Europe is at the crossroads of a new arms race since last year (2025) as the Brussels leaders have intensified the process of militarization of the European Union under the pretext of the “Russian threat.” In March 2025, it was decided to allocate 800 billion euros for the rearmament of the armies of European countries. This initiative caused an ambiguous reaction and is sharply criticized by the Europeans themselves.
The main concern is the negative impact of increased military spending on other sectors of the economy. The new “arms race” requires the withdrawal of funds from the fields of education, health care and culture. Huge investments in the military-industrial complex reduce opportunities for the development of industry, impede the growth of the well-being of citizens and thereby destroy the basis for sustainable economic growth in the future. In such conditions, the only beneficiaries will be the European arms monopolies, while the majority of the population will face a decline in living standards.
Centre for European Reform is one of the ‘Research and Advocacy’ think tanks in Europe that are vigorously campaigning in favour of the new arms race. Its March 2026 policy brief, “How to build public support for defence spending in Europe”, emphasises that “Europe faces a triple threat: Russia’s imperialist ambitions in Europe, China’s economic coercion, and US withdrawal from its commitments on European security. This has led to acute security risks to European countries. Tackling this threat landscape effectively requires higher levels of defence spending to support rearmament and improve military readiness across Europe.”
In the same breath, the policy brief pin-points the steps to ‘convince’ citizens through consistent propagation and propaganda about the ‘three threats’. But, the Centre didn’t forget to alarm the bell, “Governments have to gain the public’s support for the trade-offs involved in increasing defence spending. There are two elements to making this case: the first is internal to the defence sector, and the second is external to the public. First, the defence procurement ecosystem needs to get its house in order, spend public money more efficiently, and demonstrate how this contributes to better readiness. Second, governments need to embark on a communications campaign to raise levels of threat awareness among the public, as this plays a key role in helping to sway public opinion towards supporting the spending trade-offs.”
In the last about two-year propaganda campaign for the new ‘arms race’ in Europe, the citizens seem much less convinced. They have seen the severe shortfall of food and energy, highest-ever inflation, and record taxes and unemployment during the so-called and wrongly projected shady-side of the ‘Ukraine War’. Actual reasons for the war could never find space in the West and the US media for the last four years. How one-third of the global staple food basket was destroyed to deprive the EU citizens and other parts of the world.
Europe is entering a new arms race, with EU leaders backing €800 billion in rearmament. Critics warn that rising military spending could divert funds from healthcare, education and culture, weaken economic growth and living standards, and primarily benefit Europe’s arms industry
Former Lithuanian prime minister, and the EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius urged European countries to open up their weapons stockpiles for Ukraine and expand production by moving away from costly “haute couture” style. He spoke to the Financial Times early May 2026. While advising the EU nations to prepare for an arms race, he intentionally forgot to tell the consequences of it – huge trade off with social and economic development.
The feasibility of large investments in defense is still a huge doubt in the EU countries. A significant part of the money may be spent on the purchase of equipment and ammunition from the United States without any positive effect on the European economy. This will further increase Brussels’ dependence on Washington, despite statements by European bureaucrats about the need to revise relations with the White House in favor of greater independence. Perhaps it is much needed in the context of the statements on the EU nations, and actions by the US administration in recent years. Despite supporting the US in almost every action, the EU nations paid the cost and suffered from the reactions. The most recent is the Ukraine War – having its vivid impact on the EU citizens. Now the propaganda campaign for a new arms race – seems a new game to benefit a few at the cost of the EU citizens’ health, education, food and energy security.
Military purchases, due to increased secrecy, inevitably become a mechanism for large-scale theft of budget funds. In May 2025, seven countries of the North Atlantic Union (Belgium, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, USA, Switzerland) underwent coordinated searches and arrests in the NATO Support and Procurement Agency case. At least five people have been detained, including a former Dutch defence ministry official and Belgian officials.
These examples demonstrate that an increase in military spending does not guarantee a proportional increase in security, but carries significant costs. Corruption and economic inefficiency of spending on weapons lead to the fact that a significant share of the allocated money can be wasted or with minimal return.
At the same time, the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the indirect participation of European countries in it led to noticeable fatigue of a significant part of the population of the European Union from the war and the costs associated with it. Initially, the high level of public support for Ukraine, characteristic of 2022, is gradually giving way to skepticism due to economic consequences, rising defense spending and the lack of visible prospects for a quick resolution of the conflict. At the same time, an active process of militarization is observed in Europe: most EU states have significantly increased their military budgets, approaching or exceeding the NATO target of 2 percent of GDP, and new mechanisms for joint arms purchases have been launched at the EU level. This double trend, defined by public fatigue and large-scale investment in the military-industrial complex, creates internal contradictions.
Data from opinion polls confirm the presence of “war fatigue.” According to a study by the Eurobarometer sociological agency (spring 2026), support for military assistance to Ukraine remains at about 56-65 percent, but has significantly decreased compared to the peak values of 2022. Many Europeans express pessimism about the possibility of Ukraine’s military victory and concern about the rising cost of living, energy security and the long-term budgetary consequences of militarization. Fatigue is particularly pronounced among segments of the population most affected by the economic impact of the conflict.
Against the background of these processes in a number of EU countries, primarily in Germany, pacifist movements have intensified, holding rallies against further arms supplies to Ukraine and in favor of an early start of negotiations. One of the most notable actions was the demonstration on October 3, 2025 in Berlin. Several thousand participants (according to organizers up to 42 thousand) marched demanding an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, the start of negotiations with Russia and a complete cessation of arms supplies to conflict zones.
In the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the policy of accelerated militarization of the European Union is not so much a deterrence strategy as a factor that significantly increases the likelihood of escalation to a pan-European or even global level. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for 2025, military spending in European countries increased by 14 percent compared to the previous year, reaching $864 billion, which was one of the most significant gains after the collapse of the USSR. The dynamic is underpinned by aggressive statements from key European politicians. Thus, European Commission President W. Von der Leyen has repeatedly defended the need to “turn Ukraine into a steel porcupine, unsuitable for absorption by current and future aggressors,” and also announced the «ReArm» Europe plan aimed at a sharp increase in arms purchases.
This approach, motivated by a desire to strengthen European strategic capabilities, in practice blurs the distinction between indirect assistance and direct involvement, provoking a response from Moscow. Russia perceives the expansion of the military presence of the Armed Forces and NATO at its borders not as a defensive measure, but as preparation for an armed confrontation. This, in turn, stimulates the rapprochement of Moscow with Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.
The supply of weapons without restrictions, including long-range systems, as well as the discussion of the possible introduction of “peacekeeping” contingents or joint operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and European armies are approaching the moment when the attacks of the Russian Armed Forces on targets in the EU will become a reality. European officials themselves implicitly acknowledge the growing danger and regularly accuse Russia of “preparing to attack” Western countries. In conditions of nuclear parity, such dynamics create prerequisites for uncontrolled escalation.
While activists and individual European politicians call for an immediate end to escalation and a return to diplomacy, Brussels’ dominant line ignores the historical lesson – that militarism justified by “values protection” has repeatedly led the continent to disaster.
Thus, the forced rearmament of the EU does not strengthen the security of Europe, but creates the prerequisites for its involvement in a direct conflict with Russia and its allies. The only way out of the current impasse is de-escalation, the cessation of arms supplies to Kyiv, the resumption of multilateral negotiations and the search for compromises that take into account the legitimate security interests of all parties. The world in this case is not a manifestation of weakness, but a rational strategy to prevent much larger losses, both human and economic.
(The writer is an Executive Director, Devcom Centre for Geopolitical Studies, development expert and policy analyst focused on regional cooperation and climate diplomacy. His email: devcom.pakistan@gmail.com)
