"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.