Despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for NATO to increase its defense spending, a significant number of European members have continued to enjoy a peace dividend over recent years by decreasing their military capabilities and defense industry investments. This complacency stemmed from a widespread belief that a return to war in Europe was improbable, coupled with the assumption that they could depend on U.S. military strength for protection.
According to Keir Giles, a senior fellow at Chatham House and director of the Conflict Studies Research Centre, both of these assumptions are fundamentally flawed, as he articulates in his compelling new book, Who Will Defend Europe?. Giles has been an astute observer of Russian aggression, particularly in the wake of the Ukraine invasion, evidenced by his previous works, including Moscow Rules and Russia’s War on Everybody.
Many analysts argue that Russia’s inability to achieve its ambitious territorial objectives in Ukraine exempts it from being deemed a significant security threat. While Russia has faced tremendous losses in personnel and equipment during its military campaigns, this perspective is notably myopic, according to Giles. He emphasizes that Russia has effectively rebuilt its land forces, compensating for earlier losses, while other branches of its military—including the air force, navy, and nuclear capabilities—remain largely intact and operational.
Giles’ extensive research, which includes conversations with confidential sources among European defense and intelligence leaders, suggests that Russia is poised to renew its aggressive posture against a NATO member state within just a few years. This strategic outlook coincides with warnings from British MI5 Director General Ken McCallum, who highlighted the multifaceted nature of Russia’s threat, stating, “While the Russian military grinds away on the battlefield, at horrendous human cost, we’re also seeing Putin’s henchmen seeking to strike elsewhere, in the misguided hope of weakening Western resolve.” McCallum noted that Russia is actively engaged in generating chaos across British and European streets, evidenced by a notable increase in incidents involving arson and sabotage.
Looking ahead, Giles expresses concern that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming presidential election on November 5, the U.S. commitment to defending its NATO allies in Europe is likely to diminish. Current geopolitical dynamics reveal a troubling trend where U.S. resources are increasingly diverted toward supporting Israel in the Middle East rather than bolstering Ukraine’s defense. Moreover, U.S. military leaders focused on the Indo-Pacific area are also vying for critical resources as they contemplate a potential conflict with China in 2027, a scenario they perceive as a more immediate threat compared to Europe.
In his analysis, Giles identifies Ukraine as a critical buffer against Russian incursions into Europe, but he notes a troubling range of responses among European nations. Frontline states, including Poland and Finland, are taking the Russian threat seriously by significantly increasing their defense budgets. Conversely, while Germany has committed to a sizable boost in military spending, the realization of improved military capabilities will take considerable time. Although many European NATO members are now aspiring to meet the organization’s defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP, Giles argues that far more substantial contributions will be necessary to ensure adequate protection.
The current state of the British military, in Giles’ view, is troubling at best. Although he welcomes the new Labour government’s strategic defense review, it inadvertently delays necessary reforms by another year. Furthermore, the government has made it clear that there will be no increase in defense spending during this review period.
Another pressing concern for Giles is that the comfortable lifestyles of many Britons may prevent them from uniting to protect their nation and its values, a stark contrast to the collective spirit seen during World War II. This complacency may be echoed in various European nations, although countries like Sweden, Finland, and Poland appear to have a more straightforward narrative when it comes to rallying citizens to defend their homeland.
Giles also expresses frustration over the avoidance by some leaders to candidly address the urgent and serious nature of Europe’s security challenges. He observes that a significant portion of European economic and political systems have yet to awaken to the genuine threats facing them, or if they have, they are taking insufficient action to combat these emerging dangers. The general populace across Europe remains woefully unaware of the potential threats that loom over their national security.
Overall, Who Will Defend Europe? serves as an insightful and articulate analysis of the critical security challenges facing Europe today, shedding light on issues that will undoubtedly have far-reaching repercussions on a global scale.
What are the main factors contributing to some European nations’ hesitance in increasing their defense budgets?
**Interview with Keir Giles, Senior Fellow at Chatham House and Author of *Who Will Defend Europe?***
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Keir. The news that 23 out of 32 NATO countries are meeting the alliance’s defense spending target is encouraging, but it’s clear there are still significant challenges. Could you elaborate on why some European nations have been slow to increase their defense budgets in recent years?
**Keir Giles:** Thank you for having me. Many European countries enjoyed what they perceived as a ‘peace dividend,’ allowing them to reduce military capabilities and investments without fearing immediate consequences. This was largely due to a belief that major conflict in Europe was unlikely and that they could rely on U.S. military support. However, these assumptions have been tested severely in recent years, especially with Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
**Interviewer:** You argue that the perception of Russia as a diminished threat is flawed. Can you explain why?
**Keir Giles:** Absolutely. Yes, Russia has suffered significant losses in Ukraine, but it’s essential to understand that it has been rebuilding its military capabilities, especially in its land forces. Moreover, its air force, navy, and nuclear forces remain intact and operational. Dismissing Russia as a threat ignores the broader strategic picture. They could very well resume aggressive actions against NATO members sooner than many anticipate.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned insights from European defense leaders suggesting a renewed aggression from Russia. What kind of threats do you foresee?
**Keir Giles:** My sources indicate that we could witness a return of Russian pressures or provocations within this decade. CEO of MI5, Ken McCallum, discussed the multifaceted nature of Russia’s threat, including attempts to create chaos within Western nations. These acts of sabotage and social unrest are signs that Russia is looking to undermine Western resolve from within while maintaining military posturing outside.
**Interviewer:** There’s also concern that the U.S.’s commitment to NATO might wane, particularly regarding its focus shifting to the Indo-Pacific. How do you see this impacting European security?
**Keir Giles:** Indeed, the current geopolitical climate suggests that U.S. resources are becoming more limited. While the U.S. has obligations in the Middle East, the anticipation of a conflict with China adds another layer of strain. This situation risks leaving European allies to fend for themselves more than before, potentially leading to a security gap that Russia might exploit.
**Interviewer:** Given the varied responses from European nations to the Russian threat, what are your thoughts on how they should collectively approach defense in the future?
**Keir Giles:** Nations like Poland and Finland are stepping up their defense spending because they understand the threat of Russian aggression. It’s critical for European NATO members to adopt a unified and proactive strategy. This means not only increasing budgets but also enhancing collaboration amongst themselves to ensure they can respond quickly and effectively to any emerging threats.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights, Keir. It seems clear that vigilance and preparedness will be key as Europe navigates these ongoing security challenges.
**Keir Giles:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial for Europe to understand the gravity of the situation and remain committed to collective defense. The stakes could not be higher.
