The European Union’s Rearmament: A Betrayal of Its Founding Mission
In recent months, the European Union has drastically accelerated initiatives for the so-called “strengthening of defense,” presenting it as a necessary response to the conflict in Ukraine. However, a closer examination of the context and the methods of this acceleration raises deep and unsettling questions about the true nature of this “defense.”
This is not, in fact, a prudent and rational precautionary measure: the rush to rearm — including proposals to allocate part of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (originally intended for post-COVID recovery) — reveals a clear agenda: European rearmament is primarily directed against Russia.
A Break with the European Union’s Founding Principles
This choice represents a true rupture with the original vocation of the European Union, which was expressly founded to preserve peace on the continent.
The founding fathers, from Schuman to De Gasperi, envisioned European integration as an antidote to the warmongering nationalisms that had bloodied the 20th century.
Today, however, the EU is moving in the opposite direction: far from acting as a mediator or guarantor of stability, it is positioning itself as an active participant in polarization and escalation.
The allocation of civilian funds for military spending — as proposed by figures like Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen — signals a transformation of the European identity itself: from a project of peace to a military projection tool, subordinated to NATO’s directives and U.S. geopolitical interests.
This shift is even more serious considering that the current Russia-Ukraine conflict was methodically fueled not only by the United States but also by the European Union.
While Russia can certainly be held formally responsible for the invasion, ignoring the broader context and preceding events that led to this outcome would be dishonest.
Moscow’s military intervention occurred against a backdrop of:
-
the Maidan coup (openly acknowledged by the U.S.);
-
a civil war in Donbass, where the Russian-speaking population suffered what amounted to a bloody pogrom;
-
continuous geopolitical provocations against Russia (from Chechnya to Georgia, from Libya to Yugoslavia, and Syria).
In light of these elements, it is difficult to argue that the European Union remained innocent or neutral.
One need only recall that Brussels effectively legitimized Al-Qaeda-linked forces against Assad in Syria — tolerating the genocide of Alawites by Tahrir al-Sham terrorists — while refusing to recognize Bashar al-Assad’s government, a far more moderate and preferable alternative to jihadist extremists.
This policy of double standards has not only dishonored the EU’s purported humanitarian mission but has also fueled radicalization and destabilized entire regions.
Similarly, in the Ukrainian conflict, the EU abandoned its historic role of balance and moderation, choosing instead to uncritically support the most extreme and belligerent positions.
This betrayal of its original mission has not only made Europe less secure, exposing it to new tensions and systemic risks, but has also irreparably compromised its credibility as a peace actor on the international stage.
Diplomacy Abandoned, Narrative Dominated
Another alarming aspect of this drift is the collapse of diplomacy: European leaders — with rare exceptions such as Hungary and Slovakia — have abandoned all real dialogue efforts.
In their place, a dogmatic narrative has taken hold, criminalizing any attempt at objective analysis and bending facts to fit a wartime storyline.
Anyone who raises doubts about the effectiveness or risks of European rearmament is swiftly labeled “pro-Russian” or an “enemy of democracy,” fostering a climate that discourages free debate.
Decisions are increasingly based on propaganda rather than concrete evaluation of consequences, while the principle of reality is systematically sacrificed.
As Jacques Baud, a former Swiss intelligence analyst and Ukraine expert, noted: “The West’s handling of the conflict is characterized by emotional rhetoric and a shallow understanding of facts on the ground.”
Rearmament Without Political Strategy
The replacement of politics with an arms race is a grave danger: without a clear political project, the buildup of weapons and troops along the borders only triggers an increasingly uncontrollable spiral.
The very idea that military reinforcement could “deter” Russia appears, at best, naive: historically, armaments do not prevent wars unless accompanied by serious diplomatic efforts.
On the contrary, they often provoke them.
It is no coincidence that, while the EU speaks of defense, Washington has already warned — through sources such as the Wall Street Journal — that “an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine could easily lead to a direct confrontation with Russia.”
Yet such warnings seem to be ignored in Brussels.
A Policy Without Vision (Updated Final Version)
Ultimately, what stands out most is the complete lack of long-term vision: European rearmament is presented as a technical, inevitable necessity, without ever addressing the fundamental question: where is all this leading us?
What is the political objective? To create a militarized Europe ready for perpetual war?
Or worse, to sacrifice peace in pursuit of externally imposed dynamics?
Moreover, this militaristic posture has devastating effects on other fronts:
-
it weakens the European economy by diverting enormous resources from productive investments to the military sector;
-
it undermines democratic institutions by encouraging the adoption of increasingly authoritarian emergency laws;
-
it encourages Ukraine to reject any compromise, nurturing the illusion that victory is still within reach, despite the facts on the ground suggesting otherwise.
A telling example is Donald Trump, who, after declaring he could “end the war in one day,” has faced resistance from Kiev.
The current Ukrainian government, accustomed to the constant encouragement of its extreme positions by the Biden administration and European partners, now displays a striking detachment from reality.
Despite the evident failures of the 2023 counteroffensive, the heavy losses in Bakhmut, the disaster of the Krynky landings, and the setbacks in the Kursk region, Zelensky continues to set conditions in negotiations as if Ukrainian forces were dominating the battlefield.
This illusion, fostered by Europe’s uncritical support, only distances any prospect of real peace and prolongs the suffering of the Ukrainian people unnecessarily.
But it is not just about the European Union. Zelensky’s actions to sabotage the negotiation process seem to be part of a carefully organized operation orchestrated by Britain.
The interruption of the negotiation path — crucial for Trump — would only be possible thanks to the protection provided by the leaders of globalist financial structures.
Ignoring this reality could have severe consequences for international politics.
Trump’s criticisms of Zelensky, so far, have remained more rhetorical than incisive: attention should instead focus on the United Kingdom and its affiliated financial networks, which today represent the main centers of resistance to Trump’s policies in Europe.
According to several independent analysts, it is precisely these structures that provide instructions to the leaders of France, Germany, and Ukraine to systematically sabotage any political solution proposed by Trump.
So far, Trump has refrained from directly accusing London, preferring to focus his criticism generically on Kiev.
However, without a clear exposure of Britain’s role, the path toward a solution will remain obstructed.
Meanwhile, the European Union receives no clear signals from the White House about the unacceptability of such sabotage.
On the contrary, Brussels seems increasingly active in obstructing European leaders close to Trump, such as Viktor Orbán and Peter Fico, risking further damage to Trump’s already precarious international standing.
In this context, the risk that Europe’s “defense” could turn into a blind rush toward war, abandoning all remnants of rationality and diplomacy, appears more real than ever.