By Niamh Ni Bhriain

 

AMSTERDAM, 23 Dec. - (ANA) - Even before the publication of the defence white paper, EU member states’ military spending for 2024 was €343 billion, 2.7 times that of Russia, its stated main adversary, which spent €126.9 billion. 

 

Meanwhile Britain, spent €69.6 billion in 2024 and combined Nato spending was at €1,281 billion — more than ten times that of Russia. 

 

European militarisation is intensifying. Peace, we’re told, can only be achieved "through strength". 

 

Yet twice over the last century accelerated militarisation across Europe preceded and directly culminated in the outbreak of two world wars that left tens of millions dead.

 

Today, European leaders are recklessly repeating the same mistakes of their predecessors while trying to convince us that this time round militarisation will bring peace. We have no reason to believe them.

 

Although the EU has been evolving towards a military union for decades, this process has accelerated significantly over the past year.

 

In March, the EU published its White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030, which stated that "Europe must ... build a Defence Union that ensures peace ... through unity and strength". 

 

It unleashed an unprecedented €800 billion for that purpose. 

 

Already before the publication of the white paper, EU member states’ military spending for 2024 was at €343 billion, a figure that is 2.7 times that of Russia, its stated main adversary, which spent €126.9 billion ($149 billion). 

 

Meanwhile Britain, spent €69.6 billion in 2024 and combined Nato spending was at €1,281 billion — more than ten times that of Russia.

 

Moreover, alongside highly-equipped European armies, the continent hosts over 40 US military bases, some 84,000 US service personnel, and 600 nuclear warheads.  

 

Given these figures, it’s hard to see why Europe would need to spend €800 billion more. Yet, that is precisely what it’s doing by diverting much needed funding from health care, housing and social needs to prepare the continent for war.

 

Part of the €800 billion sum includes a €150 billion loan scheme called SAFE. Its legal basis is article 122, an emergency clause that permits the European Commission and Council to bypass the European Parliament in cases of ‘severe difficulties’ or ‘exceptional occurrences’. 

 

National parliaments were also not afforded an opportunity to scrutinise SAFE. 

 

Applicant countries can now draw down loans that are secured against the EU’s budget and if they default on repayments the EU will pick up the bill. 

 

 

 

 

This could see EU money being directly used for military equipment, something that would appear to be incompatible EU law, which prohibits the use of the EU’s budget for "expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications".

 

In effect, a small group of unelected officials created a highly controversial loan scheme that will see arms companies cash in to the tune of €150 billion. 

 

In August, the parliament initiated legal proceedings against the council, but only to challenge the legal basis and not the substance of SAFE, revealing the parliament’s unwillingness to fulfil its mandate of holding an entirely unelected body that wields significant power and resources to account. 

 

Rather, it appears that the parliament is simply looking for a workaround to rubber-stamp the council and commission’s actions and wash its hands of the matter. 

 

Despite the legal challenge, SAFE remains operational and loans have already been tentatively allocated to 19 member states.  

 

Armed with a financial plan, in October, the EU launched its European Readiness Flagships namely (1) European Drone Defence Initiative, (2) Eastern Flank Watch, (3) European Air Shield and (4) European Space Shield, each with bespoke objectives and milestones to prepare for war. 

 

Meanwhile in November a military mobility initiative was launched taking the EU "towards a military Schengen". 

 

A few days later France and Germany, two of the EU’s most populous countries announced plans to reintroduce military service. Other member states have taken similar actions. 

 

The justification for this militarisation is the ‘existential threat’ that Russia apparently poses to Europe with numerous alleged drone incursions being cited as a form of ‘hybrid warfare’, the latest being in Ireland ahead of Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelenskyy’s state visit. 

 

To date, only eye witness testimony has been reported with no further evidence emerging over two weeks later to corroborate the alleged sightings. Meanwhile, Dutch media outlet Trouw, which rigorously investigated various alleged drone incursions found "a lot of confusion, regular false alarms and hardly any hard evidence for Russian involvement".

 

Nevertheless, rather than engaging with facts and corroborating evidence before reaching a conclusion, EU leaders have largely ignored findings that don’t support the ‘war readiness’ agenda while continuing to double down on militarisation. 

 

Taking Ireland as a case in point — within days of the alleged drone sightings the government announced a €19m investment in counter-drone technology. 

 

 

 

 

In a particularly explosive move, on 12 December, EU leaders again triggered an emergency clause, this time to indefinitely immobilise Russian assets held in Europe with a view to using them to keep Ukraine financed and fighting. 

 

This highly controversial step was taken against the express will of some EU member states, and amid ongoing negotiations of a peace plan, which seeks to end Europe’s control of Russia’s frozen reserves. 

 

This latest move sets the EU on a direct collision course with Russia and irks the US, a key actor in the negotiations. 

 

It also does absolutely nothing for Ukraine beyond prolonging a war that, with €197 billion in EU funding plus $130 billion from the US, it has, so far, been unable to win. 

 

How much more is the EU prepared to pour into Ukraine, a country up to its neck in corruption scandals, before it changes tack?

 

War is big business and the arms trade amounts for almost 40 percent of global corruption. 

 

The latest SIPRI report on arms company profits highlights exorbitant gains for the European arms companies arming Ukraine. 

 

Many of these arms companies expend significant sums on lobbying politicians and some have a seat at the decision-making table in Brussels where they reap the financial benefits of policies that they were instrumental in shaping. 

 

The best time to stop a war is before it starts. This is done by deploying diplomatic envoys not military personnel, by dispelling tension rather than fuelling it, by engaging constructively with peace negotiations rather than sabotaging them, and by investing in peace rather than lining the pockets of the arms industry.

 

Peace through strength is a myth. Its time EU leaders heeded warnings that if you prepare for war, that’s exactly what you get.   - (ANA) -

 

AB/ANA/23 December 2025 - - -