When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

Across Europe, nations have signaled a desire to dig, wire, and network their frontiers. From the Baltic Defense Line and the European Union’s proposed “drone wall” to Finland’s pilot barriers and Poland’s East Shield, the continent has embarked upon its most significant defensive hardening since the Cold War. Rather than nostalgia for the trenches, this effort represents a calculated adaptation to the war in Ukraine, one designed to ensure aggression is neither quick nor cheap.

That strategic shift began at NATO’s Madrid Summit in 2022, when the alliance moved from deterrence by punishment to deterrence by denial. The old idea accepted that territory might be lost before being recaptured. The new concept aims to prevent that loss in the first place. The following year, at Vilnius, the alliance made this real through new regional defense plans, aligning national barriers, forward-deployed forces, and reinforcement corridors under a single theater-wide framework.

However, a gap remains between political announcements and physical reality. Allies possess the right vision, yet resourcing lags rhetoric. While nations have agreed to scale the eight forward-deployed multinational battlegroups from battalions to brigade-size units, the war in Ukraine demonstrates the sheer density of forces required for a proper defense. As Kyiv employs over 100 brigades to counter Russia’s advance, it becomes clear that eight brigades are far too few.

To be sure, the alliance’s plans call for mobilizing follow-on forces far larger than these eight initial brigades. Yet, even this reinforcement strategy collides with hard reality. Europe is facing a continental manpower crisis. Major powers, particularly Germany and the United Kingdom, simply lack the personnel to fully staff the formations needed to backstop NATO’s eastern flank.

Europe’s new defensive lines are the solution to this problem. They are the force multiplier required to make deterrence by denial a credible reality, enabling the forward-deployed brigades and subsequent follow-on forces to hold the line rather than just avenge its fall.

I have worked on one of the concepts born from this approach, the Eastern Flank Deterrence Line, and I have heard every critique now aimed at Europe’s broader defensive momentum. Commentators warn that these efforts risk becoming another Maginot Line, that the technology is too futuristic, or that this effort is just a cheap substitute for raising real armies. Each of these claims misinterprets the threat, the technology, and the politics driving today’s defenses.

The Maginot Fallacy

The Maginot Line remains military history’s most powerful symbol of false security. Some critics of Europe’s plans claim it is reminiscent of the Maginot Line and that fixed fortifications create complacency, absorb scarce resources, and are ultimately bypassed.

That analogy is appealing but historically inaccurate. In reality, the Maginot Line worked as intended, acting as a “shield” to hold the German border. But it was only a part of the plan. The catastrophe lay instead with the “sword” — the French mobile army. Far from passive, French commanders aggressively rushed their best units north into Belgium, driving straight into a German trap. This maneuver left them exposed when a command structure too rigid to pivot failed to react to German armor outflanking them through the Ardennes. The lesson of 1940 is that defenses are useless without a command structure fast enough to manage the battle, target the enemy, and adapt to changing conditions.

Current planning reflects these lessons. Today, NATO does not view defenses as walls to hide behind, but as sensors to enable action. This starts with the command structure itself. Under the new regional defense plans, command and control is growing more streamlined. In the Central Region, where the bulk of fighting would occur, U.S. Army Europe and Africa is fully integrating with NATO Allied Land Command. Instead of two separate headquarters operating in parallel, they will function as a single command positioned in two locations, unified under one commander. This ensures that a sensor trigger on the frontier is translated instantly into a decision at the NATO corps and theater levels.

Furthermore, the Eastern Flank Deterrence Line operationalizes this convergence through a specific division of labor. The concept deliberately prioritizes autonomous and optionally-crewed systems to hold the physical, creating a “digital shield” that absorbs the initial shock of an attack. This economy-of-force measure is designed to preserve the most valuable asset: the human combatant. By assigning the bulk of the static defense to machines, commanders can keep manned maneuver units uncommitted and concentrated in the rear, ready to launch decisive counterattacks to restore the integrity of the border.

In this sense, the new defensive lines would function as multi-domain enablers. The Baltic Defense Line, Finland’s obstacles, and NATO’s theater plans all envision layered, maneuver-integrated defenses. Bunkers, anti-tank ditches, and “dragon’s teeth” are merely physical nodes in a much larger web of sensors, drones, and precision fires designed to shape the enemy for the kill.

The purpose is to buy time. Russia’s way of war depends on momentum and surprise: saturate defenses, punch through gaps, and achieve psychological shock before the West can respond. Fortifications buy hours and days, which in modern war is the difference between collapse and reinforcement.

Recent Russian drone incursions into Polish and Estonian airspace show how quickly Moscow probes for weakness. In a world where such violations occur within minutes, delay is deterrence. NATO’s Eastern Sentry activity, launched in September 2025 after those incursions, is already demonstrating how fixed defenses, sensors, and air defenses combine to deny that momentum.

If the Maginot Line represented the Industrial Age’s illusion of permanence, Europe’s new defense lines represent the Information Age’s demand for agility. They are not walls but filters designed to slow, channel, and expose an aggressor to multidomain fires.

The “Futurism” Critique

Some skeptics describe these projects as technological fantasy, imagining promises of AI-enabled networks and robotic defenses that will never materialize. The claim is that NATO should rely on proven tools, not chase dreams.

Evidence from Ukraine suggests otherwise. Small drones, loitering munitions, and software-assisted targeting have already transformed warfare. Ukrainian gunners link smartphone apps to artillery, cutting the sensor-to-shooter cycle to minutes. Cheap quadcopters destroy multi-million dollar armored vehicles daily.

Rather than betting on science fiction, European defense planners are scaling what already works. The Eastern Flank Deterrence Line, for instance, does not require autonomous swarms. It will rely on affordable, connected mass: thousands of commercial-grade drones, networked sensors, and digital command posts that can see and strike in depth.

This mirrors the kind of innovation envisioned in the U.S. Army’s Transformation Initiative and captured by a recent piece published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which notes that modernization today means accelerating the fielding of proven technologies, not waiting for perfect ones.

The deployment of the Merops counter-drone system in Poland and Romania offers a concrete preview. In November 2025, U.S. soldiers began training allied forces at Nowa Dęba on this AI-enabled interceptor, which fits in a pickup truck and neutralizes hostile drones autonomously, even when global positioning systems are jammed. As part of Eastern Sentry, this activity integrates tactical interceptors with broader theater surveillance. Under this framework, a radar track in Poland will be able to trigger an automated response from a distributed network of sensors and shooters. That level of integration is moving from theory to operational reality.

Critics call this too ambitious. In reality, it is incremental, the natural evolution of NATO’s digital backbone, now fused with cheap, distributed sensors at the edge. The future of defense is not about inventing new tools so much as connecting existing ones. Stated differently, these projects are practical systems integration at a continental scale.

Economy of Force

The third, and perhaps most damning, critique argues that these lines are symptoms of a fractured political will. Skeptics claim that digging bunkers is a cheap substitute for the harder, more expensive work of generating heavy maneuver brigades. They argue that while the rhetoric of defense is high, the fiscal and demographic reality is lagging.

There is truth to this, but it is an argument for the lines, not against them.

While Poland is investing heavily — allocating 10 billion zloty ($2.5 billion) specifically for the East Shield — Western Europe is struggling to generate mass. The British Army is shrinking toward 73,000 troops, and the German Zeitenwende is bogged down by a recruitment crisis. The alliance does not have the luxury of waiting for a demographic miracle or a unified political awakening.

The defensive lines are a pragmatic economy of force measure. By hardening the frontier with sensors and unmanned systems, NATO can economize its limited high-readiness maneuver units, concentrating them at decisive points rather than spreading them thin along a 1,500-kilometer border.

This is not about letting nations off the hook for defense spending. It is about acknowledging that, while the political will to fully remobilize society may be uneven, the operational requirement to hold the line is absolute. If Europe cannot generate the mass to flood the zone with troops, it must shape the zone with engineering. The defensive lines are not a replacement for mass — they are the only way to make the current lack of mass viable.

Tangible Defense and Global Strategy

This shift restores realism to European security, ending the 30-year illusion that defense was mere insurance rather than a continuous task. But for Washington, these lines represent a strategic bargain. By hardening the continent’s eastern approach, European allies defend America forward. A Europe capable of holding its own frontier creates the stability required for the United States to pivot resources toward the homeland and the Indo-Pacific without abandoning its trans-Atlantic interests.

This push also transforms the eastern flank into a premier laboratory for modern large-scale combat. The concepts being honed here, specifically the fusion of deep sensing, affordable munitions, and counter-mobility obstacles, have applications far beyond Europe. The autonomous systems designed to neutralize massed enemy formations in the Suwałki Gap have direct relevance to the defense of Taiwan, while the integration of sensors and physical barriers offers lessons for the Korean Peninsula or even U.S. border security.

Finally, this momentum rejuvenates the industrial base. Building drones, munitions, and sensors at scale revives atrophied factories, creating an arsenal of democracy that benefits the entire alliance. Activities like Eastern Sentry and national projects like the Baltic Defense Line are in effect proving grounds and tactical laboratories, integrating lessons from Ukraine in real-time. When nations pour concrete and deploy drones along a common frontier, they are testing technologies and concepts that will help secure free nations globally.

The Real Challenges

Even so, hard problems remain. The first is the network. Every bunker and sensor depends on secure, resilient communications that can survive jamming and cyber-attacks. Building this continental network is as difficult as building the fortifications themselves, though the alliance’s digital backbone is expanding to link national systems.

The second challenge is industrial mobilization. Layered deterrence requires enough munitions, sensors, and drones to sustain it. Artillery shell production in Europe has increased sixfold since 2022, and new drone factories are opening, but this revival of the industrial base is still in its early stages.

The third is fiscal endurance. Digital barriers require constant funding for software updates, sensor replacements, and general technical upkeep. This demands steady investment through changing election cycles, a challenge for democracies that often prefer one-time purchases over recurring costs. Here, Russia’s continued aggression provides a grim form of optimism, erasing doubts about defense spending and solidifying public support in frontline nations. Indeed, recent NATO polling indicated that 76 percent of citizens across the alliance now support maintaining or increasing defense spending. The ingredients for lasting deterrence — networks, industry, and political resolve — are finally starting to align.

Conclusion

Europe’s new defensive lines have sparked predictable skepticism. Some see Maginot ghosts, others see technological overreach, and still others see symptoms of political weakness. These critiques mistake momentum for myopia.

The Maginot Line failed because it was static. Today’s defenses are dynamic. Far from speculative, the technology is the proven toolkit of Ukraine’s survival. And rather than political theater, the strategy offers the only operational way to make current troop levels viable.

Recent Russian drone incursions, the launch of Eastern Sentry, and the rapid construction of border defenses from Finland to Romania all point in the same direction. Europe is learning to deter at the speed of modern war. This collective, layered, and networked planning is the best strategy Europe has.

Sam Rosenberg, Ph.D., is a U.S. Army strategist serving as the concepts branch chief at U.S. Army Europe and Africa. A former infantry officer with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is a graduate of West Point, Georgetown University, and the University of Texas at Austin. His work has been featured in Foreign Affairs, the Modern War Institute, the Irregular Warfare Initiative, and by the Royal United Services Institute.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

**Please note, as a matter of house style War on the Rocks will not use a different name for the U.S. Department of Defense until and unless the name is changed by statute by the U.S. Congress.

Image: Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Smith via Wikimedia Commons