logo
Europeans back higher defence spending amid Russia threat, poll finds

Europeans back higher defence spending amid Russia threat, poll finds

Yahoo4 hours ago

Faced with an unpredictable Donald Trump and an aggressive Russia, Europeans favour increased spending on defence and, in some countries, compulsory military service.
A survey of 12 countries for the European Council on Foreign Relations showed majorities for increased defence spending in Poland (70%), Denmark (70%) and the UK (57%).
Support was softer elsewhere, but large minorities in Germany (47%), Spain (46%) and France (45%) also backed bigger military budgets. Italy was an outlier: only 17% favoured higher spending, with 57% against.
Europeans in several countries supported reintroducing mandatory military service, with the crucial exception of 18- to 29-year-olds – those most likely to be called up in any armed conflict. People in France (62%), Germany (53%) and Poland (51%) were the strongest supporters of military service.
Opposition to the idea outweighed support in countries including Italy (50% against), the UK (53%), Spain (56%) and Hungary (58%).
Older people were keenest on the draft. In Germany, for example, a net total of 49% of over-70s supported military service, while a net total of 46% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed the idea.
The research also found the European public divided sharply over Trump, whose return to the US presidency has scrambled traditional allegiances to Washington. Countries with traditionally strong ties with the US are becoming increasingly sceptical of the US system: in the UK and Germany, majorities of 74% and 67% think it is broken.
'EU-US relations are now increasingly ideological,' the ECFR's Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard wrote in a paper to accompany the findings. 'In many respects the relations of the far-right parties to Trump start to resemble the relationship of former communist parties to the Soviet Union in the cold war. They feel obliged to defend Trump and to imitate him.'
European far-right parties, which often took inspiration from Vladimir Putin's Russia, now look to Trump's system as a model, the authors suggest. In contrast, voters for mainstream parties are critical of Trump and the US political system.
Far-right and national populist allegiance to Trump exists, despite sizeable minorities of voters for those parties seeing his re-election as bad news for Americans. For instance, 34% of AfD voters in Germany, 28% of France's National Rally supporters and 30% of Reform UK voters consider Trump's re-election as 'very bad' or 'rather bad' for Americans.
The findings come on the eve of a Nato summit this week where members of the alliance will be asked to raise defence spending to at least 5% of GDP a year by 2032. Spain has already rejected the target as 'unreasonable' and 'counterproductive'. Italy wants to delay the deadline until 2035.
Voters in most countries polled are sceptical that Europe can be independent of the US. Citizens in Germany, Spain, Poland and Italy were more likely to say it would be very difficult or practically impossible for the EU to become independent of the US in defence and security. Only in Denmark did a slim majority (52%) consider it was possible for the EU to achieve autonomy in defence and security.
Denmark, which is directly threatened by Trump's claims over Greenland, also showed the highest antipathy towards the US president: 86% believe the US political system is broken, while 76% rated Trump's re-election as a bad thing for US citizens.
Several European publics support developing an alternative national nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the US, with the strongest support in Poland (60%), Portugal (62%) and Spain (54%). In Germany, support for such an idea was only 39%. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has proposed that his country could share nuclear weapons with France and Britain but also said this could not replace the US's protective shield over much of Europe.
In an encouraging sign for Kyiv, most Europeans oppose following the US if Trump pushes Ukraine to cede occupied territories or lifts economic sanctions against Russia.
Even in Hungary, which has a government that has consistently slowed agreement on EU sanctions, 40% oppose copying any US move to lift sanctions, while 38% were in favour. In other countries there were strong majorities against emulating any pro-Russia policy on Ukraine that may come from the US.
The report's authors suggest two explanations for this support for Ukraine. 'A benevolent interpretation is that Europeans support an autonomous European policy to support Ukraine and they don't want to blindly follow Trump's lead. But another reading of that data is that Europeans want Ukrainians to continue fighting on their behalf.'
Leonard said: 'Our poll shows that Europeans feel unsafe and that Trump is driving demand for increased defence spending, the reintroduction of military service and an extension of nuclear capabilities across much of Europe.'
Krastev, who is chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, said: 'The real effect of Trump's second coming is that the United States now presents a credible model for Europe's far right. To be pro-American today mostly means to be sceptical of the EU; to be pro-European means being critical of Trump's America.'
Pollsters commissioned by ECFR spoke to 16,440 adults last month.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

USA Today

time20 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash
LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

New York Post

time21 minutes ago

  • New York Post

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

The LA County Sheriff's Department has deleted a social media post calling the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities 'tragic' after being dragged online. 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' the department wrote on X Sunday in a now-deleted post. 'While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners.' 4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deleted the X post following backlash. @LASDHQ/X The post sparked immediate outrage and was allegedly updated to exclude the part sending condolences to 'the victims and families' and calling the US military airstrikes 'tragic.' Moments later, it was ultimately deleted from the platform, according to independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok. However, before being yanked for good, the post garnered a massive outcry of responses, bashing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the insensitive and inaccurate post. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked. There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites,' replied the American advocacy group Stop Antisemitism. 'Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff's HQ.' 'It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages when our brave men and women are risking their lives to protect our country,' wrote another outraged X user. 4 Satellite image shows a close-up view of destroyed buildings at Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, after it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS 'That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated to find out what drove them to write these messages.' 'This is the CRAZIEST reaction to President Trump delivering MONUMENTAL devastation to Iran's nuclear sites,' another person wrote. While another agreed with the outrage, adding, 'Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace. Shame on him!' 4 A man who asked not to be identified holds an Iranian and an upside-down American flag while people gather for a 'No War with Iran x Israel and Immigrants' on June 7, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images 4 LA County Sheriff's deputies arrest a protester after unlawful assembly was declared following a 'No Kings' national rally against the Trump administration in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In response to the backlash over the post, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office released a statement 'apologizing' for the 'offensive and inappropriate' post late Sunday. 'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department's social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the statement reads. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department. As a law enforcement agency, we do not comment on foreign policy or military matters. Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities.' The department acknowledged that it had 'updated' the social media post and has 'launched an internal review to determine how it was created and published.' 'Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols and ensure that any future communications align with our Department's standards of professionalism, respect, and accountability,' the department added. 'We appreciate the continued trust of our community and will work diligently to reaffirm that trust every day.' The Post has reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for comment.

Roknifard: Regime Change in Iran Unlikely
Roknifard: Regime Change in Iran Unlikely

Bloomberg

time26 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Roknifard: Regime Change in Iran Unlikely

Israel woke up to a new reality Sunday after President Trump confirmed that the US had bombed Iran's main three nuclear sites. The attack has been lauded across Israel as a historic symbol of unprecedented cooperation with the US. However, now the concern is about how Iran will respond. Julia Roknifard, Senior Lecturer, School of Law & Governance at Taylor's University, Malaysia told Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche expecting a regime change in Iran on the back of these attacks is extremely unlikely. (Source: Bloomberg)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store