Much has already been said about the European Union’s deep-rooted crisis. In 2019, Ursula von der Leyen declared that she wanted to lead a “geopolitical” European Commission, stressing that the EU should become a united global actor. Unsurprisingly, this “united Europe” remains as divided as ever, with polarized political forces in all member states failing to reach consensus on the future development of the Union. The most pressing of them all is the issue of militarization.
In June 2024, Von der Leyen assigned the defence portfolio to Latvian commissioner Andrius Kubilius. In November 2024, former Finnish President Sauli Niinistō prepared a special report on Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness. Finally, in March 2025, the EU Commission proposed the “ReArm Europe” plan, aiming to mobilize €800 billion to “strengthen Europe’s defence infrastructure in response to geopolitical threats”. Thus, It seems that European bureaucrats have decided to push more a “military EU”, betraying the principles which have formed the basis of European integration ever since its inception.
Over the past few decades, the EU and its eurozone members have demonstrated that pacifist diplomacy and constructive international cooperation can serve as powerful engines for economic stability, social progress, and regional integration. From the introduction of the euro to the expansion of member states and the development of a common regulatory framework, these achievements have been rooted in a shared commitment to peace, dialogue, and multilateralism. This made European integration an example to follow for other countries of the world that wanted to create similar shared spaces of regional prosperity.
However, current events constitute a rapid change of ideals and principles. The EU does not seem to have the strategic vision to engage in constructive dialogue with Russia on Ukraine – the dialogue already launched by the Trump administration with the help of Middle Eastern mediators. Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer are currently leading the war effort in Ukraine, shifting the EU towards more militarization. While there may be some security concerns for Ukraine, diplomatic resolutions are historically more efficient than military ones. A transition from pacifist diplomacy to military confrontation risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: increased tensions lead to conflict escalation, which then justifies further militarization – a cycle that can spiral out of control. For the eurozone countries committed to peacebuilding since their founding, this trajectory threatens not only economic stability but also societal cohesion.
One immediate consequence of moving toward militarization is the potential for heightened inflation. Increased defense budgets require substantial public expenditure – funds that could otherwise be invested in social programs or infrastructure. As governments divert resources toward military readiness, there is a risk that inflationary pressures will intensify due to higher government spending coupled with supply chain disruptions caused by conflict. Furthermore, heightened security concerns often lead to economic uncertainty. Investors may become wary of regional stability, leading to capital flight or reduced investment in social sectors such as healthcare, education, and welfare. This contraction in social spending can exacerbate inequalities within member states and erode public trust in institutions.
It is no wonder that a large portion of EU citizens feels disillusioned with the prospects of EU bureaucrats’ led policies. The shift towards militarization resonates with segments of the population who feel that their national identity and sovereignty are under threat. These gradually gravitate towards politicians who resist the globalist agenda and EU Commission’s warmongering. There has been an increase in support for nearly all so-called “far-right” political groups in all member states.
In Germany, recent Bundestag elections saw AfD that advocates for a diplomatic solution of the war in Ukraine achieving second place and surging to first in post-election polls. In Romania, far-right presidential candidate George Simion got 48% of the vote after neoliberal elites decided to annul the previous election, which were won by Calin Georgescu, a so-called “pro-Russian” candidate. Hungary, Slovakia, Italy are already headed by “far-right” politicians who prioritize national sovereignty over neoliberal warmongering. These are all illustrations of how EU citizens are becoming increasingly more disappointed with the Brussels elites.
In an era marked by uncertainty and shifting global power dynamics, Europe’s greatest strength has always been its unity founded on peace and economic prosperity. Unless the EU embraces dialogue over confrontation, it can abandon its hopes to preserve these hard-won achievements.
Comments