Defending the West in a dangerous world

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The world in 2024 is undeniably more conflict-prone than in recent memory. While the post-Cold War era saw various localised conflicts, today’s geopolitical landscape is marked by escalating tensions that could potentially lead to widespread regional or even global disorder. According to many reports, Russia’s war on Ukraine threatens European security, Israel’s conflict with Hamas risks igniting broader Middle Eastern unrest, and growing US-China tensions could spark a new global confrontation, whether hot or cold.

This new era of conflict has highlighted serious deficiencies in Western military readiness. Reports indicate that only the US and Poland are in a tolerable position, while other Western nations struggle. For instance, the UK might deplete its artillery shells within days of a major conflict, Germany faces severe personnel and equipment shortages that prevent it from fielding a full division, and France is grappling with significant logistical and equipment issues. These problems are compounded by widespread recruitment challenges and soaring costs for modernizing equipment, exacerbated by military support to Ukraine stretching many Western arsenals thin.

For years, the end of the Cold War and NATO’s reliance on American military might led many to believe that large military forces were unnecessary. However, despite some unity over Ukraine, NATO faces divisions, with concerns about the US’s shifting focus to China potentially undermining its commitment to deterring Russia. Additionally, trends towards smaller forces where new technology would replace traditional soldiering have been questioned as wars in Ukraine and Gaza reaffirm the need for substantial manpower and weaponry to sustain prolonged conflicts.

Critics argue that a renewed arms race and higher military spending divert resources from other essential public needs and increase global conflict risks. They advocate for diplomacy and understanding of major powers’ interests as the path to peace. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that only robust military strength can effectively deter aggression. And, at a time when world leaders are more likely to speak off-the-cuff on Twitter or to the press rather than embrace the art of diplomacy, international relations can often take on a tense and unpredictable atmosphere.

But amid the familiar debates about military size, military spending and the risks of arms races, some analysts identify a new problem for Western militaries: a worrying lack of willingness on behalf of Western citizens to want to fight if it came to it. Perhaps the problems with recruitment reflect not just a concern about pay, conditions or glamour, but a broader issue whereby few see the need to defend one’s country at all. According to surveys carried out in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in countries like Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, only about a quarter to a third of people said they’d be willing to fight if their country asked them.

Does the West need to rethink its approach to military preparedness? At a time of sluggish economic performance, are Western countries faced with tough choices on spending? Do we have to ask a more fundamental question: what is the West, and is it worth fighting for?

SPEAKERS
Dr Tim Black
books and essays editor, spiked

Sherelle Jacobs
columnist, Daily Telegraph

Sir Simon Mayall
consultant and writer; former assistant chief of the Army; author, The House of War, the Struggle between Christendom and the Caliphate

Tim Scott
executive director, The Freedom Association

CHAIR
Tony Gilland
chief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas