Notes for a New Army | The Great Continent

Imagine that 70% of Europeans think we should defend ourselves, but only 19% trust their national armed forces. If you ask around at a bar, almost no one would be able to explain why, with all our technology and wealth, Europe fails to have an independent military force. The real answer lies not in money or the number of tanks: what is missing is a cultural revolution within the armed forces and in society. For thirty years, we have lived as if history had come to an end, defusing the pressure of actually having to defend ourselves. The result? The armed forces have become separate, closed-off worlds, increasingly disconnected from civil society and unable to truly adapt to new threats. R.-H. Berger, a French officer who writes under a pseudonym, puts it bluntly: “Military thinking is turning into a sterile theoretical exercise disconnected from reality.” Over the past few decades, European military missions have often been far from our borders and have yielded no tangible results. The examples are bitter: Afghanistan, Mali, Libya. Even the French intervention in Mali, hailed as a success, would in fact have been impossible without logistical support from the United States. And today, Berger admits, France itself probably could no longer repeat that operation: the resources are lacking, having been depleted or sent to Ukraine, and the real lesson is that our African experience could even be detrimental if we were faced with a conventional war. One striking fact: in the simulations for Ukraine, Zelensky’s initial request was for 200,000 Western soldiers; today, the figure is a few thousand, because no European army can truly mobilize on that scale without the Americans. The real crisis is not just one of budget, but of purpose: European armies have become bureaucratic strongholds, more useful for supporting local industry and securing votes than for delivering results on the ground. Reforms have pushed toward a professional army model, but in doing so, the link with civil society has been lost: fewer reservists, less exchange of expertise, less adaptability. Here lies the paradox: countries like Finland or Israel, with fewer resources, are able to field larger and more responsive armies thanks to mass mobilization of citizens and a close relationship between civilians and the military. And the Azerbaijani forces, with modest budgets, have integrated cutting-edge technologies better than many European armies. The crux of the matter is that Europe still thinks as if the American framework were always guaranteed. But if the United States pulls out, every scenario—from the Baltic to Tahiti, from Moldova to Cyprus—will find us exposed, often unable to respond without outside help. Nuclear deterrence? It’s not a true shield: neither Russia in Kursk nor the United Kingdom in the Falklands used nuclear weapons to defend invaded territories. Do we really think France would do that for New Caledonia? The only way forward is a cultural revolution that starts from within: less self-congratulation, more capacity to challenge institutional models, practices, and taboos. We need flexible armed forces capable of rapidly integrating disruptive technologies and mobilizing civil society on a large scale. Ukraine is proving this: their innovation comes from the grassroots, from the cells that link drones and artillery in real time, with continuous adaptation. Our armed forces, on the other hand, keep repeating old exercises in scenarios chosen to never challenge the established structure. The real investment is not just in tanks and missiles, but in the ability to break one's own habits. The problem is not “more money,” but “more truth” about what is truly needed. And here comes the game changer: those who think that spending more is enough are missing the point. We need to reshape the relationship between the military and society, between strategy and reality, between technology and organization. And it takes the courage to sacrifice the “sacred cows”—the institutional sacred cows—that block any change. There is a question that almost no one dares to ask: Are we really ready to defend Europe without the Americans? Today, the answer is uncomfortable. But if we don't address it now, history will present us with the bill. Those who see the issue solely as a spending problem are mistaken: at stake is a strategic humiliation that will forever change Europe’s role in the world. Europe's armed forces do not just need to be strengthened: they need to be rethought from the ground up. Only by changing our internal culture can we avoid a new “Tsushima moment” – the shock that, a hundred years ago, humiliated Tsarist Russia at the hands of Japan. Security is no longer a matter for technicians or generals: it is a collective responsibility, which begins with how we think about and talk about defense. Europe needs not only more soldiers, but a new mindset. Transforming the armed forces is not a matter of budget; it is a matter of cultural courage. If this perspective has changed the way you think about European defense, you can mark it on Lara Notes with I'm In – choose whether it's an interest, an experience, or a belief. And if tomorrow you tell someone why the real challenge is not to buy more tanks but to change mindsets, on Lara Notes you can mark that conversation with Shared Offline: that way, there is a record that you discussed a topic that matters. That was Le Grand Continent – you saved almost 17 minutes compared to reading the full version.