Following an extended period of relative geopolitical quietude, 80 years of peace since the conclusion of World War II, Europe now confronts a critical juncture concerning its strategic autonomy and defence capabilities.

Historically a dominant force in global affairs for centuries, Europe has increasingly become militarily toothless and subservient on the world stage, and vassal to larger powers, particularly the United States.

This diminished status, coupled with geopolitical shifts and perceived threats, have catalysed and renewed and urgent and comprehensive re-evaluation and overhaul of Europe's defence posture.

The overarching objective of this emergent strategy is to transform Europe from a strategically dependent entity into a self-reliant and influential geopolitical actor, capable of asserting its own interests and contributing significantly to the global balance of power.

The Impetus for Rearmament and Re-industrialisation

A fundamental premise underpinning Europe's evolving defence strategy is the recognition of a perceived massive and deadly threat to European security, particularly emanating from Vladimir Putin's Russia. This perception, deeply held by liberal elites within Europe, has served as a primary impetus for a continent-wide commitment to significantly bolster military spending and capabilities.

Leaders such as Germany's prospective Chancellor Merz, Ursula von der Leyen, Starmer, and Macron have expressed unanimous determination to increase European military expenditure. Germany, despite its stringent fiscal rules, has blown that out of the water to increase military spending, signalling a decisive shift in national priorities.

Beyond merely increasing budgets, the strategic vision for Europe's defence extends to a comprehensive re-militarisation coupled with a vigorous re-industrialisation effort. A robust military cannot exist without a strong domestic manufacturing base capable of producing essential armaments such as tanks and munitions and guns and missiles. This necessitates bringing manufacturing back to the continent, thereby fostering self-sufficiency in defence production and reducing reliance on external suppliers.

Objectives: Autonomy and Re-entry into World History

The ultimate aim of Europe's defence strategy transcends immediate responses to current conflicts; it is a long-term vision for geopolitical autonomy. This ambition is rooted in the belief that with defence spending comes autonomy.

By no longer relying on the United States to finance its defence, Europe anticipates a natural progression towards questioning the necessity of its current geopolitical subservience.

Historically, similar shifts occurred within the British Empire during the 1920s and 1930s, when colonies began funding their own defence, eventually leading to nationalist and independence movements that contributed to the Empire's dissolution.

This historical parallel suggests that Europe's rearmament could similarly pave the way for its detachment from the existing power structure.

A primary driver for this strategic independence is the desire for Europe to re-enter world history, and to gain a seat at the table of global power, Europe must cultivate a decent Army.

While currently lacking such a military, the aspiration is that within 10 -15 years, Europe, leveraging its historical capacity to rule the world for 400 years, can achieve this.

This drive for self-interest is in contrast to the narratives from America and Russia, which love the idea of a weak Europe and a continent incapable to defend itself, from their own perspective, thet cannot actually be happy with that development if it is to survive and thrive.

Furthermore, the strategy seeks to offer Europe more strategic options in its foreign policy. The previous alignment towards Russia, exemplified by the Nord Stream project, was destroyed by American intervention, severing European-Russian relations.

A strong European military would grant Europe more options, potentially allowing it to forge new alliances, stand alone, or even pivot away from the United States (which some view as an explicitly anti-European power). This pursuit of independent policy is essential, as American interests are not European interests, and have historically often been at odds.

Challenges and Divergent Perspectives

Despite the clear strategic intent, Europe's defence strategy faces considerable challenges and has elicited diverse, often contradictory, critiques from various geopolitical commentators and observers.

Questions over whether Europe's rearmament is possible or even desirable.

Europe is a de-industrialised backwater and unable to innovate, therefore incapable of building a substantial military.

Europe's liberal elites should not be fleecing their populations for military spending when the funds could be better allocated to infrastructure and care.

Elites are merely engaging in dangerous rhetorical games and escalating tensions needlessly, advocating instead for Europe to remain demilitarised and subservient to one power or another.

They prefer a Europe that is as toothless militarily as it already is in its immigration policies—a borderless free-for-all.

US Influence and the "Heth Plan": 

A recurring analytical perspective suggests that Europe's current defence build-up is not a genuinely independent initiative but rather a manifestation of American policy.

This viewpoint posits that the rearmament is effectively the "Heth Plan" or precisely what the Trump administration desired – for Europeans to pay for European collective security.

The argument is that the US remains the dominant power, and Europe is more or less doing what America wanted.

However, a counter-argument within this perspective highlights a flip side: while potentially aligning with short-term US policy, the act of increased defence spending inherently fosters autonomy, as it reduces reliance on the USA. This could inadvertently lead to Europe's eventual break from the US-led order, mirroring the decline of the British Empire.

Internal Contradictions and Elite Competence: 

The effectiveness and sincerity of Europe's rearmament drive require good leadership, which Europe in the 21st Century has not been blessed with.

While pledging massive military spending, European leaders (who are the most corrupt anti-White, feminine, stupid, and incompetent in Europe's long history) are simultaneously hurtling towards a Net Zero policy based on the Climate Change Delusion which is antithetical to the industrial re-growth that would be required for defence production.

The rhetoric of these leaders might be a transformational way in which necessity could transform them into being closer to the sort of leaders Europeans want to see.

Risk of Escalation and War 

The pursuit of great power politics inherently involves psychopathic entities that can't tolerate each other, potentially leading to conflicts on the scale of World War I or World War II.

While not explicitly desired, some within the establishment might privately believe that a big war could sort things out, eliminating societal issues such as trans toilets, woke and immigration.

The Prospect of a Powerful Europe

Despite the challenges, the vision for a self-sufficient and powerful Europe persists, driven by a long-term strategic outlook. Europe collectively possesses significant manpower, with almost double the US population and a total population of approximately 750 million people, far exceeding that of Russia or America.

This demographic advantage, if effectively mobilised, could enable Europe to become a major global power.

The capacity for long-term strategic planning, even within non-democratic structures of the EU, is an advantage, allowing figures like Ursula von der Leyen to think in the 30-year horizon. This contrasts with short-term electoral cycles that often constrain policy in democratic nations.

The recent statement by Ursula von der Leyen, expressing intent to cut out the US arms contractors from Europe's remilitarisation efforts and instead use European contractors, is seen as a concrete step towards building an independent defence industrial base. This move signifies a deeper commitment to self-reliance rather than merely serving as a conduit for foreign arms.