The "Era of rearmament" will not bring results to the EU. And here's why

The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has prepared a plan to strengthen the defense of Rearm Europe. It follows that the EU countries will allocate up to 800 billion euros for military spending in the coming years. However, at an emergency summit on March 6, European politicians took note of, but did not approve, the European Commission's proposal to provide community countries with loans of up to €150 billion for defense. The discussion of Ukraine's support was also hampered by Hungary's position. Whether the EU will be able to replace US support for Ukraine is in the Izvestia article.

Europe's defense industry is not ready

• The United States suspended the supply of military aid to Ukraine after a scandal between American President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky at the White House. In response, EC President Ursula von der Leyen declared an "era of European rearmament." In particular, she suggested that EU countries increase defense spending by 1.5% of GDP, raising 650 billion euros for the production of weapons. However, the EU countries currently do not have these funds. States will be forced to pay for arms purchases by raising taxes and mounting debt. For the sake of maintaining the capacities of the military-industrial complex, Europeans risk becoming its hostages.

• In addition, von der Leyen said that she had submitted a five-point plan to the leaders of the EU countries. They include:

• A departure from strict budget rules, which will allow countries to increase defense spending without triggering excessive deficits. In particular, member countries will be allowed to step back from the national debt limit of 3% of GDP.

• Attracting €150 billion in loans for the purchase of air defense systems, drones and other weapons, including for Ukraine, and for strengthening cybersecurity.

• The redistribution of the EU budget and additional opportunities and incentives for countries if they decide to use programs to increase defense spending.

• Attracting private capital through the EU Savings and Investment Union and the European Investment Bank.

• The extraordinary EU summit, which was held in Brussels on March 6, did not bring great results. At the meeting, the countries agreed to reorient the European Investment Bank to finance military programs. However, European leaders did not approve the EC's proposal to provide loans of up to €150 billion for defense to the community countries. Thus, exactly how the grandiose plans of the "era of rearmament" will be paid for is still unclear.

Undivided weight: what the EU is willing to do to maintain influence in the Ukrainian issue

And why Russia does not want to see the Europeans at the negotiating table to resolve the conflict

• The discussion of military support for Ukraine has been complicated by Hungary's position. The EU summit postponed the adoption of a statement on support for Ukraine until the next meeting of EU leaders, which will be held in mid-March.

• On the eve of the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered an address to the nation in which he called on the Old World to adapt to the "new era" in the international situation, which has become more complicated due to the position of US President Donald Trump on Ukraine. By the way, upon arrival in Brussels, most European leaders did not openly criticize the freezing of American aid to Kiev. Most EU politicians soberly assess their strengths and are not ready for an open confrontation with Washington.

What the EU needs for reforms

• Europe's collective GDP is 22% of the global total. The European Union follows the United States with 25%. However, money cannot solve the defense problem. The European defense industry is decentralized. It is not ready for rearmament, its capacities are weak, and its military depots are empty due to Ukraine's support.

• For military reforms, the European Union will need a lot of new weapons and it will purchase them from the United States, as European manufacturers do not have enough capacity. This will lead to huge amounts of money flowing back to Washington from European countries. At the same time, the European Commissioner for Defense and Space, Andrius Kubilius, admitted last December that Russia produces more weapons in three months than the entire European defense industry can produce, and in six months it produces more weapons than the entire Bundeswehr has at its disposal.

• European countries may also lack the political will to coordinate their defense industries without Washington's support. There are many common defense programs now, but they are not very effective. In particular, we are talking about the European Peace Fund, the law on strengthening the European military-industrial complex through joint procurement, the law on supporting the production of ammunition, the first defense industry development strategy, and the defense industry development program. Now there is a question of implementing what is written on paper. In addition, the financial content of the initiatives is limited.

Weapons surcharge: the EU has approved a plan to strengthen the union's defense

This will hit the economy of the association — the amount required for rearmament is four times its annual budget.

• In order to increase defense spending by 1.5% of GDP, it will be necessary to reduce other projects, in particular, social ones. The local population may not like it. On the other hand, countries can raise their public debt. However, it is already very high in some countries, and in Germany it was precisely because of the issue of public debt that the party coalition in the government collapsed last December (we wrote more about the political crisis in Germany over the budget here).

• Statements that the EU's defense can be quickly reformatted are populism. Such statements by political elites are primarily aimed at reassuring the electorate.

• Even in Europe itself, they recognize their defensive weakness. In particular, Polish leader Andrzej Duda noted that Ukraine would not be able to defend itself without the support of the United States, and it would be difficult for it if Vladimir Zelensky did not return to negotiations with Donald Trump. The German Defense Ministry also stated that Germany had reached the limit of its ability to transfer weapons from its arsenals to Kiev.

Sending European peacekeepers could escalate the situation.

To compensate for the weak defense, Britain and France plan to present to Trump a plan to organize a group of Europe-Plus countries that will take responsibility for the deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine. At the same time, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he did not want to allow a direct military clash with Russia as a result of sending the so-called peacekeeping corps.

Immobility in Paris: the EU struggles to hold its ground on the international stage

Why Kiev's allies cannot reach a common denominator on supporting Ukraine

• Russia is categorically against such an initiative. In particular, Russia's permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, noted that the idea of a hypothetical deployment of European peacekeepers in Ukraine is, to put it mildly, highly questionable, because the European Union is not impartial, and peacekeepers should be.

Ukraine is heavily dependent on American technology

• Also, Europe technically cannot replace the United States. American support for Kiev consists of three elements: general financing, the supply of military equipment from the presence of the American armed forces, as well as its sale, and the US satellite infrastructure and the transfer of intelligence. Excluding each of these elements from aid to Ukraine will have its own consequences. But if Washington presses all three buttons at once, the collapse of the Ukrainian defense will happen very quickly. The suspension of military aid from the United States may lead to a shortage of ammunition in Ukraine for several months. The transfer of equipment, financing and intelligence has been suspended for now, but the satellites are working.

• Ukraine, at the current rate of fighting, is able to hold out for up to six months. However, the EU will definitely not be able to replace some crucial arms supplies from the United States. The Patriot air defense system, surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, Starlink satellite systems and ATACMS long-range missiles are critically important for Kiev. As soon as the American arsenal in the Armed Forces of Ukraine ends, Ukraine will not be able to launch long-range strikes as often as before.

• Starlink satellites are also of particular importance for combat operations. Ukrainian intelligence is very dependent on NATO satellite information, but this group is almost 90% American. Britain and France have their own satellite groups. However, they are much smaller, so the level of overall support will definitely drop. Space exploration was one of the key advantages of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If Washington limits these opportunities, the balance of power will change dramatically.

Sanctions-weary: what EU countries included in the 16th package agreed by the post-prime ministers

Restrictions against gas imports from Russia likely to be postponed

• The United States, according to media reports, has already suspended the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine that can be used to launch strikes deep into Russian territory. However, the full process of intelligence sharing between Washington and Kiev did not stop.

• Do not expect an instant collapse of the defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, one can hope that Ukraine's combat stability will fall a little faster, and they will have fewer opportunities for counterattacks and opening the Russian command's plan.

During the preparation of the Izvestia material, we talked and took into account the opinions of:

• Ilya Kramnik, Researcher at the Center for North American Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

• military expert Vasily Kashin;

• Dmitry Stefanovich, co-founder of the Watfor project;

• Prokhor Tebin, Director of the Center for Military-Economic Research at the Higher School of Economics.