From obesity to suicide, including violence, self-harm, and certain collective behaviors, scientific research has shown that our behavior is influenced by the people around us. But experts caution: talking about “social contagion” does not mean that a behavior is mechanically transmitted from one person to another.

There are behaviors that seem to spread as if they were a disease. One person begins a certain behavior, and shortly thereafter, others in their circle do something similar. This can happen among a group of friends, at a school, within a community, or—with extraordinary amplifying power—on social media. Because of this, it is difficult to understand how millions of people follow radical ideologies that curtail women’s rights or nullify human rights in countries with a clearly Muslim or communist ideology (Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia, China, etc.).

The term “social contagion” attempts to describe precisely this phenomenon: the possibility that certain ideas, emotions, attitudes, or behaviors spread through social relationships. Hence, the internet—due to its rapid development and integration with new forms of communication—has become a tool that those in power use to manipulate people. The aim is to influence voting behavior, generate consumer trends, create habits, instill new ideas, and so on.

But the word “contagion” can be misleading. There is no psychological virus that automatically spreads from one person to another. What does exist is a complex combination of imitation, learning, peer pressure, identification, social norms, and repeated exposure. All of this creates such a powerful spectrum of manipulation that very few people are able to resist it.

One of the researchers who has contributed most to the study of this phenomenon is Nicholas Christakis, a physician and sociologist at Harvard University, who, together with political scientist James Fowler, has spent years investigating how human social networks can influence behaviors as diverse as obesity, smoking, cooperation, and happiness. Their work suggests that certain phenomena can spread through the existing connections between people like a perfectly woven spider’s web. We all know we’re living within that web, but even though we’re aware of being trapped, we tend to believe that “we’re in control.”

Christakis and Fowler even proposed the existence of what they called a “three-degrees” influence: certain behaviors may be linked to people located even several steps away within a social network. However, the researchers themselves emphasize a fundamental point: demonstrating that two behaviors are correlated within a network does not automatically prove causality. Although, given the penetration of certain social spheres (political, religious, business, etc.) into social media and the mass media, it is becoming increasingly rare to find the limits of the manipulation they exert over us and to discover even small glimpses of personal freedom.

SOCIAL CONTAGION IS NOT A DISEASE. But it disguises itself very well.

The distinction is important.

When we speak of social contagion, we are not claiming that a person loses their ability to make decisions simply because another person has engaged in a certain behavior. The phenomenon is much more complex. A person may observe what another person does, interpret that behavior as acceptable, possible, or even desirable, and subsequently modify their own behavior. A process of normalization can also occur: what initially seemed strange begins to be perceived as commonplace when it is repeated within the group. For example, we may have an unhealthy relationship with a particular political party or religion that constantly commits all sorts of abuses; because these abuses are so common, society—or people within a certain sector—may come to view them as natural. If we add to that—as I mentioned earlier—media control or the use of people with a certain social standing, we have the perfect recipe for deceiving society, because social contagion is deceptive.

The other day, while listening to a talk show in Spain, I saw a Catalan journalist call a woman from Ceuta Garrula as she expressed her astonishment and blamed her nation’s government. Well, the hosts of the show, instead of sending him home—at least for a while—decided to reprimand him as if, deep down, he hadn’t actually done anything serious. That insult, in that context, disparaged the citizen from Ceuta in the presence of the gentleman journalist from a major pro-government newspaper. It demonstrated, on the one hand, “homophobia”; on the other, “sexism”; and on yet another, “classism.” The self versus others—and if those others aren’t on my level, “well, screw them.” Kudos to the journalist and, above all, kudos to the program’s management for not reprimanding that individual aligned with the powers that be as he deserved.

Peer pressure can play a particularly important role during adolescence. The desire to belong to a group, the search for identity, and the need for recognition mean that certain behavioral models have a special capacity to influence. The “id” prevails over the “ego.” And if the “id” is dictated by those in power, “it’s as bad as it gets.”

Social media has added a new dimension to the problem.

In the past, influence was limited primarily by physical proximity. Today, a person can spend hours observing the behaviors, opinions, and emotions of thousands of individuals they do not even know. The screen has turned social exposure into something potentially permanent.

Faced with this influence, the medical establishment is beginning to diagnose “screen addiction” among certain groups, classifying it as a disease so they can profit from it. The only thing that exists is social contagion. The influence of what we’re told on social media is exciting; it alienates and represses us or drives us, and this shapes our relationship with ourselves. If we’re not interested in war, we swipe past it; if we’re not interested in religion, we swipe past it; if we’re not interested in politics, we swipe past it, and so on. This undoubtedly leads us toward a constant danger.

One of the areas where the term “social contagion” has gained the most relevance is that of suicidal behavior.

For decades, researchers have studied the so-called Werther effect, a term used to describe the increase in certain suicidal behaviors following public exposure to a suicide, especially when media coverage presents certain elements that viewers can identify with or turns the event into a spectacle.

By this, I do not mean that such a phenomenon or case should be hidden. Most cases are rushed through on programs that mix celebrity gossip, murder stories, opinions on food, and so on, and are given only a few seconds of airtime; thus, nothing is clarified, and the idea is perpetuated that it is a topic that must be hidden—it becomes a source of shame, when it should be addressed in depth. On one occasion, I participated in a national television program as a field producer, where we addressed the topic of suicide in one of the episodes, bringing to light all kinds of possible causes. Only information can bring about a shift in social contagion. Poor communication, silence, or leaving the information to the whims of social media or AI creates more dangers than benefits.

A recently published systematic review analyzed 25 studies on social media and suicide. Its authors concluded that there is evidence consistent with both a possible Werther effect—of an imitative nature—and the so-called Papageno effect, whereby certain stories can have precisely the opposite effect and promote prevention.

The difference between these two concepts is fundamental. Information that portrays suicide as an inevitable, romantic, or heroic act can increase certain risks. Conversely, showing how a person overcomes a crisis, finds help, or manages to rebuild their life can have a protective effect. Psychiatrist and communication specialist Thomas Niederkrotenthaler of the Medical University of Vienna is one of the leading international researchers on the so-called Papageno effect. His research has examined how stories of hope, recovery, and seeking help can contribute to prevention. An experimental study published in 2025 found precisely such protective effects in social media posts focused on hope, recovery, and overcoming adversity.

THE GROUP CAN ALSO MODIFY BEHAVIOR.

Social contagion is not limited to suicide either. Scientific literature has studied mechanisms of social influence in phenomena as diverse as tobacco use, obesity, certain cooperative behaviors, and even emotional states. The work of Christakis and Fowler is one of the seminal studies in this field.

The explanation can be found in part in something seemingly simple: we constantly observe others to decide what is normal. What do they eat? How do they speak? What do they consider acceptable? How do they react to a situation? What do their friends do? What behaviors are approved of?

The answers to these questions can shape our own decisions. A sociologist might speak of social norms. A psychologist, of observational learning. A network researcher, of social transmission. These are different ways of approaching a phenomenon that shares a common element: we are not completely isolated individuals—hence social contagion.

Another area in which social contagion has been studied is non-suicidal self-injury, especially among adolescents and young adults. A literature review published by Stephanie Jarvi and other researchers examined precisely the social influence on self-injury and identified exposure to similar behaviors as one of the factors that may contribute to its onset and continuation. But once again, a fundamental caveat arises: exposure does not mean causation. Just because a person knows someone who self-harms does not mean they will do so. Individual, family, psychological, and social factors play a role in each case. That is why researchers prefer to speak of risk factors and social influence rather than automatic transmission.

Personal relationships.

The most recent research provides a better understanding of the extent to which personal relationships may play a role.

A meta-analysis published in 2026 in Comprehensive Psychiatry drew on 59 studies and more than one million people. The researchers found that exposure to suicidal thoughts or behaviors within social networks was associated with an increased likelihood of also experiencing suicidal thoughts or behaviors. By sociological extension, this finding can be applied to other topics.

The association was particularly strong when the exposure came from close friends or peers, whereas it did not appear to the same degree when it came simply from acquaintances. The finding is significant because it points to a specific idea: social proximity matters. We are not influenced equally by just anyone. The behavior of someone with whom we have a strong emotional bond can have a different impact than that of a stranger who appears on a screen for a few seconds.

At the same time, the authors point out a key limitation: much of the available research is observational. Therefore, the existence of an association alone does not establish that one person’s behavior caused another’s.

This phenomenon also places a responsibility on journalists and the media. The World Health Organization (for which this writer has little regard) has warned for years that certain ways of reporting on suicides can contribute to a contagion effect, while coverage handled appropriately can have a protective effect. It is not a matter of hiding the facts. It is a matter of deciding how to report them.

The difference may lie in avoiding glorification, not turning the subject into a mythical figure, not presenting suicide as an inevitable solution, and providing information on prevention and seeking help. The so-called Papageno effect demonstrates that the media need not merely amplify risk; they can also become a preventive tool.

An experimental study led by Benedikt Till and Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, among others, found that certain educational news articles on prevention were associated with a reduction in suicidal ideation and an increase in knowledge about prevention among participants.

The big question is what happens when traditional mechanisms of social influence shift to TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X, or any other platform capable of reproducing content thousands or millions of times. A behavior that might once have taken weeks to become known within a community can now go viral in a matter of hours.

But there is also a paradox. The very same social media platforms capable of encouraging certain behaviors can also spread prevention messages, foster supportive communities, and facilitate access to professionals. Research on the Papageno effect on social media points precisely in that direction: stories of hope and recovery can reduce suicidal thoughts and increase the intention to seek help.

CONTAGION OR IMITATION? Scientific research itself has for years questioned exactly what “contagion” means. A systematic review of the concept found that the term is used to describe different mechanisms: transmission, imitation, contextual influence, or affiliation, among others.

Therefore, when a series of similar behaviors emerges, it’s important to ask several questions before speaking of contagion: Was there a common factor present beforehand? Did the people belong to the same group? Was there media exposure? Were there pre-existing vulnerabilities? Did the behavior actually spread, or did several cases simply coincide?

These are essential questions to ensure that a scientific hypothesis is not reduced to a simplistic explanation. Because the true significance of social contagion does not lie in asserting that “one person causes another to do the same”, but rather in understanding to what extent our decisions are shaped by our environment.

Contemporary research is painting an increasingly complex picture of the individual. We are autonomous, but not completely independent. We make personal decisions, but we make them influenced by what or whom (social media, religious, political, social, ethnic, or geographic groups, etc.).

Emotions, opinions, and certain behaviors can circulate among us. Some disappear quickly. Others take root. And some—especially when they affect vulnerable people—can become a public health issue. The great challenge for scientists, educators, and journalists is to distinguish between influence and determinism. Because talking about social contagion does not mean saying that people are puppets of their environment.

It means acknowledging something far more uncomfortable: others influence us far more than we’re usually willing to admit.

And in the age of social media, perhaps the question is no longer just who influences us. The question is how many people might be influencing us simultaneously, without us even being aware of it.

Twin court rulings remove Russia’s only registered anti-war party from September’s ballot and imprison one of its leading voices

A Russian court has sentenced opposition politician Lev Shlosberg to more than 11 years in prison, while the country’s Supreme Court has upheld the exclusion of his Yabloko party from September’s parliamentary election. Together, the rulings sharply reduce the remaining space for organised, peaceful opposition to the war in Ukraine and leave Russian voters without a registered party openly campaigning for a ceasefire.

An anti-war politician sent to a penal colony

The court in Pskov sentenced Shlosberg, 63, to 11 years and one month in a penal colony after convicting him of repeatedly “discrediting” the Russian armed forces and spreading what authorities classified as false information about the military.

The charges concerned his public opposition to the invasion of Ukraine. They included a debate in which he called for the war to end and a social media post featuring a foreign newspaper front page that attributed responsibility for Ukrainian civilian suffering to President Vladimir Putin.

Shlosberg, a deputy chairman of Yabloko and former member of the Pskov regional legislature, rejected the accusations. His lawyers argued that the conduct described by prosecutors did not constitute a recognisable crime and challenged the chronology, evidence and handling of the proceedings.

The defence also maintained that one disputed publication predated the criminal provision used against it. During the trial, Shlosberg and his lawyers raised objections concerning witnesses, expert evidence and procedural fairness, according to Yabloko’s account of the hearings.

Shlosberg had been in custody since December 2025. In his final statement, he said Russia had travelled from hopes for freedom towards the near destruction of civil and political rights. Yabloko said it would appeal the sentence.

Yabloko removed from the ballot

The prison term was handed down on the same day that Russia’s Supreme Court rejected Yabloko’s appeal against its exclusion from the State Duma election scheduled for 18-20 September.

The case seeking the party’s removal was brought by Rodina, a nationalist party supportive of the Kremlin. The allegations included campaign spending violations and copyright infringement. Yabloko denied the claims and argued that comparable questions over donations to other parties had not resulted in their removal.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that Yabloko’s name and party list are to be removed from ballot papers. The party said it would seek a further review by the Supreme Court’s presidium and could also approach the Constitutional Court.

The two cases are legally separate. One concerns criminal accusations against an individual politician; the other concerns electoral rules applied to a political party. Their combined political effect, however, is difficult to separate: a senior anti-war voice has been imprisoned and the organisation through which that position could reach voters has been excluded from the national contest.

Criminal law and peaceful expression

Russia introduced broad restrictions on reporting and public statements about its armed forces shortly after launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The legislation provides for lengthy prison sentences when authorities determine that information about military conduct is false or that a statement has discredited the armed forces.

Russian officials present these measures as protection against misinformation during an armed conflict. Human rights organisations argue that vague definitions and severe penalties allow the state to treat peaceful criticism, independent reporting and calls for peace as criminal activity.

That concern extends beyond Shlosberg’s case. United Nations human rights experts previously warned that the “discrediting” provisions were designed to silence critical expression about the war and were further shrinking Russia’s civic space.

Amnesty International described Shlosberg’s prosecution and sentence as reprisals for exercising freedom of expression. The organisation called for his release, the cancellation of his conviction and the repeal of laws criminalising peaceful anti-war speech.

An election without an organised peace platform

Yabloko has not been a dominant force in recent Russian elections. It has nevertheless retained significance as the only officially registered party openly advocating an end to the invasion. Its exclusion therefore removes a distinct policy position from the ballot rather than merely reducing competition between parties offering similar programmes.

Supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court while the appeal was considered, and Russian media reported that several dozen people were detained. Yabloko chairman Nikolai Rybakov said the party would continue pursuing legal remedies and campaigning for peace and political freedom.

The rulings come one month before an election already taking place in an environment where independent media, civil society organisations and opposition figures face extensive legal and administrative pressure. Several prominent critics of the Kremlin are imprisoned, in exile or prohibited from standing.

As the sentence and ballot decision draw international scrutiny, the central question is not whether Yabloko could have won substantial parliamentary power. It is whether Russian citizens are being allowed a meaningful opportunity to support an alternative to the war through lawful political participation.

Imprisoning a politician for advocating peace and excluding his party from an election send a wider message to candidates, activists and ordinary voters. The immediate consequences fall on Shlosberg and Yabloko. The longer-term cost is borne by a political system in which the boundaries of permissible debate continue to narrow.

The case of Konstantin Rudnev has returned to Geneva, carried once more by NGOs that refuse to let the story fade into bureaucratic silence. Two NGOs in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), CAP-LC and CADD, have filed a new written statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council, and its arrival adds another chapter to a saga that has already revealed more about Argentina’s judicial machinery than many official reports. The text warns that something in the system is shifting in ways that deserve attention.

The document begins by reminding readers that Rudnev is still recovering from surgery. It notes that medical prescriptions demand “continuous assistance” and that his condition remains fragile. It stresses that sending him back to prison would expose him to risks that authorities cannot ignore. These lines are stark. They describe a man whose health is central to the case. They also describe a moment when the judiciary should act with restraint.

Instead, the NGOs report that the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation has decided to examine a prosecutorial complaint against the ruling that placed Rudnev under house arrest. The complaint was granted. According to the statement, this move does not align with the structure of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. The CPPF assigns decisions taken during the preliminary investigation stage to judges with review functions. It “exclude[s] them from the jurisdiction of the Cassation Court.” The NGOs say this distribution of roles was designed to prevent procedural escalation and preserve the presumption of innocence; when cassation review enters a space the code reserves for other judges, the entire architecture is affected.

The appeal filed by Rudnev’s lawyer, as summarized in the statement, describes how the complaint was declared admissible despite lacking a legal basis. It argues that the intervention conflicts with Supreme Court jurisprudence on coercive measures and with international law. It adds that the ruling offers inadequate reasoning and fails to respect constitutional and conventional guarantees. The NGOs present this as a matter of legality, not opinion. They insist that procedural limits exist to protect defendants from unpredictable expansions of judicial power.

The NGOs also point to a pattern involving Prosecutor Fernando Arrigo. They write that he indicates to judges “how the Criminal Code should be read.” They add that he suggests how its limits may be set aside. The problem is not exclusive to Konstantin Rudnev’s case. Unfortunately, Prosecutor Arrigo treats other cases with the same disregard for defendants’ rights and a cavalier use of evidence. Clearly, in Argentina today, there is not only a Rudnev case. There is an Arrigo case, and it has now reached the United Nations.

The statement asks the Argentine authorities to take the situation seriously. It asks that the CPPF be applied according to its own terms. It asks that jurisdictional boundaries be respected. It asks that appeals not authorized by the code be avoided. It asks that decisions fully account for Rudnev’s medical condition. It asks that further injustice must be prevented.

The NGOs have placed before the Human Rights Council a description of a system in which review mechanisms may be expanding beyond their intended scope. They have also placed before the Council the image of an obsessive prosecutor and a defendant whose health cannot sustain another period of incarceration. These two elements form a picture that demands attention.

“The European Times” has followed this story for months. The new statement confirms that the case is not only about one man’s fate. It is about how procedural safeguards operate under pressure, the relationship between domestic law and Argentina’s international commitments, and the institutions’ responsibility to act within the limits set by legislation. The filing in Geneva reminds us that these limits matter. It also reminds us that protecting human rights depends on consistent application of the law—and on keeping rogue prosecutors in check.

Four suspects detained after blazes were allegedly started across ten locations

Croatian police have detained four people suspected of deliberately starting fires at ten locations across Zadar County, in a case that has raised urgent questions about public safety while prosecutors consider the appropriate charges. Authorities say the fires were coordinated, but they have stressed that the final legal classification remains open.

Fires reported across Zadar County

The Zadar Police Administration said the suspects are three Croatian citizens, aged 46, 45 and 42, and a 33-year-old Polish citizen. Officers arrested them shortly after 20:00 on 15 August following a report that people were starting a fire beside a road in the wider Benkovac area.

According to the official police account, investigators suspect the four acted under a prior plan and mutual agreement on 14 and 15 August. Fires were allegedly started using an open flame or combustible material ignited with a lighter.

The affected locations include Zadar’s Bili Brig district and areas around Zemunik Donji, Galovac, Donje Biljane, Zapužane, Zemunik, Zagrad, Lišane Tinjske, Škabrnja and Benkovac.

Initial inspections found that a parked car was destroyed at Bili Brig. Forty-three olive trees were also lost in a grove between Škabrnja and Zemunik Donji. Firefighters extinguished the blazes with assistance from aerial units, while the full extent of the damage is still being assessed.

A civilian report triggered the arrests

The arrests underline the importance of early public reporting during periods of extreme fire risk. Police said a civilian alert allowed officers to identify a vehicle with Zadar registration plates and locate the four occupants quickly.

Investigators subsequently searched homes, other premises and vehicles under a court warrant. Police reported seizing a semi-automatic rifle and 44 rounds of ammunition from one suspect, and a pistol and several mobile devices from another. The discovery of weapons forms part of the continuing inquiry; it does not, by itself, establish the motive behind the fires.

All four suspects have been transferred to a police custody supervisor. A criminal complaint has been submitted to the municipal prosecutor’s office in Zadar.

Legal classification remains open

Croatia’s chief state prosecutor, Ivan Turudić, said investigators had not excluded terrorism as a possible classification but needed to establish motive and the full circumstances first. His comments, reported in Croatian media coverage of the investigation, stopped short of describing the suspects as terrorists.

That distinction is legally and journalistically important. Police have alleged coordinated conduct intended to endanger lives and valuable property, but no court has determined guilt. Whether the available evidence supports charges of causing a dangerous fire, terrorism or another offence will depend on proof of intent and motive.

Authorities are also investigating other recent fires in Croatia, including the destructive blaze near Omiš. Nothing in the Zadar police statement establishes that the four suspects detained in this case were connected to that separate fire. The incidents should not be merged without evidence.

Speculation risks inflaming old divisions

The case has prompted intense online discussion about the suspects’ backgrounds and possible political motives. The police statement identifies citizenship but does not attribute an ethnic, nationalist or geopolitical motive.

Unsupported claims risk turning a criminal investigation into a collective accusation against entire communities. Croatia and neighbouring Serbia continue to live with the social consequences of the wars of the 1990s, making precision especially important when identity enters public debate.

Accountability should remain individual and evidence-based. The suspects are entitled to due process, while residents, landowners and emergency workers are entitled to a thorough investigation into conduct that allegedly placed lives, homes and livelihoods at risk.

Fire damage reaches beyond burned land

The loss of olive trees illustrates the long aftermath of even relatively contained fires. Mature groves represent years of work, family income and local heritage. Destroyed vehicles, damaged land and the deployment of aircraft also impose costs that may continue long after the flames are extinguished.

The wider European wildfire season has already shown how repeated emergencies can stretch local crews and aerial resources. As earlier European Times reporting on wildfire preparedness noted, emergency capacity is increasingly being shared across borders while prevention systems struggle to keep pace with hotter and drier conditions.

Deliberately starting a fire under such conditions can transform a small ignition point into a threat to settlements, farms and emergency personnel within minutes. That makes rapid reporting, careful evidence collection and credible prosecution central to public safety.

The immediate investigation will determine what happened at the ten locations and whether further offences or participants were involved. Until that work is complete, the responsible course is to distinguish confirmed evidence from allegation, and individual responsibility from politically charged speculation.

Second-quarter figures reveal mounting pressure on firms, alongside sharp differences between sectors

Business bankruptcy declarations increased across the European Union in the second quarter of 2026, while registrations of new legal entities edged lower. The figures point to a more difficult operating environment for many firms, but strong growth in information and communications registrations shows that the pressure is neither uniform nor evidence of an economy-wide retreat from entrepreneurship.

Seasonally adjusted bankruptcy declarations rose by 5.7% compared with the first quarter, according to figures published by Eurostat on Monday. Business registrations declined by 0.5% over the same period.

The divergence matters because it combines two different signals: more firms entering formal insolvency procedures and slightly fewer legal entities being registered. Neither measure captures the full health of Europe’s business economy, but together they suggest that accumulated financing, cost and profitability pressures are becoming harder for some companies to absorb.

A widening sector divide

Registrations fell in five of the eight sectors covered by Eurostat. Industry recorded the largest decline, at 3.6%, followed by accommodation and food services at 3.4% and education and social activities at 3.2%.

Information and communications moved decisively in the opposite direction. Registrations in the sector increased by 8.8%, while construction recorded a more modest rise of 1%. Financial-services registrations were unchanged.

The bankruptcy figures revealed a different pattern. Declarations increased in five sectors, led by a 21.1% rise in education and social activities. Transport recorded an 11.4% increase, while financial services were up 6.8%.

Bankruptcies declined in accommodation and food services, construction and trade. That contrast cautions against treating the EU-wide increase as a single, uniform crisis. Different sectors are confronting different combinations of demand, labour, energy, financing and investment pressures.

A warning, not a verdict

Eurostat’s definitions require care. A registration records the entry of a legal unit in an official register; it does not necessarily mean that a business has begun trading, hired workers or generated revenue. A bankruptcy declaration records the start of a court procedure, which may be provisional and does not always result in the immediate closure of the company.

National insolvency systems also differ. The figures are harmonised as index data to improve comparability, but they should not be read as a direct count of jobs lost or businesses permanently disappearing.

Even with those qualifications, the latest movement is consistent with other signs of corporate strain. In its second-quarter survey of euro-area enterprises, the European Central Bank found a further net tightening of bank-loan interest rates and other lending conditions. Firms reported stronger turnover overall but continued deterioration in profits.

These pressures tend to fall unevenly. Smaller firms generally have less cash, weaker bargaining power with suppliers and landlords, and fewer financing options than larger companies. A viable enterprise can therefore encounter serious difficulty when reduced margins coincide with stricter collateral requirements or a loan refinancing deadline.

The consequences reach beyond balance sheets

A bankruptcy is a legal and financial event, but its effects are social. Employees can lose wages or work, suppliers may be left with unpaid invoices, and communities can lose essential services. The particularly sharp increase in education and social activities deserves closer national examination because the category includes services that may be closely connected to children, families, older people and people requiring care.

Policy responses should therefore distinguish between businesses that are no longer viable and firms experiencing temporary but recoverable distress. Early restructuring advice, faster payment of commercial debts and access to proportionate financing can help prevent avoidable closures without preserving unsustainable companies indefinitely.

Recent initiatives have attempted to widen those financing channels. A European Investment Bank-backed agreement in Spain, for example, is intended to unlock €1.43 billion for small businesses and mid-sized companies, including targeted support for women entrepreneurs and green investment.

Such programmes cannot resolve weak demand or make every business sustainable. They can, however, reduce the risk that otherwise productive firms fail solely because affordable credit has become inaccessible.

The second-quarter figures do not establish that Europe is entering a generalised insolvency crisis. They do show that aggregate stability can conceal widening pressure beneath the surface. The next releases will indicate whether the increase was a temporary movement or part of a more persistent deterioration. In the meantime, sector-level scrutiny will be more useful than broad claims of either resilience or collapse.

The decision delays Spain’s nuclear phase-out and reopens questions over energy security, waste and transition planning

Spain has authorised both reactors at the Almaraz nuclear power plant to operate until 8 June 2030, replacing closure dates previously set for 2027 and 2028. The plant-specific extension offers the electricity system more low-carbon generation during a period of international energy uncertainty, but it also exposes political divisions over nuclear safety, radioactive waste and the credibility of Spain’s transition timetable.

What the decision changes

The Ministry for the Ecological Transition has renewed the operating authorisation for the two Almaraz reactors in Cáceres until a common date in June 2030.

Under the previous authorisation, Unit I was due to stop operating on 1 November 2027 and Unit II on 31 October 2028. The extension therefore postpones the beginning of Spain’s planned sequence of nuclear closures by more than two years.

The plant’s owners, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy, formally requested the change in October 2025. They argued that Almaraz remained technically capable of operating and continued to make a substantial contribution to the national electricity system.

According to the operator, the two reactors supplied around 7% of Spain’s annual electricity demand in 2025, equivalent to the consumption attributed to approximately four million households. That figure illustrates why the decision has consequences beyond Extremadura, even though the plant’s local economic importance remains particularly pronounced.

Energy security shifts the balance

The government has presented the extension as a limited response to changed energy conditions rather than a repudiation of renewable power. International fuel disruption, higher gas-market risks and uncertainty over the speed at which grids, storage and replacement generation can be deployed have altered the assumptions behind the earlier closure schedule.

Keeping Almaraz online provides continuous low-carbon electricity while Spain expands solar and wind generation. It may also reduce the amount of gas-fired power required when renewable production is low, although the effect on prices will depend on demand, interconnection capacity and wider wholesale-market conditions.

These pressures are not unique to Spain. As The European Times previously reported, energy insecurity has returned nuclear power to the centre of European arguments about industrial competitiveness, imported fossil fuels and strategic autonomy.

That debate cannot be reduced to a choice between nuclear and renewables. Europe’s electricity systems increasingly require several investments at once: renewable generation, stronger networks, storage, demand flexibility and sufficient dependable capacity for periods when weather-dependent output falls.

One plant, not yet a new national calendar

Madrid maintains that the Almaraz decision is exceptional and does not automatically revise the full schedule under which Spain’s remaining reactors are expected to close progressively by 2035.

That distinction matters. Extending one plant after a regulatory assessment is different from replacing the national phase-out strategy. Nevertheless, other operators, business organisations and regional authorities are likely to cite Almaraz when arguing for additional extensions at Ascó, Cofrentes, Vandellós II and Trillo.

The decision has also strained Spain’s coalition government. Sumar has rejected the extension as a departure from the coalition’s environmental commitments, while nuclear supporters contend that the government should go further and reconsider the entire timetable.

A transition plan can be changed when its underlying conditions change. But public trust requires the government to explain which measurable conditions justified the revision, why 2030 was selected and how future requests will be judged. Without clear criteria, an exceptional decision can gradually become policy through repetition rather than transparent debate.

Safety and waste remain central

The extension followed a favourable but conditional assessment by Spain’s Nuclear Safety Council. The regulator concluded that the installation could continue operating to the requested date subject to safety requirements and continuing oversight.

Regulatory approval does not end scrutiny. Almaraz began commercial operation in the early 1980s, making ageing management, maintenance investment, emergency preparedness and worker protection essential throughout the additional operating period.

Environmental organisation Adenex has announced that it intends to challenge the extension in court. Its objections include the effect on renewable deployment and the long-term burden created by spent nuclear fuel.

The government says the extension will not overwhelm Enresa, the public company responsible for radioactive-waste management and decommissioning. It argues that storage and dismantling plans can be adjusted to accommodate the revised date.

That assurance will require detailed, publicly accessible planning. Extending generation also produces additional spent fuel, while postponing one closure may cause more decommissioning projects to overlap later. Costs, storage capacity and responsibility for delays should remain visible to taxpayers and affected communities.

A longer transition for Almaraz

For communities around the plant, the extension protects employment and municipal income in the immediate future. It also gives authorities additional time to develop replacement industries, public services and renewable-energy projects before decommissioning begins.

That time should not be mistaken for a permanent solution. A credible just transition requires investment before major employers close, not emergency assistance after jobs disappear. The new 2030 date provides an opportunity to strengthen economic diversification in the Campo Arañuelo area, but only if national and regional authorities use it deliberately.

Spain has bought additional time for its electricity system and for one nuclear-dependent region. It has not resolved the larger argument about the place of nuclear power in the country’s low-carbon future. The durability of the decision will depend on rigorous safety oversight, transparent waste planning and evidence that the extra years are being used to build a more resilient energy system rather than merely postpone difficult choices.