INTRODUCTION
Welcome to PEB – Royal Russell’s student-led Politics, Economics & Business publication.
This marks the first edition of the year, and we’re excited to share it with the wider school community. As the year progresses, there will be many more opportunities to get involved, so even if this is your first time reading PEB, it certainly doesn’t have to be your last.
If you have an interest in politics, economics, or business, this is the club for you. Students are encouraged to submit original articles, commentaries, or analyses for consideration in future editions. Also find at the back a fun activity to engage with.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Rohan Phillpot, who will be succeeding me as PEB’s next President. I’m confident he’ll lead the publication with the same enthusiasm and commitment.
Happy reading!
Abraham Kawa President, PEB
FeaturedArticles:
AlizehAgha
Eloise Downing
Harry Dawes & Shaan Patel
Johan Prinsloo
Joseph Venkatasami
Leo Welsh
Rohan Phillpot
Matias Portman & Brandon Simons
Emerson Moore
The Prominence of Nationalism Today
Nationalism quite simply is defined as “a political ideology, based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” If we take it in contrast to other ideologies, such as Liberalism or Marxism, Nationalism is something that will always be important and will constantly be changing.
Overall, we are going to explore the cause for the rise in Nationalism, looking at the political, economic and social factors, and case studies of two countries in which Nationalist ideologies are particularly prominent. Firstly, social factors: Nationalism has been emphasised as a far more straightforward and simple ideology to follow, its key principle based on encouraging people to form a social identity by being part of a group with the same ideals and values. In particular, the media has played a growing role in the spread of Nationalism, with social media being used as a platform for the rapid spread of identity politics and sometimes misinformation. In terms of economic factors, growing economic inequality across the world, causing greater gaps between the ‘haves’and ‘have-nots’has become the driving force of Nationalist stances, with the latter blaming their predicament on globalisation, immigration, and the rise of the political elite. This resentment has led to protests and backlashes, with nationalist movements fighting for stronger state intervention and protectionist measures in order to revive the economy. Politically, the polarisation of societies ultimately has led people to strive for unity; a clear example of this being during conflict, when individuals feel the need to protect their borders, creating unity but also promoting nationalist ideals widely.
One example of Nationalism today is in the USA, which started rising in the late 18th century;America is labelled as one of the most Nationalist countries in the world. In fact, statistics from YouGov highlight 41% of individuals hold the patriotic belief thatAmerica is “the best country in the world”. America is fuelled by ‘civic nationalism’, a type of nationalism that focuses more on shared citizenship and civic values rather than a cultural group identity as its foundation. The most striking example of this are the rules within the codified Constitution, which holds everyAmerican to a certain set of legal and political rules.Another key example in whichAmerica’s nationalism is reinforced is through Donald Trump’s numerous patriotic speeches, such as his inaugural address in January 2025; this focused on how he planned to restoreAmerica in strength, sovereignty and unity, stating, “there’s no nation like our nation”. This emphasises nationalism withinAmerica, with Trump’s message majorly patriotic and inviting unity amongst the people. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of patriotism and pride withinAmerican culture, brought about through a sense of community, shared values and history, and through such activities such as voting in elections. Ultimately Civic Nationalism is an example of a positive type of Nationalism for communities, as it allows people to thrive together regardless of race or
gender simply due to shared values. While in the US it is not a perfectly working model, it does reflect the potential benefits to its growing prominence.
On the other hand, another example of a nationalistic country is Pakistan. Here, religious and cultural nationalism both play a huge role. 96.4% of Pakistan’s population identify as Muslim. Its cultural nationalism stems from its origin with the partition of India in 1947 into two separate states, the “Two-Nation-Theory"; this highlighted the differences in identity between Muslims and Hindus as separate nations, each with their own cultures and principles, and separate religious identities.Akey example of nationalism in Pakistan today is the Kashmir conflict, which is ongoing to this day, in which the main dispute stands as to whether Kashmir belongs to India or Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir had chosen India in 1947, however Pakistan felt it belonged to them because the majority of the population remained Muslim, and this led to a number of wars and disputes. This emphasises Pakistan's nationalistic tendencies as it shows the lengths that the country will go to in order to protect what they believe belongs to it, its identity, a key feature of nationalism. This then was the beginning of Pakistan’s identity as an Islamic nation. The Shariah Law is one of the foundational elements within Pakistan, a group of laws emphasising Islamic principles Muslims are supposed to abide by, shaping the system and society in which people live in.
ByAlizeh Agha
Do you want to make some money?
Side hustles are a way of making extra money on top of a primary occupation. They have become increasingly popular since the COVID-19 pandemic and particularly amongst teenagers and younger people. This report will explore the benefits, drawbacks and what side hustles you can try to earn extra money.
The concept has always been around. Our parents used to babysit, and their parents used to do a paper round. But now, thanks to technology, there are many more options for side hustles, and it is easier than ever to do this type of work with the growth of the gig economy, social media and AI. There are apps that help, such as selling your unwanted clothes on Vinted, Depop or other alternatives.
Side hustles have the benefit of being flexible as they can be done at any time and from anywhere. You can choose when you want to work, how much you want to do and whatever work fits you best. You become your own boss, and this brings its own advantages such as not needing to work when you are ill. They can be particularly attractive to students who are busy or are not ready for a ‘real’job, people with few qualifications or people who work in a 9-to-5 job but still need extra income. Some side hustles may not bring in a lot of extra income but even a little gives you more financial freedom or helps fight the cost-of-living crisis.
There are other advantages to side hustles than just extra income.As students, it may be beneficial to add a side hustle in your personal statements and CVs as all side hustles tend to show initiative and creativity. They can help develop skills such as communication, time management, resource management and organisation. The experience may make you realise that you want to carry on the side hustle into a job. Lastly, you will gain networking experience which is useful as you will meet new people by connecting with customers, clients and even other small business owners which can lead to future jobs or career opportunities.
Like most jobs, there are negatives that come along with side hustles. One of the main challenges is finding the time to balance school, work or your personal life with the side hustle. Side hustles may be tiring or stressful especially if you’re depending on your side hustle for income. Side hustles can be unpredictable - some weeks you may earn plenty and some weeks can be disappointing. Then there is tax to consider. Everyone has a £1,000 tax free allowance for all side hustles each tax year in the UK. You need to tell the HMRC if the income exceeds this amount and it is your responsibility to keep full and accurate records.
Your skills, interests and the time you have available are what you must think about when choosing the hustle that works for you. For example, you might like working with kids, so you would be well-suited to babysitting. Think about your goals and what you want to achieve in the future. Is earning quick cash, gaining experience or finding something that you can grow to a full- time business in the future your main objective? Knowing this will help determine your choice. Lastly, budget and resources may limit what you can achieve. Some side hustles may include start-up costs which may not be affordable for some. For example, some hustles require equipment while others, like dog walking, cost very little to begin.
There are many different side hustles you can try, falling into the categories of selling things, providing a service or creating content. Some popular side hustles are:
- Selling items on Vinted
- Renting out a room onAirbnb or even a drive on JustPark
- Being an influencer
- Tutoring
- Dog walking
- Taxi driving on Uber
- Delivering food on Uber Eats
However, why not develop your own side hustle? WithAI it has become even easier to do if you identify a product or service that is in demand and then responsibly develop a solution!
By Eloise Downing
How has SaudiArabia’s success rapidly grown?
Around 100 years ago, in 1938, SaudiArabia discovered one of the largest oil reserves in the world, in Dhahran, making the country home to one of the largest oil reserves. This was the start to their economic success. The company – SaudiAramco grew into the most valuable company on the earth, where they generate enormous revenues each year. During WW2, SaudiArabian income from oil increased from around $20million to $80 million per year. After WW2, global demand for oil continued to skyrocket, which benefited SaudiArabia even more! During the 1970 oil crisis, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), restricted oil supply which greatly increased the price, giving SaudiArabia massive profits.As many countries needed oil to survive, it created stronger political bonds with major countries such as the USA. This helped SaudiArabia in a number of different ways: 1. US military protection from nearby threats such as Iran and Iraq, 2. US oil companies like Chevron helped develop drilling, refining and exposing lots of new technology to SaudiArabia. This oil was priced in dollars due to the Saudi-US alliance, giving SaudiArabia vast dollar reserves, boosting its global financial power and allowing it to invest globally.
How might oil become problematic for SaudiArabia?
With oil being a finite resource it poses numerous problems for SaudiArabia in the long run. One of these problems is the possibility of them possessing a “resource curse”. We have seen this with many other countries in history, such as Venezuela in 2010. Venezuela invested too much in oil and most of their working population worked in oil reserves. This meant that when oil prices plummeted, the country suffered multiple recessions leading to economic collapse. Furthermore, their workers couldn’t work elsewhere due to them having limited skills as they specialised in this sector (part ofAdam Smith’s division of labour theory).
Another problem with reliance of oil, is that with the world turning into a more environmentally conscious society, many countries are shifting towards renewable energy, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. This shift threatens SaudiArabia’s economy. This means they will need to diversify economically to escape their over-dependence on oil.
SaudiArabia’s unlikely saviour: Sport?
SaudiArabia has rapidly become super successful due to its major investment in sport, particularly in football and boxing. While this might sound like they may be showing off their wealth, these investments are part of a more long-term plan to strengthen their economy. It is boosting tourism and global exposure attracting millions of international visitors. These tourists then spend money on other services like hotels, restaurants and transport in Saudi Arabia. In addition, investing in all these stadiums, resorts and training facilities creates employment in construction, hospitality, and marketing. This is known as the multiplier effects. With many new job opportunities and an economy that is only on the up, this may encourage more workers to immigrate. This moves the PPF (Production Possibilities Frontier) curve to the right due to the increase in labour. This all increases the circular flow of income boosting economic growth. Massive sporting events such as many of Tyson Fury’s boxing matches or Cristiano Ronaldo’s football matches also attracts lots of foreign investment from other global brands within media deals and merchandising opportunities. These factors all contribute to generating long-term financial returns creating sustainable revenue streams which are independent from the oil revenues.
By Harry Dawes and Shaan Patel
Votes at 16: Good or Not?
On the 17th of July, the Labour government announced that they would honour their manifesto pledge and introduce votes for 16- and 17-year-olds by the next General Election, meaning school children will be able to vote for the government of the UK. The proposal, for some, is seen as ridiculous, yet there is a method behind the “madness.” The policy has many backers, such as the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, and has been an issue brought up consistently over the years.
It first arose in the 2001 Liberal Democrat manifesto and from then on has continued to gain growing support. This article aims to explore the arguments for and against Votes at 16, whether those arguments have evidence and weight behind them, and whether this policy could benefit the level of participation in UK democracy.
Encompassing the argument for Votes at 16 is the idea of maturity. Backers of the policy argue that the UK has been progressively trusting 16- and 17-year-olds with key life decisions and therefore can trust them to vote. The key example of this is the ability to obtain full-time employment. When choosing sixth form education, all 16- and 17-year-olds could theoretically leave the education system and engage with the world of work, earning a consistent paycheck and paying taxes. Backers argue that if we can trust 16- and 17-yearolds to work and pay taxes, then why shouldn’t they be able to vote on how that money is used by the government? How can we claim that they lack the maturity for key decision making? However, critics of the policy point to the restrictions placed on 16- and 17-yearolds: they cannot legally drink, they cannot marry without parental consent and are still
generally treated as children in the court of law. If 16- and 17-year-olds cannot be trusted with these basic things, critics ask, why should they be able to vote on them? year-olds to work and pay taxes, then why shouldn’t they be able to vote on how that money is used by the government?
Furthermore, is the policy even wanted? Backers argue that one of the key benefits of Votes at 16 is that it would help engage younger people in politics in a controlled environment such as school, as the UK has been facing declining turnout rates in successive elections, with the 2024 election achieving the lowest turnout at a general election since 2001 (see graph for details). The policy of Votes at 16 has been implemented in Scotland and Wales (for Scottish Parliament, Senedd, and local elections), and studies have been conducted on whether they have resulted in better turnouts for younger people. These studies have initially shown positive signs, with reports from the Universities of Edinburgh and Sheffield indicating that younger people in Scotland and Wales who vote at 16 or 17 are more likely to continue voting in the future. However, critics argue that the policy will not lead to much change.A poll conducted around the time of the announcement found that nearly half of 16- and 17year-olds do not actually think they should have the vote. If these people do not want to vote, why would they when they get the right to do so?
I personally would argue that the success of the policy comes down to how much the Labour government commits to it. If the government pushes voting to younger people through political awareness schemes and works with youth engagement initiatives, then there is a good chance the policy could turn out to be a success. However, if they leave the policy to fend for itself, it will more than likely die out, and the youth participation crisis will continue to spiral. This also relies on the political parties themselves: if political parties make efforts to engage younger audiences through new forms of campaigning, such as social media, it could result in a shift in importance toward the younger electorate. However, the policy has proven controversial and has not yet been implemented, so it remains to be seen whether the Votes at 16 experiments will be seen as a success or another idealistic dream brought down by reality.
By Johan Prinsloo
The Irony of Trump: Once a Pioneer of Free speech,
Now its Greatest Threat
“We are seeing the gravest assault on freedom of speech at least since the McCarthy era” says Jonathan Hafetz Membership Officer, IBAHuman Rights Law Committee. Donald J Trump poses a great threat to freedom of speech in not justAmerica but the wider world. Once a man who claimed (in his second inauguration) that he will “sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech toAmerica” is now a President that has made it illegal to burn theAmerican flag or peacefully protest injustice.
The FirstAmendment Tradition
Freedom of speech is a core value ofAmerican tradition and ideals. It is the first amendment in the US constitution. The amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Here the amendment clearly outlines that Congress is not allowed to make laws that limit the freedom of speech of both individuals and the press. Both of which, Trump has violated.
Trump’s Executive Orders
Such violations are present in the various Executive Orders that he has passed since his inauguration in January of 2025. I will focus on the three most pressing examples. These being: 1. Protest censorship, 2. Media censorship and 3. Flag burning.
Firstly, the censorship of protest was done with the introduction of Executive Order 14188. The intention of this order was to combat antisemitism through the direction of federal agencies to use all legal tools to review civil rights violations at colleges following the October 7th attack. The specific infringement of free speech comes with the case of a specific college graduate. His name is Mahmoud Khalil, and he is a PalestinianAmerican graduate from Columbia university. In March of 2025 he was arrested by ICE for the suspected affiliation with Hamas (a designated terrorist group). He was protesting the current conflict in the Middle East peacefully and did not commit any crime. He was simply exercising his freedom of speech as the FirstAmendment protects. It’s clear that this executive order is not
being used to combat antisemitism but rather to curb political opposition regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Secondly, Trump has issued Executive Order 14290, Ending taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media. This order directed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cut funding for the PBS and NPR. This is done according to Trump because these media networks are bias towards the ‘liberal’agenda and are against him. This is a clear violation of the first amendment as those media networks should be free to exercise their freedom of speech by presenting their news whether it has a bias lens or not. Trump is once again silencing the voices of his critics, thereby acting in line with authoritarian leaders of the past.
Finally, inAugust Trump signed an Executive Order which made burning the US flag illegal with a 1-year prison sentence. This challenged the long-standing precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1989 with Texas vs Johnson this protected flag-burning as free speech under the first amendment. This order was signed after the recent riots in California alongside burning of US flags. Trump argues that the burning of the flag is incitement of riots and violence. There is question over whether this law undermines the first amendment and the ruling of the Supreme court.
Why It Matters
Trump’s action highlights an alarming situation in the USAand how freedom of speech is being threatened by the executive, who is supposed to follow the constitution and protect freedom. Furthermore, Trump is being particularly hypocritical for two reasons. Firstly, throughout his campaign and his presidency he has pushed the idea that he will protect freedom of speech and been particularly critical of the radical ‘woke’left and their censorship. However, this was clearly untrue, as shown by his executive orders - he has done the opposite. Secondly, he is critical of the UK’s non-absolute freedom of speech, particularly the arrest of Lucy Connelly. He has voiced the view that she should have not been arrested as she was simply exercising her freedom of speech, however he precedes to arrest his own citizens for doing that very thing. He is logically inconsistent with his attitude on freedom of speech; he shifts from acting in a libertarian absolute free speech view to an authoritarian control of speech.
This raises the question of how a nation so proud of its constitution, can have a leader so willing to violate it. Through the selective enforcement of the law on political opponents, the administration marginalises the voice of the oppressed and the dissenting. This threatens not only the individual liberties ofAmerican citizens but also the principle of democracy in the USA. How can a president be allowed to prohibit freedom of speech, a value so close to
American roots and history that it is the first amendment, in the nation that is considered the ‘land of the free’?
Wider Implications
Although the situation is bad forAmerica, it has wider implications.As Trump is the President of the USA, he is arguably one of the most powerful and influential persons in the world. It’s possible that his actions will influence other Western countries in similar political climates such as Germany or the UK. One thing is certain though; the promise of free speech is a fragile one that those in power can choose to give and take. Once a self-proclaimed defender of freedom, the Trump administration demonstrates how freedom of speech can quickly become a tool of control.
By Joseph Venkatasami
Will The Reform Party win the next election?
The next UK General Election will occur in 2028. The previous General Election in 2024 was won by Labour in a landslide victory. They saw their best result in nearly a decade. The Conservatives lost 244 seats, mainly picked up by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Reform won only 5 seats but most of their votes came from ex conservative voters. The big question is will Reform be able to continue their momentum to 2028?
Current polling data shows Reform at 35%, leading Labour by 15 points, the Conservatives by 18 points and the Lib Dem’s by 22 points. This implies that if the next election was held today, the Reform Party would win enough votes to form the next government. So, will they be able to hold this share of the vote through to 2028?
Voters care about immigration, the economy, healthcare, welfare, law and order and the military in this order. Reform is scoring well on immigration, and law and order. They are weak on healthcare and welfare and mixed on the economy and the military. The Conservatives are scoring better on the economy and immigration but are weak on welfare and mixed on healthcare, law and order and the military. Both parties score well on immigration but right now Reform are considered more likely to deliver on this. Labour is not yet considered to be strong on immigration, and they are yet to deliver on the economy. If they fail on either of these, they will lose votes.
It is my opinion that if they fail on the topic of immigration these votes will go to Reform but if they fail in terms of the economy the votes will go to the Conservatives. If they deliver on both of them, they will win the next election. I think that the Conservatives will start to improve over the next few years as Labour struggles and people question Reform’s ability to deliver on their promises. I think it will be very close and may result in a hung parliament with Labour holding the most seats. They will then form a government in coalition with the Lib Dem’s. I think Reform will make massive gains but not enough to win. The Conservatives will end up beating Reform and keep their place as the main opposition party.
The key difference in this election is that 16 years olds will be eligible to vote and I think their most important topics will be the economy for jobs and money and welfare for buying houses.
By Leo Welsh
The Downfall of Weight Watchers
Introduction and Background
WW International, or more commonly known as Weight Watchers, once a household name in weight loss and community-based dieting, has faced a dramatic decline in popularity and profits in recent years. Previously valued for its in-person meetings and point-based system, the company now finds itself grappling with shrinking revenue, declining membership, an increasing debt position worth over 1.16 billion USD and a negative depiction by many consumers. WW’s failure is not the result of one single mistake, but rather a range of issues, namely leadership problems leading to delayed adaptions to the market and financial mismanagement, changes in societal standards and the rise in weight loss medications that have rapidly changed consumer expectations. These difficulties led WW International to file for chapter eleven bankruptcy in May 2025, allowing them to restructure their debt, and to delist from the Nasdaq.
1. The Coronavirus - During the Covid-19 pandemic, WW had to scrap their in-person meetings and community-based workshop model, which was one of their primary Unique Selling Points, making a primary competitive advantage obsolete overnight. This was due to the new government restrictions placed on distancing, socialising and unnecessary outings. To combat this, Weight Watchers launched a paid subscription to their app, in which customers could engage in online courses with WW professionals to help them diet and exercise with the goal of losing weight. However, this lacked the personalisation and individualisation that came with their in-person methods. Moreover, as a more affordable and effective alternative, customers turned to social media, with the likes of YouTube, Instagram and TikTok being widely used. Social media influencers and online fitness communities offered free, highly engaging and visual content that resonated more with younger audiences, leading WW’s platform being deemed as dated and less relevant. At its peak in 2020, WW had just under 5 million customers, which fell to just 3.7 million by the third quarter of 2021.
2. New competition – One of the core reasons behind WW’s decline is the rise in GLP-1 medications, namely Ozempic and Wegovy by Danish pharmaceutical company, Novo Nordisk and Mounjaro by the centuries old Eli Lily and Company. These drugs, originally created for treating type 2 diabetes, have shown to be effective for dramatic weight loss results, with most users losing between 10 to 20 percent of their bodyweight, - which is far more than can be achieved with the Weight Watchers program. As a result, many customers began to view obesity as less of a problem and personal failure that can be corrected with will power, but instead as more of a medical condition that should be treated with pharmaceutical intervention. WW was slow to adapt to the rapid consumer behavioural change, leading to a loss in their most profitable (middle and upper socioeconomic class) customers to their new competition. This is presented in the company’s 2024 Q4 fiscal report, which shows a considerable drop of 11.6 percent in turnover, and a profit of just 25.1 million dollars.
3. Leadership – Weight Watchers has had continued leadership instability throughout the last decade with multiple changes in the C-suite, most notably in 2021, when CEO Sima Sistani stepped down just 5 months after launching the “weight health” programme combating the loss of customers to GLP-1 medication and was instead replaced by an interim CEO. Furthermore, in 2024, long term brand ambassador and board member, Oprah Winfrey resigned after publicly announcing her use of Ozempic, highlighting that even their own product was deemed inferior to their competition by their own senior employees. These constant transitions in leadership disrupted any continuity in vision and made it increasingly difficult to execute long term strategies. Moreover, the frequent restructuring and hence shifting of leadership priorities led to inconsistencies in communication amongst employees and eroded shareholder confidence, leading to a decreased market outlook in the publicly traded company.
In conclusion, what makes WW International’s decline so tragic was that the company did have options to combat the problems. If they had responded quickly and more proactively to the emergence of weight loss medications, by perhaps partnering itself with medical providers, it could have positioned itself as the go to all round solution for customers to tackle weight loss - a company that offers pharmaceutical support and in person exercise/ dietary support. Today, if the brand wants to survive, they must not only rebuild their financial position by paying off their debt, but also understand the proposition that consumers now view weight loss through a fundamentally different lens. In my opinion, WW’s position is simply the 2025 version that of Blockbuster or Kodak during the 2010s, where the company had the ability, but failed to change even when the dynamic market was clearly moving.
By Rohan Phillpot
WhyAre My Calvin Kleins More Expensive?
On the 27th ofAugust 2025, the U.S. raised additional duties on Indian exports, bringing the total tariff to 50% impacting a large share of goods, especially Calvin Kleins underwear.
The tariff focused on artificially increasing the price of knitted and woven apparel, as well as textiles which made up $8.4 billion of exports to the US in FY2025. This sent a severe shock, especially for the export-driven clothes manufacturing industry. Many firms now face tough choices, whether to cut margins or exit U.S. markets. The impact is asymmetric across firms within the industry, as larger diversified firms with complex supply chains are able to avoid the higher costs, whereas smaller firms face the risk of bankruptcy and permanent shutdowns.
Ultimately, this increased the costs faced by PVH, which owns Calvin Klein (and Tommy Hilfiger), by approximately 35% and they have estimated a US$65 million negative effect on profits. They face higher costs for goods made in India for the U.S. market, which leaves them with the option to squeeze profit margins or pass on costs to their consumers in the form of higher prices. However, rising prices risks lowering demand and threatening competitiveness. PVH has begun agreements to shift production of its 17 factories in India to Bangladesh and Vietnam to bypass the steep U.S. tariffs on Indian imports.
Calvin Klein has decided to increase their prices temporarily for their product range, including their world-renowned underwear. This is their attempt to remain profitable in the short-term. Therefore, the reason why your Calvin Klein Underwear is more expensive is due to the 50% tariff imposed by the U.S. in India.
By Brandon Simons and Matias Portman
Europe on alert
Why Europe is preparing for war
For majority of the last eighty years, Europe has lived in peace. After the destruction of WW2, countries built and joined the European Union and joined NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) to avoid conflict. Yet today, the idea of a new world war no longer feels impossible. From the battlegrounds of Ukraine to rapidly growing cyber threats, European governments are preparing for the worst.
The new threats facing Europe: The biggest shock came in February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For many people in Europe, this was a hard reminder that a large-scale war could return to the continent. Countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and Germany started thinking about what could happen next. They began to wonder if they could be a target too. At the same time, war is not just about tanks and troops anymore. Cyber-attacks can shut down public transport and important infrastructure. Drones and artificial intelligence are changing how battles are fought. Global politics is also changing. The United States is focusing more on Taiwan, the Pacific, and Asia, so Europe feels more pressure to be able to defend itself on its own.
How Europe is preparing: The response has been dramatic. Germany, which used to be careful about spending money on its military, announced a €100 billion re armament programme, its biggest since WW2. Poland is also expanding its armed forces and improving its logistics and technology. Its goal is to build and keep one of the strongest armies in Europe.
Some countries have brought back conscription. Lithuania, Sweden, and Finland are training young people for national defence. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Finland joined NATO, and Sweden followed soon after.
Technology is also a key focus. European militaries are buying more drones, investing in cyber defence, and looking into advanced weapons. NATO training exercises across Europe now include thousands of troops, tanks, and fighter jets, practising for situations that many people did not think could happen again.
Politics, society, and debate: These preparations have started a lot of arguments. Supporters say stronger defences are needed to deter Russia and other threats. They believe being ready makes war less likely. Critics worry that spending so much money on weapons means less money for schools, hospitals, and climate action.
To conclude: Europe is on high alert. The fear of bigger conflict feels stronger than it has since the Cold War. Leaders say preparation is important to protect countries and prevent aggression. But it is still not clear if these actions will keep peace or bring Europe closer to war.
Only one question remains: Is preparing for war the only way to secure peace?
By Emerson Moore
