Europe must urgently increase the size of its armed forces if it is to deter future aggression from Russia, the alliance’s most senior military officer has warned, delivering one of the starkest assessments yet of the continent’s security outlook as the war in Ukraine approaches another year of grinding conflict.
Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s military committee, said that while the alliance remains collectively stronger than Moscow on paper, European nations risk undermining that advantage if increased defence spending does not translate into more soldiers, better readiness, and deployable combat power. His remarks come at a moment when governments across the continent are pledging to raise military budgets but facing mounting difficulty persuading citizens to enlist.
Speaking as political and defence leaders gathered at the Munich Security Conference, Dragone argued that the strategic environment had changed faster than Europe’s military structures. “Many nations need to increase the numbers,” he said, emphasizing that capability targets set by the alliance require not just new equipment but people trained to use it.
The conference unfolded against a backdrop of transatlantic unease and renewed debate about burden-sharing, sharpened by statements from Donald Trump questioning longstanding security arrangements and even floating the idea of annexing Greenland, a proposal that rattled European capitals and forced urgent diplomatic engagement. Marco Rubio described the moment as a “new era in geopolitics,” one that would compel allies to reassess their roles and responsibilities within the alliance.
European leaders have responded by promising to increase core defence spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035, a significant leap after decades of reductions that followed the end of the Cold War. Yet Dragone and other military planners say funding increases risk becoming symbolic unless they reverse the steady decline in troop numbers seen across much of Europe since the 1990s.
In United Kingdom, the regular army has shrunk to roughly 70,000 personnel, with recruitment and retention targets repeatedly missed. Similar struggles are evident elsewhere, as younger generations show less inclination toward military careers and governments grapple with how to make service attractive in highly competitive labor markets.
Some nations have taken more drastic measures. Lithuania, Latvia, and Sweden have reintroduced or expanded forms of conscription, reflecting growing anxiety along NATO’s eastern flank about Russia’s long-term intentions. Military planners argue that these policies, once politically unthinkable, now reflect a recognition that deterrence depends as much on manpower as on advanced technology.
Dragone also defended NATO’s decision to intensify its focus on the Arctic, a region increasingly viewed as a strategic frontier. Russia has been expanding infrastructure there, building new bases, modernizing Soviet-era facilities, and testing advanced weapons systems. The High North, once peripheral to European defence planning, is rapidly becoming central to calculations about missile detection, naval mobility, and access to critical sea routes opened by melting ice.
The Arctic shift has drawn criticism from some policymakers who fear overstretch, but NATO commanders insist the deployments are necessary to match Russian activity and monitor a growing Chinese presence in the region. Officials say research vessels sent by Beijing are mapping the seabed in ways that could have future military applications, underscoring the emergence of a multipolar contest extending far beyond Europe’s traditional theatres.
At the same time, alliance planners are pressing member states to coordinate procurement more closely, arguing that fragmented national purchasing drives up costs and slows readiness. Colonel Martin O’Donnell, speaking on behalf of NATO’s operational headquarters, said there was no single model for rebuilding troop strength, whether through volunteer forces, reserves, or conscription, but stressed that “more troops is a better thing” across the board.
The debate is unfolding amid political pressure to preserve social spending while funding defence expansions, a balancing act that has exposed divisions within European governments. Friedrich Merz acknowledged strains in the transatlantic relationship but called for a renewed partnership with Washington, arguing that NATO membership remained a strategic advantage for both sides of the Atlantic.
“Even the United States will not be powerful enough to go it alone,” Merz said, warning that great-power rivalry required deeper cooperation rather than retrenchment. His comments reflected concern among European leaders that strategic uncertainty could embolden adversaries if allies appear divided.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed that message, saying the European Union was prepared to assume greater responsibility for its own defence after years of relying heavily on American capabilities. Her remarks signaled a broader shift toward what officials describe as “strategic autonomy,” though NATO remains the cornerstone of collective security.
Military voices from Ukraine added urgency to the discussion. Colonel Oleksandr Falshtynsky, a frontline surgeon, warned delegates that modern warfare evolves daily and that European societies must adapt before conflict reaches their borders. His message resonated with defence chiefs who see the war as a live demonstration of how quickly industrial-scale combat can return to the continent.
Despite Europe’s economic weight and technological sophistication, analysts caution that rebuilding credible land forces will take years of sustained investment, training, and political will. Tanks, artillery, and aircraft can be purchased relatively quickly; experienced soldiers and cohesive units cannot. The challenge is compounded by demographic decline in many countries, shrinking the pool of potential recruits just as demand for personnel rises.
For NATO strategists, the lesson of the past decade is that deterrence cannot be improvised. The alliance’s credibility, they argue, rests not only on advanced weapons systems or declarations of unity but on the visible presence of trained forces capable of deploying rapidly across multiple fronts, from Eastern Europe to the Arctic Circle.
As the Munich gathering concluded, officials left with a shared recognition that Europe’s security architecture is entering a new phase—one defined less by expeditionary missions abroad and more by territorial defence at home. Whether governments can persuade their citizens to fill the ranks needed to sustain that mission may determine how effectively the continent can navigate what leaders increasingly describe as its most dangerous strategic environment since the Cold War.
