The recent push by the European Commission towards a sizable ‘ReArm EU’ programme that boosts national financing of armaments with EU tools (fiscal rules, EU loans, EIB and cohesion policy) is to be first and foremost understood as a political response to the upsetting treatment of Ukraine by the new US administration. Not only to the shameful public humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by his US counterpart but, even more importantly, it is a response to the unreasonable deal the US proposes together with Russia. A deal that completely disregards Ukraine, and one that would concede Russian President Vladimir Putin parts of Ukrainian territories and key resources. 

It is difficult to accept that the Union has moved from a discussion on peace and security to a discussion on the European Defence Union, on boosting Europe’s defence industry and plans for financing its militarisation.

ReArm EU can, at best, partially respond to Europe’s challenges. It is imperative to accompany this financing programme with a more political path to unite military forces, conceive a solid European security strategy and align diplomatic efforts at the EU level. It should be clear that true deterrence is not about how much we spend, but how united we can be. Europe’s geopolitical peace power depends on our ability to speak with one voice. And the unifying voice cannot be the most extreme one of our diverse community.

It is not easy to reconcile all the objectives that need to be attained, but it is at least useful to bring clarity to the debate by recalling the three different objectives that should be addressed today by EU leaders:

1. Providing comprehensive support to Ukraine with diplomatic, military and economic means, while actively promoting inclusive negotiations and fully backing its recovery, reconstruction and EU integration process. The focus must be on Ukraine, and the Timeline for this must be: immediately. 
2. Building a real EU defence and security strategy by integrating national defence systems as much as possible to give our Union a credible and strong stance in the new geopolitical order while boosting EU energy, diplomacy and defence capabilities. Here, the focus is on the EU and the timeline is the mid-term.
3. Working towards global disarmament and peace in all corners of the world, starting from conflict areas closer to our borders, to fostering alliances with like-minded countries, a fair multilateral system and initiatives for lasting peace and arms reduction. For this objective, the focus is the entire planet and the timeline the medium to long-term. 

These objectives have different urgencies, timelines and geographical foci, but there should still be political and policy coherence in the different sequential moves. The EU Commission presented ReArm EU as a plan to address objective two, even though it only partly addresses objective one and fails on objectives two and three. For instance, the defence investment must be part of a broader and long-term peace and security strategy- isolating the defence agenda would be a short-sighted mistake. Hopefully, the upcoming EC White Paper will point in this direction. 

Some basic principles need to be factored in to design a series of measures that coherently address short- and long-term objectives. The following general lines should not be compromised and can hopefully drive European political actions. 

Security is more than military equipment 

Europeans deserve more than just a plan for militarisation. The concepts of defence and security must be expanded. It is no longer sufficient to equate security solely with guns, tanks and helicopters. True security encompasses intelligence sharing, cybersecurity resilience, diplomatic engagement and all aspects of human security. Security for both European and Ukrainian citizens must be viewed within a broader framework that includes protection from economic, social, environmental and energy-related threats. A viable security approach is one that offers protection from external and internal threats and that safeguards democracy, peace and prosperity by addressing the root causes of insecurity, disasters and conflicts. 

Upholding a multilateral rule-based order

We must ensure that the EU Defence Union complements and does not undermine dialogue and diplomatic mechanisms, including strong engagement in multilateral forums and adherence to a multipolar rule-based order. The EU’s peace and security framework, along with its defence agenda, must be rooted in a strong commitment to international law, particularly international humanitarian law, which is severely under threat. This includes unequivocal support for the International Criminal Court (ICC), strict adherence to arms control agreements and regulations including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the establishment of robust and ethical frameworks for the regulation of AI and autonomous weapons. 

Europe is more than the sum of its members

It is widely understood that the room for manoeuvre within the existing treaties is limited and that member states are reluctant to share power and control in a truly integrated system. However, the current moment represents a historic opportunity for the EU to advance toward greater political unity. Given the scale of the challenge, it would be reasonable to expect institutions with the power of initiative – such as the European Commission – to open a political discussion that goes beyond merely addressing the member states‘ immediate financial needs. The Commission must demonstrate leadership by both giving and demanding, much like Jacques Delors did at his time. At the very least, it should initiate a high-level political discussion, leading to a re-assessment of ambitions and possibilities by the EU Council. As highlighted in the FEPS study Europe’s defence for security and peace the Commission could have proposed to reinvigorate the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) or to pool together a portion of national military capabilities to create a genuine European contingent. It is about seizing the opportunity to advance the European project. By fostering a collective approach to security, the EU can demonstrate that it is more than the sum of its member states. If we don’t achieve more political unity now, when will we?

Militarisation is not without risks

The Observatory on Public Finance at the Catholic University of Milan, after correcting the computations of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, finds that in 2024, the EU spent 18.6 per cent more than Russia in military expenditures. If we add other European NATO allies (the UK, Norway and Turkey), the collective expenditure on defence was 58 per cent above that of a country in war, like Russia. Such comparisons should highlight that the defence deficits of Europe should not be simply measured in quantitative terms but rather in qualitative ones.

EU leaders should be mindful that large rearmament campaigns are not only costly but may also generate a further arms race and escalate conflicts. Governments should also think twice before making their economic development dependent on investments in the military-industrial complex. Mirroring the US is not a wise approach. There is also the risk that spending more on defence could be a pretext to cut on public services, the welfare state and development cooperation. And even in a scenario where social, climate and cohesion spending remain unaffected – which is, unfortunately, not what we are seeing –, if citizens perceive that the EU’s only real priority is arming itself and funding military industry, the erosion of trust in the European project is certain. A balanced approach is needed, not only in terms of spending but also in priority setting. Two days after presenting ‘ReArm EU’, the affordable and sustainable housing initiative has been launched with a €10 billion for two years. These are peanuts compared to the €800 billion promised for defence contractors and national armies. At a time when support for far-right political forces is high, and in some countries growing further, safeguards are also needed that boosted weaponry does not fall into the wrong hands. 

Ill-conceived armament campaigns or military romanticism should not lead us to repeat history’s mistakes, as, for instance, the rush to militarisation in the 1930s, when militarisation was partly seen as a cure against the economic depression. While upgrading defence cooperation in Europe is imperative, Ukraine itself soon needs a colossal reconstruction programme, in which Europeans will have to take the lead. The Ukrainian people deserve more than just weapons. And European people deserve more than the prospect of perpetual conflicts and a forever war on our borders. 

Photo credits: Shutterstock.com/AI generated