Ukraine, NATO & Europe’s Security Crossroads and Why the UK Needs to Spend More on Defense with Special Guest, Sir Michael Fallon

To justify its role as a bridge between the U.S. and Europe the UK needs to spend more on defense

Is the West Ready for What Comes Next?

On The Ripple Effect, we don’t just skim the headlines—we dive into their deeper consequences. And with so many seismic shifts happening on the global stage, we decided this conversation couldn’t fit into just one episode. So, we launched a two-part series tackling two of the most pressing geopolitical issues of 2025.

• Part One focuses on Ukraine, shifting European politics, and NATO’s evolving role in regional security. With upcoming elections in Germany, Poland, and Romania, support for Ukraine is being tested, and discussions around a European peacekeeping force are gaining traction.

  
  

• Part Two shifts to Cyber warfare, energy security, and hybrid threats—Russia’s influence isn’t just about tanks on a battlefield. We explore why the UK needs to spend more on defense as NATO's most reliable European military force.

For this discussion, I had the pleasure of sitting back and watching two exceptional minds at work—while quietly wondering if I should just hand them the show. Sir Michael Fallon, former UK Defence Secretary, brings deep experience and a sharp strategic lens honed at the highest levels of government. My co-host, Nicholaus Rohleder, is relentlessly curious, analytical, and always ready to challenge ideas—making for a dynamic and thought-provoking conversation. Meanwhile, I took on the very serious role of nodding thoughtfully.

Support for Ukraine is being tested.

War, Sanctions, and the Waiting Game

While the world waits for the new U.S. administration to clarify its stance on Ukraine, Sir Michael wasted no time cutting through the noise:

“The war isn’t waiting for Trump.”

The battlefield remains active, Ukraine is still fighting to hold its ground, and Russia continues to finance its war machine through oil sales. Meanwhile, Western leaders debate how much more support they can realistically provide, especially with key elections on the horizon. In Germany, where 40% of the public reportedly opposes continued funding for Ukraine, the outcome could significantly influence Europe’s stance. Similar political shifts in Poland and Romania may further test Europe’s ability to maintain a united front. But here’s the uncomfortable truth:

• Russia’s economy, while battered, hasn’t collapsed.

• Sanctions? Helpful, but still a work in progress.

• Military aid? Ukraine needs more, especially artillery shells and air defense systems.

Sir Michael emphasized that tightening sanctions further—particularly targeting Russian energy revenues—could significantly increase economic pressure. In other words, turn off the money tap, and you turn down the war machine.

A Peace Deal or a Pause Button?

Then came the inevitable discussion: What does peace actually look like?

Russia will want to keep the territory it has gained, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, while Ukraine wants guarantees that history won’t repeat itself (read: that Putin won’t be back for round three in a few years). The challenge? Any peace deal must be durable—not a temporary ceasefire disguised as a resolution.

This led to one of the most debated topics in European capitals: a potential European-led peacekeeping force.

• 80,000 troops? That’s the number Zelensky has reportedly suggested.

• Macron supports it, but others are skeptical.

• Would Russia tolerate American troops? Sir Michael doubts it.

This isn’t Bosnia or Korea. If troops are deployed to uphold a peace agreement, they can’t just be there for the optics—they need real firepower to deter any further Russian encroachment. As Fallon pointed out, the West has successfully deployed ground troops before, but only when they were fully armed and backed by a credible force. Half-measures—like the lightly equipped ‘peace berets’ that failed in Lebanon—won’t be enough to secure lasting stability in Ukraine.

The UK’s Role: Between the U.S. and Europe

As Europe grapples with political divisions, the UK finds itself in a unique position, both strategically and financially.

Historically, Britain has been NATO’s most reliable European military force, yet UK defense spending is lagging behind Poland (yes, really). Sir Michael argued that Britain must step up, not just to maintain its global standing but to ensure its own security in a world that feels increasingly volatile.

And let’s not forget the broader backdrop:

• Russian warships were spotted in the English Channel just last week.

• Salisbury poisonings (yes, that happened on UK soil).

• Cyber warfare, energy security, and hybrid threats—Russia’s influence isn’t just about tanks on a battlefield.

As Sir Michael put it, the UK will need to justify its role as a “bridge” between the U.S. and Europe. And that means spending more on defense—even if it’s politically challenging.

What’s Next?

With European elections looming and global tensions rising, leadership will be key in the coming months—especially as Germany’s next government could significantly shift the continent’s approach to Ukraine.

One thing is clear: wars don’t end just because we want them to. And as much as we’d love a clean resolution, the West needs to be prepared for what happens next—whether that’s a drawn-out conflict, a fragile peace deal, or a post-war Europe that looks vastly different from the one we know today. In the meantime, the U.S. efforts to reduce dependence on China for critical minerals remains a significant challenge.