BRUSSELS — Some 71% of Europeans want the EU to have its own army, according to new polling results seen by POLITICO that reveal growing unease about Washington’s reliability and deep divisions over Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The 2026 Trends report by security think tank GLOBSEC found that support for the European Union to have its own army was strong across the member countries surveyed, reaching 82% in Romania followed by Lithuania at 78% and France at 75%.
Even in countries traditionally wary of European defense integration, majorities backed the idea with some 70% of respondents in Poland and Bulgaria in support of an EU army, alongside 69% in Germany.
The findings come as European governments debate how to strengthen their military capabilities amid Russia’s continued aggression and growing uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to European security.
GLOBSEC surveyed respondents in 14 countries across the transatlantic space, including 11 EU member states, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The enthusiasm for European military capabilities did not appear to be a rebuke of NATO. Some 77% of respondents in the NATO countries surveyed said they would vote to remain members, while 78% of respondents in the EU countries surveyed supported developing the bloc’s own defense capabilities alongside the alliance.
There was also strong support for the most direct form of contribution to national defense: a draft. Among respondents in countries without compulsory military service, 64% favored its reintroduction, according to the report, with the highest numbers found in Czechia, France, Germany and Slovakia.
German exception
Attitudes toward Washington revealed a growing transatlantic divide. More than one-third of respondents across the European countries surveyed now consider the United States a security threat. Around half of respondents in Germany, France and Britain held that view, compared with roughly one-third in Central and Eastern Europe.
Germany was the only country surveyed where a majority regarded Washington as a security threat.
The country also stands apart for attitudes toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some 40% of German respondents agreed with the claim that Ukraine’s treatment of Russian speakers justified the invasion, while 39% believed the West provoked the war.
Those views coincided with softer support for Kyiv. Just over half considered Ukraine’s fight important to German security, while nearly six in 10 would accept Ukrainian territorial concessions in exchange for peace.
The findings appear to highlight a political paradox — voters want a stronger European military, but remain committed to NATO even as confidence in its most powerful member erodes.
WARSAW — Poland wants domestic companies to supply more of its rapidly expanding military, but state-owned PGZ’s fragmented structure and political exposure raise questions about whether Warsaw can turn the spending surge into a stronger industry.
The Polish Armaments Group, the country’s largest defense company, has won billions of złoty in new orders, placing it at the center of the military buildup.
The conglomerate was cobbled together in 2013 from about 50 fiercely independent smaller companies with their own management teams and often their own political backers. CEO Adam Leszkiewicz has been in the post since May 2025 — making him the holding company’s 12th CEO since its founding.
“PGZ is different from other European companies,” Leszkiewicz said, adding that PGZ makes more than 700 products. “I could say we make almost everything. But what can be a strength can also be a weakness.”
Marek Świerczyński, a defense analyst with the Warsaw-based Polityka Insight Center for Policy Analysis, said: “He essentially has to use diplomacy to try to manage the other companies.”
Legacy defense industry
For decades after the end of communism, Poland spent little on defense and the military largely made do with antiquated Soviet-era equipment. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 changed that, and Polish defense spending surged.
“We have strong historical and current experience with armored vehicles and maintenance, repair and overhaul services,” said Leszkiewicz. “We also make wheeled vehicles such as the Jelcz, and our work on sensors and radar is developing well. We have long been strong in rifles and pistols.”
Aleksandra Kozioł, a defense analyst with the Warsaw-based Polish Institute of International Affairs, pointed out other notable Polish defense companies, such as the private WB Group, which specializes in communications networks, unmanned aerial vehicles, loitering munitions and fire control solutions.
“We want to improve in new technologies, especially unmanned vehicles as well as software and IT solutions,” Leszkiewicz said.
PGZ is also building ties with other European defense firms. It is building three new artillery shell factories in conjunction with the U.K.’s BAE Systems. PGZ’s Narew air defense system includes a tie-up with MBDA to supply missiles and launchers.
“Either we take advantage of this opportunity, or we let this period of rapid industrial development in defense pass. We have ambitions and want to fulfill them,” Leszkiewicz said.
Keeping the cash at home
This year, Poland aims to spend 200 billion złoty (€45.7 billion) — or 4.8% of GDP — on defense, the highest level in NATO. It is also the largest recipient of the EU’s €150 billion SAFE loans-for-arms program, taking in almost €44 billion.
The government is trying to ensure that the country’s defense industry gets a growing share of the new spending.
In May, Poland’s Armaments Agency signed almost 120 billion złoty in contracts with Polish arms companies financed by SAFE. A large share went to PGZ and its subsidiaries, mainly Huta Stalowa Wola, for equipment including 146 Borsuk infantry fighting vehicles, 96 Krab howitzers, 64 Rak mortars, K9PL support vehicles and 1,000 vehicles for the Homar-K rocket-launcher system.
Most of the deals with PGZ were no-bid contracts, according to a report by the Warsaw Enterprise Institute think tank.
“The development of the Polish defense industry is necessary, but it should not automatically mean preferential treatment for companies directly controlled by the government,” the report said.
Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz last month underlined that the government aims to develop the country’s military-industrial complex, saying: “We are building a strong army, strengthening security, and investing in Poland’s future.”
But favoring domestic companies risks clashing with the government’s drive to rearm as quickly as possible; Warsaw wants to buy tanks, jets and missiles to deter Russia, although that goal does pose problems for its domestic arms industry.
A drone hangs above visitors’ heads at the WB Group stand at the 34th International Defence Industry Exhibition in Kielce, Poland on Sept. 8, 2026. | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images
About 60 percent of Poland’s defense spending goes on imports, “and that won’t change quickly,” said Świerczyński. Most arms imports come from South Korea and the United States, including systems like K2 Black Panther tanks and F-35A fighter jets.
“In 2022, we were looking for ready-made solutions and products because we felt threatened,” said Leszkiewicz. “Today, we are trying to take every opportunity to Polonize production. We are now hardly buying ready-made products, except where we really lack a particular capability.” One of PGZ’s subsidiaries will be building K2 tanks starting in 2028.
“I do see an effort to increase Polish intellectual property,” said Kozioł, the defense analyst, adding that it’s still unclear if the government’s effort to shift contracts to Polish firms will lessen the reliance on foreign technology.
In 2025, PGZ reported 18.4 billion złoty in revenues, a 23% increase on the previous year, and 2.8 billion złoty in profit, a 66% increase. The company ranked 51st in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2025 list of the world’s top 100 defense companies.
“We aim to reach the top 10 in Europe and the top 30 globally,” said Leszkiewicz.
“If we look at PGZ’s development and results, it appears that, despite political issues, the company is trying to fulfill the task of arming the Polish military,” said Kozioł.
Political risk
Polish state-controlled companies are notorious for high levels of political interference. Although Kozioł underlined that there is a cross-party consensus in favor of continued high defense spending, PGZ does face political risks.
Mateusz Morawiecki, prime minister from 2017 to 2023 under the previous Law and Justice Party government, this summer called for PGZ to potentially be dissolved, accusing it of “weak” management.
Kosiniak-Kamysz fired back, calling the idea “harmful and anti-state.”
The danger is likely to grow. Poland holds a parliamentary election next year and opinion polls suggest that Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s coalition could be unseated by a grouping of right-wing parties.
That means Leszkiewicz’s position — he was a junior member of Tusk’s previous government from 2007 to 2011 and took over PGZ after running state-controlled fertilizer giant Grupa Azoty — could be under threat.
“A CEO would have to be in the job for a decade, but in Polish realities there is no chance of that,” said Świerczyński.
Poland’s defense minister said Tuesday that the Pentagon had given a “green light” to plans for a permanent U.S. military base in the country, with President Donald Trump expected to make a final decision in early December.
Speaking after talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Washington, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said his American counterpart told him that “everything is moving in the right direction.”
“We interpret that as a green light from the Pentagon,” he said. The project has not yet received formal U.S. approval.
The Pentagon’s own account stopped short of endorsing the base or confirming the December timetable, but acknowledged ongoing talks about strengthening the permanent U.S. military presence in Poland.
Hegseth praised Poland’s military buildup, calling its army “one of the most formidable” in Europe. He also pushed for European NATO allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense, potentially allowing Washington to reduce its troop presence on the continent.
Poland already hosts thousands of American troops, largely on rotating deployments. But Warsaw is pushing for a permanent base as the Pentagon reviews its military presence across Europe, with other NATO allies fearing Trump could withdraw thousands more troops. The review is expected to conclude by December.
The project is also a rare point of agreement between Poland’s feuding leaders. Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki — a Trump ally whom the U.S. president backed in last year’s election — agreed last week to cooperate on securing the base, despite their bitter confrontation over control of Poland’s top court.
Nawrocki has embraced the proposed name “Fort Trump,” first floated by his predecessor, Andrzej Duda, in 2018.
The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Portugal’s foreign ministry on Tuesday slammed Mark Rutte after the NATO chief said that for Lisbon, Russia was a distant and less relevant threat.
“Portugal, its Government and its people have never been in any doubt about which side of history they stand on,” the ministry said on X. “It is regrettable that the NATO Secretary General should speak so lightly on such a serious matter.
“Mark Rutte should know better than to overlook the countries and governments that stand firmly by Ukraine and fully understand the threat posed by Russia,” it added.
Rutte told Dutch TV last week that Southern European countries like Spain and Portugal see Russian aggression as remote.
“Sometimes I tell our allies in Spain or Portugal, who say, ‘It’s far away, and what happens in Russia mainly affects Poland'” that “Russia’s latest missiles take 5 minutes longer to reach Lisbon than Warsaw,” he said.
NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said: “It is clear that all Allies agree that Russia is a threat … and while all governments understand the threat, the Secretary General often highlights for public audiences who may not be as engaged on security issues how very close this threat is to all Allies.”
Since Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine in 2022, Spain has given €1.5 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, or 0.2% of its GDP, according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker. Portugal has donated €390 million, or 0.18% of GDP — far below Germany and frontline countries.
However, a Eurobarometer poll taken this spring found that 92% of those surveyed in Portugal saw Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a security threat to the EU, while 82% of those Spain thought the same. The average for the EU was 76%.
Eingeklemmt zwischen Kaliningrad und Belarus liegt die verwundbarste Stelle der NATO. Genau hier entsteht mit der Panzerbrigade 45 das wohl wichtigste Projekt der deutschen Zeitenwende. Bis 2027 sollen fast 5.000 deutsche Soldaten dauerhaft in Litauen stationiert werden.
Doch die Bedrohung durch Russland ist längst nicht mehr nur theoretisch: Drohnen, Desinformation und brennende Infrastruktur zeigen, dass der hybride Krieg Litauen bereits erreicht hat. Im Gespräch erklärt der litauische Verteidigungsminister Robertas Kaunas, wie real die Gefahr einer Invasion ist.
Die Folge beleuchtet, wie sich die baltischen Staaten wappnen und was Europa tun muss, falls die USA als Schutzmacht ausfallen. Eine präzise Einordnung, warum die Abschreckung an der Ostflanke über das Schicksal des Kontinents entscheidet und die Sicherheit in Vilnius letztlich die Sicherheit in Berlin bedeutet.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.
Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.
POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
BRUSSELS — NATO allies face a €7 billion funding gap for Ukraine this year as Russia steps up its bombing campaign and Kyiv calls for more air defenses.
NATO’s 32 member countries agreed in July to provide €70 billion in military aid to Ukraine in 2026 and an equivalent sum in 2027.
But the alliance now faces a shortfall of around €7 billion, with less than two months until the end of the year, according to three alliance diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely. It is unclear where exactly the current gap is coming from, but it is likely to hamper Ukraine’s ability to buy vital equipment to fend off Russian missiles and drones this winter.
The shortfall comes ahead of an alliance meeting on Nov. 17 where European capitals are expected to examine ways to boost funding and increase the transfer of critical weapons to Ukraine. While new NATO funding pledges are still expected, it’s possible that allies may fail to meet this year’s target, the diplomats said.
A NATO official speaking on behalf of the organization said that “allies continue to provide essential military support to Ukraine” to fulfill the pledge and “are working to ensure that Ukraine has the support it needs now and into the future.”
Kyiv has repeatedly urged allies to step up their funding as Russia continues its devastating air assaults; more than 40 people were reportedly killed after a school bombing this week.
During a closed-door meeting with allies Thursday, Ukraine’s ambassador to NATO Alyona Getmanchuk “emphasised the importance for Ukraine of NATO Allies fulfilling the commitment made at the Ankara Summit to provide €70 billion in military support this year,” according to a statement by the Ukrainian mission.
“It is essential to mobilise all partners to the fullest extent, accelerate new decisions, and translate previously announced commitments into concrete deliveries of equipment or transfers of funds,” it added.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also asked allies to dig deep for more money. “With winter coming, and with Russia’s aggression unrelenting, allies need to do more, especially in support of air defense,” he said during a recent visit to Tallinn.
The missing cash underscores the growing difficulties faced by allied governments in continuing to finance Ukraine. The U.S., once the main giver, has stopped almost all new aid since Donald Trump returned to the White House.
That has left European countries as Ukraine’s key supporters. But many capitals face growing fiscal strains while countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Nordic nations — which have historically provided outsized contributions — have repeatedly called on others to give more.
There is “some fatigue” from the largest donors “[which] have repeatedly financed packages,” the third NATO diplomat said.
NATO’s Ukraine funding is typically channeled toward programs like the alliance’s non-lethal aid scheme, called the Comprehensive Assistance Package, as well as its Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List that has European allies buying critical U.S. weapons like Patriot interceptors for Kyiv. The shortfall includes a $1.9 billion gap in funding for unpaid PURL deliveries, two of the diplomats said.
Separately, allies remain skeptical that they will meet Rutte’s target of $15 billion for PURL this year. “I do not think that there’s a chance we will meet that,” said the same NATO diplomat cited above.
Ukraine’s NATO mission said 29 allies have now contributed to the scheme. Since its launch in 2025, it has raised around $9 billion in total contributions, the two diplomats added.
BRUSSELS — Europe is once again watching the White House through gritted teeth.
An opaque Trump administration proposal for a new European-wide security arrangement with Russia has met skepticism from European capitals that fear it risks sidelining the continent and emboldening Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin.
“We already have a European security architecture in place — NATO and European Union both have their respective roles,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Friday in reaction to the U.S. plan. “We must make sure Ukraine is integrated into this architecture. The problem remains that Russia keeps breaking the treaties that underpin it … Putin does not have a veto over European security.”
The latest U.S. proposal underscores growing anxiety around Trump’s fresh rapprochement with Russia as he ramps up pressure on Ukraine and his administration attempts to revive long-stalled talks to end Moscow’s full-scale war against Kyiv.
POLITICO spoke to 12 NATO diplomats, EU envoys and European government officials, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive issue. NATO allies were not briefed about the American plans in advance, according to three alliance diplomats, and many remain skeptical of the idea.
U.S. President Donald Trump late Thursday talked of a “big, beautiful agreement,” after meeting with Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev, adding: “It’s going to involve more than Ukraine, and I could even say it might involve all of Europe.”
“Our objective is to develop practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all sides, reduce the risk of future conflict, and create a more stable and predictable security environment,” Trump’s son-in-law and envoy Jared Kushner added soon after.
Kushner said the arrangement would have five goals: “Permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and an enduring framework for long-term European security and stability.”
“It is a bit obscure what Kushner meant,” said one NATO diplomat. “The general sentiment in Europe is that any discussion with Russia on the future architecture at the moment will just be used by Moscow to legitimize their arguments … it will not fly with the European allies.”
A senior European official added: “Literally, there’s nothing to find fault with, but we know there’s something else going on.”
‘The elephant in the room’
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s top adviser, Björn Seibert, briefed EU ambassadors on Friday, according to two EU diplomats, following a discussion between national security advisers on the issue.
“There’s willingness to engage in Kyiv and in the rest of Europe although there’s little confidence in the Russians — but the EU is not blocking it,” one of the EU diplomats said after the meeting. But “the group around Trump underestimated how important the conflict is for Europe and how a bad outcome for Ukraine is very dangerous for Europe.”
“It’s a long-standing position for us and many others that European security architecture should not be discussed while there is a war,” said a senior European security official. “And obviously not without Europeans.”
“Europe must have a seat at the table in negotiations on peace in Ukraine and the future European security architecture,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda added Friday, after a meeting of the eight Nordic and Baltic countries.
This week saw two rounds of working-level meetings in Brussels on a Ukraine peace deal, ahead of U.S.-brokered working-level talks with Ukraine and Russia on Nov. 10-11 in Abu Dhabi.
“We must be realistic about the peace talks and we must be very careful when it comes to the real intentions of Russia,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a group of reporters, including from POLITICO, earlier this week. “In winter, Putin might have less incentives to get a deal.”
Stefan Kornelius, spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — who talked to Trump on Thursday night — said: “A new sense of urgency has … emerged” on negotiations after this week’s U.S. midterm elections, adding the issue would resurface at an informal gathering of EU leaders in Dublin next week.
The meeting had been intended to focus on AI, but developments in Ukraine could overshadow the talks, a third EU diplomat said. “Things are moving pretty fast,” they said.
Still, some allies fear the U.S. may tie its new initiative to an upcoming review of American troops in Europe, expected in December.
“That’s the elephant in the room,” said a second NATO diplomat. “One thing is talking about European security architecture … with an ‘ordinary’ U.S. posture; another thing is to talk about a European security architecture ‘as things will be,’ and nobody knows how that’ll be.”
PARIS — Far-left presidential hopeful Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party set out leaving NATO and nationalizing defense companies in its official platform released Friday.
“Immediately withdraw from NATO’s integrated command and then, in stages, from the organization itself. Reject the tribute demanded by the United States of 5% of GDP devoted to defense spending,” read France Unbowed’s 222-page program.
However, France under Mélenchon would still provide assistance to European Union countries under EU treaties, the document added, echoing what the far-left leader previously told POLITICO.
An increasing number of polls place Mélenchon in second place in next year’s high-stakes election to replace President Emmanuel Macron. The top two vote-getters go on to a second round, which could see Mélenchon facing off against far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who also pledges to take France out of NATO’s integrated command.
Unlike Le Pen’s far-right party, France Unbowed does not explicitly say it would stop providing assistance to Ukraine — but it does insist on the need for a diplomatic solution. Any peace agreement would need to lean on “collective security guarantees, between the belligerents and with the rest of Europe.”
France Unbowed wants more arms regulation, including of lethal autonomous weapons systems and nuclear weapons.
The far-left party is also pushing back against the “space arms race,” including by pledging to close NATO’s space center in Toulouse, but says France should have the means to guarantee its sovereignty. Unlike most other political parties, France Unbowed has strong interest in space policy, and argues in its presidential platform that France should acquire a space shuttle.
France Unbowed lawmakers have previously pushed for France to procure Dassault Aviation’s Vortex, a European reusable orbital spaceplane program spearheaded by the French aerospace manufacturer.
Overall, France should invest more in so-called critical enablers, meaning military equipment in areas such as communications, intelligence and logistics that are currently mostly provided by the U.S. via NATO. “They must be produced as a matter of priority,” the party wrote.
It also wants to nationalize some of the country’s main defense companies including ArianeGroup.
A more detailed platform specifically on defense will be released later, a France Unbowed lawmaker told POLITICO.
LONDON — Defense and worries about Russia rank among the top concerns of British voters, but Reform UK has spent more than two years without a dedicated spokesperson and still has no detailed military policy.
Without that, the right-wing party is on the back foot on policy to deter Moscow and has lacked a compelling alternative to the defense spending surge that is one of the Labour government’s biggest priorities. It has also encountered difficulties reaching out to the arms industry.
Now, Reform is moving to correct that. On Thursday, the party announced Angus MacIntyre as its new defense spokesperson. He will help the party develop a defense policy ahead of the next election.
“We want to come into government with a comprehensive program that we can deliver to the machine, rather than have a flimsy manifesto with a few headline commitments and ask them to work out how to deliver it,” a senior party official told POLITICO. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to discuss policy issues.
MacIntyre served in the military for 40 years and retired as a wing commander in the Royal Air Force last week to take up the role.
“Having someone of Angus’ stature and calibre speak for us on defence shows how seriously Reform UK takes protecting the interests of Britain’s military,” party leader Nigel Farage said ahead of the announcement.
MacIntyre blamed successive Conservative and Labour governments for underfunding the military.
“Neither can be trusted. Only Reform UK can fix and rebuild our armed forces,” he said in the statement.
But the announcement comes more than two years after the last election. Since then, the party surged in opinion polls, leading for many months before recently falling behind Labour after Andy Burnham became prime minister.
Senior party officials blamed the delay in setting out a defense policy on a desire to “get it right,” rather than put out piecemeal ideas which could be attacked by political opponents.
He has been haunted by comments made in 2014, when he said he “admired” Russian President Vladimir Putin as an “operator.” Farage has tried to distance himself from such statements by calling Putin “a very bad dude” and saying the U.K. should shoot down Russian jets in British airspace.
RAF Typhoon Fighter Jets operate from RAF Coningsby on October 21, 2026. | Ryan Jenkinson/Getty Images
However, any attempt to put the party on a solidly pro-Ukraine footing has been mixed: he called Kyiv “corrupt” and has promised to review Britain’s military aid to Ukraine.
One British defense industry representative said Farage’s comments on Ukraine were unhelpful. “A lot of money for the defense industry does come from contracts with Ukraine, and it’s also that moral thing with the defense industry — they want to support Ukraine.”
Farage’s lack of success in distancing himself from his past pro-Putin and pro-Russia comments puts him at odds with many U.K. voters.
A YouGov poll last month found that Russia was by far the biggest threat for British voters, easily outpacing out-of-control AI.
Sophia Gaston, a British foreign policy researcher who wrote a report to be published Thursday on public attitudes to defense, said 83% of Reform backers favored more defense spending, higher than for any other party.
“While there has been a lot of attention on Nigel Farage’s somewhat mixed feelings towards Ukraine and NATO more generally, he must tread a careful line as that does not necessarily reflect the views of his voters, of whom 92% regard Russia as a threat to global peace,” she said.
“All in all, Reform voters remain Eurosceptic, Atlanticist, hawkish towards authoritarian nations, and in favour of a more defensive state,” said Gaston.
The policies Reform does have on defense are mainly skewed toward its core voter concerns — cracking down on immigration and boosting benefits for armed forces personnel.
Reform backs increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 and NATO’s 3.5% target by 2035 — in line with the governing Labour Party. It says it would pay for the higher spending through £45 billion of cuts to other areas such as welfare.
While the party is still developing a comprehensive defense policy, Reform MP Danny Kruger this summer called for the U.K. to “become a great power once again.” He also spelled out the importance of NATO, defending the U.K. and a stronger response to Russian hybrid interference.
“That means moving from a regional heavyweight to being the leading economic, technological, diplomatic and security power in Europe,” he said.
He also called for “a total reform of procurement,” including possibly removing it from the Ministry of Defence.
Industry struggling to engage
The lack of a defense spokesperson has made it difficult for industry to engage with Reform.
“They don’t have any defense policy, and they’re therefore not asking any questions, and have no person to engage with,” said the defense industry representative. “Their only policy really on defense is: ‘Well, we want to spend more money, and we’re not going to tell you what and when, and also we want to get the woke out of the military.’”
Another defense sector representative underlined the negative signal sent by the party’s delay in appointing someone to oversee the issue.
“There has been nothing significant on defense which, in addition to a lack of defense spokesperson, is baffling given the geopolitical environment we are facing,” they said.
Following MacIntyre’s appointment, the party will now look to publish detailed policy documents on defense, as it has done in recent months on topics such as immigration and the economy.
Reform plans to build out its foreign policy team over the next year, said a senior Reform adviser.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was not buff, at least to our knowledge. He didn’t exercise in public or show off his abs, and there is no record of him ever leading his troops in calisthenics or challenging his peers to a pull-up contest. As far as we know, he didn’t even have any tattoos.
Eisenhower may not have been a “beardo” or a “weirdo,” in the recent words of Pete Hegseth, but were he alive today he would in all likelihood call the defense secretary a wimp and possibly even a radical. The 34th president would almost certainly not see him as a “warrior,” a term Hegseth uses as shorthand for a muscled, tough bully who is ready to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy at a moment’s notice.
Despite this, Eisenhower remains one of America’s most celebrated generals, the man who led the Allied invasion of Europe, served as Army Chief of Staff, helped create NATO and served as its first Supreme Allied Commander. While he never served in combat, Eisenhower rose in the ranks because of his exceptional talent for strategy, logistics and diplomacy, skills which used to be held in high regard in the military.
Not too long ago, it was once understood that, in the modern world, a “warrior ethos” is more a matter of brains than brawn, and it was Eisenhower’s gift for coalition management, logistical organization, discipline and strategic patience that made him a successful war-time leader.
But those qualities are now out of fashion. When Donald Trump tapped Hegseth, the “Fox and Friends Weekend” co-host, to be his defense secretary, it was largely because the president thought Hegseth looked like he came out of “central casting” — a square-jawed, Sgt. Rock-style cartoon hero. They had become acquainted when Hegseth had taken up the cause of a group of men accused of war crimes, and persuaded Trump to intervene on their behalf, which he did over the loud objections of the military brass.
Hegseth had the attitude Trump wanted to lead the military, a man who wouldn’t feel restrained by all those rules and regulations that had made America, in his view, a weak, loser country under previous presidents. Once installed at the Pentagon, the secretary began modeling his “warrior ethos” very quickly by personally leading the charge on the front lines of America’s most important battleground: the culture war. He vanquished diversity, equity and inclusion policies one by one, and got rid of any of the women and people of color who had been promoted over the butch white men. He called all the brass to sit and listen to him lecture them about what a true military leader should be. After all, Hegseth has served as a platoon leader in the National Guard and as a prison guard for a little while, so he knew what he was talking about. And he has demonstrated time and again that he is in pretty good physical shape by doing jumping jacks and jogging with enlisted men wherever he goes, which is apparently the only authentic test of military leadership.
Meanwhile, Hegseth has presided over a policy of murder on the high seas, ordering the military to summarily kill people in small boats in the Caribbean and Western Pacific who, according to the Pentagon, are suspected of running drugs. He is also in charge of the military that is losing the war in Iran, a conflict to which he seems oddly disconnected, busy as he is with planning a (later canceled) public execution, holding prayer meetings, mandating testosterone testing and all that jogging.
Even though Hegseth would surely have fired Eisenhower long before the future president ever became a five-star general for lacking the proper “warrior ethos,” he does seem to like the idea of basking in the reflected glow of the monumental victory Eisenhower led in World War II.
Even though Hegseth would surely have fired Eisenhower long before the future president ever became a five-star general for lacking the proper “warrior ethos,” he does seem to like the idea of basking in the reflected glow of the monumental victory Eisenhower led in World War II. The secretary is also clearly entertaining the idea of running for president, which Eisenhower successfully did twice, after helping to rebuild Europe. (Incidentally, Eisenhower fully endorsed changing the name of the War Department to the Defense Department in 1949, a decision Hegseth and Trump have attempted to reverse.)
Hegseth obviously sees himself as a modern leader of similar stature to Ike. According to The Washington Post, when Hegseth assumed the office, he spied a relic that once belonged to Eisenhower: a handmade globe the general had reportedly used during the war, which even bore some markings he may have placed there himself. Hegseth demanded that it be moved to his office. He had furloughed people who handled such things during the partial government shutdown over immigration, and since he famously lacks patience, Hegseth sent a couple of flunkies to retrieve the historic object immediately.
Not realizing its weight, and with no experience in caring for precious artifacts — or, according to the report, listening to words of caution — the crew dropped the globe and broke it. They ended up just leaving it where it stood, with a huge hole in it.
There are metaphors, and there are metaphors, but this one is just too on the nose. Eisenhower and America helped rebuild the world after World War II, understanding that to survive in the nuclear age, the old, primitive ways were just too dangerous. They used diplomacy and alliances to build a bulwark against the kind of aggression that Germany and Japan had unleashed on the world, and despite some marked abuses and exceptions, that order largely held for 70 years.
Then Trump and his acolytes like Hegseth came along. With little care for the vast responsibility they held to keep the fragile planet stable and safe, and with no knowledge or experience of how to do so, they have broken the world order that Eisenhower led and represented. And it doesn’t seem as if they think it matters.
These are reckless people who think the government is cosplaying reality television, where all that matters is looking tough and projecting strength through cartoon clichés and cheap propaganda. The symbolism of that globe and what it meant completely escapes them, just as Eisenhower’s legacy has been dismissed by them wholesale.
Other than winning D-Day and commanding NATO, Eisenhower’s most famous moment was perhaps his January 1961 farewell address as president, when he warned about the military-industrial complex, which he said could sap resources from the public, threaten democratic governance and social balance, and put profit ahead of national security. His warnings were realized long ago, but now the Trump administration is taking it to an entirely different level. Hegseth is demanding a total of almost $1.5 trillion dollars for the Pentagon in 2027, calling it a “generational investment.” And Elon Musk, with his Starlink system, now appears to be operating more or less on his own, putting global security at severe risk.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar — but sometimes it isn’t. This administration has broken the world, and nobody knows whether it can be fixed. But even if it can be pieced back together, it will never be the same.
Login
