What Will European Leaders Choose: People or War?

Europe’s militarisation has been accelerating long before Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In the past three years, Poland has increased its military spending to nearly 4% of GDP, French President Emmanuel Macron has pledged to “transform” the French military for a new era, and most recently, Britain’s Labour government announced plans to slash international aid to fund a “generational” boost in defense spending.

This renewed focus on expanding arsenals is growing while the region remains subordinated to US interests. European leaders have failed to address this reality, which, according to Member of European Parliament Marc Botenga from the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA), reflects a fundamental lack of vision for a self-reliant Europe. “The US should not be our model for the kind of society we want,” Botenga argues. “Thousands of people are sleeping on the streets in the US, while it continues to dominate the world as an imperialist force. We need a Europe that takes a fundamentally different path.”

The Sidelining of Europe

Even as the Trump administration sidelined European allies—excluding them from discussions on a possible Ukraine peace deal—European leaders responded with feeble protests and attempts to appease the US. The narratives emerging from this, particularly the pro-NATO rhetoric dominating debates on military budgets, such as those heard from the new Belgian government, have little to do with actually strengthening Europe’s security, according to Botenga.

“When the US pressures Europe to give more to NATO, it is essentially pushing it to buy American weapons,” he explains, warning that this leaves European countries dangerously reliant on US military resources. If the US were to block deliveries or freeze cloud space, the billions channeled into this line of defense spending would be rendered useless.

This framework also ignores a crucial point: Europe’s largest economies already match or outspend some of their perceived adversaries’ on defense. In 2024, France and Germany combined allocated at least €145 billion to their standard defense budgets—and billions more if counting specific funds to strengthen armed forces. “How is it possible to claim that this amount is not enough?” Botenga asks. According to him, this illusion persists because current armament plans in Europe lack any meaningful assessment of existing resources and fail to acknowledge that other approaches—not de facto military shopping sprees—would do more to ensure Europe’s security.

Astonishingly, while pouring money into arms, the European Union is simultaneously cutting its diplomatic corps worldwide, signaling that diplomacy will take a back seat in the coming years.

Militarisation at Expense of Social Rights

A growing emphasis on militarisation is also likely to amplify the impact of military lobbying at the EU level, Botenga warns, and will certainly come at the expense of social rights at regional and national levels. In addition to ramping up defense initiatives, Ursula von der Leyen has recently announced that the European Commission will activate the escape clause for military spending, allowing member states to go beyond strict fiscal limits—if the extra funds go toward military investments.

Activating this clause while slashing funding for essential services is “a very clear political choice,” Botenga says, indicating that Europe’s priorities do not align with social rights. This impression is reinforced by the fact that, despite widespread opposition, the EU has reimposed austerity-style measures after briefly suspending them during the COVID-19 pandemic—all while failing spectacularly to shape a coherent industrial strategy.

According to Botenga, the EU’s current approach continues to be rooted in free-market ideology, where governments act as mere sponsors for private companies under the assumption that this will create jobs. In practice, however, these corporate handouts rarely benefit workers, while bolstering company profits.

While EU leaders are now discussing a new industrial vision, it is unlikely to address the fundamental concerns raised in past debates. The reluctance to break from neoliberal orthodoxy has left key European industries—including in sectors like energy and technology—lagging behind the US, further deepening Europe’s dependence. Just like when it comes to imagining alternatives to armament, the EU continues to ignore other approaches that could strengthen its industrial base. “We need to lower energy costs, not salaries,” Botenga argues. “We need to force companies to reinvest in society, not in executive bonuses.”

Resistance to Warmongers Grows

Crucially, Europe must recognise the potential of bringing key industries into the public domain and building stronger partnerships with countries outside of its usual orbit—such as Brazil, China, and South Africa. Doing this could help the region mitigate the impact of shifting US trade policies, including the looming threat of tariffs. However, given Europe’s enduring economic dependence on the US, a sudden U-turn is unrealistic. That said, responding to Trump’s trade barriers with retaliatory tariffs would do little to resolve the problem. “Trade war is also war,” Botenga warns.

There is little indication that EU leaders fully understand what is at stake, but public discontent against the set course is already mounting. Workers across industries are mobilizing against planned closures and layoffs, while national governments and EU institutions are beginning to feel the pressure. In Belgium, early moves by the Arizona government have sparked widespread protests—not only over its austerity-driven economic policies and defense spending plans, but also over threats to civil liberties. Tens of thousands have already taken to the streets, set to resist an administration intent on dismantling pension systems, attacking workers’ rights, and weakening unions.

As resistance to more austerity and warmongering grows, European leaders face a decision between pursuing militarization and corporate-friendly policies, or turn towards a future that more closely resembles what the people they claim to represent need. At the end of the day, as Botenga puts it, it comes down to one question: “What are you going to choose, people or war?”