Our Civilization Needs Defending

If we care about this civilization we must defend it. JD Vance was right in his 14 February Munich speech and Europe would do well to heed his words. Relying on America for our protection was short-sighted and now may well be unsafe.

We are so occupied with the enemies within, we have become lazy and insulated, thanks to American defense spending, from the helpful anxiety of having to think about the enemy without. I say, “helpful anxiety” because an understanding that there is a threat outside one’s borders has a tendency to create remarkable discipline amongst nations, and helps them to convincingly prioritize their concerns. It leads to the kind of introspection which identifies the jewels of one’s culture, and which asks the question “what are the great things which we have that are worth preserving and defending?” This impulse is in stark contrast to the flailing around for instruments and theories of self-abnegation which has characterized Europe’s cultural and political institutions over the last half-century.

Singapore, the isolated city-state surrounded by potential aggressors, is one country which exemplifies this kind of discipline. Its people, all of whom conduct National Service, are practically minded as to prosperity, and its political and cultural institutions pour scorn on the kind of activism which emerges out of the academy in the West. Former President Lee Hsien Loong, for example, has commented that the “Wokeness” found in the West is “very burdensome”, and has outlined the ways in which his country should immunize itself.

Europe has had the luxury, for a few generations, of imagining that its borders are axiomatic. It has outsourced the maintenance of these borders and has only just awoken, with the threat of Russian incursion, to the idea that it might have to fight to defend them.

This was not always so. European identity was for a long time forged from an understanding that our peninsula, protruding from the great Eurasian landmass, was vulnerable to invasion from powerful empires and alien cultures. For over 700 years (711-1492 AD), Spain was occupied by the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Almoravids in succession. Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, fell to the Ottomans in 1453 and is held as Istanbul by Turkey, our NATO ally, to this day. Hagia Sophia was converted to a Mosque, its mosaics and icons shrouded from sight, and all the churches, now either mosques or multi-story car parks, look unlikely to be relieved from their predicament.

JD Vance’s Munich speech should remind us of those desperate moments when great leaders did step-up and tip the scale in favor of Europe, our shared inheritance. Two spring to mind: Charles Martel, and Jan III Sobieski. The former halted the northward advance of Muslim forces from the Iberian Peninsula at the Battle of Tours (732 AD), thus preserving a future for Western Europe, and the latter did much the same further east in one of the most romantic episodes of European military history.

Imagine, for a moment, the sight of Jan III Sobieski with his winged hussars on horseback descending on the field to lift the Ottoman siege of Vienna on 12 September 1683! All Europeans should remember that they owe a great spiritual debt of gratitude to the Polish for this tremendous act of liberation.

For 1,300 years the idea that the Saracens were at the gate helped bind Europe, with all its linguistic and cultural variety, by reminding it of its commonality in Christendom. We could see ourselves engaged in a civilizational enterprise unique and quite separate from that of the Islamic world of the Orient.

This is the unfortunate privilege that the nation of Israel has, for example. When every question of politics is an existential one, self-indulgent deconstructionist theories of one’s culture are forced to take a back seat in the central political discourse of the nation. An increasingly strong sense of national unity has emerged, and birth rates are the highest of any developed country.

Much energy is expended on “the right” arguing that all of this progressivist navel-gazing, over identity politics and our colonial past, is distracting us from external threats and weakening our society from within. But it probably works both ways. In a soft and coddled society, ignorant of these threats, something else fills the void. That something is exactly the kind of self-indulgence we spend our lives criticizing.

If your Imperial Overlord Gives you the Opportunity to Remilitarize, you Should Take It

Europe, since the Second World War, has been an occupied territory comprising of states whose relations with each other have been carefully managed by the US State Department. The EU is largely the product of this desire by the US to carefully balance the interests of France and Germany on the continent.

The United States currently maintains military bases across several European countries, totaling over 38 bases. As of 2025, the US has approximately 100,000 troops stationed across Europe, with more than one-third of these stationed in Germany. There is a significant garrison in Vicenza, Italy, supporting Army units and NATO operations in the region, and several bases in Britain, including RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall.

Britain is also highly dependent on the USA for its nuclear weapons program, relying on a supply chain originating in the US, and therefore conditional on the idea that the strategic objectives of the two nations are broadly in alignment.

To put this into perspective, we might compare these numbers to British troop estimates in several Arab states prior to independence. In the few years leading up to Egyptian independence in 1952, for example, there were approximately 80,000 troops stationed primarily in the Suez Canal Zone. In Iraq, which gained independence 1958, there were fewer than 5,000, stationed primarily as military advisors and training personnel. In Transjordan, there were fewer even still. The UAE, which ceased being a protectorate in 1971, had merely a few hundred British troops stationed mainly in naval and air roles. Obviously, a large degree of consent was involved in all this, but there is no question that these states were protectorates and client states of the British Empire.

Much in the same way, today’s European nations, reliant on the USA for the maintenance of their borders and deferring to the White House on almost every major foreign policy decision, are effectively client states of the Global American Empire. A largely benevolent Empire which, as Empires go, deserves a great deal of gratitude for keeping at bay and finally defeating the Soviet menace, but an Empire, nonetheless.

We might also be grateful that, owing to the tumult of the Second World War which positioned the two Anglo countries of Britain and America as allies, we never saw bloody conflict between the two nations (the War of Independence excepting). It is a rare example in which two empires, one ascendant and the other descendant, managed to avoid the Thucydidean trap. The seamless transfer of power from London to Washington D.C. is a modern marvel probably facilitated by the cultural and linguistic ties between the two nations – Pax Americana, truly took up where Pax Britannica left off.

There were many, however, who did not see things so charitably. That looming figure of British politics, the youngest professor of classics in the commonwealth, who’s stature haunts the annals of our political history, urged tremendous skepticism of the idea that Britain should go all in on being the protectorate of a foreign power.

Enoch Powell considered the USA “our terrible enemy” and long feared the total subordination of Britain and Europe to the USA. In a 1994 essay titled “Europe: an Act of National Suicide” he wrote:

“Much of our present malaise arises from the abject subordination to America and American purposes, which obliges us to await the signal from Washington before acting or refraining from action.”​

He even went so far as suggesting, at the height of the Cold War, that Britain should attempt to treat with the Soviets on the basis that cordial relations with Russia had traditionally allowed the pair to maintain a balance of power in Europe and had guaranteed British strategic autonomy. For obvious reasons, this would be met with little enthusiasm today.

Recent developments have worried even the most ardent British and European Atlanticists. I criticized Zelensky’s arrogance and lamented his poor diplomacy during the fateful meeting with Trump and Vance in this piece: “Zelensky’s Masterclass in Poor Diplomacy”. It is clear that some compromise will have to be made to guarantee a stop to the bloodshed, and arrest an endless war. But the USA should be careful to not appear to be doing a complete 180-degree turn on its allies in Europe. If one is serious about coming to the negotiating table, this should surely be done from a position of strength.

The extraordinary decision on the 5th of March to end intelligence sharing with the Ukraine will significantly undermine their position on the battlefield. This is intelligence which has allowed the Ukraine to strike back at Russian military targets and is vital to the early-warning systems against Russian missiles and drone attacks. The effective disabling of missile capabilities by the US sets a worrying precedent. It is one thing to encourage your ally to negotiate, or to assert your future reluctance to enter into conflicts on your allies’ behalf. But it is quite another to effectively kneecap an ally in the midst of battle.

For many in Europe, the following words of Kissinger’s warning about the consequences of withdrawal of support in Vietnam will prove prophetic: 

“the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

It raises concerns for the American Arms industry as well. Why would foreign powers buy military equipment from the US which could effectively be switched off on a whim? Already, Australian conservatives have begun to express doubt about the viability of the AUKUS submarine deal, for example.

There seem to be a few reasons why such bold steps have been taken. Firstly, the minerals deal would be hugely beneficial both to the US but also to the Ukraine which would have the guarantee of US investment with the accompanying desire to protect its interests. Trump has clearly been frustrated at Zelensky’s unwillingness to see the wisdom of this. Secondly, and unfortunately, huge swathes of MAGA acolytes have convinced themselves that the Ukrainians are, in fact, the bad guys. Thirdly, the USA is likely experimenting with how much it can reasonably favor Russia in an attempt to detach Moscow from Beijing. Lord Palmerston’s adage “no eternal allies, no perpetual enemies” springs to mind. One can see the sense in the former and latter positions, but the second strains credulity.

What does the road to strategic autonomy look like?

Perhaps now, Europe is being given a golden opportunity by the Trump administration making plain its intentions to back off as Europe’s protector. It is also currently in the process of rapidly dismantling some of the most powerful (and costly to the American taxpayer) coercive instruments of the Empire, such as USAID.

It is an intimidating prospect for Europe but marks a transition towards autonomy and freedom which subsequent US administrations may come to regret. This freedom won’t have come from some confected alignment with Russia, as per Enoch Powell’s foreign policy, but instead via the US stepping away and calling for some old-fashioned personal responsibility. Donald Trump is quite literally telling Europe to “get a grip”, and that is exactly what we should do.

Already, European leaders have gathered in Brussels to hash out the terms of a new €800bn defense plan which European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, is terming “ReArm Europe”. Von der Leyen has suggested that Europe must turn the Ukraine into a “steel porcupine” with the draft conclusions stating:

“Europe must become more sovereign, more responsible for its own defence and better equipped to act and deal autonomously with immediate and future challenges and threats.”

But there need not be a strict pivoting away from the USA or an immediate recalibration of relations across the pond. American cooperation will still be necessary for many years in order to fend off the most pressing threats that Europe faces.

It is certainly true that the Ukraine is incredibly corrupt. But most countries, outside of a handful, are. And any accusation which can be leveled against the Ukrainians is equally applicable to Russia, if not more so. Just because the specter of Biden haunts everything about American involvement in the Ukraine, it does not mean that the US should shoot itself in the foot or too readily abandon its allies to the threat of Russian aggression.

European states are beginning to understand that Trump is not bluffing, and that US support is no longer a given. They must now imagine an entirely new Europe.

Edward Druce’s recent article in the Times provides an interesting set of proposals for securing peace in the Ukraine which might help facilitate an amicable transition. It would be a stroke of political genius if Sir Keir Starmer and European leaders could drive towards these proposals.

Firstly, instead of a NATO guarantee for the Ukraine which the US has stated it would unequivocally reject, Druce suggests the creation of:

“Frukus, an alliance of France, the UK and the US — with the US deliberately coming last in the acronym because it would backstop a security guarantee for only seven years.” 

Other nations, such as Poland and Germany, could subsequently be added to this. It would quell Trump’s fears about being engaged in a forever war in Europe while allowing the European powers to grow carefully into their newfound freedom and responsibility.

Secondly, he suggests that a UN-peacekeeping force be brought in to maintain the Ukrainian border. It could be funded by levies on Russian energy sales – sales which Europe desperately needs once again to begin reducing the extortionate energy prices which are crippling its economy. The Nord Stream pipeline could be repaired to facilitate this. It would mean that no American troops are committed while also paring down the rhetoric that Western European nations are encroaching on Russia’s doorstep.

Thirdly, Druce suggests that there could be a UK-led “Department of Diplomatic Enforcement” (DODE) to ensure the “implementation of US-brokered terms”. This would be instead of leaving such an agreement to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), “which failed to implement the Minsk agreements”. The White House and State Department would be kept abreast of progress and included in the diplomatic effort, but it would be thoroughly “owned by Europe”.

Suggestions such as Druce’s appeal to the European leaders’ love of rules-based international order, treaties, and cross-border cooperation, while providing Donald Trump with the guarantees that are necessary based on the promises he made to his electorate. A security agreement with the US acting as a backstop from which it could retire would help prevent the chaos and confusion (of the type we saw in post-colonial Africa) resulting from an immediate withdrawal of the Global American Empire from its client states and protectorates.

Suggestions such as these may not immediately sever the ties that bind Europe to the American defense umbrella, but they would pave the way towards self-reliance. As Europa steers her chariot down this new path, the continent will edge closer to defining its own destiny, outside the long shadow of American influence.