Are we safe in Europe?

London / Barcelona / BrusselsThe Cold War is a distant memory and a ghost is once again haunting Europe. At least, Western Europe. That of a hot war or, at the very least, a hybrid one, which manifests itself in many ways: sabotage, drones, cyberattacks, the use of immigration as a tool of destabilization... "We have entered a new era of deterrence," predicts security and defense expert Juraj Majcin. Eighty-one years after the defeat of Nazism, the outbreak of a widespread conflict, extending beyond what is now being fought in Ukraine following the invasion by Vladimir Putin's Russia, no longer seems an improbable scenario, and this will be, precisely, one of the topics of the new edition of Enfoquem, next Monday.

Since 1945, the Western bloc of Europe has been a kind of "spa where nothing ever happens," we might say if we borrow Javier Pradera's metaphor from a question in the magazine Por Favor in the seventies. But that idyllic garden threatens to turn into a jungle and now the Old Continent feels threatened. And the threat has caught it with its guard down and the American friend giving it a hard time.

The fear of a total withdrawal of the American umbrella, which has become especially evident with the intermittency of Trump's support for Ukraine, the trade war or the ambition to annex Greenland, has brought a new sense of urgency to Europe. As Rob Dover, a specialist in security and intelligence and dean at the University of Hull (England), says, "there are real concerns about whether the United States remains a reliable partner." Washington's military and strategic disengagement – which goes back a long way, with a shift focused on the Indo-Pacific – has forced European states to rethink their system of alliances and, above all, to accelerate initiatives to strengthen their autonomy to improve defense capabilities.

Imminent conflict?

A very relevant voice from a European government recently assured ARA: "We are already in a hybrid world war and dealing with it is a priority". According to this same source, European chancelleries are working "with the calculation that in 2027 we will have a direct Russian attack against one of the Baltic states". An attack that does not necessarily have to be with conventional weapons, however.

In any case, the attempted drone attack at Leipzig airport, in Germany, in early September, was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding the perception of the threat in Europe. The episode was added to a long list of sabotages, incursions, and incidents in recent months, which demonstrate that hybrid warfare is already a reality on the continent. For Majcin, what has changed is that Russia has become more aggressive. And he warns that these types of campaigns will intensify. "We have seen hybrid attacks in the past, but they did not have such dangerous connotations," he states.

Faced with a winter that he foresees as "tough", because Russia is "frustrated" by European support for Ukraine, Majcin warns that hybrid warfare puts Europe against the ropes because "it cannot react according to the eye-for-an-eye principle". Starting with the legal framework –he explains–, the intelligence services of most countries in the Union are not authorized to carry out these types of operations and, therefore, "having a symmetrical response system is legally impossible".

In this unknown territory, states are seeking ways to respond. Until now, it was considered difficult to point to Russia as responsible for these episodes because it required intelligence services to prove authorship. Since September, however, with the aforementioned attack in Leipzig as a trigger, the EU has requested that responsibility be formally determined, a prerequisite for being able to respond. How? With sanctions on the instigators, cutting off funding, and shielding the European information space, proposed the European Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas.

Brussels, which last year urged citizens to prepare a survival kit in case things went wrong, is trying to promote a joint mechanism to deal with these so-called gray zone attacks; that is, those that are below the threshold of armed aggression, but which constitute a violation of the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a member state. As explained by the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU seeks to establish a community protocol that allows a partner to call for a coordinated response, inspired by the Article 4 consultations of NATO.

The analyst from the European Policy Center Garvan Walshe argues that there are already effective coordination mechanisms that do not involve the European Union. He considers that the response to these attacks must be coordinated, related to intelligence services, and, above all, secret. For this reason, he believes, it must be "necessarily vague". In this sense, some states are reviewing the role of their intelligence services. Germany, for example, aspires to equip them with more capabilities to be able to, not only spy, but also counterattack.

Can Washington be recovered?

Faced with this scenario, a very prominent official from the European Commission confirmed to ARA a question that has become recurrent among community officials: Are we capable of defending ourselves after having suffered a fierce abandonment by the United States? In Walshe's view, the aforementioned threats by Trump regarding Greenland were the trigger for the shift in European policies. "Until then, they thought they could straighten him out," he opines. Now, he considers, European leaders "are worried, and rightly so, about whether the US will not intervene" in the event of an attack by Russia. Walshe proposes a scenario in which Washington would be very slow to react and would avoid deploying its arsenal to defend the continent.

His opinion is complemented by the professor of international relations at the Department of War Studies at King's College London, Samah Rafiq. "From the European perspective, the question is not simply whether American support provides military protection, but whether it can continue to be relied upon over time."

The transition towards a world of well-defined blocs seems inevitable, while multilateralism loses strength and "is under considerable pressure," in Rafiq's words. "The UN, as a reference multilateral structure, cannot guarantee security. At least two of the five powers with veto power on the Security Council – Russia and the United States – with the support to varying degrees of the other three, are seriously violating any conception of international law and order," recalls at this point Richard Reeve, coordinator of the Rethinking Security network, a specialist in conflicts.

Hybrid warfare is not only evident through drone incursions and maritime sabotage. The most discreet face of Russian infiltration, experts assure, is the erosion of democracy through political groups that can operate as a Trojan horse on the continent. The electoral rise of certain factions, in fact, is already conditioning the path of European decisions. The rise of far-right political factions, says Walshe, "is directly influencing the bloc's policies." "Russia has been financing these parties for a long time, this is common knowledge," warns the expert, who insists that "we must be prepared."

Collaboration or alignment with the interests of the Kremlin turns a potential rise to power of formations such as National Rally or Alternative for Germany into a direct threat to the stability and cohesion of the continent. "If they were to govern it would be dangerous; and it would be dangerous if Marine Le Pen were to come to power, because she has already said that she would cut funding to Ukraine," he concludes, highlighting how internal destabilization can end up blowing up Europe's geopolitical defense line.

Bread or guns?

This shift by the EU, which places defense among its main priorities, has cast aside its traditional commitment to diplomacy, says, in turn, armed conflict researcher Alejandro Pozo. He laments that the community club is now betting "almost exclusively on the military path," especially regarding Ukraine. And he adds: "We are preparing for war and, in doing so, it is more likely that we increase the possibility of one occurring." And he maintains that what has changed in Europe is not so much the threats, but especially the perception of the threats.

In contrast, Majcin maintains that it is "essential" for countries to have an "adequate" defense. "If you don't arm yourself adequately, you have a situation like Ukraine," warns the expert, who remarks that what is important in Europe is that there is cooperation so that the rearmament of one country does not cause "frictions" with its neighbors.

But the word security should not be associated only with the idea of rearmament. Like Pozo, other analysts do not subscribe to the famous Latin aphorism "Si vis pacem, para bellum". "When you ask people directly what they understand by security, the majority describe needs such as livelihoods, housing, access to healthcare, and the environment," says Richard Reeve. "It is about living free from deprivation and fear, but this fear can be just as related to a bleak future – for example, poverty, extreme inequalities, or climate collapse – as it is to the fear of an attack or a war."

Be that as it may, threats do not only come from Putin's Russia or, on a more global scale, the Iran of the ayatollahs. There are others that also impact human life. For example, the emergence of artificial intelligence, climate change, or the neglect of welfare policies and social aid because everything must be subordinated to the maintenance of the military industry. "This is the classic debate between bread and guns (guns versus butter)", says Professor Rob Dover, referring to the classic dilemma between allocating public resources to defense or dedicating them to improving the population's living conditions. "There are compelling reasons, of a Keynesian nature or linked to clientelist politics, to promote defense spending. But, ultimately, security depends on the balance between a solid economy, spending capacity, and real security technologies," he comments.

Germany, as Rafiq recalls, is the example that before 2022 had "relatively moderate" defense spending that coexisted with a "solid economy and an extensive welfare state." This does not mean that lower military spending alone explains its social protection measures, but it "illustrates that significant defense spending is not the only foundation of security." And he concludes: "The question remains how states balance these priorities and whether the increase in military spending comes at the expense of social protection measures that also allow people to live with security."

In this sense, "military security and security linked to well-being are often presented as contradictory for economic reasons," explains Professor Norma Rossi, a specialist in critical security and war studies at the University of St. Andrews (Scotland), who introduces the concept of "human security" into the debate. With this idea, she argues, "we arrive at the definition of security [provided by] the United Nations, as the 'absence of fear and absence of want'" for citizens.

Thus, Rossi combats the idea that "an increase in defense spending must necessarily be accompanied by cuts in other forms of security, such as social protection, which includes access to public services," whether they be schools, healthcare, affordable housing, or other welfare measures.

Does AI provide security?

In this context, the relentless arms race is also closely linked to technological development. And in the third decade of the 21st century, technology means artificial intelligence, a tool that increases the lethal capabilities of any army. Does AI provide more security, then?

In the words of Professor Rafiq, "the use of artificial intelligence in military activities raises serious concerns about the harm caused to the civilian population, as has been documented in Gaza". The conclusion, asserts Rafiq, "is that the contribution of AI to security cannot be decoupled from how it is developed, who controls its use, and who sees their well-being affected". Norma Rossi agrees, adding that it goes further. "Technology, and especially AI, carries risks for civil liberties and privacy, in addition to generating problems of discrimination and lack of precision." Majcin adds that AI is "a threat that escapes human control" and warns that Europe should focus its efforts on breaking its dependence on the US in this area, an opinion shared by Pozo.

And while the major powers are immersed in "an AI-driven arms race", the international governance of this technology is not advancing at the same pace, "which leaves significant regulatory gaps", highlights Rossi. Defense industries are increasingly dependent on private technology companies, which are gaining influence there.

In addition to real threats, there is a key element for convincing or pressuring citizens that more cannons than bread are needed: fear. A fear that is not new, according to Professor Dover, but which is now much more real. "Over the last ten years, a lot of fear has been artificially generated from abroad and exported to European countries in the form of disinformation and false information. Now it is much more justified," he says, while pointing to Russia as the main threat.

But fear is also constructed and propagated, and there are enough interests behind it. Professor Norma Rossi warns that "the media and social networks powerfully influence who or what people should fear and for what reasons." Digital platforms, she adds, can lead users toward "echo chambers" where similar narratives are reinforced and the presence of alternative voices is reduced. All of this confirms another of her ideas: "Security is a very powerful discursive tool, because it allows for the legitimization of political decisions by presenting them as urgent responses to existential challenges."

What is undeniable is that Europe faces many of them ahead, and they come from both the east and the west; from both the traditional enemy and the old friend it seems it can no longer trust. Depending on how it responds, it will choose to reinforce its proclaimed values or replace them.