For Europe, responding to insecurity and responding to ecological disruption are both era-defining challenges. In June last year, NATO decided to respond to the insecurity that member states and many, many citizens feel by increasing military spending to 5% of annual economic output, with a minimum of 3.5% devoted to what they called ‘core’ security, and up to 1.5% for cyber security, infrastructure and suchlike. No comparable pledge has been made for responding to the ecological crisis. Far from it, European (and other) governments currently seeming to be turning their backs on the green agenda.

There is an obvious risk that national security will drain divert energy and resources away from other policies and priorities, such as welfare, health and education as well as the environment. And a further risk that the emphasis on national security and building up the military will have negative effects on the natural environment and accelerate ecological disruption.

Those are the risks. Does it have to be that way?

Starting point

Fresh thinking needs fresh questions. It also needs to start with where we are. For the purposes of this argument, part of the starting point (where we are) is widespread acceptance in Europe of the strategic need to increase military spending to build strength against the threat from Russia. As well as concern about kinetic warfare, this includes a growing awareness of more insidious and often cyber-based security challenges. You may contest those assumptions if you like, but here I am going to accept them.

An equally important part of the starting point is that the pressure of ecological disruption is increasing. This is unarguable. And it is not controversial to identify this as an existential threat to our way of life. The EU’s five-yearly environment report says, “The degradation of our natural world jeopardises the European way of life.” Of climate change it says, “Europe is the fastest-warming continent on the planet; our climate is changing at an alarming rate, threatening security, public health, ecosystems, infrastructure and the economy.” A report by UK intelligence chiefs, which appears thus far to have been suppressed by the government, makes the same point. So does NATO’s Strategic Foresight Analysis 2023, which stated, “Climate breakdown and loss of biodiversity is the most consequential and, in the long-term, the most likely existential challenge.”

From “either/or” to” both/and”

With this starting point of two key challenges, My question is not, Do we need to increase military spending?

My question is instead, Can we do that without speeding up the trashing of the natural environment?

And even, Could we do it in a way that would contribute to ecological sustainability?

The standard way of thinking about different policy priorities such as a secure defence and ecological sustainability is to consider the trade-offs that are involved. This involves pitting the priorities against each other. In general, the one with the most bureaucratic, economic and established political backing will win. Resources available for one purpose are by definition not available for another and the result is zero-sum – winner takes all. If the backing for the contending priorities is equally balanced, then there’s a compromise, often known as the principle of equal misery. Nobody’s happy. And the whole thing is even worse if the activity needed to implement one priority such as increasing military spending will actually impose a cost on the other – in this case, moving towards ecological sustainability.

It is a well-established, widely used and inevitably sterile way of handling the problem.

To get beyond it, you have to re-imagine trade-offs as opportunities for co-benefits and deliberate strategic convergence between different policy priorities.

If you can do that, then, “both/and” replaces “either/or” in a systematic search for synergies.

Looking for the sweet spot

So we start the search by (a) figuring out the risks in our two worrisome areas, and (b) foregrounding the aim of achieving optimal cost-effectiveness in both. Then we try to find the sweet spot where the same act reduces both a security risk and an ecological risk. I don’t by any means have the answers to my questions but I think I have some hints. Four of them, to be precise.

For example, Europe’s fossil fuel dependence on Russia takes us towards the synergy between energy independence and renewables. Renewable sources now account for just over 40% of world electricity supply. More investment in renewables is needed if there is to be any chance of slowing down global warming, especially if the goal of universal access to electricity is still worth something (progress on that is currently stalled). This suggests that reducing energy vulnerability by boosting renewables could be a way both to mitigate both environmental and geopolitical risk in one policy package. 

Another example can be found in critical minerals and, more generally, key natural resources. For the EU, reliable access to critical minerals is one of the key conditions for achieving decarbonisation and the European Green Deal. Whether European states are able to gain that access is one reason for doubt. Another reason to wonder about the goal is that access to natural resources is increasingly competitive and conflictual. If any residual doubt persists about that, take a look at the motives for the US raid on Caracas on 3 January and for Trump’s pressure on Greenland. While it makes sense to look to technological innovation to address part of this problem, it makes even more sense to manage the appetite for natural resources through investing in the circular economy. This would both reduce vulnerabilities arising from ecological disruption and reduce geopolitical and conflict risk.

There are two components to the 5% pledge that NATO states made in June last year on military spending: a ‘hard’ 3.5% on the military, and a ‘soft’ 1.5% on broader security concerns such as cyber and critical infrastructure. In both hard and soft parts, there will be increased investment, which would normally be expected to have a heavy and negative environmental impact.

Flipping the normal narrative, it is worth exploring how military activities can be carried out in such a way that they support the Green Deal and ecological sustainability. This is what is usually called greening the military. This is the third example of “both/and” replacing “either/or”. It focusses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels. It is sometimes derided as being a matter of the army procuring green tanks. But, honestly, if it has to have tanks, wouldn’t green be better? The military themselves will probably be on board with greening if it does not reduce operational standards, and maybe enthusiastic if it enhances operational security by, for example, removing the need for vulnerable supply chains. Greening the military could include writing environmental standards into the design specifications for new equipment.

The fourth example can be found by thinking about how infrastructure could built so it is useful both in security emergencies and in normal times. What this means in practice might focus on, for more examples, reinforcing shorelines, flood prevention, decentralising some infrastructure, enhancing civilian readiness, and improving environmental monitoring. This is not so much a spin-off from either the Green Deal or the NATO decision in June 2025 but rather of spin-in, of the planned convergence of diverse benefits in one product, process or system.

Positive sum

Overall, in this perspective, once you get beyond trade-offs and the zero-sum trap, it is possible to envisage how the Green Deal could contribute to security and enhanced security could likewise contribute to fulfilling the Green Deal. 

NB

I have explored these issues and their political, policy and research context in my report, Sustainable Defence in a Challenging Environment.

The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra), which has launched a research call on some of the themes.