The War as a European Project: SAFE and the 18th Sanctions Package, the EU Invests in War

Towards the 18th Sanctions Package: The EU Doubles Down on Economic War and Arms Industry

While diplomacy is vanishing from the vocabulary of European institutions, the European Union is intensifying its involvement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict along two main lines: on the one hand, new rounds of economic sanctions; on the other, massive funding for the continental military-industrial complex.

On May 27, 2025, the EU Council formally approved the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) program—a 150 billion euro package designed to bolster Europe’s defense industry and construct what is being called “strategic autonomy.” A figure that speaks for itself, especially when compared with the austerity and restrictions imposed on healthcare, education, and other key sectors. SAFE marks a cultural and political turning point: Europe not only legitimizes its military engagement, but enshrines it as a systemic priority.

At the same time, the 17th package of sanctions against Russia was enacted on May 20, and the Commission has already confirmed that the 18th package is in advanced stages of preparation. This was announced by Kaja Kallas, the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the Union, one of the most hawkish figures in the European landscape. The message is clear: no step back, no room for negotiation. Unlike the United States, which alternates pressure with tactical openings, Brussels has chosen a rigid stance, entirely rooted in escalation and an increasingly direct involvement in the conflict.

SAFE: A New Military Architecture for Europe?

The SAFE program aims to strengthen the EU’s industrial and technological base in the defense sector, introducing for the first time a centralized community platform for joint procurement and military investments. Funding will be split across two strategic pillars: the first concerns the purchase of ammunition, artillery, and cybersecurity tools, presented as a response to an “immediate” emergency—an emergency, however, that appears engineered and politically fueled, much like others before it, from Covid onward: crises always disconnected from civil society and always serving other agendas.

The second pillar targets the development of complex weapons systems—air defense, drones, naval platforms, electronic warfare—meant to reinforce what Brussels calls Europe’s “strategic projection”: a concept that betrays the ambition to turn the EU into a geopolitical actor, not merely a defensive force.

Procurement will require joint participation by at least two member states, though a brief transitional period will allow unilateral purchases in urgent cases. Unsurprisingly, the program extends eligibility to Ukraine and EFTA countries (European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland), a move that confirms the EU’s geopolitical alignment and deepening ties with Kyiv.

Of note is the “Eurocentric” clause limiting non-European components to 35% of contract value. Ostensibly a protectionist gesture, the deeper signal is twofold: reduce dependency on external suppliers—including the United States—and construct a closed strategic supply chain under EU control.

Excitement and Reservations: A Two-Speed Europe

The project has met with widely varying reactions within the Union. Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States see it as an opportunity to reinforce their military presence along the eastern flank, embracing a permanent confrontation with Moscow framed as a necessary, enduring war.

In contrast, Hungary and Slovakia adopt a more cautious and realistic stance, highlighting not only the economic risks but also the political danger of normalizing a wartime climate—a trend that could lead to curtailed freedoms and increasingly authoritarian governance under the banner of “European security.”

Even in Germany and Italy, where social unrest is growing and fiscal constraints are tightening, questions are emerging about the long-term sustainability of such military commitments. What makes this scenario even more concerning is the political context in which these decisions are made: fragile leaderships, often propped up by unwieldy rainbow coalitions, seem increasingly detached from the real needs of citizens and aligned instead with technocratic and financial powers that view militarization as a way out of the Union’s systemic crisis.

SAFE, in this light, reveals a shift in the DNA of the European project: from one of integration and cooperation to a strategic platform of regional power, increasingly focused on security and less on diplomacy. A transformation happening quietly, as the rhetoric of “European values” is bent to serve the logic of rearmament.

The 18th Sanctions Package: Escalation Disguised as “Defense of the International Order”

After targeting the so-called “shadow fleet”—a network of Russian oil tankers used to bypass export restrictions—the 17th sanctions package marked yet another tightening of the European stance. But the upcoming 18th package, now under discussion in Brussels, appears set to go even further: targeting Russian banks, Kremlin-linked individuals, and key tech sectors with more aggressive measures.

Cryptocurrencies, China, and Internal Dissent

One notable addition being considered is the monitoring of cryptocurrencies, seen as an alternative channel for Russia to finance its economy under sanctions. Long overlooked, this issue is now being treated as an “emerging threat” to be neutralized.

Equally sensitive is the issue of third countries. The EU is debating punitive measures against Chinese companies accused of supplying drone parts and dual-use technologies to Russia. A potentially explosive move for global stability, signaling once again that the EU is not seeking off-ramps but rather multiplying its theaters of confrontation.

Not everyone agrees. Italy and Austria, among others, have expressed skepticism over the effectiveness of sanctions in changing Russian behavior, while also noting the mounting collateral damage to European economies. Rising energy costs and industrial slowdown have become structural issues, though many in Brussels remain willfully blind.

The Roots of the Conflict: A Suppressed History

Beyond the sanctions narrative lies a crucial background: the eastward expansion of NATO. It’s hard to understand the current scenario without recognizing how Moscow viewed this process as an existential threat. Declassified documents from the National Security Archive show that in 1990, as part of German reunification talks, Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

This promise was broken in 1999 with the entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, followed by seven more countries in 2004, and finally the prospect of Ukrainian membership—a red line for Moscow.

This perspective is shared by independent analysts such as Jeffrey Sachs, and confirmed by political insiders: former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed that peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine were underway in March 2022 but were halted under pressure from the U.S. and UK, in the name of continuing “resistance” that has since become perpetual war.

Kyiv’s New Arsenal: Toward Endless War

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has requested $30 billion by the end of the year to ramp up domestic arms and drone production, aiming to expand strike capabilities deep into Russian territory. Confidential sources suggest a long-range drone program is already in motion. In a less polarized world, such developments might have raised alarm; instead, they are met with applause in Brussels.

Kyiv’s ambition to become a self-sufficient defense hub is not a step toward peace but further evidence that Ukraine is solidifying its role as a permanent Western proxy. Its integration into SAFE underscores this trend.

Ghosts and Pirates: The Energy War

Among the most debated elements of the 18th package is the renewed focus on Russia’s “shadow fleet” of tankers sailing under flags of convenience. The EU now plans to track these ships with advanced satellite technology and sanction the companies operating them.

However, beneath the rhetoric lies a legal dilemma: intercepting or seizing ships in international waters amounts to piracy under international maritime law. Unsurprisingly, Russia has begun escorting its tankers with military vessels in the Baltic Sea, signaling a further militarization of the energy crisis.

Dissonant Voices in the European Choir

Amid this escalation, some capitals—notably Budapest—are charting a different course. Hungary is reportedly negotiating directly with Moscow to secure discounted gas supplies, while pressure mounts in Slovakia against automatic alignment with EU war policies. These divergences reveal that European unity is fragile, and the costs of hardline policies are becoming untenable for many.

At a Crossroads: Permanent War or Neutrality?

The SAFE program and the new sanctions package represent yet another strategic choice by the European Union. But it is a choice that persistently excludes any diplomatic effort. As Jeffrey Sachs argues, the current European policy—defined by controlled escalation and subordination to Atlantic interests—is fueling the conflict, not resolving it.

The proposal for Ukrainian neutrality, now taboo in institutional discourse, remains the only realistic foundation for a lasting peace. Ignoring it means prolonging a war that is destroying Ukraine, destabilizing Europe, and empowering the very authoritarian trends the EU claims to oppose.

Related Links: