A Comfortable Delusion
I read in the paper this morning that a new poll shows a majority of Labour voters believe welfare spending is more important than boosting the UK defence budget. I find this quite shocking but sadly, unsurprising.
The level of naivety in the public about the new global reality we are entering is staggering, especially as there is an actual kinetic war on the ground in the European continent. Sometimes I get the sense that the Mongol hordes could be ravaging across Europe and we would still be in denial.
On a more serious note, I am deeply concerned about the lack of understanding in public discourse, as well as the lack of moral courage in our politicians to be clear and open with the public about the realities we face.
False Assumptions at the Heart of the West
Western Europe's security is in peril because we have built a postwar civilisation on three false assumptions:
- That peace is permanent
- That morality is universal
- That strength is guaranteed by others
Liberal secularism, as it has emerged in the West, is the all-encompassing worldview. It is very difficult for the Western mind and therefore the West itself to see that this is the prism through which we interpret the world.
The roots of this mindset run deep, growing out of the Enlightenment. And we assume, often unconsciously, that the rest of the world would surely embrace these values if only they were given the chance.
The Naivety of Liberal Foreign Policy
American foreign policy since the Cold War has revealed this worldview in practice. Interventions in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq were made on the assumption that people would embrace democracy and liberal values once their oppressors were removed.
This has been categorically proven wrong in every case.
The West also hailed the Arab Spring as a democratic awakening. But in reality, the fall of the strongmen often resulted in Islamist movements, authoritarian retrenchment, and civil war.
Further afield, it was assumed that China's rise through economic engagement and global integration would lead to political liberalisation. Instead, it has produced a wealthy, confident, and authoritarian China, actively promoting an alternative to liberal democracy.
Why We Must Listen to What Our Adversaries Say
This assumption—that others want what we want—is delusional and dangerous. It has led to repeated misreadings of Russia, Iran, China, and even non-state actors.
We seem to have a strange habit in the West of not listening, or not believing what aggressors are actually saying.
- In the years leading up to 9/11, Osama bin Laden openly issued fatwas declaring war on the United States
- Vladimir Putin has for years referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century
- ISIS declared global jihad and set about building a caliphate
- The Chinese Communist Party has consistently pledged "reunification" with Taiwan by force if necessary
- Iran has openly spoken of exporting the Islamic revolution and destroying Israel
In all of these cases, our enemies have told or are telling us exactly who they are. But we in the West cannot emotionally accept what we are hearing, because it violates our assumptions about progress, rationality, and shared humanity.
The refusal to accept that other actors do not play by our rules or share our values is not compassion. It is cultural narcissism disguising itself as morality.
The Shield of American Power
At the end of the Second World War, Europe was occupied in the West by the Americans via a network of military bases. The foundation of NATO, and the nuclear umbrella, created a security blanket over Western Europe.
The Americans went along with this arrangement because it was in their strategic interest to counter the Soviet Union. But it gave Europe the luxury of focusing on other matters—chiefly, rebuilding its economies.
Europe has seen astonishing growth in this era, accompanied by the rise of a vast welfare state. That expansion was possible because the requirement to pay for and worry about defence had, effectively, been outsourced.
Just one statistic: the UK welfare budget is now more than three times the size of the defence budget. Despite all this economic growth, we have still managed to accumulate public debt to the point where servicing that debt now costs more than the entire defence budget.
When America Stops Paying
The big question—and arguably the eternal question—is this:
What happens when the United States no longer wants, or is no longer able, to protect us?
This is no longer hypothetical. Donald Trump has made clear his contempt for NATO freeloaders. And strategically, the U.S. is now more concerned with the Pacific and the threat from China than it is with Russia and Europe.
From their perspective, Russia has shown its weakness. After three years of war, it has taken only modest ground in Ukraine. Washington is increasingly of the view that Europe should deal with Russia, while America concentrates on China.
Ukraine and the Return of History
The Russian invasion of Ukraine should have been the most brutal shattering of Western illusions.
Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis is now indisputably wrong. We are living through history once again.
Ukraine is a grinding war of conquest, characterised by mass deportations, torture chambers, systematic targeting of civilians, energy blackmail, and open nuclear threats. We are watching one nation openly declare that another has no right to exist and then attempt to erase it.
How much more convincing do we need than this?
The Case for Strength
Let me now make the case for rebuilding Western strength.
Defence is not aggression—it is deterrence. And history teaches us, time and again, that weakness invites conflict.
- The concessions made by Britain and France to Nazi Germany at Munich, allowing the annexation of the Sudetenland, was read by the Germans as weakness
- The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was met with muted sanctions and paved the way for the current war
- Assad in Syria used chemical weapons crossing what President Obama had declared a "red line"—but no decisive response came
5% Defence by 2034
We need to see defence not as a burden but as a civic obligation. It should not be treated as a political trade-off like the winter fuel allowance or school funding.
We must set a legally binding target for defence spending—a commitment that lasts beyond the next election cycle.
The current government target is 3% of GDP by 2034. That is not enough. We should be aiming for 5% by 2034, and we should start now.
The Sacrifice Required
We must wake up to the fact that our values have grown out of our own unique culture. They are not the inevitable endpoint for other civilisations. The sooner we understand this, the more clearly we can act in our own interests.
Just as our ancestors made sacrifices to secure the future for us, we must now be willing to make sacrifices for those who come after us.
As Henry Kissinger wrote:
"The tragedy of idealism is that it confuses the hope for peace with the conditions of peace."
The peace dividend has been more than spent. Peace does not come for free—it is fragile, and it is earned through blood, sweat, and discipline.
If we want to preserve our values for future generations, as our forebears did for us, then we must be willing to defend them.
Will we wake up and prepare to make the sacrifices needed—before it is too late?