Europe wants to show it's ready for war. Would anyone show up to fight?
Nice tanks you got there, Europe—got anyone to drive 'em? Such are the taunts the continent's generals might have to endure following the announcement of a splurge in defence spending expected from the NATO summit in The Hague on June 24th-25th.
Assuming European governments don't bin their commitments to bigger defence budgets once some kind of peace is agreed to in Ukraine—or Donald Trump leaves the White House—spending on their armed forces will roughly double within a decade.
A disproportionate slug of the jump from a 2% of GDP spending target to 3.5% will go towards purchasing equipment. But armies are about people, too. Attracting youngsters to a career that involves getting shot at has never been easy; a bit of forceful nagging (known in military jargon as 'conscription") is already on the cards in some countries. Even dragooning recalcitrant teens into uniform will not solve a problem that is lurking deep in the continent's psyche. Europeans are proud of their peaceful ways. If war breaks out there, will anybody be there to fight it?
Polling that asks people how they would behave in case of an invasion ought to send shivers down the spines of Europe's drill sergeants. Last year a Gallup survey asked citizens in 45 countries how willing they would be to take up arms in case of war. Four of the five places with the least enthusiastic fighters globally were in Europe, including Spain, Germany and notably Italy, where just 14% of respondents said they were up for taking on a foreign foe.
Given Russia's snail-paced advances since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, countries over a thousand kilometres away from today's front lines may not feel the chill wind of the Kremlin. But even in Poland, which shares a border with Ukraine (and with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad), fewer than half of respondents say they would fight in a war involving their country.
In a separate poll taken before the invasion, 23% of Lithuanian men said they would rather flee abroad than fend off an attack. Citizens asked to stand up and be counted are giving a resounding shrug instead.
To some Europeans, a citizenry with no appetite for fighting is the reflection of a job well done. The union at the continent's heart bills itself as a 'peace project". The past seven decades have been about ensuring Germany would never take up arms against France and vice versa.
Meshing economies together within the European Union and even outside it was meant to make invasions impractical at first and unthinkable in time. The bureaucratic pacificism that endures within the EU—'make meetings not war!" would be a fine motto—may have resonated a bit too much with some citizens. Some may have forgotten that those outside the club, like one Vladimir Putin, were not privy to such arrangements.
Military matters were at most an afterthought. Only in the past year has the bloc appointed a commissioner for defence, while making clear the job is about overseeing the companies making shells and missiles, not the armed forces per se.
To what can the broader population's lack of appetite to bear arms even in case of war be attributed? Sociologists speak of Europe as a 'post-heroic" society, where individualism and aspirations of 'self-realisation" trump the supposed patriotic fervour of generations past. T
he continent's polarised politics have played a part: support for parties of the hard right and left has surged in recent decades, and their voters are notably cooler on the idea of fighting for their country. Older people tend to be less gung-ho about taking up arms, and Europe is an ageing continent. Places with recent histories of dictatorship, such as Spain and Portugal, are also gun-shy. Seeing misfiring American operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (in which Europeans had at best a supporting role) comforted pacifists that theirs was the right way.
Notwithstanding its peace-mongering ways, Europe does not lack men and women in uniform. Despite a scything in the number of troops since 1990, to less than half the previous figure in many countries, the continent still has more soldiers than America, and roughly as many as a share of its overall population.
Still, some countries like Poland are now talking of bringing some form of conscription back (a few, like Denmark and Greece, never quite got rid of it). Abolishing military service was once hailed as a liberal accomplishment. Now drafting youngsters is seen as a way of promoting the idea that national defence is everybody's job, not just the role of a few paid soldiers.
The fog of peace
That notion may take a while to take hold. For something strange happens when you ask Europeans about defence matters.
In surveys carried out by the European Commission, the bloc's citizens list Russia's invasion of Ukraine and matters of defence as the biggest threats facing the EU as a whole. Well over half think that fighting within the union's borders is likely in coming years.
But asked what issues affect them personally and Europeans forget about Russia altogether, worrying more about inflation, taxes, pensions and climate change than they do about potential invaders. It is not that Europeans don't see the looming threat. It is that they think it is somebody else's problem.
The upshot is a continent that gives the impression of being battle-weary without having fought the battle. Already Trumpians have a dim view of Europeans' fighting verve. J.D. Vance, the American vice-president, in March dismissed the possibility of 'some random [European] country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years" credibly deterring Russia by putting boots on the ground in Ukraine.
It was offensive precisely because it contained elements of truth. Getting Europeans to shell out for more of their own defence has taken decades of Americans nagging. Convincing them to give war a chance might take even longer.
© 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on www.economist.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Israel almost a Russian-speaking country': Putin on Iran-Israel conflict amid US strikes on Tehran
Amid Israel-Iran conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin has highlighted Israel's large Russian speaking population as one of the key factors in Moscow's approach as the United States struck Iran's three nuclear sites on Saturday night and joined Israel's offensive against Iran. Putin, while speaking at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), called out those who questioned Russia's commitment to its allies and termed them as 'provocateurs'. Putin further stressed that Russia's relations with the Arab and the Islamic world have traditionally been friendly. Putin was asked why he is not assisting Iran. His response: 'Israel today is almost a Russian-speaking country, two million people from the Soviet Union and Russia live there. We take that into account.' 👇 — Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 21, 2025 Assessing the situation in the Middle East, Putin said 'I would like to draw your attention to the fact that almost two million people from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation reside in Israel. It is almost a Russian-speaking country today. And, undoubtedly, we always take this into account in Russia's contemporary history,' as reported by TASS news agency. While noting that every conflict is unique, Putin said that Russia has a nuanced relationship with its allies across the Middle East region. Putin stated that Russia's 15% population is Islamic and that Moscow is also an observer in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Putin had earlier offered to broker a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran to resolve the impending conflict but US President Donald Trump had snubbed him by saying that 'I said, 'Do me a favour, mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first.' I said, 'Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.' Iran has warned to retaliate against the US strikes and has reportedly said that it would target US air bases in the region.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump warns Iran of retaliatory action after US bombed 3 nuclear sites with 'bunker busting' bombs - The Economic Times Video
On June 21, 2025, the United States conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. While confirming the USAF action, President Donald Trump described the operation as "successful," stating that B-2 stealth bombers, likely carrying GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator "bunker buster" bombs, targeted these sites, with a focus on the heavily fortified Fordow facility. The strikes were part of an escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict, with the U.S. directly joining Israel's efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program.
NDTV
19 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Bombers Flew 37 Hours Non-Stop, Refuelled Mid-Air To Hit Iran Nuclear Sites
Washington: US B-2 Spirit bombers flew non-stop for about 37 hours from Missouri to deliver what President Donald Trump called a "very successful attack" on Iran's nuclear programme early Sunday. The stealth bombers, refuelling several times mid-air, struck three key Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. "Fordow is gone," Trump said, referring to the heavily fortified underground facility long considered Tehran's most secure nuclear site. He praised the mission as an " amazing success" and warned Iran that they should "make peace immediately or they'll get hit again." The strikes, carried out with a combination of bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles, were the most direct US military action against Iran in years. Trump said six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, and around 30 Tomahawk missiles targeted other nuclear installations. The Pentagon confirmed B-2 bombers were used in the attack, which came after days of rising tensions and a week of escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. On Saturday, the US had repositioned B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam. These aircraft are capable of deploying the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy deeply buried targets like Fordow. An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed damage to part of the Fordow site from "enemy airstrikes." The US strike followed a series of Israeli operations on Iranian nuclear facilities in recent days. While Israel has successfully carried out covert operations in the past, experts believe it lacked the firepower to breach Fordow's defences. Trump's decision to join the campaign marked a major escalation. "All US planes are safely on their way home," Trump posted on Truth Social, congratulating "our great American Warriors." He is expected to address the nation in a televised Oval Office speech later on the day. The Israeli government said it coordinated closely with Washington, and Trump spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the strikes. The attack comes after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran, claiming Tehran was weeks away from building a nuclear bomb. More than 400 people have reportedly died in Iran, and over 3,500 have been injured. In Israel, at least 14 people have been killed and over 1,200 injured in retaliatory missile strikes, the worst flare-up between the two adversaries in recent history.
