EU summit: Helpless without the American "godfather" Brussels approves “ReArm Europe” program

On March 6, the European Union summit finally took place in Brussels. Despite the upheavals of recent weeks, EU countries came together only after Paris and London held their own "exclusive" summits. Even now, the Brussels event was held with a limited agenda, almost leading to Hungary losing its voting rights. However, the main task of the summit was accomplished: it approved a framework program for preparing for military confrontation with Russia. This is a challenge to Washington, which is eager to shift the collective West's focus onto the confrontation with China.

The fourth summit in two weeks

The gathering in Brussels was declared an urgent, "extraordinary" summit, but this is misleading. Yes, in recent weeks, the EU has faced numerous radical changes in the international situation in Europe and across the collective West. The U.S. not only halted funding for the Ukrainian government but also made territorial claims against EU member Denmark and began an actual trade war with the entire union.

But the Brussels leadership and its liberal allies in the leadership of several EU countries, who had proclaimed militant slogans, fell silent as soon as Trump appeared on the horizon. Over the past two months, they tried to pretend that nothing significant was happening. However, Washington's attempt to withdraw from the Ukrainian war and shift the Western camp's focus to a confrontation with China, while dragging Russia and China into a new campaign, was not just verbal. Moreover, Trump attempted to secure the natural resources and infrastructure of Ukraine for the U.S. — which European countries had already set their sights on.

When this threat began to take real shape, under London's leadership — which had recently signed a "century-long agreement" with Kyiv, with secret clauses — three summits of selected EU countries took place, with the UK and Canada joining. Two events were held in Paris, with the final, most important one taking place last weekend in London. Formally, EU leadership was present at all of them, but even in collective photos from London, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was placed in the second row. This was no coincidence — the outgoing German Chancellor Scholz was relegated to the last row.

And so, the Brussels summit on March 6 showed that the EU leadership had started to recover from the shock of the past few weeks. The main theme of the event was the approval of an unprecedented militarization program and preparation for war, "ReArm Europe" — proposed by European Commission President von der Leyen.

Ursula began drafting the plan immediately after her reappointment last summer. It involves increasing the EU's military spending by €800 billion, including through funneling money into the arms industry. To achieve this, the European Commission proposes five steps.

First, all EU countries are to increase military spending by an additional 1.5% of GDP to raise €650 billion for weapons production.

Second, the European Commission itself plans to take out loans of €150 billion to produce weapons for Ukraine, as well as strengthen certain types of armaments and cybersecurity for EU countries.

The third step is strategically placed in the middle of the plan due to its controversy. Brussels proposes allowing EU countries to use funds from programs aimed at overcoming the disparities in less developed EU regions (and nearly all of the EU Balkans, half of Eastern Europe, and even parts of Southern Europe are economically devastated areas) for military purposes.

Fourth, Brussels plans to "soften" (effectively abolish) the budgetary discipline rules for four years, which have prevented EU countries from sliding into debt. Member states will be able to borrow even more for military spending, financing the first step of the plan.

Fifth, the European Commission intends to make war preparation even more attractive to private capital — although shares of notorious defense industry companies have already skyrocketed in recent years due to the enormous profits from the war in Eastern Europe. Ursula is essentially proposing to "let the fox into the henhouse," as the role of the defense industry in escalating conflicts is well-documented.

To some – war, to others – a motherland

There is, of course, no money for militarization in the EU or its member states. It has to be taken from somewhere — for example, from children, the elderly, and the poor, by cutting spending on already weakened social systems, education, healthcare, etc. As recently pointed out, without a hint of irony, by the deputy editor of The Financial Times, this is about transforming EU countries from "welfare states" into "warfare states." He, however, was not the first to say this; he merely echoed an idea that had been voiced before. For instance, the new NATO Secretary General in December reproached Europeans who still on average “spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health and social security systems." He directly stated that military spending should be financed from these funds. The Europe of abundance, basking in wealth, no longer exists. It has barely coped with the current increase in military spending. 

According to official data, in the last four years, EU military spending has risen by more than a third, to €326 billion annually (1.9% of the bloc's GDP). The results are visible — from Norway to the Balkans, an "Iron Curtain" has stretched across the continent, which in some places has already turned into a line of fortifications, and in others, into a frontline. The results are also evident in everyday life, even in relatively affluent countries like Germany — in the form of actual income cuts of up to a third, rising prices, transport and teacher strikes, and even the periodic disappearance of certain products becoming routine.

Now, however, the focus is on the "Great Leap" in the arms race, which will overshadow everything from recent years. The European Commission openly speaks about the need to quickly increase debt to pay for massive military contracts by issuing "joint debt securities" and taking loans on behalf of the entire EU.

This is where Ursula and her associates have buried the dog. Firstly, by taking loans from Brussels instead of individual states, they can distance themselves from the situation, gaining access to vast sums of money that politicians in national governments would hesitate to take on—fearing direct accountability. Secondly, Ursula and her team are also working to take control of the arms procurement sector, continuing their effort to centralize powers that the current head of the European Commission is already known for. In her militarization proposals sent to EU states on March 4, von der Leyen was clear about her plan: “This is basically about spending better – and spending together.” In this context, "together" means under Ursula’s leadership, who has just managed to downplay the massive scandal surrounding a fraudulent deal involving billions of dollars' worth of coronavirus vaccine purchases. However, the vaccine scandal pales in comparison to the potential impact of the arms procurement issue.

Talks in favor of Ukraine

In general, the entire topic of EU militarization was tied to the Russia-Ukraine war, but instead of allocating money directly to Ukraine, the summit program on March 6 had a glaring gap. Liberal media immediately explained everything: it’s Hungary's fault, as it is blocking such aid. Otherwise, as the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, had suggested before the summit, the EU would have allocated €20 billion. It is quite astonishing how easily a politician with, to say the least, modest credentials and a scandalous past juggles such sums.

However, there is another interesting point here. This explanation is, to put it mildly, untrue. Hungary and a number of other countries, of course, do not want to hand over more billions to Kyiv. But the large, more overtly militant EU countries, including the UK and France, had the opportunity to allocate billions during the three summits held last week! Hungary and other skeptical partners were not present there. Yet, in the end, we only see a €2 billion loan provided to the Ukrainian government by the British as part of the semi-secret "century-long agreement." And that’s it — nothing more. Belgium itself announced it would delay its planned transfer of decommissioned F-16s to Kyiv, and even Poland, which had long promised to give all its MiG-29s to Ukraine — let's be honest, not much to speak of — stated that it would do so only after receiving F-16s in return. Paris' Le Figaro sarcastically commented on the results of the exclusive the March 2 summit: "The 'Group of Twenty' leaders meeting in London demonstrated how helpless they are without the American 'godfather.'"

However, none of this means that European powers will abandon their plans to expand their presence in Ukraine. Apparently, they are considering some form of intervention by a coalition of European countries, led by the UK and France, followed by establishing their long-term military presence in Ukraine and possibly in other strategic points (especially in the Baltics) and preparing for a potential direct armed confrontation with Russia and Belarus.

This is indicated by the three recent pieces of news. The least noticeable of them was the announcement that Paris intends to gather the chiefs of staff of countries willing to "guarantee future peace in Ukraine" next week. This means the issue is already being worked out at the practical level.

The loudest piece of news came from Macron’s extremely strange statements on March 5. First, he declared Russia to be a threat to France and all of Europe. Following that, he not only spoke again about sending troops to Ukraine but also hinted at the possible creation of a Franco-British "nuclear shield" for European countries (the exact list was not revealed). Given the minimalist budget of France's nuclear forces and the small size of the UK's, this would require additional expansion. After all, nuclear weapons are expensive, and even for the current basic nuclear arsenal, each French citizen pays about seven euros in taxes per month! The funds for maintaining and expanding the arsenal will likely come from European countries — the future German Chancellor Merz has already agreed to share the burden with Macron. Of course, all this bypasses the EU and NATO, as Macron immediately made it clear that these nuclear forces would be part of the "new Entente" being formed by London and Paris, and Ursula and other EU bureaucrats will have no access to the nuclear button.

Berlin removes all restrictions

However, the most significant news pointing to the imminent direct involvement of European powers in the war on the eastern part of the continent was the decision of two major German liberal parties — the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats — to urgently push a law through the German parliament next week, which removes all restrictions on borrowing funds for military expenditures in Germany. The military history of Eastern Europe is largely composed of German military campaigns, so the significance of this "return" cannot be overstated.

Given that Germany has long been without excess funds and new loans are the main source of financing military preparation, the decision to lift any real restrictions on military spending is significant. Both liberal parties are rushing to pass the law in the current parliament, as in the new composition they won’t have enough votes to approve this law, which breaks the last taboos on Germany's remilitarization and requires a constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, Berlin has proposed to the European Commission not only to lift budget and credit restrictions on military spending for four years but to revise them altogether — effectively abandoning them. These are clear illustrations of trends in Berlin, complemented by the German government's announcement that it will no longer purchase Russian gas supplied via the Nord Stream, which had been discussed for reactivation with the participation of the U.S. in recent days. The decision by both liberal parties to increase military spending is not sudden — Berlin has been redirecting its forces to the Russian and Belarusian borders for several years, and this year, the deployment of the German motorized infantry brigade in Lithuania will be completed.

"Afghan variant" for Ukraine

In other words, Europe is preparing for war. It may enter it slowly, via the introduction of troops into Ukraine, tightening control over the Baltic Sea, and the situation in the Transnistrian region of Moldova. Given France's special role in the "new Entente," one can be certain that Macron and his allies will attempt to influence the South Caucasus as well, involving revisionist circles in Armenia — a strategy they have long been anticipating. On March 6, it was revealed that Armenia had appointed its first military attaché to the EU.

Many aspects of the new conflict remain unclear, particularly the composition of participants, which will become evident as the Franco-British coalition is built. However, it’s worth paying attention to the first row of leaders in photographs from events organized by London, as the countries represented there — France, England, and Poland — are the main architects of the new alliance. The timeline is also uncertain, but judging by the investments that European countries are willing to make, even going into unprecedented debt, these are long-term ambitions. The seriousness of the situation is evident from the fact that only countries capable of making a significant military contribution were invited to the main "London Summit" — even the Baltic States, despite their strong anti-Russian stance, were ignored by London.

The situation looks grim, but it’s important to understand that history has seen many dramatic turns, and armed Europe is facing growing economic problems that have previously crippled powerful militarized states. With its new initiatives, Europe is disrupting the global plans of the United States, which realizes that the time remaining to halt China's rise and its impending global hegemony, at the expense of the U.S., is slipping away in the current discord among Western allies. Trump, during his time in office, effectively ended the pointless war in Afghanistan, understanding that while Americans were busy dealing with the Taliban over relatively insignificant villages and passes, the Chinese were preparing to reshape the world order. He then set an ultimatum to his team to reach an agreement with the Taliban within nine months and simply ignore the belligerent anti-Taliban figures in Kabul, accustomed to receiving American billions. It now appears that he views the situation in Eastern Europe through a similar lens. For him, this is not a war where the future of the world is at stake, and it distracts the collective West from the truly decisive issues. Whether he's right or not is less important—this is simply his operational logic.

Therefore, Washington will not allow the situation to spiral out of control, especially since many of the belligerent European politicians do not have strong public support. The Americans can easily apply pressure on them by cooperating with opposition movements that are gaining strength in European countries. In fact, President Trump’s team has already signaled such intentions in Romania and Germany, as well as towards the entire EU.