Brussels Feels Like a City Preparing for War: Europe Readies Itself for a World of Hostile Strongmen
A Capital on Edge
Brussels, usually a city of polite diplomacy and bureaucratic calm, now carries an unmistakable sense of tension. The Belgian capital — headquarters of the European Union and seat of the NATO military alliance — feels, as many within its walls quietly admit, like a place preparing for conflict. Beneath the glow of its Art Nouveau facades and café-lined avenues, the city’s political core is working with a consuming urgency: shielding Europe against a world that no longer plays by its rules.
“Europe is in a fight,” declared European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her state of the union address on September 10. Her words cut through the usual political jargon. “Battle lines for a new world order based on power are being drawn right now,” she warned. In her view, the continent must confront a world where “dependencies are ruthlessly weaponised.” Behind those words lies an uncomfortable realization that the postwar European project — built on shared prosperity, diplomacy, and open markets — is under strain from within and without.
The backdrop to her warning is sobering. Russia’s war in Ukraine drags into its fourth year. Europe’s energy security remains precarious. The United States, while still Europe’s closest ally, is increasingly preoccupied with its own domestic and Indo-Pacific challenges. Meanwhile, China’s influence expands through trade and technology, reshaping global alignments in ways that test Europe’s economic ideals and moral compass.
Strategic Autonomy Becomes More Than a Catchphrase
Inside Brussels’ warren of glass-fronted offices, the concept of “strategic autonomy” — long the EU’s somewhat abstract goal — is now a direct policy imperative. For years, European policymakers preached the importance of reducing dependency on foreign powers for essential goods. Now that message has acquired urgent clarity.
Officials are preparing new measures to accelerate the continent’s transition away from foreign-controlled supply chains, particularly in energy, rare earth materials, and defense industries. The lessons of Russia’s 2022 gas cutoffs and China’s dominance in battery production are etched deeply into European memory. In policy discussions, the word “resilience” comes up again and again.
“The EU must be capable of defending itself economically and technologically,” said one senior EU defense official privately. The Commission is expected to unveil a sweeping industrial plan that supports local arms manufacturers, modernizes military logistics, and boosts cooperation between national defense industries — steps that echo the kinds of “wartime economies” seen in the 20th century, but adapted for the high-tech era.
The Shadow of Three Strongmen
Von der Leyen’s remarks alluded to three figures symbolizing the continent’s precarious realities. The first is Vladimir Putin, whose invasion of Ukraine continues to define Europe’s security landscape. The second is China’s Xi Jinping, whose economic reach and digital dominance challenge Western norms. The third, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, presents a more complex case — both a NATO ally and a frequent disruptor of European unity.
In Brussels, diplomats now speak with startling frankness about a Europe surrounded by “power politics.” Gone are the easy certainties of the 1990s, when enlargement and economic integration seemed to promise permanent peace. Instead, meetings of the European Council are now routinely framed in security terms: energy independence, cyber defense, migration control. Even trade policy discussions, once dominated by tariffs and quotas, now revolve around “de-risking” and strategic production.
Officials say this shift is unavoidable. “We are not choosing this world,” a senior EU diplomat remarked this month. “It is being forced upon us.”
The Historical Context of a Changing Europe
To grasp the significance of today’s anxiety, it helps to recall Europe’s recent past. The optimism that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the continent imagined itself as the core of a post-historical world, has long faded. In the 1990s, the creation of the single currency symbolized unity, while enlargement toward Eastern Europe represented an open-armed embrace of democracy. NATO seemed unassailable, and Brussels saw itself as a beacon of peace through trade.
The global financial crisis of 2008 shook that identity. The eurozone sovereign debt turmoil followed, breeding distrust among member states. Then came Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 — a political warning shot — and the refugee crisis, which revealed deep divisions about migration and borders. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine completed the psychological reversal: Europe once again faces threats not of markets, but of war.
Today’s policymakers are keenly aware of that lineage. For them, preparing for confrontation is not a break with Europe’s pacifist ideals, but the continuation of its survival instinct.
Economic Imperatives Drive the New Security Doctrine
Defense, as every economist in Brussels notes, is expensive. European governments are now confronting the economic trade-offs of maintaining prosperity while ramping up military readiness. Germany, once cautious about defense spending, has opened a €100 billion special fund to modernize its armed forces. France continues to invest heavily in defense technology and hybrid warfare capabilities, positioning itself as a leader in European security. Poland and the Baltic states, acutely aware of Russian aggression, are spending an unprecedented share of GDP on defense.
The European Commission’s forthcoming European Defence Industrial Strategy aims to coordinate these efforts. It will streamline procurement, reduce duplication, and emphasize shared manufacturing capabilities. The ultimate goal is to prevent Europe from becoming economically dependent on external suppliers — a vulnerability that has historically limited its autonomy in times of crisis.
Energy independence remains the most critical economic battleground. Brussels has accelerated the shift toward renewables, hydrogen, and nuclear energy diversification. After decades of reliance on Russian gas, the drive to produce energy domestically has grown into a central pillar of both climate and security policy. The transition is expensive, but policymakers see it as non-negotiable.
Lessons from Other Regions and Global Comparisons
Europe’s current realignment mirrors challenges faced elsewhere. In Asia, Japan has rearmed under growing threats from North Korea and China. Australia’s AUKUS partnership signals a similar turn toward collective defense. The United States under President Trump has pressed allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security — a demand that now resonates in Brussels more than ever.
Compared with the United States, Europe’s military integration remains fragmented, its defense budgets often constrained by social spending priorities. Yet, European officials insist that economic size alone gives the bloc leverage. The EU’s combined GDP rivals that of the U.S., and its regulatory power — the so-called “Brussels effect” — continues to shape global standards in trade and technology. If the 20th century’s strength lay in armies, Brussels bets that in the 21st, power also flows through regulation, data, and innovation.
Civil Preparedness and Public Sentiment
On the streets of Brussels, ordinary citizens feel the shift too. Security checkpoints around NATO headquarters have multiplied. Discussions about conscription have re-entered national politics in several member states, including Sweden and Germany. Although public opinion remains wary of militarization, polls show growing acceptance that “peace through strength” may now be Europe’s only option.
Defense ministries are quietly reviewing civil preparedness: emergency logistics, cyber resilience, and infrastructure protection. Government simulations of supply chain disruptions have become routine. While there is no sense of immediate threat to the city, officials admit they must plan for worst-case scenarios — especially given recent hybrid attacks targeting European parliaments and energy networks.
Public anxiety, though restrained, is noticeable. In cafés near the European Parliament, foreign diplomats and journalists describe a city alive with strategic debates. Posters calling for solidarity with Ukraine still adorn street corners, reminders of the moral dimension underpinning Europe’s resolve.
Europe’s Moral and Strategic Balancing Act
Amid this new atmosphere of confrontation, the European project itself faces a philosophical test. Since its founding, the EU’s identity has been entwined with the idea that cooperation can replace might. Its institutions — the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament — evolved from the conviction that compromise and law could tame history’s violent cycles. Now, as the global environment hardens, Europe must integrate power into a system built for persuasion.
That tension defines today’s Brussels. Officials speak of “arming democracy” and “defending values,” phrases that capture both ambition and unease. The European Commission’s vision combines hard power investments with soft power commitments — promoting development aid, diplomacy, and digital innovation that reinforce liberal norms.
Looking Ahead
No one in Brussels yet believes Europe is on the brink of direct war. But few still assume that peace is self-sustaining. The realization echoes through speeches, behind closed doors, and in policy drafts: Europe’s security, economy, and ideals now intertwine as never before.
For Brussels — once the calm administrative heart of postwar Europe — the emerging reality is stark. The institutions built to keep war at bay now prepare, quietly but decisively, to ensure the continent’s survival should the unimaginable return. In the dim corridors of the Berlaymont and the North Atlantic Council chambers, the talk is no longer about if Europe must defend itself — but how, and when.