For decades, the bedrock rationale for NATO’s existence has been the formidable conventional and nuclear threat Russia posed. However, recent geopolitical realities necessitate a critical re-evaluation of this foundational premise.
Russia, the very reason for NATO’s enduring vigilance, increasingly reveals itself as a waning power. Its protracted and costly war against Ukraine has demonstrably exposed severe limitations in military capability, logistical resilience, and strategic foresight. Despite its historical might and nuclear arsenal, Russia has failed to decisively defeat a significantly smaller neighbor after years of brutal conflict.
This protracted stalemate suggests that Moscow’s capacity for conventional expansion is severely diminished, and its strategic influence waning, particularly when compared to rising geopolitical forces and the accelerating pace of technological warfare. While the adage “keep your enemies close” holds some wisdom, the evolving landscape urges a re-evaluation of where future adversarial attention truly lies, focusing on emerging threats rather than solely fixating on a fading adversary.
X screen grab.
The United States, through its leadership within NATO, is currently driving a significant increase in military spending among its European allies, particularly France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (among these countries, only Germany is not a nuclear power). This strategy carries a profound and underappreciated risk: given the substantial and growing Muslim populations within these three key nations, coupled with observable patterns in crime statistics and historical precedents, the weaponry and military capabilities acquired through these increased budgets could ultimately be turned against the United States itself.
As seen in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a seemingly stable allied nation can undergo internal shifts leading to a complete geopolitical reorientation, transforming previously supplied and/or accumulated military assets into instruments of opposition against the very power that helped build them. Therefore, the U.S. should critically reconsider its push for enhanced military spending in these countries, recognizing the direct threat posed by arming potential future adversaries.
Current projections indicate significant growth in the Muslim populations of these three critical NATO members by 2050. The Pew Research Center, in its “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population“ report, projects that under a “medium migration” scenario, the Muslim population in France could reach approximately 17-18% of the total, the UK could reach around 16.7%, and Germany approximately 10.8%. Under a “high migration” scenario, Germany’s Muslim population could reach about 20%, France’s 18%, and the UK’s close to 20%. These are substantial shifts from their current proportions.
An examination of crime and prison statistics in these nations reveals a disquieting pattern regarding individuals from Muslim-majority countries and those identifying as Muslim.
In France, while official government policy prohibits the collection of data on religion in prisons, widely cited estimates from sociologists and Muslim leaders suggest that Muslims constitute between 60% and 70% of the inmate population, compared to around 10-12% of the general population. A significant portion of individuals in French prisons who are of foreign origin or descent come from North African countries such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Islam is the overwhelming majority religion in these nations (Algeria: 98.38% Muslim; Morocco: 99% Muslim; Tunisia: 99% Muslim.
In the United Kingdom, official Ministry of Justice data for March 2023 indicates that 18% of prisoners in England and Wales self-identified as Muslim. This is notably higher than their approximately 6.5% share of the general population in England and Wales. A proportion of foreign national prisoners in the UK originates from South Asian countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, both overwhelmingly Muslim-majority nations (Pakistan: 96.35% Muslim; Bangladesh: 91.04% Muslim).
Germany’s official crime statistics for 2023 show a 5.5% increase in overall crimes and a 7.3% rise in suspects compared to the previous year, with 41% of suspects being foreigners, an increase of 17.8%. Asylum seekers, a category that includes many from Muslim-majority nations, accounted for 18% of all offenders. While German data do not specify religion, reports indicate that over 15,000 prisoners in 2023, approximately 35% of the total prison population, were foreigners. Large groups of foreign prisoners originate from countries like Turkey (approx. 99% Muslim), Syria (approx. 94% Muslim), and Afghanistan (approx. 99.7% Muslim). Furthermore, an internal study by a German federal law enforcement agency, leaked to a Zurich newspaper, revealed that asylum-seekers committed some 7,000 sexual assaults (ranging from groping to gang-rape) between 2015 and 2023.10 In 2023, 761 gang-rapes were registered in Germany, with 47.5% of the suspects being foreigners. Estimates from regional justice ministries suggest that Muslims make up roughly 20% to over 30% of Germany’s prison population, despite being around 6.6% of the general population.
The concerning aspect for U.S. interests is not merely the demographic shift itself, nor crime rates per se, but the potential for political and societal realignments should these populations, or elements within them, pursue a distinct geopolitical agenda. The significant overrepresentation of individuals from Muslim-majority backgrounds in European prisons, coupled with observed increases in certain types of violent crime where foreign nationals are disproportionately represented, suggests a divergence from the internal societal norms traditionally aligned with Western democratic principles.
If these demographic trends continue, and a substantial portion of these growing Muslim populations were to continue developing an adversarial stance towards traditional Western alliances, the implications for U.S. security are severe. A key concern is the potential for the very military hardware and strategic capabilities that NATO nations are now acquiring with increased budgets to become compromised or even hostile to U.S. interests.
Consider the precedent of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was a key U.S. ally, its military heavily equipped and trained by Western powers. Iran acquired some of the most advanced American weapons available at the time, including F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle fighter jets, and had plans for F-16s and Oliver Hazard Perry-class destroyers. The internal dynamics of the Iranian Revolution, heavily influenced by a religiously conservative Muslim populace, led to a complete geopolitical reorientation. The military, once aligned with the U.S., was repurposed and weaponized against American and Western interests.
While Europe’s democracies are distinct from pre-revolutionary Iran, the parallel lies in the potential for internal demographic shifts to precipitate a profound geopolitical reorientation. If France, the UK, or Germany, with their increasingly Muslim populations and observable challenges in crime and integration, were to experience a political shift away from their current alignment with the U.S. due to internal pressures or the greater emergence of anti-Western sentiments within large demographic segments, then the substantial investments in advanced military capabilities become a profound liability for the United States.
Why would the U.S. want its allies to bolster their arsenals—including fighter jets, advanced naval vessels, and sophisticated ground systems – if there is a discernible risk that these capabilities operating under a veneer of alliance could eventually serve interests antithetical to Washington? A future where French, British, or German military assets, or intelligence gathered by their security services, are compromised or even directed by political leadership influenced by anti-Western Muslim factions, presents a direct threat to U.S. national security.
Therefore, increasing military budgets in France, the UK, and Germany, without fully confronting the potential internal vulnerabilities highlighted by demographic and crime data, is a perilous gamble for the United States. It risks arming future adversaries or, at best, creating a situation where valuable military assets are held by unreliable partners. The wiser course for the U.S. is to critically re-evaluate its push for increased military spending by these allies, considering the direct risk that the very weapons procured could one day be arrayed against American interests, echoing the historical precedent set by the Iranian Revolution and realizing that the new potential Irans already possess nuclear weapons (except Germany).
“Generals always prepare to fight the last war.” (attributed to Georges Clemenceau) We should be preparing for the next war against our one-time allies.
Jesus Christ is King
