Davos 2026 was the speech by US President Donald Trump. In his speech, he announced the return of the US to a policy of toughly defending national interests, emphasising that America remains a key guarantor of global security. Particular attention was paid to the Arctic and Greenland, which Trump identified as strategically important territories for the US. Although there was no mention of the direct use of force, the very framing of the issue caused concern among European allies and reinforced doubts about the stability of transatlantic agreements.
The rhetoric of the American president effectively signalled a shift away from a multilateral approach towards a model of power leadership, in which allied commitments are increasingly viewed through the prism of pragmatic benefits. This was one of the most telling signals from the forum, namely that even in Davos, the language of cooperation is giving way to the language of pressure and calculation.
The Chinese delegation used the forum as a platform to defend its own economic and energy strategy. Beijing representatives publicly responded to US criticism of its industrial policy and renewable energy development. These statements demonstrated that economic rivalry between the world’s two largest economies has finally moved beyond backroom negotiations and become part of open political confrontation.
The forum’s economic agenda was permeated by a sense of instability. The slowdown in global growth, fluctuations in financial markets and the risk of new trade wars forced participants to focus primarily on protecting national economies. An open letter from nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires calling for higher taxes on the super-rich was symbolic. For Davos, traditionally associated with the elites of global capital, this step was a sign of an internal crisis in the economic model based on extreme concentration of wealth.
Technology and artificial intelligence occupied a special place in the discussions. Instead of the usual optimism, warnings were heard about the social consequences of the technological leap. Leaders in the financial sector and some politicians pointed to the risk of rising unemployment and increased social stratification if states fail to adapt their education and social protection systems in time. Thus, even technological progress at Davos 2026 was seen more as a source of new risks than as a universal solution to economic problems.
Despite the intensity of the discussions, the practical results of the forum were limited. No significant agreements were reached on key issues, from the resolution of international conflicts to the coordination of economic policy. Discussions on the situation in Ukraine were fragmented and did not lead to the development of new initiatives. This only confirmed that Davos increasingly highlights differences but does not develop ways to overcome them.
Overall, Davos 2026 identified several persistent trends. In politics, strategic nationalism is on the rise and the role of multilateral institutions is weakening. In the economy, there is a growing demand for the redistribution of resources and a review of corporate social responsibility. Technological development is accompanied by fear of its social consequences rather than confidence in its creative power.
The forum showed that the old model of global governance, based on compromise and interdependence, is rapidly becoming obsolete. Under the slogans of dialogue, competition, mistrust and the struggle for control over the future are becoming increasingly apparent. Davos remains an important indicator of global processes, but less and less a mechanism for their coordinated regulation. This is the main conclusion of Davos 2026 and a key signal for global politics and economics in the coming years.