For much of the post-war era, Europe has pursued a unique experiment: maintaining a high standard of living and extensive social safety nets while outsourcing its security. This arrangement worked for a time, but recent crises—economic stagnation, mass migration, and rising insecurity—have exposed its fragility.
How did Europe arrive at this point? Was this outcome inevitable, or was it the result of a series of deliberate policy choices? And most importantly, can Europe adapt before its institutions break under the weight of their contradictions?
The trade-off: welfare over defense
The decision to prioritise welfare over defence was not made overnight. After World War II, Europe emerged devastated and exhausted. Rebuilding was the priority, and the newly formed welfare states became a cornerstone of post-war recovery. With the U.S. taking on the role of global security guarantor—particularly through NATO—European nations saw an opportunity. Rather than rebuilding large standing armies, they could redirect resources toward economic growth and social programs.
This approach came with clear benefits. European countries developed robust public healthcare systems, extensive labour protections, and generous welfare programmes. Citizens enjoyed a high quality of life, supported by a model that assumed economic productivity would continue to rise. And for decades, it did.
But this reliance on external security also had consequences. Over time, many European nations lost the capability—and perhaps even the mindset—needed to defend themselves. Defence budgets shrank, conscription was abolished in many countries, and military capabilities deteriorated. The assumption was that conflicts belonged to the past, and that diplomacy and economic ties could guarantee peace.
The immigration factor: a system under strain
Europe’s welfare model worked under certain conditions: a stable population, a strong labour market, and economic growth. But as birth rates declined and populations aged, the system faced new pressures. A shrinking workforce meant fewer taxpayers supporting an increasing number of retirees.
Governments, recognising the problem, saw immigration as a solution. The idea was straightforward: bring in young workers to replenish the labour force, support economic growth, and sustain welfare programmes.
However, the reality was more complex. Many of the immigrants arriving in Europe—particularly from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia—came from countries with different economic structures, educational backgrounds, and cultural traditions. Integration did not always proceed as smoothly as expected. Labor market participation among certain immigrant groups remained low, meaning that instead of alleviating the welfare burden, many new arrivals became dependent on it.
Meanwhile, rapid demographic changes, coupled with insufficient integration policies, led to social tensions. Cities saw the rise of parallel communities, some of which became hotbeds of crime, radicalisation, or political unrest. Governments found themselves caught between competing pressures—upholding their humanitarian commitments, maintaining social stability, and responding to the growing concerns of their citizens.
The security vacuum
Europe’s shift away from self-defence coincided with these domestic challenges. As migration increased and welfare systems strained, the region also saw rising insecurity. Terrorist attacks, organised crime networks, and instances of civil unrest became more common. In some areas, law enforcement struggled to maintain control, leading to the emergence of so-called “no-go zones”—a term often debated, but describing real challenges where state authority is weakened.
This security vacuum had two dimensions. Domestically, weakened enforcement meant a growing sense of lawlessness. Internationally, Europe found itself ill-equipped to deal with geopolitical threats. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, the instability in the Middle East spilling into Europe through refugee waves, and growing tensions with China and other global actors revealed the continent’s vulnerabilities.
At the same time, the United States—long Europe’s security provider—began signalling a shift in priorities. Successive U.S. administrations, from Obama to Trump and beyond, expressed frustration with Europe’s reliance on American military protection. NATO’s burden-sharing became a point of contention, with Washington pushing European nations to increase defence spending.
Curious Alexander
The role of U.S. policy
To some extent, Europe’s dependence on external security was not entirely self-imposed. U.S. policy actively encouraged the demilitarisation of Europe in the post-war era. The reasoning was twofold: first, to prevent the resurgence of militarism in historically aggressive nations like Germany, and second, to maintain American influence over the continent. A militarily weak Europe was a Europe reliant on U.S. leadership.
For decades, this arrangement served American interests. Europe remained stable, aligned with the U.S., and integrated into a global order dominated by Western institutions. But over time, this arrangement created an imbalance. Europe became accustomed to underfunding its military, assuming the U.S. would always be there to intervene in crises.
Even so, while U.S. policy shaped the environment, European leaders made the choice to lean into this dependence. They weren’t forced to dismantle their own military capabilities to the extent that they did. They weren’t required to open their borders so dramatically without sufficient integration plans. And they certainly weren’t obligated to build social policies that often prioritized ideological commitments over pragmatic governance.
Where does Europe go from here?
Today, Europe faces an uncertain future. It finds itself in a paradox:
- It has high social spending, but many of its welfare systems are unsustainable.
- It has mass immigration, but struggles to integrate new arrivals into the workforce and society.
- It faces growing security threats, but lacks the defense capabilities to confront them independently.
This is not an insurmountable crisis, but it does require a fundamental rethinking of priorities. Some key questions Europe must grapple with include:
- Can European nations re-establish a credible defence strategy? If reliance on the U.S. is no longer guaranteed, should Europe take steps toward greater military autonomy, perhaps through an expanded EU defence force?
- How can welfare systems be reformed without losing their core social protections? If the current model is unsustainable, what changes could preserve essential services while adapting to new demographic and economic realities?
- What immigration policies would allow for both humanitarian commitments and social stability? Are there ways to improve integration, encourage labour participation, and avoid the creation of segregated communities?
- How should Europe respond to rising security threats? Whether dealing with organised crime, terrorism, or geopolitical rivalries, does the continent have the political will to enforce law and order?
These are not easy questions, and there are no simple solutions. What is clear, however, is that Europe’s current trajectory is not sustainable. The post-war assumptions that underpinned its policies—peace, economic growth, and American protection—are no longer guaranteed.
Ultimately, the future of Europe will depend on whether it can adapt to these new realities. The choice is no longer between the past and the present but between inertia and action. The next decade will determine whether Europe remains a strong, sovereign force in the world—or whether it continues down a path of decline, unable to reverse the consequences of its own decisions.
Further reading
For deeper exploration of these issues, consider the following articles:
- NATO’s European Problem – A Foreign Affairs analysis on Europe’s military dependence on the U.S.
- The Welfare State and Immigration: A Troubled Marriage – A deep dive into the economic consequences of high immigration and welfare policies.
- The Future of European Defense – Analyzing whether Europe can rearm itself in response to global instability.
