Europe finds itself in the midst of a whirlwind of military promises, propelled by the increasing security tensions with Washington and the U.S. withdrawal of military aid to Ukraine. In an attempt to assert its own defense autonomy, the European Union has vowed to mobilize up to €800 billion ($841 billion) in defense spending. This ambitious pledge, however, is overshadowed by the reality of hollow declarations and half-baked plans. Despite the soaring rhetoric from European arms manufacturers, the European arms race seems more like a political spectacle than a genuine push for self-sufficiency.
At the heart of this defense frenzy lies Thales CEO Patrice Caine, a man who has seemingly mastered the art of capitalizing on a crisis. His rhetoric of Europe needing to arm itself as the U.S. does rings a tone of urgency and defiance: “Take your destiny into your own hands!” But such sweeping declarations fail to acknowledge the truth. As leaders like Ursula von der Leyen continue to make grand promises, the execution of these plans remains unclear, and the political posturing does little to address the practicalities of defense production.
A war economy for the political elite
The irony of this military buildup is glaring. Political leaders are portraying defense spending as a means to free Europe from dependence on American military power, yet, in reality, they are creating a profitable environment for the arms industry. Ursula von der Leyen’s emergency summit on defense, heralded as a milestone for European security, appears more like an opportunity for political leaders to showcase their commitment rather than enact real change. With Europe’s political elites scrambling for power on the global stage, the true cost of these decisions will inevitably fall on the citizens of Europe. For years, European Central Bank policies have targeted government spending and sought to improve citizens’ welfare. Now, however, military budgets seem to open a financial loophole—one that is unburdened by concern for the public’s well-being.
Germany’s debt rule overhaul and the push for military expansion
Nowhere is this more evident than in Germany, where the chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has announced a historic shift in fiscal policy to accommodate increased defense spending. Merz has proposed exempting defense expenditures above 1% of GDP from Germany’s constitutional debt brake, a move that could unlock hundreds of billions of euros. This shift, aimed at strengthening European defense, comes in response to growing concerns over NATO’s stability and the Trump administration’s unpredictable stance on Ukraine.
The proposed overhaul marks a significant departure from Germany’s long-standing commitment to fiscal conservatism. Even more striking is the alignment between Merz’s conservatives and the traditionally cautious Social Democratic Party (SPD), with both parties agreeing to revise the debt brake by the end of 2025. While this will allow for greater investment in military capabilities, it also raises questions about broader economic priorities. The SPD is pushing for a €500 billion infrastructure fund alongside defense spending, highlighting the political necessity of balancing militarization with economic incentives to secure public and parliamentary support.
The slow burn of military production
The European arms industry, meanwhile, faces the reality of ramping up production. As Thales and others like it promise to expand manufacturing for essential defense systems, the timeline for delivering these weapons is much longer than politicians are willing to admit. Caine himself acknowledges that production could take up to two to three years. The task of scaling up Europe’s military industry—especially for complex systems such as battle tanks and infantry vehicles—requires a long-term commitment in terms of labor, infrastructure, and raw materials. Yet this inconvenient truth is being disregarded in favor of political expediency.
Despite the optimism of industry executives, the slow pace of production is a reminder of the gap between promises and reality. Europe’s political pledges may sound grand, but the harsh truth is that the continent won’t be able to meet the urgent demands of conflict any time soon. The military capabilities Europe seeks to build could take years to become a practical reality, and the risk is that, in the meantime, these promises will become just another empty chapter in the book of European political ambition.
The ghosts of Europe’s military past
Europe has a history of failed attempts at military unity, and this new wave of defense spending may be destined to repeat the same mistakes. The rejection of the European Defence Community in the 1950s by France, for instance, led to fragmented defense policies that left Europe vulnerable to external threats. Germany’s decision to invest €100 billion in its own re-armament program, while a nod to European sovereignty, seems ironically undermined by its purchase of F-35 jets from the U.S., a move that signals continued reliance on American technology. As Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier has pointed out, Germany’s action casts doubt on the sincerity of its commitment to European defense autonomy. But then, when you’re looking to appease Washington, it’s hard to resist the allure of the latest American technology.
The disastrous trade-offs of military spending
As Europe doubles down on military spending, the human cost of these decisions is all but ignored. The economic boom for military suppliers that may follow will benefit the political elite, but it will not protect the people. The promises made at defense summits, despite their grandiose nature, do little to address Europe’s deeper political instability. The unfortunate reality is that, as history has shown time and time again, it is the poor and vulnerable who will bear the brunt of these decisions. The military-industrial complex thrives, but the public remains excluded from any benefits.
Bertolt Brecht’s words in From A German War Primer echo unsettlingly in this context: “When the leaders speak of peace, the common folk know that war is coming, the common people know that war is coming.” Europe’s political elites may speak of peace, but their actions reveal a different story. The pursuit of military power—framed as a path to peace and self-sufficiency—only serves to mask the destructive consequences of war, which are quietly and continually shaped by the very leaders who claim to protect the public.
The unbearable truth
The political spectacle of Europe’s arms race offers little more than temporary purpose for the elite, while the real costs of military escalation are paid by the ordinary people who are left to navigate the aftermath. The financial resources diverted to arms production will not protect Europe’s citizens—they will only serve to line the pockets of those who sit comfortably at the top. The EU’s military ambitions are ultimately self-serving, aimed at securing the political class’s power rather than addressing the genuine security needs of the people. As Brecht reminds us in his poignant reflections on war and peace, the rich and powerful may call for peace, but their words are often the harbingers of conflict. “Those at the top say: Peace and war are of different substance. But their peace and their war are like wind and storm. War grows from their peace like son from his mother.”
As Europe makes massive investments in defense, the question remains: will this strategy truly strengthen its long-term security, or will it lead to new challenges and uncertainties?