Part 2: What does “Principled Solidarity” really mean for Germany—and does it hold when conflict arises? 🇪🇺

Welcome back to the Resilience Newsletter and the follow-up piece by Dr. Graf

Dr. Graf's research delves into the evolving German sentiment toward the Bundeswehr, the implications of the Zeitenwende, and how rising conflicts in Europe are reshaping public perception. In our discussion, we explored fundamental questions: Is Germany truly committed to its role in global security? How does the public reconcile long-standing pacifist tendencies with the demands of modern defence? And does NATO membership automatically guarantee unwavering support?

To unpack these complexities, we’ve structured Dr. Graf’s insights into a three-part series. In this second edition, we examine the reality behind “Principled Solidarity” and whether it translates into concrete action for all NATO allies. What we found is far from straightforward—public support for defence measures is shaped by factors well beyond alliance commitments.

Please note that this conversation took place in November 2024, and some aspects may have changed due to recent geopolitical shifts.

We’d love to hear your perspective: Do you believe Europe’s solidarity principles hold firm when conflict escalates? Or are they more conditional than they seem?

Yours,
Uwe, Jack and Jannic

Principled vs. Practical Solidarity: NATO’s Challenge

At the heart of NATO lies Article 5 – the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This concept – principled solidarity – underpins the alliance’s credibility. However, distinguishing between principled and practical solidarity is essential in assessing NATO’s true strength and cohesion.

On the one hand, principled solidarity reflects broad ideological support for NATO’s mission – a shared commitment to collective defence and the values enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty. It signifies general approval of NATO membership and the belief that allies should stand together against external threats.

Practical solidarity, however, is where rhetoric meets reality. It involves tangible contributions – deploying troops to NATO’s eastern flank, increasing defence budgets, participating in joint exercises, and providing material support in times of crisis.

As conflicts escalate and security concerns become more immediate, practical solidarity takes precedence. Yet, historical trends suggest that countries geographically removed from direct threats often limit their engagement. This was evident in varying levels of support for Ukraine, where military assistance and financial aid were not universally embraced across NATO states. The question now is whether a similar pattern will emerge should tensions rise on NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states and Poland, which could become the next flashpoint.

Public Opinion and Support for NATO's Eastern Flank

Recent data reveals strong public support for NATO in principle, but attitudes shift when it comes to practical commitments. While a majority endorse NATO’s collective defence doctrine, support for specific missions – such as Enhanced Forward Presence in Lithuania or Baltic Air Policing in Estonia – has historically been more lukewarm.

According to Dr Graf’s research, three key factors influence public willingness to support NATO operations in a meaningful way:

• Threat Perception – The more significant the perceived security threat, the stronger the public supports increased defence spending and military engagement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, has drastically altered threat perceptions across Europe, leading to growing support for reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank.

• Trust in Allies – Confidence in the United States as a reliable security partner plays a decisive role. Political uncertainty in Washington – such as shifting priorities between administrations – can impact the willingness of European nations to invest in NATO’s collective defence efforts.

• Understanding of Mission Goals – Public backing is significantly higher when military operations are clearly defined and perceived as essential to national or regional security. Vague or politically ambiguous missions often struggle to gain widespread support.

Addressing these concerns requires transparent communication from NATO leaders. Clearly articulating why specific actions are necessary – whether troop deployments, training exercises, or defence spending increases – can mitigate public scepticism. Over the past few years, one of the most debated measures to reinforce solidarity has been the reintroduction of military conscription.

The Case for Conscription

As security concerns grow, some European nations have revisited the idea of military conscription to bolster defence capabilities and foster a greater sense of national responsibility. Currently, Greece, Finland, and Turkey maintain compulsory military service, while others, including Norway, Sweden, and the Baltic states, operate selective service models.

Supporters argue that conscription expands the pool of trained personnel, improving military readiness and ensuring a steady supply of soldiers in times of crisis. It also strengthens the connection between the military and civilian society, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for national security. Additionally, conscription could prevent an overreliance on professional soldiers or voluntary recruits.

However, conscription presents challenges. It requires substantial financial investment for training and equipping conscripts, which strains defence budgets. Integrating short-term conscripts into a modern, technologically advanced military also raises concerns about efficiency. Political resistance remains another obstacle, as many view conscription as an infringement on personal freedoms.

Public attitudes towards conscription remain divided, often influenced by historical experiences, perceived security threats, and societal values. As geopolitical tensions rise and NATO recalibrates its defence posture, discussions surrounding compulsory service are likely to increase. Whether conscription is embraced more widely will depend on how governments balance the need for military readiness with economic constraints and public acceptance.

A New Situation for NATO

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced NATO to fundamentally reassess its strategic priorities. The alliance faces three immediate challenges that will shape its future defence posture.

The first is strengthening deterrence. To prevent further Russian aggression, NATO must enhance its military presence along the eastern flank. This requires a sustained increase in troop deployments, improved readiness levels, and the development of credible rapid-response capabilities. Without a visible and well-prepared deterrent, NATO risks emboldening adversaries and undermining the confidence of its eastern members.

The second challenge is addressing capability gaps. Many NATO members, including Germany, have significant shortfalls in military capability due to decades of underinvestment. Reversing this trend will require long-term financial commitments to defence budgets, as well as deeper cooperation in military procurement and development. Strengthening European defence industries and reducing reliance on external suppliers will be essential in ensuring NATO’s operational effectiveness.

The third and perhaps most complex challenge is maintaining alliance cohesion. NATO comprises nations with diverse political landscapes, economic priorities, and security concerns. While unity has been a defining strength of the alliance, sustaining collective commitment requires diplomatic agility, open communication, and a willingness to compromise on complex issues. Without a shared strategic vision, NATO risks fragmentation at a time when its unity is most critical.

Beyond these operational concerns, NATO must also address broader political and societal challenges: overcoming historical baggage, improving public understanding of security matters, and countering disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine trust in the alliance.

While nuanced perspectives on defence and security are valuable, the current geopolitical climate may necessitate a more pragmatic approach. The challenges facing NATO are significant, and the need for decisive action is urgent.

Beyond these operational concerns, NATO must also address broader political and societal challenges:

• Overcoming Historical Baggage – Countries like Germany, whose post-war identity has been shaped by pacifism, must navigate their historical constraints to take on a greater leadership role in European defence.

• Addressing Public Naivety – Public awareness of military strategy and geopolitical risks remains limited. Educating citizens on the realities of European security is crucial to maintaining long-term support for NATO’s efforts.

• Countering Disinformation – Russia actively exploits disinformation campaigns to erode public trust in NATO. Strengthening media literacy and strategic communications will be critical in combatting these efforts.

Conclusion

NATO’s ability to defend its eastern flank depends on both principled and practical solidarity. While general support for NATO remains strong, public commitment to real-world defence measures is more nuanced. Threat perception, trust in allies, and understanding of mission objectives all play a decisive role in shaping public sentiment.

The debate over military conscription highlights the complexities of sustaining NATO’s defence posture, as governments weigh the benefits of increased manpower against the challenges of implementation. Meanwhile, the alliance must also confront capability gaps, political divisions, and growing disinformation threats.

Most critically, NATO must better communicate its objectives to the public. The geopolitical landscape is shifting rapidly, and a purely theoretical commitment to collective defence is no longer enough. In an era of heightened tensions, NATO’s future will be defined by its ability to translate solidarity into action.

Sources and further reading

• Zwischen Kriegsangst & Kriegstauglichkeit

• Ethik & Militär - Suddenly ready for war?

• Survey on military spending & defence topics in Germany

News That Caught Our Attention 👀

• A tense Oval Office meeting on Friday between Trump and Zelensky, meant to finalize a Ukraine-related business deal, ended abruptly amid disagreements over military aid and Russia, reigniting longstanding tensions and raising questions about future US support. Wall Street Journal

• Germany is on the cusp of a significant shift in leadership, with Friedrich Merz ready to take the reins and potentially reshape the country's stance on the war in Ukraine. As Merz prepares to form a new government, his more assertive approach to supporting Ukraine could mark a dramatic departure from the cautious policies of his predecessors. POLITICO

• As Macron meets with Trump, the two leaders navigate a delicate dance between diplomacy and deal-making, with the future of Ukraine hanging precariously in the balance. The Defense Post

• Thomas Wright argues that the US should pursue a strategy of "coercive diplomacy" to end the Ukraine war, leveraging military pressure and sanctions to force Russia into meaningful negotiations while maintaining support for Ukraine's territorial integrity. Foreign Affairs

• Ukraine can maintain its current fighting pace until summer without US military aid, but may face ammunition shortages and lose access to advanced weapons thereafter. Recent tensions between Trump and Zelensky raise concerns about the future of crucial US support in Ukraine's ongoing conflict with Russia. Wall Street Journal

Featured Jobs 👷

Every week we feature a list of interesting roles in European DefenceTech start-ups and scale-ups for readers seeking their next challenge in their careers.

• Quantum Systems: Platform Engineer (Gilching)

• Labrys Technologies: Senior Product Designer (London)

• Kraken Technologies: Marine Engineer (Southampton)

If you are a founder and would like to promote your open roles, please get in touch with us!

Passionate and want to contribute? 👩🏻‍💻

The European Resilience Tech Newsletter is always looking for regular and guest authors, writers, reporters, content creators etc. If you like what you read, you are passionate about improving European resilience regardless of your background and want to contribute, just reach out to us!

European Resilience Tech Newsletter Team

Uwe Horstmann co-founded Project A Ventures in 2012 as General Partner and has built Project A to be a leading European early-stage investor with over $1bn USD under management and having backed 100+ founders. In addition to Project A, Uwe serves as Reserve Officer in the German armed forces and advises the German Ministry of Defence in digital transformation issues.

Jack Wang is a software engineer turned product-driven tech investor and joined Project A in 2021 to lead the firm’s deep tech investing, which has grown to include DefenceTech. Prior to joining Project A, Jack worked in a variety of organisations such as Amazon and Macquarie Group across Australia, US and UK / Europe. Jack holds a MBA from London Business School and Bachelors of Engineering (Bioinformatics, 1st) from UNSW, Australia.

Jannic Meyer joined Project A initially contributing to what is now known as the Project A Studio, partnering with founders at the pre-idea stage, where he covered a variety of topics ranging from energy infrastructure to dual-use robotics and led our investment in ARX Robotics. He is now part of the investment team at Project A covering all things resilience.

Project A Ventures is one of the leading early-stage tech investors in Europe with offices in Berlin and London. In addition to 1 billion USD assets under management, Project A supports its 100+ portfolio companies with a platform team over 140 functional experts in key areas such as software and product development, business intelligence, brand, design, marketing, sales and recruiting. Project A have backed founders of Trade Republic, WorldRemit, Sennder, KRY, Spryker, Catawiki, Unmind and Voi as well as founders building in European Resilience: