"Why Europe Cannot Defend Itself" Topic

"Europe's deepest crisis is not simply found at its borders, but in the way Europe has learned to see itself. A civilization that distrusts its own history, symbols, and identity eventually loses the confidence necessary to assimilate newcomers, enforce its laws, and defend its frontiers.

Uncontrolled immigration and the fragmentation that follows are symptoms of a deeper loss of national self-respect. For decades, European ruling classes have treated inclusion as an ideological imperative and multiculturalism as a substitute for demographic and cultural continuity, assuming that rights alone could create a sense of belonging and that bureaucracy could hold together increasingly divided societies.

But assimilation requires a human element: a sense of belonging to the nation, and therefore a society confident enough in itself to transmit its own identity. When historical consciousness turns into permanent self-accusation, borders, symbols, continuity, and common culture themselves become objects of suspicion. A society that believes its culture, its past, and its identity are no longer worthy of being defended cannot expect newcomers to adopt or respect its way of life. The question, therefore, is not simply how many people enter Europe, but whether states still possess the will to absorb them into an existing political community. Immigration becomes destabilizing when governments regulate flows and distribute rights without demanding assimilation…"

link

Armand

Quite a lot of utter nonsense in this click bait article. Lots of falsehoods and outrageous assumptions designed to attract eyeballs so the Advertisers can insert their rubbish.

Yeah, bunch of keywords in that paragraph of nonsense

I would be interested in hearing more specific reasons why you find this article is so off the mark.

Blaming it on a single cause that's politically expedient i.e. immigration as opposed to the many years of lack of spending due to the end of the cold war and the thought that Russia wouldn't be a threat anymore.
A simple look at the numbers of armor, infantry etc in 1989 to now would show how far Europe has disarmed.

The recruitment challenges that exist today are not mentioned at all as serving in the military is not thought of as a career as it once was. How much that has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan vs competing against other employment prospects travel opportunities doesn't even get mentioned. It all just gets blamed on border control and assimilation.

The article does NOT blame Europe's woes on Immigration, the intro literally says: "Europe's deepest crisis is not simply found at its borders, but in the way Europe has learned to see itself. A civilization that distrusts its own history, symbols, and identity eventually loses the confidence necessary to assimilate newcomers, enforce its laws, and defend its frontiers."

The core premise – Europe hates itself. At least its leaders and influencers do -- and immigration is a symptom of this.

The writer's saying Europe can't really defend itself or properly absorb newcomers mainly because it's lost respect for its own culture and history. For years the people in charge have turned self-criticism into this constant guilt trip. Once a society starts treating its own past, symbols, and identity like something shameful instead of something worth passing on, it stops having the confidence to demand that newcomers fit in or to stand up for its borders.

And the socialist-style approach of chipping away at those foundations to make room for big change? That's basically running on autopilot now. The leaders who are actually in power keep pushing high immigration without real pressure to assimilate, downplaying national pride, and growing the bureaucracy that manages all the diversity. They don't need a daily memo to each other, it's just the default direction the incentives push: votes, status in their circles, and institutional momentum.

So what do they think they're replacing their old societies with? From what they say and do, it looks like a post-national setup where the old European majorities become just one group among many. Everything gets managed by progressive institutions and the state. More equity rules, more mediation between different identity groups, less emphasis on any particular national culture. They're aiming for this smoother, more cosmopolitan welfare-style order rather than old-school full socialism.

The article's point is that it doesn't actually deliver the nice new solidarity they imagine. Instead you get fragmented communities, inverted blame (natives are always the problem), and a state that neither integrates people nor protects its own citizens. Europe ends up unable to defend something it no longer really values.

It's the second paragraph.

Uncontrolled immigration and the fragmentation that follows are symptoms of a deeper loss of national self-respect. For decades, European ruling classes have treated inclusion as an ideological imperative and multiculturalism as a substitute for demographic and cultural continuity, assuming that rights alone could create a sense of belonging and that bureaucracy could hold together increasingly divided societies.

SB +1

kiltboy +1

And this is one of the reasons why they can't recruit youngsters to national service -- they've spent the last 30 years teaching kids to hate their own country and culture, so why would you risk life and limb to protect an awful racist colonializer white supremacist oppressor country?

SBminisguy – Going to disagree with you on why you think they aren't joining.

I was quoting the second paragraph as to why I disagree with the premise of the article. Not all ills are due to immigration no matter how often commentators or think tanks push it.

From where I sit the racist colonizer, hate your own culture, uncontrolled immigration lack of assimilation trope in the article as the reason for European defense challenges is completely wrong.

Compare the force posture in 1989 when the Warsaw Pact was a threat vs now is due to European nations thinking the threat from the Pact had gone so investment in defense decreased. Poor thinking sure but nothing at all to do with immigration.

I have a nephew who served in the RAF and left as he was talking to friends who were making a fortune, in his words, selling and installing solar. He'd got a bit disillusioned, thought the grass was greener and signed off.

You will see many upset that there are few opportunities but are unwilling to actually change their circumstances by enlisting in the forces for better opportunity. The aspirations to a lifestyle seen on social media which they want instantly doesn't compare well to serving in the military.
If you wanted to argue that the current generation doesn't like the discipline of the military by all means make the argument but that again is not raised in the article.

I am only surprised that there wasn't a claim of white males rejecting the military because they couldn't say Merry Christmas or were required to take a vaccine.

Don't see it as a serious piece of writing other than to put that same old trope out there again for the mid terms.

It did come from a think tank after all.

Here is more of what I am attempting to get across. Apply the retention challenges to other European countries i.e. better opportunities outside and you get a better picture. It's not immigration.

link

Recruitment and retention shortfalls risk leaving the UK Armed Forces facing a critical ongoing challenge. Despite recent efforts to improve pay and streamline recruiting processes, the UK Armed Forces remain significantly below their targets. The 2023–24 statistics for recruitment reveal the extent of the crisis:

The Army recruited 6,720 recruits against a target of 10,450 (64% of goal);
The Royal Navy achieved 2,450 recruits against a target of 4,040 (60% of goal);
The RAF achieved 1,800 recruits against 2,560 (70% of goal).
These figures illustrate a systemic problem that is not confined to only one branch but affects the entire UK defence structure.

It has been found that delays in recruitment procedures as well as the complexity of entry requirements are playing a potentially unhelpful role in this whole crisis. Those motivated to join, who rigorously prepare themselves to be at the peak of performance- both mental and physical, find themselves up against such avoidable hurdles as excessive waiting times for medical checks and other administrative processes. As a result, these time-wasting obstacles can deter and demotivate potential high-calibre candidates and lose them to non-service careers.

However, the question of recruitment is only half the battle. Retention of trained and experienced service personnel continues to present a very real and pressing concern. The current statistics reveal that 14,590 personnel left the UK Armed Forces in 2024–25 period. Over 60% of these departures were recorded to be for voluntary reasons such as family pressures, better paid civilian career opportunities, and perhaps most concerning of all, due to a general dissatisfaction amongst many serving personnel with military life as it currently stands. The areas in which the departure rates are most acutely felt are in the skilled trades, such as engineering, cyber and medical roles.

Other factors are equally responsible for the drain of experienced personnel. For instance, the crucial factor of Morale, which is reportedly to be at a serious low point. This could be influenced by such factors as the general pace of Armed Service operations and their associated effects on family life or on individuals« mental health difficulties. In addition to these there are also generational expectations for more flexibility and work-life balance amongst younger recruits who often seek meaningful development opportunities and adaptable career paths. The discouragement can set-in upon realizing that these expectations are difficult for traditional military structures to adequately fulfil. To try and in some way alleviate the situation there were a recent series of pay rises and retention bonuses-some reportedly as high as £30,000.00 GBP, which whilst they, to some extents have helped, they cannot fully respond to issues of disaffection with overall Service culture and lifestyle expectation mismatches.

Kiltboy,

A solid analysis of the situation.

You make very good points Kiltboy. I think these could be to separate issues. One dealing with the issues of decline in the military and the other being is the constant negativity of the left on traditional European and US history and culture causing a serious problem or not.

Yet, I have heard the same reasons given here when recruitment was low. But since 2024 and more so since 2024, we have met or exceeded all branches goals.

Yes, all active-duty branches of the U.S. military have successfully met and exceeded their fiscal year 2026 recruitment goals months ahead of the September 30 deadline. [1, 2]

Branch-by-Branch Status
* Army: Reached its active-duty target of 61,500 soldiers in May, four months ahead of schedule.
*
* Navy: Met and surpassed its goal of 45,000 new sailors by late June.
*
* Air Force & Space Force: Achieved their targets early in the spring, securing over 32,000 airmen and 730 guardians.
*
* Marine Corps: Remained consistently on track, matching and fulfilling its yearly goals early as well. [1, 2, 3]
*

The current 2026 success marks the third consecutive year that all active-duty military branches have successfully met their full recruiting goals.

This is with the Iranian conflict going on.

I'm not saying migration is your sole issue, as we have our issues with illegals and non assimilation. We also have quite a lot here with the "hate colonialist West" Mentality who are US citizens and will not serve. But we are meeting our goals.

So are you all saying migrants and non-assimilation is NOT an issue in the EU?

Kiltboy your profile says US., so are you just assuming all this, or is your profile not correct?

I work from home 3 days a week, can I do that if I join up?
What do you mean no?

More seriously…. a quick question to gemini and it says much the same as kiltboy's analysis:

The UK Army struggles with recruitment due to administrative delays, poor service housing, and uncompetitive pay compared to civilian jobs.

I would add to that defence cuts which give the impression it's potentially a short term profession to join.

Personally, I think immigration has absolutely zero to do with this. If this thread was about popularity of a certain political party born of shockingly xenophobic roots then it'd be much more relevant.

Not that I think immigration is well handled.

But most of that is true in the U.S., as far as the military. Pay has never been competitive to private sector.. ever. Housing has always sucked.

Separation, moves, war.

But they started volunteering again in 24.

Many are lineage recruits. That may well be the issue there. Are the children of military people joining? If not, why not? The above does not explain it, as much the same here.

The US Army did their homework in tackling low recruitment. They went out and surveyed thousands in 2022 to find out why people were not interested. The reforms began the next year and have continued. I have cited the reasons here before many times. They had very little to do with DEI, culture wars, politics,, etc. more about pay and housing, long deployments, better career jobs elsewhere. Much more about the traditional worries…missing family and friends, bad food and pay, being away from home.

The economic conditions at that time were such that well paying jobs were plentiful for high school and college grads after the pandemic cleared. The Army could not compete. This is no longer the case and has probably helped recruitment, along with the pay raises and better housing that came with the changes. The labor market is less competitive as the economy has slowed somewhat.

Not being in a land war in Afghanistan or Iraq probably has some impact on the Army recruiting as well.

😉
I know giving Hegseth and Trump ANY credit, is like getting someone to use their teeth to chew off their own arm, but an honest appraisal:

The U.S. military's recruitment surge since 2024 stems from a combination of political leadership shifts, policy and standard adjustments, financial incentives, and targeted modernization in recruitment methods. All active-duty branches have successfully met or beaten their enlistment goals ahead of schedule. [1, 2]

Political and Cultural Shifts
* Focus on Merit and Standards: Conservative viewpoints and administration figures, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, emphasize that the recruitment turnaround is tied to shifting away from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and refocusing the armed forces strictly on a traditional warrior ethos, readiness, and merit. [1, 2, 3]
*
* Patriotism and Leadership: Proponents argue that a renewed message focusing on national pride rather than historical institutional critique has inspired a fresh wave of young Americans to step forward and wear the uniform. [1]
*

Policy Reforms and Eligibility Adjustments
* Relaxed Enlistment and Age Criteria: The military expanded its applicant pool by raising the maximum enlistment age to 42.
*
* Waiver and Score Updates: The services adjusted policies regarding specific past minor offenses (such as low-level marijuana possession) and expanded preparatory programs like the Future Soldier Preparatory Course, allowing candidates who fell just short of academic or physical entry standards a chance to qualify through remedial training. [1, 2]
*

Financial Compensation and Incentives
* Pay and Bonuses: Pentagon survey data indicates that financial compensation remains a leading driver for enlistment. Multi-billion-dollar investments in competitive base pay, specialized skill bonuses, and comprehensive health and tuition benefits heavily incentivized recruits facing high civilian college and living costs. [1, 2, 3]
*

Recruitment Modernization and Outreach
* Digital and Local Engagement: Recruiting commands pivoted strongly toward digital-first marketing, enhanced social media engagement, and streamlined, faster applicant processing systems that reduced the friction of joining. [1, 2, 3]
*

An honest appraisal shows that President Donald Trump's election and Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership served as a highly visible catalyst for the military's current recruitment success, acting as a powerful motivator for specific demographics while coinciding with deep structural reforms. [1, 2]
Rather than viewing the surge as entirely political or entirely administrative, a balanced appraisal of their direct impact breaks down into specific areas of influence:

1. Activating the "Warrior Ethos" Demographics
* Restoring Conservative Confidence: In the years leading up to 2024, military enlistment suffered heavily from a drop-off in traditional recruiting strongholds—namely, rural communities, Southern states, and military families. Many conservative families felt the military had lost its way to progressive social engineering. [1, 2, 3]
* The "Trump Effect" on Trust: According to statements from the administration and supporters, the election of President Trump immediately restored confidence among these key demographics. For young men and women raised in patriotic, right-leaning households, having a Commander-in-Chief they fundamentally support created a direct incentive to step forward and serve. []
* The "Department of War" Rebrand: By symbolically leaning into terms like the "Department of War" and emphasizing a strict "warrior ethos," Secretary Hegseth intentionally signaled to potential recruits that the military was refocusing entirely on combat readiness, lethality, and winning wars. This resonated deeply with the exact archetype of the traditional recruit. [, 2]

2. High-Profile Policy Shifting (DEI & Merit)
* The Purge of Social Initiatives: Hegseth took aggressive, highly publicized action to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks within the Pentagon. Proponents argue that by visibly removing what they termed "woke" ideology, the administration removed a major psychological barrier that was preventing traditional applicants from enlisting. [1, 2, 3]
* Uniform, High Standards: Hegseth's public mandate that physical and promotion standards must be uniform, gender-neutral, and strictly merit-based gave recruiters a powerful message: the military is once again an elite meritocracy. This public relations victory shifted the narrative surrounding the military from one of institutional division back to national pride. [1, 2, 3]

3. The Reality of the "Coincident Momentum"
To look at the numbers honestly, it is also necessary to acknowledge that Trump and Hegseth assumed leadership at a moment when the military's internal machinery was already executing a massive turnaround strategy. [1, 2]
* Prior Success Foundations: Data shows that the five branches actually hit their active-duty recruiting goals for the 2024 fiscal year by September 30, 2024—more than a month before the 2024 Presidential Election took place.
* Preparation Courses: Programs like the Army's Future Soldier Preparatory Course, which takes applicants who are slightly behind on physical fitness or academic scores and trains them up to entry standards, were conceived and scaled prior to the transition. These programs alone funneled thousands of previously ineligible recruits into the pipeline, giving the incoming administration a heavily optimized system to inherit. [1, 2]

Summary Appraisal

President Trump's election and Pete Hegseth's aggressive leadership did not build the recruitment pipeline from scratch, but they massively supercharged it by unblocking the cultural bottlenecks. They successfully repaired the military's image among its most reliable recruiting base, while simultaneously reaping the rewards of behind-the-scenes, apolitical training and policy reforms that came to full fruition right as they took office. [1, 2]

35th OVI

I am an immigrant to the US from the UK so I know a fair bit about the EU and immigration to the US.

The original article ties current EU to defence and as I said I think it is completely incorrect and a fluff piece to appeal to those who are scared of the "great replacement theory".

Another piece from 2013 shows that lack of spending was the issue back then as well
link

People join the US military for many reasons and telling is how many do a 4 year enlistment and get out. That still gets them VA medical and GI bill for college. I know 3 marines that did exactly that. The US military is still a good option for folks who are in locations with few opportunities as I sad at the beginning if this thread.

People join the US military for many reasons and telling is how many do a 4 year enlistment and get out

Why would that be telling?

Many have done that for as long as I can remember. Actually probably the norm, and not the exception.

The ones I know, joined for multiple reasons. Opportunities for some. Patriotism for others. Family previously in the military.

Economic backgrounds were varied as well. Upper middle class to lower class family backgrounds.

My Nextdoor neighbors son joined right after the last election. It was patriotism for him. I talked with him and still do.

My old Civil War group had (has) many ex military in it. From Vietnam to Afghanistan.

The why of their joining are as many and varied, as the individuals joining.

If the reason is to help pay for college, actually a financially smart move. Better than taking out loans one may not repay, or will not repay. The country gets 4 years of military service for their taxpayer dollars. As opposed to the defaults on those taxpayer loans that we receive nothing for.

I'd say too, after 4 years, those individuals may have a better idea of what they want to pursue, as opposed to straight out of high school.. with very little worldly experiences.

+1 35th The Army research showed a wide variety of reasons for not joining as well, many of which they corrected. As a practical step on life's road, it has much to recommend it, especially when it includes decent housing, pay, and a chance to advance. Four years is a solid commitment in my book.

Tort +1

Tort, if you served you might have a different opinion than one you based on articles and books.

I served from 1974 to 2003. I experienced DEI at its worst during the later part of my career. I told my relatives not to serve and none of them did. Now I have a different opinion.

Only telling from the standpoint of the argument being presented.
If as presented the military is much better now why would they leave after 4?
I said earlier I think a hitch in the military is a good idea but I am not the one claiming it is now better.
Not that this discussion has anything to do with the original article which has failed to address any of the points raised eg time to recruitment, competitive careers outside of the military. Infrastructure sold off for private development that is no linger available for training or barracks housing, lack of investment in munitions and equipment after the cold war ended etc. which are the real reasons for the EU defense situation.

Yes, OSCS74, you know better than me, I have no military experience. I can only go by what the Army concluded recently, no books, just Army docs. My two Marine nephews barely knew what I was talking about when I asked them about DEI training in 2022. But that doesn't prove anything either, except maybe they can tune out a lot of BS.

I did have run-ins with this issue around the same time as you, but in in law enforcement. My specialized field assignments allowed me freedom to avoid it sometimes. But there were plenty of complaints.

Tort, I cannot disagree. As in law enforcement hear-say can never be used in court.
I have read official documents that were false. I've read articles in Proceedings that were false. "Most" authors/officers have agendas.

I did not live in the commissioned officers world, even though we served on the same ship.

Thank you for your service!! I'm also retired Sgt. from a Sheriffs Office only did 8.5 years before cancer got me.

Be safe my friend.

And yours, OSC, doing double duty! I hope you are well now.
Take care, brother.

The wrong way to review US force posture in Europe

"…First, how might the Russia-Ukraine war end and what will follow? Despite a campaign promise to end it within 24 hours, the war shows no signs of stopping. Even more concerning, over the last year, Russia has increasingly tested NATO unity with airspace violations, cyber attacks, and sabotage operations. If the U.S. makes drastic posture changes, Russia might conclude that Washington is signaling disinterest in European security. An emboldened Moscow might choose to act against NATO territory.

Second, what types of global dependencies will exist in the coming three to five years? U.S. forces in Europe are often deployed to the Middle East and Africa, so this review must consider contingencies outside the Euro-Atlantic area. Recall that U.S. forces in Europe helped enable last summer's 12-day war and Operation Midnight Hammer against Iranian nuclear facilities, and that they have been crucial for generating forces in the current 2026 war against Iran. AFRICOM's headquarters has been located in Europe since the combatant command was created nearly two decades ago. The tyranny of distance across the African continent, coupled with the smaller U.S. posture there since the 2023 Niger coup, only further highlights the operational relevance of European posture for Africa.

Third, how do we expect European capabilities to evolve? Europeans are spending substantially more on defense than they have in decades, a shift that was turbocharged by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, it will be another five to ten years before they can provide for their own security. The United States must take Europe's growing defense arsenal into consideration without leaving the continent exposed. At a minimum, and for the foreseeable future, the United States will likely need to leave in Europe strategic enablers such as lift, refueling, and long-range strike platforms; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; and command-and-control infrastructure. Nuclear forces will need to be part of that mix as well…"

link

Armand