Europe’s security requires more than budgets, troops and missiles; it depends on sustained political and public support. But public apathy and resistance to increased military spending at the expense of cuts in economic aid could leave European countries unprepared for what lies ahead.
By Nicu POPESCU
Headlines across Europe are increasingly dominated by news of rearmament, war training manuals, defense bonds, the reintroduction of military conscription, and tax-free savings programs designed to finance military spending. At the NATO summit in The Hague in June, all member states – except Spain – pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. With arms production increasing across the continent and new security laws in the pipeline, it seems that European governments are finally leaving behind complacency.
But for Europe’s new commitment to defense to be sustainable, leaders must secure broad public support. Long-term sustainability requires more than laws, budgets, and missiles; it depends on continued political and civic support for defense priorities, without which today’s measures risk remaining temporary responses rather than long-term commitments.
Ukraine is a case in point. Russia has been able to continue its aggressive war partly because of strong domestic support. Despite a lack of weapons and electricity, Ukraine continues to resist because its people are determined to defend their country. Meanwhile, shifts in public opinion have sabotaged recent efforts to build support for Ukraine in the United States, Slovakia, and Poland.
Public support for foreign, security and defence policies is as essential as advanced military equipment. However, support for European rearmament remains worrying. A recent study found that around half of adults surveyed in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom expect a world war within the next decade. Across the European Union, however, only 32% of adults say they would take up arms in the event of war. A special Eurobarometer survey further highlights the gap in preparedness: 58% of respondents said they do not feel prepared for disasters and only 46% would know what to do in the event of an emergency. Moreover, recent elections in Germany, Romania, Poland and Portugal revealed strong public resistance to increased defence spending and a tougher foreign policy.
As the foreign and defense policies of old allies like the United States change dramatically overnight, it is becoming increasingly clear that Europe must strengthen its capabilities. But manipulated narratives and performative pacifism have distorted public debate, making it harder to build consensus on how to address shared security challenges. Populist leaders exploit these sentiments, offering the illusion of peace without sacrifice. Despite their nationalist and militarist origins, some far-right parties echo the rhetoric of the far-left and Cold War-era nuclear disarmament movements, calling for concessions to dictators.
As a result, many Europeans remain skeptical of an imminent military threat, dismissing expert warnings as alarmist. While some recognize the risk, this has not yet translated into widespread support for a strong and sustained defense effort. Recent polls show that while most Europeans are in favor of increasing defense spending, few are willing to accept sacrifices such as cuts in economic aid or rising public debt.
To build support, political leaders need to reframe the debate by focusing on three key priorities. First, defense spending should not be presented as a limited military cost, but as a vital investment in Europe’s future. After all, security is not just about tanks and troops; it means protecting the freedoms, stability, and prosperity that are the foundation of the European way of life. In an era of hybrid threats – from cyberattacks to energy blackmail – defense spending is an investment that protects hospitals from ransomware attacks, keeps homes warm, and ensures that democratic institutions function without foreign interference.
A credible and cohesive defensive posture is also essential to deter aggression against EU member states. Without a swift and united response to an attack, the very foundations of the bloc – its single market, cohesion funds, agricultural subsidies and programmes like Erasmus – could be at risk. That is why the EU’s deterrent capacity should matter as much to Spain as it does to Estonia or Latvia.
Second, there is a strong case for linking defense spending to infrastructure development. Building roads, bridges, and electricity connections between countries can improve both security and the quality of life across the continent. But the EU needs to accelerate these efforts: another decade of delays and dysfunction could be disastrous.
Europe’s defence must include sustainable energy systems, secure digital networks and reliable public services. Cyber ​​defence, for example, is essential to protect hospitals from attacks that could endanger lives. Accelerating the green transition will also help European countries meet their climate targets and reduce their dependence on hostile electricity suppliers. The blackout on the Iberian peninsula in April exposed the vulnerability of the continent’s electricity grids, highlighting the need for greater resilience.
Third, increased defense spending is more likely to gain public support if citizens can see the tangible benefits of rearmament. In this regard, the French public investment bank, BPI, will soon pilot a scheme through which individuals can invest up to €500 ($587) of their savings in French defense companies. There are also other untapped opportunities for bolder, tax-saving schemes, taking as an example models similar to the Italian postal savings bonds (Buoni fruttiferi postali). Such initiatives could give voters a meaningful and profitable stake in a stronger and more secure Europe.
Governments must ensure that the economic benefits of defense and infrastructure investments reach ordinary citizens by linking national security to reindustrialization, broad-based prosperity, job creation, and tax breaks. For example, the United Kingdom’s Strategic Defense Review mentions jobs linked to defense improvements more than a dozen times. Above all, Europe’s defense requires responsible governance and rigorous planning for worst-case scenarios, no matter how unpleasant or impossible they may seem. Such preparation can help avert crises or, at least, mitigate their impact. But without strong public support, even the best-laid plans are doomed to fail. (Project Syndicate)
