Brussels -Ursula von der Leyen’s majority in the European Parliament supports her rearmament plan but warns not to override Parliament. Amidst distinctions by the Socialists, warnings from environmentalists, and criticism from the Left and Sovereignists, the Strasbourg debate on European defense confirms the fault lines of EU policy, which now points straight toward continent-wide rearmament.
The need for deterrence
“We must build a common defense. This is not to threaten or conquer, but to deter any attack from the outside, driven by hatred against a united Europe.” Ursula von der Leyen quotes the historic Christian Democrat statesman Alcide De Gasperi at the opening of her speech to the plenary of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, which discussed the conclusions of last week’s Brussels extraordinary summit this morning (March 11).
According to the EU executive president, 70 years later, “our generation is faced with the very same task” as the founding fathers because “peace can no longer be taken for granted” on the Old Continent, and “this is the moment for a common defense.” History, she says, has disproved those who thought that after the Cold War, “we could integrate Russia into the European economic and security architecture,” as well as those who believed that “we could count indefinitely on America’s full protection.” The only result is that we Europeans “lowered our guard down, cut defense spending thinking we were enjoying a peace dividend. But in reality, we were just running a security deficit.”
No beating around the bush: “The time for illusions is now over” and “This is the moment for peace through strength.” The Latin maxim si vis pacem para bellum remains valid as the centuries pass. In this narrow passage of history, von der Leyen continues, “Europe is called to take greater charge of its own defense. Not in some distant future but already today. Not with incremental steps but with the courage that the situation requires.” In the immediate term, the urgency is Ukraine. In the long term, it is a matter of securing the entire continent because Vladimir Putin “has proven to be a hostile neighbor” and, therefore, we need to act accordingly and “use deterrence.”
Continental Rearmament
The Berlaymont president is self-congratulatory, welcoming the fact that she has seen among the leaders of the 27 member states “consensus, which is not just unprecedented but was completely unthinkable only a few weeks ago” regarding the need to make rapid progress on the issue of European defense. For that matter, the roadmap she outlined, with the ReArm Europe plan, calls for €800 billion in investments over the next four years.
She defends the plan in front of MEPs, citing the astronomical sums spent by the Kremlin to wage war on Ukraine. “European military production is still too limited,” she warns, noting that “the range of threats we face is getting broader by the day.” The average 2 percent of national GDP European countries spend on defense is insufficient (estimates suggest that being “ready” requires 3 percent). At the EU GDP level, this percentage drops to 1 percent.
“In this more dangerous era, Europe needs to step up.” To do so, we must “pull every single financial lever we have.” It is crucial to mobilize national budgets by activating the national escape clause of the Stability Pact (SGP) since “the bulk of investments can only come from the member states.” Then, the new financial instrument SAFE, which will provide up to 150 billion in loans to focus on “selected strategic capabilities” (such as air defense, drones, missiles, munitions, strategic enablers, military mobility, cyber capabilities, and artificial intelligence), with emphasis on “European preference,” joint procurement, and multi-year contracts.
“We need scale, size, and speed.” It is how von der Leyen justifies the use of the emergency procedure under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), which allows bypassing parliamentary debate in case of emergencies, raising money on international markets, and lending it to chancelleries to invest in defense. Finally, cohesion funds (to be redirected “on a voluntary basis” from regional policy to defense projects), investment through the EIB, and the Savings and Investment Union that is being realized.
Europe’s defense, according to Costa
Even for the president of the European Council, António Costa, there is “an omnipresent sense of urgency” at this stage. That is why the summit he chaired on March 6 “took quick and ambitious decisions on Ukraine” and European defense, enabling the EU to equip itself with the necessary financial resources.
In one month, “we have given birth to the Europe of defense,” including through interaction with the United Kingdom and NATO, bringing to fruition a path that started three years ago with the Versailles summit where it was agreed to “strengthen Europe’s defense.” In three years of the Ukraine war, he notes, member states have increased their defense budgets by 30 percent, while the 23 NATO countries in the Union have, on average, met the 2 percent target set by the Alliance.
Looking ahead to the upcoming March 20-21 summit, he stresses that “competitiveness and defense must go hand in hand” to “make the EU stronger, protect our citizens, and our social model.” The strategic autonomy of the Old Continent also passes through here, he assures. High Representative Kaja Kallas will present the White Paper on defense on March 19.
EPP and Renew’s support
Among the most enthusiastic reactions in the House are those of Populars and Liberals. The leader of the EPP, Manfred Weber, starts with the “scandalous” ambush by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance on Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office to warn his colleagues that we Europeans “are now on our own” and can no longer count on the historic US ally.
“We need common European projects such as missile defense, anti-drone defense, or a satellite system. We cannot depend on the US,” said the Bavarian leader, agreeing with von der Leyen that “the task of our generation is to create a real Defense Union.” However, he warned his compatriot about using emergency procedures: “Parliament must be fully involved. Bypassing it with Article 122 is a mistake.”
Valérie Hayer, group leader of Renew, is on the same page. “What is happening overseas is not a simple disengagement but a total reversal of the transatlantic alliance,” the MEP points out, adding that “Trump is no longer our ally.” And so, she welcomes von der Leyen’s plan, warning her that “we would need something more,” starting with Eurobonds (proposed by both the House and some EU governments). She says coordination will be key so that the armed forces of the 27 member states “can work together.”
As a true Frenchwoman, she adds: “We must also move forward on the issue of European nuclear deterrence, without calling into question the national sovereign decision of its activation,” describing the atomic shield offered by Emmanuel Macron as “the only condition for preserving peace” in Europe.
Distinctions from the Social Democrats
Within the Social Democratic camp, tones are becoming more nuanced. The S&D group leader in the House, Iratxe García Pérez, agrees that “we cannot depend on third parties for our security” but reiterates that ReArm Europe must be “only a first step” because we cannot continue toward fragmentation among 27 national solutions as is likely to happen by suspending the SGP. On the contrary, “we need more common debt, more solidarity, and more strategic vision” to ensure, among other things, that “investment in defense does not come at the expense of our social model.” Otherwise, we risk “weakening the foundations of our democracy.”
European defense and support for Kyiv are “two sides of the same coin.” “Not only must we intervene to enable Ukraine to resist, but we must enable it to win this war, and to achieve this, we need decisive and cohesive actions,” which must include, for example, “seizing frozen Russian capital to rebuild and arm Ukraine and authorize the use of our weapons to strike military targets” on Federation soil. The battle in the former Soviet republic “will define the 21st century,” she argued, quoting Winston Churchill, who reproached Neville Chamberlain for choosing dishonor and getting war (referring to the infamous Munich Agreement of 1938).
In the meantime, further balancing acts come from the Italian PD. Dem negotiators want to include in the resolution that the House will vote on tomorrow an amendment deleting references to the 3 percent of GDP target for defense investment at the national level, replacing it with a “priority to joint European initiatives.” From the ongoing Ecofin in Brussels, meanwhile, the Lithuanian finance minister called for raising the bar even to 6 percent.
Other Nuances
Patriots, Conservatives, and Greens also essentially support the Berlaymont plan but with no shortage of nuances. The two “absolute priorities” for Europe, according to PfE group leader Jordan Bardella, are “peace and independence.” On the one hand, “the risk of prolonging a war with no prospect of victory” must be averted. There must be room for diplomacy, so Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to convene an EU-US summit to “allow us to achieve our goals for Ukraine’s sovereignty” with the appropriate security guarantees must be welcomed. Conversely, the “autonomy of European nations” must be built, as “no one else but us will have to determine our interest.”
ECR co-leader Nicola Procaccini of Giorgia Meloni’s party also says the summit was “a return toward reality.” However, he would have preferred “more clarity on the sources of funding, long-term planning,” and the framing of von der Leyen’s plan in the context of NATO (without which a European defense is “inconceivable”). It would be a mistake to consider ReArm Europe – which, he says, should be renamed Defend Europe – as a “retaliation” or a “concession” to the White House: on the contrary, “investing in defense and security is an act of dignity of our nations and respect for our international allies.”
According to Bas Eickhout, co-leader of the Greens, the Brussels plan is fine in principle. Still, perhaps it is time to question whether EU budget rules “are fit for their purpose,” considering the need to “repeatedly activate the escape clauses” of the SGP to enable member states to respond to needs.
Extremists against rearmament
Strong opposition comes instead from the Left. The Left co-chair Martin Schirdewan accuses von der Leyen of “ignoring diplomacy” by aiming exclusively for a “military solution to the conflict” in Ukraine. He reminds the president that strategic independence means investing in weapons and “energy security, social security, research and development.”
Danilo Della Valle of the 5 Star Movement places an EU flag sewn together with a peace flag on the Commission benches, which von der Leyen already left. The latter “will be remembered as the one who betrayed values and democracy,” he attacked from the podium of the hemicycle, recalling that “Europe without peace is dead” and condemning the “bellicose madness” of Brussels that wants “the third world war.” Outside the Chamber, former prime minister and M5s leader Giuseppe Conte protested along with a large group of MEPs against the ReArm Europe plan, which they compare to “a declaration of war.”
Critics against the Commission’s plan include the ESN Sovereignists, the group of the AfD. Supporting Ukraine is “denying reality,” said Zsuzsanna Borvendég, according to whom President Zelensky is illegitimate; Kyiv violates human rights and carries out a genocide of Russian-speaking minorities. At the same time, Brussels pours billions “into the pockets of the oligarchs” as well as into those of Hamas and ISIS.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
