European Inaction: From the End of the Cold War to a Violent Awakening
Renewable energy sources were presented as a magic solution that would replace baseload power without needing to operate on cloudy days, and consumers applauded without realizing that they would end up footing the bill later. The geopolitical situation had eased so much that it resembled… a spa, and inflexibility (the economic and operational impasse resulting from a commitment to inflexible policies) began to take shape like an amphora slowly but steadily filling with political promises and technological delusions.
In this environment of illusions, it was only to be expected that perceptions of national security would also be influenced. With a focus on a united Europe, a mindset of affluence and euphoria prevailed. European societies became “complacent,” viewing the threats of the past as theoretical and merely “a means to keep the defense industries and arms dealers in business.”
That’s more or less how “the bad times” came and knocked on our door. The Europeans, in a panic, began searching for their lost sense of security… in Turkey, which, of course, promised them the moon—always in exchange for the right price. When European nations engage in talks with Ankara, they conveniently forget the proclamations about democracy and rights they preach to everyone else, choosing instead to kowtow to the “sultan,” thereby perpetuating the new illusion.
Even more absurd was the situation in the industrial sector. Despite the fact that European defense products were technologically highly competitive, a paradox emerged: the proliferation of different European systems and the problematic culture of cooperation, which ultimately hindered operational interoperability, ed EU countries to compete with one another and, not infrequently, to end up procuring… American weapons systems.
The inability to cooperate and the rivalry among them ultimately resulted in uncompetitive products. This is because one system is offered at one price—for example, for orders of 3,000 units, while another European system is offered at a different price for 400 units. But let’s start from the beginning.
The 2008 Crisis and the Birth of Inflexibility
2008 wasn’t just an economic crisis; it was the moment the amphora broke, and everyone pretended it was “installation art”, that is, something that needs no explanation, but simply to be looked at. Investments in nuclear energy and hydrocarbons vanished, as if it were shameful to speak of stable energy supply. Renewable energy sources were turned into a lifestyle trend featuring solar panels, turbines, and photos in front of wind turbines.
“Human-induced climate change” was elevated to a religion with dogmas and anathemas, and inflexibility became a political offspring raised on subsidies. This created a new form of strategic dependence: Europe turned to renewable energy in pursuit of energy independence, only to end up completely dependent on China for rare earth metals and photovoltaics. This irony is now twofold, as the European defense industry is being called upon to rearm, yet it largely lacks the basic raw materials needed to do so.
Energy density, one of the most revered principles among energy engineers, declined, and consumers began paying for a dual system without realizing it. At the same time, Europe was already spending more than €150 billion annually on climate subsidies that amounted to little more than tickets to a green charade.
In such an environment of distorted perceptions of reality, how could an adequate and credible defense capability be maintained? How is it possible, on the one hand, to downplay “traditional” threats to national security and, on the other, to continue a policy that tests the Russian bear’s reflexes?
How is it possible that European countries are phasing out nearly their entire tank forces, as in the case of the Netherlands in 2011, when the prime minister was none other than the current NATO Secretary General; believing that the end of the Cold War rendered them obsolete, and at the same time maintain armed forces capable only of parades? Alternatively, they left them unmaintained, and thus operationally unavailable.
The numbers of advanced weapon systems in Western countries’ arsenals may have looked impressive on paper, but actual operational readiness was often disappointing. Even more alarming, however, was social preparedness: a Europe that had convinced itself that “war has nothing to do with us” found itself psychologically unprepared for any serious crisis.
That is more or less how the war in Ukraine came about. The collective West, as a whole, rejects any responsibility for its outbreak. At the very least, the reality it now faces is leading to a rude awakening. Trump’s election in the U.S. and his critical rhetoric toward traditional allies completed the European shock. The Old Continent found itself facing the consequences of its choices and omissions—whether collectively or at the level of each member state.
The Trillion-Euro Decade and Green Hype
We’ve spent over €1.2 trillion on renewable energy over the past decade, but emissions have continued to rise. Dependence on Asian supply chains intensified, and baseload power plants worked overtime to fill the gaps left by renewable energy. The energy transition became the new stock market darling that requires constant attention. Political leaders spoke of a green revolution, while consumers paid bills that resembled concert tickets. Inflexibility had now become a defining characteristic of the West, with Europe planning to spend another €800 billion on storage, grids, and green hydrogen that won’t be completed before 2040.
2025 and the Return of the Cold War in Green Packaging
The new Cold War is not about ideologies but about bills. The two camps, baseload and renewables, are both thriving at the same time, because the consumer pays for both. Governments and markets have discovered that the era of carefree green subsidies is over: funds that until recently went exclusively toward the green transition are now being redirected, out of necessity, to support and finance defense needs.
Europe now spends more than €350 billion annually on defense technologies, including laser interceptors, autonomous strike platforms, and cyber-defense systems that cost as much as small countries. Governments have discovered that they can fund all kinds of unmanned systems, hypersonic missiles, AI-guided missile systems, orbital surveillance systems, and anti-drone systems to counter the nightmare scenario of swarming drone attacks, all while keeping costs in check.
Defense inflexibility has been added to energy inflexibility as a second layer of pressure. The energy transition has become a battlefield featuring QR codes, and consumers have been turned into unwitting sponsors of geopolitics, now paying over €500–600 billion annually to simultaneously maintain renewable energy sources and the defense systems of the new era.
The Alarming Conclusion
The consequences for the global security architecture are, for the time being, terrifying, and they will remain so. The prospects for an agreed-upon de-escalation of the war fronts seem like a summer night’s dream. Today, a highly destabilizing, multi-player environment is emerging, in which maintaining a balance of power is becoming increasingly problematic.
The era of unmanned land, sea, and air vehicles, if it proves anything, is that the weak can thwart the strong, preventing the achievement of the political objective of a conflict.
This also creates a new, unstable framework for strategic balance: nuclear deterrence, once a stable pillar of balance, appears to be changing and risks losing whatever predictability it had. The powerful may feel that their image and credibility are being eroded, not by an adversary of equal strength but by a weaker actor using inexpensive yet highly effective means. This pressure creates an environment where decisions are made more quickly, more impulsively, and with much greater risk.
And within this new landscape of global upheavals and transformations, what is most alarming is not only the conflicts we are witnessing, but the wounds they leave in their wake, wounds that are slow to heal before the next crisis strikes. Each new crisis finds the system a little weaker, a little more worn down, a little more vulnerable. Where will this trend lead? Will humanity be able to reverse it?
Amid a series of successive ruptures, Europe remains the most tragic spectator: a player that struggles, if not outright refuses, to accept the harsh reality of the new century, yet is doomed to foot the entire bill.
DefencePoint / Defence / Security, Sunday, July 19, 2026.