If there is anything the Indo-Pacific region can learn from Europe’s current security crisis, it is that peace is not sustained by hope alone. Its preservation rests on the credibility of a nation’s ability to defend itself, the reliability of its strategic partners, and the collective willingness to prevent aggression before it escalates into open conflict.
The war in Ukraine has forced Europe to confront harsh realities that many had hoped were permanently consigned to history. More importantly, Europe’s experience has shown that deterrence extends well beyond conventional military power. Political resolve, strategic alignment, and a shared willingness to act when security is threatened are equally important to maintaining stability.
For the Philippines, these are not distant academic considerations. They have direct implications on how we approach our own security environment.
The regional security landscape is becoming increasingly complex, particularly in the West Philippine Sea. Persistent coercive activities and maritime challenges underscore the need for a sustained and proactive defense posture. Defense modernization, therefore, cannot be treated as a reactive measure to be pursued only when a full-blown crisis arrives at our doorstep.
Deterrence works precisely because the crisis has not yet happened.
That is why the Philippines must continue building its national capabilities — not because conflict is inevitable, but because credible self-defense can help prevent it. Modernizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines, expanding maritime domain awareness, strengthening coastal defenses, and improving operational readiness are consequently more than military priorities. They are investments in national resilience and in our capacity to protect our interests and contribute to regional peace.
At the same time, greater self-reliance should not be mistaken for isolation. The Philippines is part of an expanding network of security relationships, anchored on our long-standing alliance with the United States and strengthened by deeper cooperation with Japan, Australia, and European partners. These ties provide opportunities to enhance our capabilities through joint exercises, intelligence-sharing, defense cooperation, and greater interoperability.
Yet the existence of an alliance does not automatically make it credible.
Commitments have weight only when partners possess the capabilities and political will to uphold them, and when their forces can work together effectively under pressure. Europe’s experience makes clear that collective security cannot rest on one country carrying the burden for everyone else. Each member must be prepared to contribute to the security it seeks to preserve.
For the Philippines, this calls for a two-track approach: deepen our alliances while building the capabilities that allow us to become a more capable and dependable partner. Burden-sharing should not be measured solely in defense spending. Readiness, information-sharing, interoperability, technology, and the ability to contribute to common security objectives matter just as much.
The challenge becomes more pronounced as the nature of security itself changes. A confrontation today needs not take the form of a conventional armed attack. Maritime coercion, cyberattacks, disruptions to critical infrastructure, and economic pressure can all place national security under strain. Responding to these challenges requires a defense posture that is adaptive, technologically capable, and able to operate across multiple domains.
There is, moreover, a broader geopolitical reality that we can no longer afford to overlook: Europe and the Indo-Pacific are increasingly interconnected security theaters.
What happens in Europe can shape strategic calculations in the Indo-Pacific region, while developments in our region increasingly carry consequences for European security and economic interests. The growing engagement of European countries in the Indo-Pacific reflects this convergence and creates new opportunities for cooperation among countries that share an interest in sovereignty, stability, and a rules-based international order.
For the Philippines, this changing landscape presents an opportunity to build a broader and more resilient network of partnerships. But external relationships will only be as effective as the national capabilities that underpin them.
Amid the strategies, procurement programs, exercises, and alliance frameworks that shape our security policy, we must remain clear about what all these efforts are ultimately meant to accomplish. Deterrence is not about preparing for war for its own sake. Its value lies in making aggression less attractive and conflict less likely.
Alliances, likewise, are more than instruments of military power. At their best, they provide countries with the assurance that they will not have to confront coercion alone. And defense modernization should never be reduced to a race for more sophisticated hardware. Its real measure is whether the Philippines has greater capacity to protect its sovereignty, sovereign rights, and national interests when they are challenged.
In an increasingly uncertain world, strategic credibility has become an asset in its own right. Building that credibility requires sustained investment at home, meaningful contributions to our alliances, and the political will to stand by the commitments we make.
That is the real value of deterrence: ensuring that the peace we seek to preserve remains stronger than the forces that would threaten it.
Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the president of the Stratbase ADR Institute.