More than seventy-five years after the Geneva Conventions, civilians continue to bear the brunt of armed conflict. Yet what once provoked alarm is now absorbed into the landscape.

While the speech earned global nods and glowing summaries, many wondered how those principles would translate into practice. That question has met its first major test in the form of U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran. And the polished words from the Prime Minister now ring increasingly hollow.

Four years into the Ukraine war, fundamentals have changed little: a negotiated settlement remains the most plausible outcome, nuclear risk continues to limit NATO intervention, and military victory is not realistically in the cards for Ukraine, no matter the extent of Western military support.

The present rupture is not simply the product of a single presidency, even if Donald Trump has undeniably accelerated the decline and raised the stakes. It is what happens when years of selective enforcement and eroding credibility begin to collapse on those who thought themselves insulated.

The failures in understanding – and, at times, the deliberate distortion of – the relationship between self-defence and humanitarian restraint must be acknowledged lest they become normalized, embedding a dangerous precedent about what is deemed acceptable in wartime.

Even if one overlooks Golden Dome’s staggering cost and technical shortcomings, its most basic premise collapses under scrutiny. Nuclear war is not a discrete contingency that can be managed with technology. It is a civilizational collapse.

Russia continues to pose a formidable danger to Ukraine, one that has profoundly destabilized the European security order. Yet extrapolating that danger into the specter of a Russian march across NATO borders lacks evidence, misreads intent, and distorts policy responses.