analysis

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 28 (UPI) — Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for May and widely seen as a new test for the country’s main political players, remain in limbo amid uncertainty over whether they will be held on time or postponed – and whether they will bring about any meaningful change.

While it will be the first election since Iran-backed Hezbollah was significantly weakened during the recent war with Israel, it is unlikely to alter the current balance of power.

Officially, Lebanon says it is ready to proceed on schedule. Most political parties have publicly committed to the vote, with the number of declared candidates for the 128-member parliament rising to 44 as of Friday.

However, as with many other issues in the country, Lebanese are divided over the electoral law and proposed changes concerning expatriate voting and the establishment of mega-centers allowing voters to cast ballots outside their home districts.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Hezbollah’s main ally and leader of the Shiite Amal Movement, has refused to bring the proposed amendments put forward by his and Hezbollah’s political opponents to a vote.

The current law is largely inapplicable and requires one or two amendments — specifically, whether to allow or bar Lebanese expatriates from voting in embassies abroad for all 128 parliamentary candidates instead of just six — before it can be fully implemented, according to elections expert Nazih Darwish.

“In any case, it would require a parliamentary vote and cannot be implemented automatically,” Darwish told UPI.

The dispute over diaspora voting essentially revolves around equal political rights and the strategic calculations of political parties aiming to protect or increase their leverage.

Delaying the elections by a few months or postponing them for one or two years has emerged as a likely scenario, with each party trying to safeguard or extend its power.

At the heart of the matter is Hezbollah’s reduced influence, both militarily and politically.

If the delay is purely technical — such as moving the elections from May to July — it would not significantly affect the outcome, with one key exception: More members of the diaspora could participate, as many spend the summer in Lebanon, according to Karim Bitar, a lecturer at Saint Joseph University of Beirut and Sciences Po Paris.

Hezbollah, Bitar said, argues that diaspora voting could tilt the balance against it, as it cannot campaign effectively in many European and Western countries, where it is designated a terrorist organization and large Lebanese expatriate communities reside.

“Hezbollah remains a significant force. Even though it was severely weakened militarily, strong support for Amal and Hezbollah persists among their constituencies,” Bitar told UPI. “Supporters feel they must stick together and continue voting for the two parties to prevent rivals from exploiting their political and military setbacks.”

Although many of Hezbollah’s supporters acknowledge that the group was defeated in the war and should admit it, they still pledged to vote for its candidates.

“That’s because no serious political alternatives have emerged so far for Lebanon’s Shiite community,” David Wood, a senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told UPI.

The challenge is that while Hezbollah retains significant backing, not all Shiites in Lebanon support the group, and the existing Shiite opposition lacks a popular base and relies on backing from other groups.

Darwish argued that the balance of power in the country would remain unchanged as long as Hezbollah — which might lose at most two seats if the elections proceed as scheduled — is not fully disarmed.

“That could change if Hezbollah were to relinquish its weapons completely, but not before four to five years, when a genuine Shiite opposition is likely to emerge and succeed in convincing the Shiite base,” he said.

Postponing the elections would thus benefit the country’s main parties: Hezbollah would maintain its current parliamentary representation, while its opponents could wait for regional developments to shift further against Hezbollah and hasten its full disarmament.

“So, the logic would be that a postponement would actually suit Hezbollah’s opponents, because the group’s situation — both inside Lebanon and in the region — will only get weaker.” Wood noted.

What could accelerate the process is either the conflict between the United States and Iran — Hezbollah’s patron — or a deal affecting Iran’s proxies and regional role.

Other political parties, notably the Christian Lebanese Forces — Hezbollah’s main rival — were gearing up for the elections.

Jade Dimien, the Lebanese Forces deputy secretary-general in charge of elections, said the vote could bring change, provided the Lebanese people want it and are ready to make it happen.

Dimien said this year’s general elections would be shaped by major events of the past three years, including the Israel-Hezbollah war, the election of a new president, the government’s firm stance on Hezbollah’s disarmament and the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime.

“There will be some big changes, but whether they will cause a major shift in the balance of power now, I don’t know,” he told UPI, noting the accelerated developments in the region and fearing “compromises” at the expense of Lebanon.

Separately, campaign financing emerges as another major challenge, with some parties favoring wealthy businessmen who can fund their own campaigns amid limited foreign funding.

While not new in Lebanese parliamentary elections, especially after the 1975-90 civil war, such financing has become increasingly visible today, fueled by the 2019 financial collapse.

“Foreign funding has been reduced … even Iran might not be willing under its current conditions to spend as much money supporting Hezbollah,” Bitar said.

The fear remains that wealthy candidates could buy their way into parliament — by paying for votes or providing clientelist services — thereby boosting the seat count of the most powerful parties.

Bitar warned of an even more alarming issue concerning the redistribution of losses following the collapse of the financial system in 2019.

“Major bank shareholders are trying to sway the vote by electing MPs who could block any IMF deal requiring them to cover their share of the losses,” he said.

Match of the Day pundit Wayne Rooney believes Tammy Abraham’s arrival at Aston Villa could be key to Ollie Watkins rediscovering his form, as the pressure of competition for his place in the starting line-up is something “he has to respond to”.

WATCH: Late Abraham goal rescues point for Villa against Leeds

READ: Abraham equaliser earns draw for Villa against Leeds

Available to UK users only.

BBC Sport pundit Leon Osman says he can see Anthony Gordon scoring more goals in the Champions League if Newcastle United continue to play him up front with Nick Woltemade in behind, after the Englishman scored four goals in his side’s 6-1 win over Qarabag in the knockout round play-offs.

MATCH REPORT: Qarabag 1-6 Newcastle United

Feb. 18 (UPI) — An analysis by Climate Central found that the world’s five largest coffee-producing countries, which account for 75% of global supply, are experiencing an average of 57 additional days of extreme heat per year due to climate change.

Its researchers found that heat threatens coffee harvests and coincides with recent record highs in prices.

Climate Central, based in Princeton, N.J., is an independent group of scientists and communicators who research and report the facts about climate change and how it affects people’s lives.

The analysis, released Wednesday, examined daily temperatures between 2021 and 2025 in 25 countries that represent 97% of global production. The report concluded that all of them recorded more days of harmful heat as a result of environmental warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

The two main varieties that supply the global market are arabica and robusta.

Arabica accounts for between 60% and 70% of global supply and is grown mainly in mountainous regions of Latin America and Africa, where moderate temperatures have historically prevailed.

Robusta, which is more heat-tolerant but has a stronger flavor, is produced largely in Southeast Asian countriesm such as Vietnam and Indonesia.

Coffee is cultivated in a tropical belt stretching across Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, where it requires specific temperature ranges and consistent rainfall.

Temperatures above 86 degrees F are considered extremely harmful for arabica and suboptimal for robusta, as they reduce yields and can affect bean quality.

The analysis was published after a period in which the planet recorded the warmest years since modern measurements began, with episodes of extreme heat in Latin America.

According to Climate Central, this warming increased the frequency of days exceeding the critical 86-degree threshold in coffee-growing regions.

Brazil, the world’s largest producer and responsible for nearly 37% of global supply, experienced an average of 70 additional days per year with temperatures above 86 degrees. In Minas Gerais, its main coffee-producing state, 67 of these extra days were recorded.

Colombia, the world’s third-largest producer and one of the leading exporters of arabica coffee, recorded 48 additional days per year above the critical threshold. The increase threatens productivity and bean quality, the foundation of its international competitiveness.

Some of the sharpest increases were observed in Central America. El Salvador recorded 99 additional days of extreme heat per year and Nicaragua 77, according to the report.

“Nearly all major producing countries are now experiencing more days of extreme heat that can damage plants, reduce yields and affect quality,” said Kristina Dahl, vice president for science at Climate Central.

“Over time, these impacts can extend from farms to consumers, directly affecting the quality and cost of their daily coffee.”

According to the World Bank, its beverage price index rose 58% in 2024 and in December remained approximately 91% higher than a year earlier, driven by increases in coffee and cocoa amid supply concerns.

In December, the price of arabica coffee rose 13% compared with the previous month and more than 60% year over year, while robusta more than doubled compared with the same period the previous year.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 18 (UPI) — The United States is tightening the noose on Iran-backed Hezbollah, stepping up pressure with new sanctions aimed at cutting it off from the global financial system and hindering its efforts to regroup and secure new funding sources.

Severely weakened by the recent war with Israel, the group is seeking to recover after losing much of its military capacity, senior leadership and key funding channels that once enabled it to become a powerful regional actor.

With the loss of Syria as its primary supply corridor from Iran after the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and of Venezuela as a suspected financial safe haven amid allegations of drug trafficking and money‑laundering operations, Hezbollah’s financial strains have emerged as one of its most pressing challenges.

Gone are the days when Hezbollah could generously support its popular base, paying reconstruction grants, salaries and stipends that helped it secure loyalty and maintain influence.

Today, the group is increasingly forced to prioritize its financial obligations, redirecting scarce resources to maintain core operations.

Limiting housing allowances or delaying payments to villagers whose homes were destroyed or damaged during the recent war in southern and eastern Lebanon, as well as Beirut’s southern suburbs, illustrates Hezbollah’s growing inability to meet its regular financial obligations.

Its efforts to secure funds, generate revenue and evade international sanctions were again targeted by the U.S. Treasury Department, which last week sanctioned Jood SARL, a Lebanon-based company linked to the group’s gold trading network.

The firm is accused of creating a chain of businesses to trade gold within Lebanon and potentially abroad, converting Hezbollah’s gold reserves into liquid funds.

The sanctions also extend to an Iran-based shipping network with connections involving Turkey and a Russian national based in Moscow, underscoring the global reach of Hezbollah’s revenue-generating activities.

According to Mohammad Fheili, a risk strategist and monetary economist, the U.S. Treasury is attempting to “pollute the ecosystem” Hezbollah uses to convert assets into operational cash.

“The immediate effect is less about ‘zeroing funding’ and more about raising the friction cost of money,” Fheili told UPI, explaining that the sanctions increase counterparty caution among dealers, shippers and intermediaries, and can effectively freeze access to “clean” trade channels.

He pointed out that procurement then becomes slower and more expensive. When networks are exposed, replacement channels tend to be costlier, involving more intermediaries, greater leakage and a higher risk of interception.

“Even when Hezbollah can move value through cash-heavy channels, everyone around it — licensed exchange houses, logistics firms and commodity traders — faces higher compliance and reputational risks,” Fheili said. “This, in turn, shrinks the pool of ‘willing’ facilitators.”

Some Lebanese businessmen, who have long acted as Hezbollah’s facilitators both in the country and across the diaspora, are reportedly becoming more cautious, fearing they could be targeted by U.S. sanctions and face civil or criminal penalties.

Ali Al-Amin, who runs the “Janoubia” website from southern Lebanon, which focuses on the Shiite community and Hezbollah, said those businessmen were initially drawn to Hezbollah’s rising power — not its ideology — for financial gain.

Al-Amin said that some people, particularly those with established operations in African countries, worry they could face pressure or become targets of the new financial restrictions on Hezbollah in the coming phase.

“They are distancing themselves and keeping away from Hezbollah to protect themselves,” he told UPI. “Being close to the group has become more costly than rewarding.”

He contended, however, that if the Americans had wanted to put Hezbollah — which he said has long enjoyed freedom of movement in Europe and Africa — in check, they could have done so a long time ago.

“It gave facilitators the impression that they had some kind of cover, even internationally,” he said.

Although Hezbollah has long been under U.S. and international sanctions as a designated terrorist organization, U.S. Treasury officials say the group has managed to evade many of these restrictions by maintaining a complex global financial network and using front companies to launder funds.

At the height of the Hezbollah-Israel war, Lebanon tightened security at Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport and indefinitely suspended flights to and from Iran to prevent Israeli strikes on the country’s main air and sea gateways, which Israel claimed were being used to smuggle funds and weapons to Hezbollah.

Rigorous security checks have been implemented at the airport, with stricter inspections on flights from Iraq and other designated destinations and thorough screenings of passengers and baggage. Even diplomatic pouches carried by visiting Iranian officials were denied clearance.

The measures forced Hezbollah to seek new smuggling methods, including passengers or pilgrims to Iraq’s holy sites in Najaf and Karbala carrying back cash money , or concealing funds in parcels from various countries.

Even if some of these attempts were successful, the smuggled funds remain limited and insufficient to meet Hezbollah’s actual needs, according to al-Amin, who said the group has “100,000 salaries to pay every month” and has shifted to dealing in gold and digital currencies.

He said that although Hezbollah’s followers are “worried and cautious,” they still view the group as a safety net, capable of leveraging its power and influence within public institutions “to secure government compensation, a hospital bed, or a school seat.”

“But the Shiites [in Lebanon] also realized that Hezbollah led them into disaster, leaving them without allies in Syria, Lebanon, or the wider world,” al-Amin said.

In a surprise move early this month, Kuwait placed eight Lebanese hospitals on its terrorism sanctions list, citing suspected involvement in or facilitation of terrorism — a move aimed at Hezbollah.

“This is significant because it extends ‘pressure targeting’ from financiers and front companies to service institutions such as healthcare, which are socially sensitive and politically symbolic,” Fheili said.

To confront the challenges stemming from the Israeli war, Hezbollah’s new leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, has embarked on what appears to be a comprehensive restructuring of the group, sidelining some figures, promoting others and dissolving or merging units.

The resignation of Wafic Safa, head of the Liaison and Coordination Unit — a post that allowed him significant influence and interference over security, political and judicial authorities — was a clear sign of structural change within Hezbollah.

Safa, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt during the war, will be reassigned as part of the group’s internal restructuring that began after the cease-fire agreement, according to Kassem Kassir, a political analyst who specializes in Islamic movements and is close to Hezbollah.

With Safa gone, reports suggest that merging the group’s security units under a central authority has limited its dealings with the Lebanese state to political intermediaries.

Kassir said a new media unit, consolidating all the party’s outlets, has been set up under Ibrahim Mousawi, a Hezbollah deputy in parliament. Former minister and MP Mohammad Fneish was appointed to oversee political relations and preparations for the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for May.

“Hezbollah is preparing more measures for the post-war phase to showcase its stability and evolution, highlighting its civil society organizations — from scouting and cultural groups to women’s and educational institutions,” he told UPI. “This is intended to reaffirm its commitment to the state option, to political engagement, and to the decline of its military role.”

However, that commitment may not be enough.

“Hezbollah knows its military role is over, but still cannot admit it,” al-Amin said. “Moving from being a resistance and a regional power to something else requires courage.”

He said the group is evading “difficult questions” and has failed to reassess its relations with Iran and Lebanon now that it is no longer a regional power.

“It seems there is confusion within Hezbollah, and much of it is tied to Iran and what its future holds — whether there will be a [U.S.-Israeli] war against Iran or not,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could allow legal conservatives to take full control of the Supreme Court for a decade or more, imposing a historic shift to the right with vast implications for U.S. jurisprudence and society at large.

A conservative court could use its majority to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which guarantees a woman’s right to abortion, and strike down Obamacare and its promise of health insurance for millions, including those with preexisting conditions.

A more conservative court would be likely to strike down affirmative action laws and many current gun control regulations, possibly including laws in California that limit the carrying of firearms in public or restrict the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

After decades of frequent 5-4 decisions that kept a relative balance in major court rulings, a decisive 6-3 conservative majority also could stand in the way of future progressive legislation from Congress.

President Trump said Saturday he expects to nominate a new justice in the coming week to succeed Ginsburg and he indicated it would be another woman. He predicted the necessary Senate hearings and confirmation vote will go “very quickly,” although he did not offer a timeline.

If Democrats score big wins in November and capture the Senate, they are likely to press ahead in Congress with proposals to expand social programs and put new taxes and regulation on corporations and the wealthy.

But even if passed into law, those measures will face legal challenges from the right.

In the past, it was often said the future of the Supreme Court depended on the outcome of the presidential election. The winner of White House would have four years to fill vacant seats on the court.

But in this presidential election year, conservatives could win a lock on the high court for a generation even if Trump is soundly defeated by Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

The outcome will turn on whether Senate Republicans will march in line behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to confirm a conservative jurist by the end of the year. That’s far from certain, but Trump is hoping to make it a reality.

The high court now has five Republican appointees who lean right, and none appears likely to retire anytime soon. The youngest, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, is 53, and the eldest, Justice Clarence Thomas, is 72.

Liberals breathed easier this summer when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is 65, joined with Ginsburg and the court’s other liberals to strike down a Louisiana abortion law, to block Trump’s repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young immigrants known as “Dreamers,” and to uphold rights for LGBTQ employees.

In doing so, the chief justice sent the message that he wanted to steer the court on a middle course and avoid a sharp turn to the right.

That meant the retirement of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in July 2018, and the Senate confirmation three months later of the more conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, 55, have had little impact on the court’s direction so far.

But if Trump can replace the liberal Ginsburg with a solidly conservative jurist in her 40s, the court would have five reliably conservative votes without the chief justice.

That would cast doubt on the future of Roe vs. Wade, the abortion ruling that has been a target of the conservative legal movement since the 1980s.

At least half a dozen Republican-led states have adopted laws to ban some or nearly all abortions, hoping to force the more conservative Supreme Court to reconsider its precedent.

So far those laws have been struck down or put on hold. But that could change at any time.

Trump has also put dozens of new conservatives on U.S. appeals courts, including in the South and the Midwest. If one of those courts were to uphold a state abortion ban, it would send the issue to the Supreme Court and force the justices to decide whether to uphold or strike down the right to abortion.

Ginsburg’s death has also raised new doubts about the future of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the most far-reaching social legislation in a generation. The high court’s conservatives fell one vote short in 2012 of striking down the law.

On Nov. 10, a week after the election, the justices are scheduled to hear a constitutional challenge to the healthcare law that was widely seen as a long shot.

A conservative judge in Texas and a 2-1 appeals court ruling in New Orleans adopted the notion that the entire law may be voided as unconstitutional because Congress in 2017 voted to eliminate the penalty for not having insurance.

This was seen as a victory by conservatives, including Trump, because it effectively ended the much disputed “mandate” to have insurance.

The challengers, including Trump’s lawyers, argue that the mandate was crucial to the law and that all of it — including the protections for people with preexisting conditions — must fall with it.

The case is called California vs. Texas because California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra is leading the blue states’ defense of the law. The Trump administration has taken the side of the red-state challengers led by Texas.

Until Friday, that challenge looked highly doubtful, since Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberal justices had voted twice to uphold the law.

But Ginsburg’s death could lead to a 4-4 split, which would have the effect of upholding the lower-court ruling.

A more conservative court likely would also target some gun control laws.

For the last decade, the high court has said that Americans have a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense, but the justices have refused to go further and hear 2nd Amendment challenges to laws in California and elsewhere that limit the carrying of firearms in public or restrict the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

Four of the conservative justices have signaled they would like to hear challenges to those laws, but Roberts has balked.

A strengthened conservative court could also put in jeopardy affirmative action policies in colleges and universities nationwide. This comes as California voters weigh Proposition 16 and decide whether to repeal the state’s 1996 ban on affirmative action.

Roberts has long believed the government may not use race as a factor for awarding benefits or making other decisions, including the drawing of electoral districts. He has not won a majority for that view, however.

In 2016, shortly after Justice Antonin Scalia died, Kennedy joined with the liberal justices to uphold an affirmative action policy at the University of Texas.

That defeat did not end the battle. The same challengers who sued Texas launched a lawsuit against Harvard University alleging its admissions office regularly discriminates against Asian American applicants.

Regardless of the outcome in the federal courts in Boston, that case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, giving the court’s conservatives another opportunity to strike down affirmative action.

Several Big Tech companies have reported earnings in recent weeks and provided estimates for their spending in 2026, along with leading analysts’ projections.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The data point that seems to have caught Wall Street’s attention the most is the estimated capital expenditure (CapEx) for this year, which collectively represents an investment of over $700bn (€590bn) in AI infrastructure.

That is more than the entire nominal GDP of Sweden for 2025, one of Europe’s largest economies, as per IMF estimates.

Global chip sales are also projected to reach $1tn (€842bn) for the first time this year, according to the US Semiconductor Industry Association.

In addition, major banks and consulting firms, such as JPMorgan Chase and McKinsey, project that total AI CapEx will surpass $5tn (€4.2tn) by 2030, driven by “astronomical demand” for compute.

CapEx refers to funds a company spends to build, improve or maintain long-term assets like property, equipment and technology. These investments are meant to boost the firm’s capacity and efficiency over several years.

The expenditure is also not fully deducted in the same year. CapEx costs are capitalised on the balance sheet and gradually expensed through depreciation, representing a key indicator of how a company is investing in its future growth and operational strength.

The leap this year confirms a definitive pivot that began in 2025, when Big Tech is estimated to have spent around $400bn (€337bn) on AI CapEx.

As Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, we are witnessing “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history”.

Hyperscalers bet the house

At the top of the spending hierarchy for 2026 sits Amazon, which alone is guiding to invest a mammoth $200bn (€170bn).

To put the number into perspective, the company’s individual AI CapEx guidance for this year surpasses the combined nominal GDP of the three Baltic countries in 2025, according to IMF projections.

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, follows with $185bn (€155bn), while Microsoft and Meta are set to deploy $145bn (€122bn) and $135bn (€113bn) respectively.

Oracle also raised its 2026 CapEx to $50bn (€42.1bn), nearly $15bn (€12.6bn) above earlier estimates.

Additionally, Tesla projects double the spending with almost $20bn (€16.8bn), primarily to scale its robotaxi fleet and advance the development of the Optimus humanoid robot.

Another of Elon Musk’s companies, xAI, will also spend at least $30bn (€25.2bn) in 2026.

A new $20bn (€16.8bn) data centre named MACROHARDRR will be built in Mississippi, which Governor Tate Reeves stated is “the largest private sector investment in the state’s history”.

xAI will also expand the so-called Colossus, a cluster of data centres in Tennessee that has been described by Musk as the world’s largest AI supercomputer.

Furthermore, the company was acquired by SpaceX in an all-stock transaction at the start of this month.

The merger valued SpaceX at $1tn (€842bn) and xAI at $250bn (€210bn), creating an entity worth $1.25tn (€1.05tn), reputedly the largest private company by valuation in history.

There are also reports that SpaceX intends to IPO sometime this year, with Morgan Stanley allegedly in talks to manage the offering that now includes exposure to xAI.

Elon Musk stated that the goal is to build an “integrated innovation engine” combining AI, rockets and satellite internet, with long-term plans that include space-based data centres powered by solar energy.

Conversely, Apple continues to lag in spending with “only” a projected $13bn (€10.9bn).

However, the company announced a multi-year partnership with Google last month to integrate Gemini AI models into the next generation of Apple Intelligence.

Specifically, the collaboration will focus on overhauling Siri and enhancing on-device AI features. Therefore, one could say that Apple is outsourcing a lot of the investment it needs to be competitive on AI development.

As for Nvidia, it will report earnings and release projections on 25 February.

The company is primarily in the business of selling AI chips, and is expected to get the lion’s share of the Big Tech’s spending. Particularly, for the build-out of data centres.

In last August’s earnings call, CEO Jensen Huang estimated a cost per gigawatt of data centre capacity between $50bn (€42.1bn) and $60bn (€50.5bn), with about $35bn (€29.5bn) of each investment going towards Nvidia hardware.

The great capital rotation

Wall Street has had mixed feelings about the enormous spending Big Tech companies have planned for 2026.

On the one hand, investors understand the necessity and urgency of developing a competitive edge in the artificial intelligence age.

On the other, the sheer scale of the spending has also spooked some shareholders. The market’s tolerance hinges on demonstrable ROI from this year onwards, as the investments are also increasingly financed with massive debt raises.

Morgan Stanley estimates that hyperscalers will borrow around $400bn (€337bn) in 2026, more than double the $165bn (€139bn) that was loaned out in 2025.

This surge could push the total issuance of high-grade US corporate bonds to a record $2.25tn (€1.9tn) this year.

Currently, projected AI revenue for 2026 is nowhere near matching the spending, and there are valid concerns. For instance, the possibility of hardware rapidly depreciating due to innovation, and other high operational costs such as energy usage.

It can be confidently stated that the numbers have a heavy reliance on future success.

As Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged this month, there are “elements of irrationality in the current spending pace”.

Back in November, Alex Haissl, an analyst at Rothschild & Co, became a dissenting voice as he downgraded ratings for Amazon and Microsoft.

In a note to clients, the analyst wrote “investors are valuing Amazon and Microsoft’s CapEx plans as if cloud-1.0 economics still applied”, referring to the low-cost structure of cloud-based services that allowed Big Tech firms to scale in the last two decades.

However, the analyst added “there are a few problems that suggest the AI boom likely won’t play out in the same way, and it is probably far more costly than investors realise”.

This view is also shared by Michael Burry, who is best known for being among the first investors to predict and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. Burry has argued that the current AI boom is a potential bubble pointing to unsustainable CapEx.

Big Tech’s AI race is funded by a tremendous amount of leverage. Whether this strategy will pay off, and which companies will be the winners and the losers, only time will tell.

At the moment, Nvidia certainly seems to be a great beneficiary. Moreover, Apple has a distinct approach by increasing third party reliance, through a partnership with Google, instead of massively scaling their spending. It is a different trade-off.

Europe’s industrial deficit

Amid all this spending, urgent questions have also been raised about Europe’s ability to compete in a race that has become a battle of balance sheets.

For the European Union, the transatlantic contrast is sobering. While American firms are mobilising nearly €600bn in a single year, the EU’s coordinated efforts do not even match the financial firepower of the lowest spender among the US tech titans.

Brussels has attempted to rally with the AI Factories initiative, and the AI Continent Action Plan launched last April, which aim to mobilise public-private investments.

However, the numbers tell a stark story. Total European spending on sovereign cloud data infrastructure is forecast to reach just €10.6bn in 2026.

While this is a respectable 83% increase year-on-year, it remains a rounding error compared to the US AI build-out.

Last year, at the time when the initiatives mentioned were being discussed, the CEO of the French unicorn Mistral AI, Arthur Mensch, stated that “US companies are building the equivalent of a new Apollo program every year”.

Mensch also added that “Europe is building excellent regulation with the AI Act, but you cannot regulate your way to computing supremacy”.

Mistral represents one of the only flickers of European resistance in the AI race. The French company is employing the same strategy as most of Big Tech and aggressively expanding its physical footprint.

In September 2025, Mistral AI raised a €1.7bn Series C at a valuation of almost €12bn, with the Dutch semiconductor giant ASML leading the round by singly investing €1.3bn.

During the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mistral’s CEO confirmed a €1bn CapEx plan for 2026.

Just last week, the company also announced a major €1.2bn investment to build a data centre in Borlänge, Sweden.

In a partnership with the Swedish operator, EcoDataCenter, the facility will be designed to offer “sovereign compute” compliant with the EU’s strict data standards, and leveraging Sweden’s abundant green energy.

Set to open in 2027, this data centre will provide the high-performance computing required to train and deploy Mistral’s next-generation AI models.

This is an important move for the company, as it is the first infrastructure project outside France, and it is also a core venture for European data sovereignty.

Meanwhile, US tech titans are attempting to placate European regulators by offering “sovereign-light” solutions. Several Big Tech projects have been rolled out for “localised cloud zones”, for example in Germany and Portugal, promising data residency.

However, critics argue these remain technically dependent on US parent companies, leaving the European industry vulnerable to the whims of the American economy and foreign policy.

As 2026 unfolds, the stakes are clear. The US is betting the house, and its credit rating, on AI dominance.

Europe, cautious and capital-constrained, is hoping that targeted investments and regulation will be enough to carve out a sovereign niche in a world increasingly run on American technology.

Match of the Day pundit and former England captain Alan Shearer explains how West Ham were able to “play on the front foot” and pressurise Burnley’s defence in their 2-0 win at Turf Moor.

MATCH REPORT: Premier League – Burnley 0-2 West Ham United

Available to UK users only.