“THE REARMAMENT of Europe is not meant to replace Nato but to strengthen and diversify it. It will allow the US to focus on the Pacific and east Asia while Europe concentrates on defending Nato’s eastern flank,” says Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken, who is also vice-chair of Nato’s parliamentary assembly. Francken’s words reflect what is currently being thought in Nato circles.

According to Washington, the US is currently “overstretched” in the Indo-Pacific, a region encompassing the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Here, the US is working to militarily encircle China. It already has bases in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, patrols the South China Sea, has partnerships like Aukus (with Australia) and Quad (with India), and an unwavering focus on Taiwan. But these military initiatives demand colossal resources: money, personnel, and logistics.

As China continues to grow, Washington gets entangled in multiple crises: Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, domestic tensions in the US are rising. The military-industrial complex struggles to keep pace: ammunition stockpiles dwindle, shipbuilding lags and maintaining readiness across all fronts becomes increasingly difficult. The once-unassailable US empire now grapples with the limits of its reach.

Thus, Washington declares: countering Russia’s militarisation is Europe’s job; we’ll focus on China. Europe may occasionally send a frigate to south-east Asia, but that’s not its core task.

The consequence? Europe must dismantle its social security systems, privatise public services and slash pensions to meet Nato’s insane new demands. All so the US can focus on its main adversary: China.

The failure of Europe’s strategy

As I argued in my book Mutiny (2023), the war in Ukraine has always had a “Janus face” — a duality. On one side, there’s Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, a breach of international law. On the other, it’s a proxy war between the US and Russia, fought on the backs of Ukrainians, where tens of thousands of young people are sacrificed as cannon fodder for a geopolitical conflict.

Washington now openly admits this: it was a proxy war fuelled and directed by the US. But Donald Trump now claims it was the wrong proxy war. He argues Russia isn’t the true adversary; instead, all efforts should prepare for the coming war against China.

With a predatory “peace deal,” Trump wants Europe to bear the costs of the war while the US secures control over Ukraine’s mineral and resource extraction. Trump aims to treat Ukraine like a colony, much as the US has treated many global South nations. This reveals the war’s true nature: it’s not about values, but about geostrategic interests, as well as control of resources and fertile land.

Europe’s failure to pursue serious diplomatic initiatives for a ceasefire over the past three years is now backfiring. According to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, Vladimir Putin must “lose this war.” Estonian former prime minister (now EU foreign minister) Kaja Kallas declared peace “not a goal,” insisting the “solution must be military.” From the start, the EU refused to consider any resolution beyond escalating war. In Europe’s narrative, the words “peace” and “negotiations” became taboo.

At no point did European leaders demonstrate statesmanship through diplomacy or mediation. Instead, initiatives like Turkey’s were undermined by London and Paris. “We had three years to pursue peace, and not a single European leader took action!” says international relations professor Tom Sauer — and try to prove him wrong. “Our strategy was to send weapons, money, and say, ‘Figure it out.’ We prolonged this war, to Ukraine’s detriment as Russia has been winning for the past two years.”

Today, this strategy has visibly failed. Now, Trump unilaterally negotiates directly with Russia. Yet instead of learning from this disaster, parts of Europe’s Establishment cling to the failed strategy, determined to prolong the war at any cost.

Contradictions abound. The same people who yesterday claimed victory over Moscow was imminent now warn that Moscow could “reach Brussels Grand Place tomorrow” unless Europe rapidly rearms. Both claims cannot be true. It’s clear their goal is to sell massive rearmament plans.

When German militarism gazes east

When German militarism gazes eastward, Europe picks up the pieces. This summarises the two world wars of the 20th century. In WWI (1914–18), German youth were mobilised against “Russian despotism.” In WWII (1939–45), sons of German workers were sent to the front to suppress the “Bolshevik threat.” The slogans changed, but the goal of eastward expansion remained.

Many who grew up in the 20th century learned that the combination of Germany, chauvinism and militarism is a bad idea. The Ruhr Valley’s arms manufacturers fuelled two of history’s most devastating wars. Post-WWII, Europe agreed: never again German militarism.

Suddenly, the world feels like a bad B-movie. Here it is again: Germany must rapidly reassert itself. Germany must embrace its “historic role.” Germany must militarise. We must “do whatever it takes” to counter the “Russian threat.” These words echo again in the Bundestag. It’s a deja vu.

On March 18 2025, the German parliament approved constitutional amendments enabling the largest rearmament programme since WWII. It’s not that Germany doesn’t have an army today. To the contrary, Germany already ranks fourth globally in defence spending, up from seventh place. Now, it’s turbocharging its “war readiness” to get kriegstuchtig.

German rearmament is now debt-financed — a radical shift. Until recently, Berlin blocked any proposal increasing debt. It still does for social or green initiatives. Not so for public spending on the military.

Meanwhile, and on top of German additional spending, the European Commission launched a massive militarisation package, partly funded by debt and loans, partly by pillaging cohesion, climate and development funds.

Originally named “ReArm,” the European Commission’s rearmament plan is now rebranded “Readiness 2030.” We must be ready in five years! To achieve this, Europe will spend €800 billion. All so the US can complete its military encirclement of China. Is the EU’s rearmament plan anything but a bow to Trump?

The military arm of an imperial Europe

While Europe’s official rhetoric speaks of peace and security, its policies tell another story. Von der Leyen leaves no doubt: the EU must not only develop the means to defend its global interests but also be ready to deploy them. In other words, Europe wants to be a geopolitical player in the power struggle with China and the US.

Yet no EU state is really willing to surrender its national army. Instead, a new layer is added: joint “battle groups” and military structures. Democratic oversight is lacking. National militaries have some accountability, but EU-level control is vague. The European Parliament lacks equivalent power or transparency, risking troop deployments without public awareness.

In February 2024, the EU decided to send warships to the Middle East — not to pressure Israel to stop its bombing and illegal annexation, as urged by the International Court of Justice. No frigate has left its harbour for that. They did, however, to protect “free passage” in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, crucial trade routes. In other words, military ships protect European interests, not people.

Germany continues arming Israel; France arms Cameroon and Indonesia. European companies sell weapons to India, Pakistan, and Nigeria despite wars and oppression. In the Sahel, EU military missions over two decades have brought instability, not stability. The EU cares not for human rights but resources, trade routes, and spheres of influence.

The claim that Europe must rearm against Russia is full of holes. Europe already has four times as many warships, three times as many tanks and artillery and twice as many fighter jets as Russia. Russia doesn’t want war with Nato — and even if it did, rebuilding its army after the war in Ukraine would take years. Brussels knows this full well.

EU rearmament isn’t just about freeing the US to focus on the Indo-Pacific; it’s about building a European military layer for interventions beyond defence. Some dream of a strong military arm for a new imperial Europe.

Where is Europe heading?

Sky-rocketing energy prices, technologically lagging behind China and the US, and a lack of industrial vision have plunged Germany — Europe’s economic engine — into recession. The US imposes 25 per cent tariffs on European steel, aluminium and cars, with Trump threatening more. This could cripple Germany’s car industry.

While Germany’s elite long remained loyal to Washington, Frankfurt’s financial circles increasingly advocate European sovereignty — independent from the US.

This push for autonomy echoes in the EU’s new defence white paper. Europe must stand on its own. Today, 78 per cent of defence purchases come from outside the EU, mostly from the US. The white paper aims to reverse this: by 2035, 60 per cent of equipment must be European-made.

This goal seems unrealistic. Europe’s arms industry is fragmented, with German, French, Italian and British firms competing for billions. While Germany funnels money to Rheinmetall, Franco-Italian and Anglo-French alliances jostle for advantage.

There’s no unified command. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy calls for 300,000 more European soldiers — but they’d serve 29 national armies. Recruitment and training remain hurdles.

True independence from the US is distant. Pro-US Trans-Atlanticists have long dominated the EU. Post-Brexit, the Baltic states and Poland — built on anti-communism, Russophobia and neoliberalism — have taken up London’s role. The appointment of Lithuania’s ex-PM Andrius Kubilius as an EU key figure makes this clear: “Expect no competition between me and Nato.”

The Baltics demand Europe abandon “strategic autonomy” and accept subordination to Nato. But why should all EU states align their foreign policies with Baltic and Polish priorities when facing other challenges? Le Monde Diplomatique asks: “The Iberian Peninsula fears climate change more than Russian invasion; France relies on nuclear deterrence; Germany benefits from East-West balance; Greece worries about Istanbul, not Moscow; Italy eyes the Mediterranean; Denmark is preoccupied with Trump.”

Yet in March 2025, EU leaders reaffirmed loyalty to Nato. Ahead of June’s critical Nato summit in The Hague, Europe’s leaders meekly comply with Trump and Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. “Strategic autonomy” remains distant — and if achieved, it would only serve European imperialism.

Under capitalism, “security” is trapped in a web of resource control, trade routes, geostrategy, and global redivision. We need a new definition: security as access to water, food, healthcare, protection from pandemics and climate chaos. Achieving this requires a different Europe — one of peace, solidarity, democracy and socialism.

Peter Mertens is a member of the Belgian chamber of representatives and is former leader of the Workers Party of Belgium (2008-21)

This article is republished from peoplesdispatch.org.