With the US’ commitment to upholding its European allies’ security in serious doubt, and revisionist powers like China and Russia increasingly emboldened, the EU is scrambling to strengthen its capacity to defend itself. However, this effort could be thwarted by a fundamental paradox: While Europeans cherish peace, they largely lack the resolve to fight for it.
A recent report highlights the scale of this disconnect. Although half of young people in France, Germany and Spain, as well as the UK, expect armed conflict within a decade, only one-third would fight to defend their countries. Across the EU, only 32 percent of adults say they would be willing to take up arms, including just 23 percent of Germans and 14 percent of Italians.
The problem is not simply that Europeans have embraced pacifism. Rather, the EU is beset by a dangerous complacency: Decades of reliance on the US have fostered a widespread belief that security is guaranteed, not earned. However, US President Donald Trump’s administration has made it clear that Europe can no longer count on the US to defend it. With security threats proliferating — exemplified by Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s saber-rattling in the Indo-Pacific region — Europe must cultivate a collective will to fight.
Illustration: Yusha
If this effort is to safeguard, and even strengthen, European democracies, it must be rooted not in aggressive nationalism — which creates fertile ground for anti-democratic forces to thrive — but in a sense of civic duty and economic pragmatism. This is not about militarizing society, but about empowering it to defend itself, thereby upholding the freedom, stability and prosperity that Europeans so value.
The first step is for Europe to rethink its approach to military engagement. Conscription, while effective in Scandinavia or the Baltics, will not work in every European context. Instead, governments should introduce flexible, accessible military-training programs — think short-term courses on cybersecurity, drone operation or survival skills — that double as pathways to employment.
With some countries, such as Sweden and Spain, having 25 percent of youth unemployed or underemployed, linking military service to certifications in high-demand fields like engineering or logistics could enhance its appeal substantially, particularly to voters who value upward mobility.
Such initiatives should also capitalize on the interests of young Europeans, not least their enthusiasm for military-themed video games that resemble war simulations. Pilot programs in Estonia, where cyberdefense training has bolstered both security and tech employment, offer a useful model.
Fostering sustained support for increased military spending — including for the European Commission’s welcome initiative to unlock trillions of euros that are sitting idle in savings accounts — will require a similar reframing. The traditional “guns versus butter” framework, which pits security against social-welfare spending, is not only alienating; it is also wrong. Far from eroding Europe’s economic well-being, investment in defense would bolster a powerful engine of growth and prosperity.
The EU’s defense sector already employs more than 500,000 people and generates at least 150 billion euros (US$171 billion) annually. The success of companies like Germany’s Rheinmetall, whose stock price has doubled since the beginning of the year, shows just how profitable security investments can be.
However, changing the narrative about military spending will require more than communicating facts; policies that directly link defense to people’s social and economic well-being are essential. For example, governments could introduce subsidies for military families or tax breaks for defense-sector workers.
Moreover, innovative financial instruments — such as “national freedom bonds” (with guaranteed returns) or an exchange-traded fund for European defense (with similar guarantees) — could mobilize domestic capital, while giving citizens a greater stake in their own security while earning some profit. France’s social bonds and Italy’s tax-advantaged savings instruments show how this can work. Applying this model of profitable patriotism to defense could raise billions of euros.
All of this will require political leadership, with Europe’s mainstream parties championing military preparedness not as a show of aggression, but as a bulwark for freedom and the rule of law in open societies. Unfortunately, European liberals are still clinging to the “anti-politics” mindset once championed by the likes of the late Czech dissident-turned-president Vaclav Havel.
While this approach was appropriate in the fight against communism, it is hampering Europe’s ability to confront the threats of today, while enabling populists who flirt with appeasement to gain ground. Public figures, educators, and the media must also contribute to fostering the necessary shift in mindset.
Europe’s security landscape is changing fast. To navigate it effectively, the EU must integrate defense into a broader pro-democracy agenda in which military service is a practical, appealing option for young people, defense spending is linked to economic well-being, and political leaders make a compelling case for military preparedness. Without such a push, the world’s revisionist powers would increasingly dictate the terms of engagement, and the vision of a peaceful, stable and united Europe would fade into history.
Wojciech Przybylski, editor of Visegrad Insight and president of the Res Publica Foundation in Warsaw, is an advisory board member at the LSE IDEAS Ratiu Forum and the European Forum for New Ideas, and a Europe’s futures fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences. Goran Buldioski is a senior fellow at the Hertie School in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS