European heads of state continue to push forward with their armament agenda, refusing to invest real effort in achieving a peace deal in Ukraine. Following a new meeting of military officials in London on March 20, French President Emmanuel Macron – a leading figure of the new war strategy alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer – announced that another round of discussions will take place next week to operationalize European support for the Ukrainian government.
“We will finalize our work to support the Ukrainian army and build a sustainable and resilient military model to prevent future Russian invasions,” Macron stated. “We will also define the security guarantees that European forces can provide.”
Even as the Trump presidency initiated peace talks with Russian authorities, many European countries pledged more military aid to Ukraine, egging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on to pursue fighting. This has been accompanied by a surge in armament spending projections, interpreted by some as an effort to appease the Trump administration’s criticism that Europe has not invested enough in NATO and defense readiness.
Watch: US arrogance created the Ukraine war – Jeffrey Sachs & Vijay Prashad
In recent weeks, the European Union and its partners announced sweeping plans to boost military spending, emphasized “nuclear deterrent” capabilities, and introduced the idea of sending so-called peacekeeping troops to Ukraine – even with Russian authorities warning such a move would derail any potential peace treaty. Yet despite their bold announcements, European leaders admit that the success of these strategies remains dependent on US military capacity, exposing deep contradictions in their outlook.
The argumentation offered by European leadership is becoming less convincing by the day, partly due to such inconsistencies in public statements. During the recent presentation of a white paper on the EU’s rearmament agenda, ReArm Europe, EU Commissioner for Defense and Space, Andrius Kubilius, stated: “450 million EU citizens should not have to depend on 340 million Americans to defend ourselves against 140 million Russians who can’t defeat 38 million Ukrainians.”
Kubilius’s comment effectively acknowledges the limitations of Russian military power, given that even Ukraine – less equipped than Western European countries – continues to avoid full occupation. In this context, statements by other European leaders claiming, more or less explicitly, that Russian troops might march into Berlin or Brussels tomorrow become less convincing. This raises a fundamental question: why are EU officials so insistent on massive increases in military spending, even as opposition among the population grows?
