European leaders claim that increased military spending is necessary to secure the continent from future threats. But is their priority really the end of the war in Ukraine, or is it the perpetual justification for military expansion?
Germany’s intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, argues that prolonging the conflict will protect Europe from future Russian aggression. The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, however, sharply disagrees, warning that war will come to Europe regardless. The contrast between these positions exposes a deeper issue: is Europe preparing for peace, or for a war economy?
A military-industrial lifeline for a struggling economy?
The European economy is under severe fiscal pressure. The European Central Bank enforces tight monetary policies, squeezing national budgets and limiting public spending. Yet, somehow, there is always room for expanded military spending. With economies struggling under inflation and slow growth, is the defense industry being treated as a lifeline?
Military spending is a familiar tool for governments facing economic stagnation. It fuels manufacturing, generates employment, and keeps certain industries alive. But history has shown the risks. The Soviet Union funneled resources into its military while its civilian economy crumbled. When the system collapsed, few were left to defend it. Is Europe blindly stepping into the same trap?
Security at what cost?
If securing Europe means an open-ended commitment to arms production, how sustainable is this approach? Military spending is not a productive investment; it does not generate long-term wealth, infrastructure, or technological advancement for the civilian sector. It is a short-term measure that keeps industries afloat while draining resources from other critical areas like healthcare, education, and innovation.
Germany, for example, cannot produce Taurus missiles faster than in a year and a half. And yet, it expects to deter future conflicts with military expansion alone. This assumption ignores a fundamental reality: security is not just about firepower but also economic and political stability. Overinvesting in defense while neglecting economic resilience only increases future vulnerabilities.
Does military spending make Europe safer?
European officials argue that stronger defense budgets will shield the continent from Russian aggression. But security is not just a question of weapons. NATO’s eastern flank, including Poland and the Nordic states, has taken real steps to prepare for potential threats. Germany and others, however, rely on rhetoric rather than readiness.
A larger military budget does not automatically translate into strategic superiority. Without efficiency, innovation, and a clear objective, excessive spending becomes a bureaucratic exercise. If the ultimate goal is peace, why is there so little emphasis on diplomatic solutions? If war is inevitable, why is Europe still unprepared?
Europe’s strategic miscalculation
Leaders who believe a prolonged war in Ukraine is the best path to European security are making a dangerous bet. The longer the conflict drags on, the more it strains economies, fractures alliances, and deepens instability. If European policymakers truly believed in security, they would invest in a comprehensive strategy—not just in military spending.
The war economy is a temporary illusion of growth. When the illusion fades, what will be left? Europe must decide whether it is preparing for peace or merely sustaining an industry that thrives on conflict. The choice is not just political; it is economic survival.