The Inertia of New Insights and the Inevitability of Taking Up Arms

Inertia is not only a physical phenomenon. It also applies to our own ideas, convictions, and worldviews. We are equally reluctant to change direction like any object in nature, unless forced. We constantly find excuses, even when there are very strong arguments calling for change.

The Inertia of New Insights and the Inevitability of Taking Up Arms

Inertia is not only a physical phenomenon. It also applies to our own ideas, convictions, and worldviews. We are equally reluctant to change direction like any object in nature, unless forced. We constantly find excuses, even when there are very strong arguments calling for change. This is known as cognitive bias. Cognitive bias takes many forms, such as the tendency to preserve the status quo in a comfortable situation. That is entirely understandable when one lives with a level of prosperity and security that no society in human history has ever achieved. That status quo is certainly worth defending. Our bias is therefore understandable, cosy, and comfortable. But it is a luxury we can no longer afford if we wish to retain even a measure of our prosperity and security.

The world we knew lies in ruins. The worldview of an unbreakable transatlantic bond—one with which I myself grew up—is now history. There are no rational arguments to explain this rupture. Yet the current geopolitical course of the United States has become too ideological to remain rational. In the American National Security Strategy that I read in early December 2025, I still saw a struggle between rationality (the first part on principles and priorities) and ideology (the second part on regions). From the debate over Greenland, I conclude that today, ideology is gaining the upper hand.

Geo-strategically, this means that the Arctic region has become the first front for European states, where we must counter not only the actions of China and Russia, but also those of the United States. This will not be achieved by diplomacy and grandiloquent declarations alone. Taking up arms and being willing to use them against any actor that threatens our interests has become unavoidable.

On Epiphany, Ukraine became de facto a front on which Europeans, through the “Coalition of the Willing”, will have to shoulder their own responsibilities. The Russians will never agree to the proposals contained in the “Paris Declaration”. The consequence is that, if we wish to retain even a minimum of credibility for the “Coalition of the Willing”, we must nevertheless assemble and prepare this multinational force for deployment for Ukraine. On the Ukrainian front as well, in my view, taking up arms and being prepared to use them has become unavoidable for the members of the “Coalition of the Willing”, with or without American support. This is a consequence I draw from the text of the “Paris Declaration” and the expected Russian reaction—a consequence that has been, and continues to be, quietly ignored both politically and in the media.

The announced perfect storm for Europe is therefore taking shape in 2026: a war on the European continent, an unexpected front in the Arctic region, and a very long NATO border with Russia that, in essence, now becomes a “Coalition of the Willing” border with Russia. All this comes with additional confrontations in the cyber, space, and hybrid domains—not necessarily only with our familiar adversaries China, Russia, and their acolytes, but also with our long-standing ally, the United States. Additional dependencies, such as in the field of energy, where we have largely replaced Russia with the United States, and in critical raw materials, only deepen the coming storm. Many fronts therefore have to be covered by slowly rebuilding European defence establishments, against the backdrop of societies—especially in Western Europe—that yearn for the status quo.

A fundamental condition for succeeding in this endeavour lies in the willingness to protect vital interests with vital means—namely, with lives. If this conceptual blindness persists, then our cognitive bias must indeed be incurable. The Belgian National Security Strategy of December 2021 warned that one should “use the term ‘vital’ interest with caution, reserving it for that which, as a society, we are prepared to make sacrifices to preserve.” The term ‘vital’ should indeed be used with great prudence. However, the tepid European responses to violations of international law and to threats against the effective functioning of the European Union—both of which constitute ‘vital’ interests for Belgium and for many other EU Member States—are incoherent with this formulation. For our adversaries, this merely proves that many Belgians, and Europeans more broadly, have not yet taken the mental step of truly defending vital interests by all available means. As long as we do not dare to take that step, we are not seated at the table; we are on the menu. This is probably the step where the greatest inertia must be overcome. Yet the willingness to take up arms has today become, for Europeans as well, a conditio sine qua non if we want to avoid that the unique prosperity and security we enjoy unravels completely. Such willingness might even bring the United States back to its senses.

(Photo credit: Stevebidmead, Pixabay)