A sovereign state, even one that seeks stability and peace, cannot afford to ignore one fundamental strategic question: Who might become its enemy? This is not paranoia, but responsibility. The ability to develop defensive and offensive capabilities and, above all, to preserve security independence is a prerequisite for a state’s very existence.
History repeatedly demonstrates that peace is not a natural condition; it is the product of power, deterrence, and the capacity to endure over time.
Poland understood this reality nearly two decades ago. When it invested in advanced anti-tank missile systems, a seemingly reasonable question was raised: Against whom?
The region appeared relatively calm. Poland had already joined NATO and was preparing for accession to the European Union (EU) alongside Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Why invest in anti-armor capabilities when no immediate threat was visible?
The strategic assessment, however, was clear even then. Russia, despite the collapse of the Soviet bloc, had not abandoned its perception of influence, expansion, and power. Having emerged from decades of Soviet domination, Poland internalized a lesson that much of Europe would only confront years later: that strategic intent does not vanish simply because geopolitical conditions temporarily stabilize.
In today’s security environment, the limited number of producers of advanced weapons systems constitutes a structural vulnerability.
Fighter aircraft production, for example, is concentrated among only a few actors: the United States, Europe, Russia, India, and China. Such concentration creates monopolistic dependencies, political leverage, and strategic exposure.
Expanding production capabilities in economically robust states is therefore not an industrial indulgence, but a strategic investment. Beyond military utility, such capabilities generate broader national advantages in engineering, advanced materials, software development, and artificial intelligence (AI), all domains critical to long-term competitiveness and national resilience.
Israel has confronted a similar dilemma in the past. The decision to develop an indigenous fighter aircraft, the Lavi, reflected a pursuit of full strategic autonomy. Although the program was ultimately cancelled before reaching operational maturity, the underlying question remains highly relevant today: Should Israel continue to rely almost exclusively on the United States for advanced airpower, or should it pursue diversification through European platforms or even multinational development frameworks? This is not merely a cost-benefit calculation; it is a question of national resilience and freedom of action under crisis conditions.
Europe’s experience illustrates the consequences of strategic assumptions. For decades, European states relied heavily on NATO guarantees, reduced domestic defense production, and prioritized welfare and economic integration over military readiness.
When the security environment deteriorated, the resulting capability gaps became immediately apparent. Today, most European countries are significantly increasing defense expenditures, not only to reinforce their defensive postures but also to restore offensive and deterrent capabilities. Germany’s rapid acquisition of missile defense systems, alongside renewed force-building efforts in the United Kingdom, Finland, Slovenia, and others, reflects a belated recognition that credible deterrence cannot be outsourced indefinitely. Concurrently, arms exports increasingly require local production or co-production, reinforcing national security ecosystems within recipient states.
Yet Europe’s deeper failure has been conceptual rather than industrial. The European Union fostered political and economic integration without clearly allocating military responsibilities, without constructing complementary defense-industrial value chains, and without establishing an effective unified military force. Cooperation without a defined division of roles does not translate into operational power.
Societal resilience
Beyond platforms and budgets lies an equally decisive factor: societal resilience.
Civil resilience constitutes a strategic asset that directly affects a state’s ability to sustain prolonged conflict. Many European societies demonstrate limited tolerance for military or civilian casualties, a constraint that shapes strategic decision-making. Israel offers a contrasting example.
Following the events in Israel on October 7, 2023, the state’s gravest national trauma since its establishment, Israel continued to operate across multiple theaters, while undertaking an extensive national effort to recover hostages and support affected families.
In parallel, economic activity persisted, civil society mobilized, and state institutions continued to function. Such resilience is cumulative; it is built through experience, social cohesion, and institutional preparedness.
Alliances, while essential, must be understood as interest-based rather than permanent or uniform.
The evolving relationships between the United States and Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine underscore the fluidity of strategic partnerships.
Democratic leadership cycles, typically four to eight years, introduce additional uncertainty, often resulting in abrupt policy shifts. No state can responsibly anchor its national security strategy to the political continuity of external actors.
The challenge intensifies further when confronting unpredictable leadership and rapidly evolving threats, such as ballistic missiles, nuclear proliferation, loitering munitions, and unmanned systems.
Preventing existential threats, notably those posed by Iran, requires more than technological superiority. It demands a deep understanding of adversaries: their motivations, ideological drivers, strategic culture, and red lines.
Expansionism, ideology, religion, and identity increasingly intersect as drivers of conflict in the contemporary era. Without understanding of such, even substantial defense budgets and advanced capabilities will prove insufficient.
Operational implications and strategic takeaways
First, states must institutionalize continuous threat assessment as a core element of national security planning. Threat perception should not be driven by temporary calm or alliance structures but by adversary intent, capability development, and long-term strategic culture.
Second, security autonomy should be treated as a strategic objective, not an industrial preference. While full self-sufficiency is neither feasible nor desirable, excessive reliance on a single supplier or ally introduces unacceptable risk. Diversified procurement, indigenous capabilities, and multinational development frameworks are essential to preserving freedom of action.
Third, defense-industrial policy must be integrated into national security strategy: Domestic production capacity, including co-production and licensed manufacturing, should be viewed as a component of deterrence. In an era of disrupted supply chains and geopolitical competition, the ability to surge production rapidly is as critical as the platforms themselves.
Fourth, alliances should be leveraged but never assumed: Strategic planning must account for political change within partner states – and include contingency planning for reduced support or policy divergence. Independent operational capabilities remain indispensable, even within strong alliance frameworks.
Fifth, societal resilience must be explicitly incorporated into defense planning. Civil preparedness, economic continuity, psychological resilience, and public trust in institutions directly affect a state’s capacity to sustain military operations over time. Investment in resilience is not ancillary to defense spending. It is a force multiplier.
Finally, strategic foresight must extend beyond technology. Advanced systems are indispensable, but they cannot substitute for a deep understanding of adversaries’ motivations and constraints. Effective deterrence depends as much on strategic insight and cultural intelligence as on hardware.
In an era defined by uncertainty, fragmented alliances, and rapidly evolving threats, the states that endure will be those that combine military capability with industrial depth, societal resilience, and strategic clarity – and that recognize early that peace, while desirable, must always be actively secured.