War and Peace Blog

Blog post #16, 26 August 2025

Do guns make us safe?

Europe is investing in armament. NATO and EU member states have committed to spending 5 per cent of their GDP on security, including 3,5 per cent on military spending and 1,5 per cent devoted to other security-oriented investments. This represents a steep increase from the 2 per cent norm NATO held until recently.

The shift appears to make sense given the Russian war in Ukraine, growing Chinese assertiveness, instability in the Middle East, the Sahel and elsewhere, and uncertainty about continued American support to Europe. But there is a paradox in the aim to achieve peace through guns. It begs the question: do weapons make us safe?

To answer this question, let us first look at the role weapons play in resolving conflicts. Are they necessary to defeat an enemy? Historically, only a small proportion of conflicts has ended in military victory. More often, an agreement is reached or a conflict festers on the back burner. Even when one party completely defeats the other, the subsequent stability is often fragile and temporary. Germany’s humiliation in World War I, for instance, contributed to the outbreak of World War II. Once Iran was defeated by Iraq, it began arming itself and supporting militias in the region. And after the overthrow of the Islamic State caliphate, ISIS went underground and spread to other countries.

Sometimes weapons are necessary to prevent or stop a worse evil. Violence may be the only way to stop an enemy invasion, occupation, or genocide. It is hard to imagine the World War II Nazi crimes would have ended any other way. But fighting is only the beginning. A lasting end requires political action. The steps taken after World War II, notably Marshall Plan investment and European integration, were crucial for maintaining peace.

A major disadvantage of using force is that it may escalate conflict, as the enemy responds with violence, and so on. This happened during the US-led War on Terror. Its many civilian casualties and human rights violations caused resentment and led to an increase in terrorism rather than its defeat. Or consider the decades-long conflict between Israel and armed Palestinian groups, in which violence has repeatedly provoked counter-violence. Even if Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, which is unlikely, a new resistance group will most likely emerge. In the meantime, many innocent lives have been lost.

Pillars of security

So, violence is at best only part of the solution. What else is needed? Or to put it another way, what are the pillars of security? Deterrence through armament may be one such pillar, as a strongly armed country is less likely to be attacked. But armament can also lead to an arms race and a mutual sense of threat and insecurity. Once again, it is not an end-all solution.

A second pillar, international cooperation, is crucial for sustainable security. Countries agree on rules regarding the use of force and try to enforce them through international treaties, organizations, and courts: the international legal order. This second pillar is currently being weakened. Increasingly, international relations appear to follow the law of the jungle. This is not only due to leaders like Putin and Trump, but also to Europe, which was quick to punish Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine but did little to stop Israel’s flagrant violations of international law and its destruction of Gaza. Such double standards weaken the international legal order.

Finally, a third pillar is to address the root causes of conflict. Here, one must ask what motivates the opponent. Perceived or real injustice, inequality, and insecurity – the three i’s – invariably play a role, even in conflicts that appear to be about religion or ethnicity. Mutual misunderstanding, framing and enemy images further contribute to conflict and escalation. Though addressing these causes is complex and difficult, they deserve far more policy attention.

Societal resilience

Domestically, what measures may increase the security of European citizens? Currently, military threats are not the EU’s most immediate concern; it is unlikely to be attacked in the short or even medium term. However, Russia and China are already waging a hybrid war against European countries through cyberattacks, espionage, interference in elections, and sabotage. Russia, in particular, is also focused on weakening society by increasing polarization. It does this by spreading fake news, conspiracy theories, distrust, and hostility on social media, fueling intolerance and anti-government sentiment.

Weapons won’t safeguard us from such hybrid warfare. What will? Rightly, some of NATO’s prospected additional 1,5 per cent spending will be devoted to cyber security and to protecting infrastructure against sabotage. However, guarding society against polarization may be even more crucial. Distrust, both in fellow citizens and in government, makes countries vulnerable to foreign meddling that aims to divide and rule.

Teaching critical social media consumption in schools is part of the solution. Even more fundamental are efforts to strengthen trust and connection with other citizens, even if they hold a different view. Equally crucial is to increase citizens’ trust in government, requiring governments to behave in a trustworthy way and fulfil their promises. Such actions are a far cry from the currently common populist governance that fuels enmity and polarization whilst failing to resolve major challenges like climate change and growing inequality.

A strategy for peace

Weapons, then, are only a small part of the solution. Far too little attention is paid to security’s other dimensions. While all attention is focused on preparing for war, there is no strategy for fostering peace. On the contrary, European leaders have acted contrary to what would be important elements of a peace strategy: strengthening the international legal order, reducing enmity and polarization, and rebuilding trust in government.