The resurgence of militarism through ReArmEurope and Readiness 2030 promotes a war against the people, against the working class, which includes all individuals, whether employed, informal, domestic, paid or unpaid, involved in economic production or social reproduction. Ultimately, this means a war against humanity and the planet – a War on Earth. Enikő Vincze articulates a critique and puts alternatives up for discussion.
*
With the launch of the White Paper of European Defense – Readiness 2030 by the European Commission (EC) on March 19, 2025, the Commission decided to rename the ReArmEurope program as Readiness 2030. The objective, however, remained the same – to develop a vision for the rearmament of Europe based on three main pillars: ensuring that the European defense industry produces at maximum speed and volume over the next four years, that European Union (EU) troops and military assets are rapidly deployed across EU countries, and that the EU responds to the short-term urgency of providing military support to Ukraine.
The politics of self-redefinition, as manifested in the ReArmEurope program, is also the essence of Donald Trump’s MAGA. The tendency towards ‘rebirth’ and towards ‘self-aggrandizement’ (‘to make ourselves great again’), is evidence that things are not going well economically and socially anywhere (the US has a huge trade deficit and ever-growing government debt, and economic growth in the EU is at risk). The situation is not good from the perspective of capital, either.
For some time now, we have been facing a deep, multifaceted and interconnected crisis of the capitalist system and world order. The current arms race and increasing military spending accompany the old and new austerity programs, which are being carried out as a form of war against working people, society and the environment as a whole. And if militarization also means taking the so-called ‘green transition’ in the EU off the center stage, this entails that struggles against the unjust ‘green transition’ are overshadowed by war propaganda and war mongering. Overall, this weakens initiatives to create an infrastructure that supports sustainable development that serves the needs of the people.
The pressure to agree
Pro-Europeanism is now synonymous with support for militarism. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take a stand against militarization and in favor of peace initiatives through diplomatic means. These positions are categorized as anti-European, Putinist and even fascist, as far-right parties have expressed their support for Donald Trump’s peace plans. The pro-armament position has become the norm at the center of the political field, both on the right and on the left (with exceptions, of course), both among the pro-American supporters of Trumpism (who, through his protectionism, threatens many countries with trade wars or armed attacks, or his withdrawal from NATO and the concentration of his military capabilities on China) and among the pro-Europeans (who can no longer think about Europe’s economic development and its international relations in terms other than those of independence from the USA, Russia or China and the justification of armament).
The consensus produced around militarization very quickly became a pressure not to speak critically about the EU and to agree with the statements of Ursula von den Leyen (“If Europe wants to avoid war, Europe must prepare for war”); Kaja Kallas (“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a market for defense equipment”); Andrius Kubilius (“Germany is no longer just Europe’s economic engine, it must be Europe’s shield”); Friedrich Merz (“Germany is laying the foundations for the development of European defense with a 500 billion euro defense fund while raising defense spending limits and state debt brakes”); or Donald Tusk (who is pushing for greater deterrence, including possible nuclear cooperation with France); and the independent MEP Nicu Ștefănuță in Romania (“We must hold on to NATO and work on its health, and for the EU we must die if necessary”).
Remake the past and be ready for the future?
One of the past reference points for today’s rearmament is the interwar period. The winners of World War II maintained high levels of military spending even in the decade after the war; for example, the United States spent 14% of GDP on armaments, France 8%, and Great Britain 11%, but even the big loser, Germany, spent 4% of GDP on military expenditures in 1953. The second landmark for today’s militaristic revival is the Cold War period, during which the military investments of Western European states amounted to 3% of GDP and in the US to 6%. (Data taken from the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database).
The idea of returning to something supposedly ideal from the past is not entirely new; it was already evident in the REPowerEU program in 2022. This self-definition proposed energy independence from Russia, which led to a crisis in the automotive industry, which is now expected to recover through investments in the defense sector. ReArmEurope is a present-oriented plan. It is a new phase in the cycles of creative destruction and destructive creativity of capitalist history. Decision-makers see this plan as an opportunity to develop new technologies, including digitalization and artificial intelligence, which are crucial for the arms industry and aimed at increasing the EU’s competitiveness vis-à-vis China and the USA. In addition, European leaders expect that joint rearmament and coordinated military efforts will strengthen the EU as a political community. However, there is no guarantee that this will happen, and old rivalries, conflicts, and inequalities between member states will not resurface during the current rearmament process. The primary incentive for joint military action is the image of a strong common enemy.
The name Readiness 2030, in line with the statements of the NATO Secretary General, suggests that the EU should be ready for war by 2030, when Russia is believed to have the necessary capabilities to launch an attack against an EU or NATO member state. The 2030 perspective was also recently mentioned by the head of Germany’s intelligence services, who warned that the war in Ukraine should not end too soon, arguing that if it does, Russia could turn its attention to Europe much sooner than expected.
The larger picture of the crisis
The current rearmament comes after decades of hyper-globalization and the free or deregulated movement of capital. This has resulted in uneven development across countries and continents, with regions of cheap labor being transformed into markets or spaces that export vulnerable workers to countries of advanced capitalism. Today, the beneficiaries of this global order are announcing its end and proclaiming militarism as the only possible solution to the problems they have created.
In the current stage of imperialism, the great powers can no longer satisfy their interests peacefully; therefore, they resort to war to acquire new resources in the pursuit of competitiveness. Moreover, the financial oligarchy is no longer satisfied with the profits it makes from the financialization of other sectors of the economy, such as energy and real estate development. The military-industrial complex becomes a de-risked area of investment as long as the bourgeois state effectively plays its conflict-creating role in international relations.
ReArmEurope aims to save capitalism, but in fact it leads to more overwhelming crises while remaking the global order through militarism. This creates the risk of escalating ongoing regional wars, starting new ones, and even the danger of nuclear war. What will happen to us independently of war is also a cause for concern. Even the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, points out that large investments in defense may lead to higher inflation and cost of living in EU countries.
Rearmament requires an economic and mental adjustment among Europeans, based on the diagnosis that the so-called era of the peace dividend is long gone. This era was a period of economic boom in postwar Europe during which the United States, through NATO, provided the bulk of Europe’s military security. In an attempt to justify the substantial public investment in this program, ReArmEurope engineers also point to job creation in the revitalized military industry. This profitable industry will employ the surplus labor of bankrupt industries and exploit them to the full. Moreover, the workers in these industries will be placed in a situation where the weapons they create, once used, will destroy the lives of other workers from their country or other regions.
The militarist logic and the economic development model based on the financialized military-industrial complex consolidate and aggravate the current geopolitical crises and lead humanity to economic, climatic and military disasters. Taking a critical stance towards this phenomenon, one has to observe that warmongering peace is being cultivated by both Trump and Putin, as well as by European leaders who claim to be preparing for war in order to avoid war. Today, EU leaders are failing to adequately address the economic, social and climate crises. Instead of increasing social investment and public spending on public goods and services, public funds are being diverted to the military-industrial complex and its financial actors. This may put the EU itself at risk, as in the absence of strong and credible left alternatives, European citizens will increasingly turn to Eurosceptic far-right parties for solutions to the problems they face today.
The financialization of rearmament
The EC plans to allocate 800 billion euros to rearmament over the next four years through three main means. First, part of this amount will be generated by freeing Member States’ spending from EU constraints on budget deficits and public debt. It is estimated that under this umbrella, a 1.5% increase in military spending in all Member States would represent a total investment of 650 billion euros over four years. Even if the mechanism of the Stability and Growth Pact, does not include them in the deficit, these additional expenditures will undoubtedly leave a large hole in government budgets. This will aggravate already weakened economies and exacerbate the public spending crisis, leading to deeper austerity measures. We do not hear a word of warning or proposals for solutions from the representatives of the EU institutions regarding these risks.
In this context, we must also remember that the exemption of military spending from the Maastricht rules is a mechanism that has never been applied to public investment in public goods and services. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy price crisis, the EC had been flexible with these rules, allowing states to support private companies with public funds for several years. However, it has recently decided that this flexibility is no longer applicable and that the old rules must be reinstated to ensure economic stability. Under these conditions, an exception is now being made for public military spending. If it is true that budget deficits above 3% and public debt above 50% are detrimental to economic stability, this exception would also be detrimental to economic stability.
Second, the remaining 150 billion euros will be covered by joint loans that the EC will seek on the global capital markets. This practice was already established during the COVID-19 pandemic to finance the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Repeating this practice will further increase public debt and the interest paid by countries out of public funds. And, of course, it will further increase the financialization of the economy and its dependence on financial oligarchies. The third part is complementary sources, which include the mobilization of private capital. This mechanism also has a history. Following the financial and banking crisis of 2008, the EU created the Capital Markets Union in 2015 and adopted its action plan in 2020. The aim was for states to implement derisking measures that support investment funds in various sectors of the economy. Investment in the military industry is now increasingly being promoted as a derisked and profitable business. Given the preference of investment funds to use money from private pension funds, individuals who contribute to these funds may inadvertently become investors in the military industry and may be interested in supporting it. The increasing role of financial actors and markets in rearmament leads to its financialization.
In addition, the European Commission has adopted another proposal, inspired by the Draghi report of 2024, to mobilize the savings of households by motivating them not to keep their funds in bank savings accounts but to invest them in specific enterprises, such as the military industry. The two directions above have now been combined into the initiative known as the Savings and Investments Union, from which the decision-makers of the European institutions have high expectations for the relaunch of the military-industrial complex. The hope of generating capital for armaments is also linked to the role assigned to the European Investment Bank in the defense industry, which will use its three methods of financing: loans to companies and the public sector, long-term venture debt loans granted to innovative companies, and the Defense Equity Facility. The latter is dedicated to venture capital investments and private equity funds investing in small and medium-sized companies and start-ups in the sector and is financed by the European Investment Fund and the European Defense Fund.
Rearming requires wars
Some argue that rearming and preparing for war is a guarantee of avoiding war and a guarantee of peace. Among them are politicians or intellectuals who define themselves as leftists. They may not believe that this will improve people’s living conditions, reduce their dissatisfaction with the crises they are experiencing, or reduce the risk of Europe’s fascism. However, they argue that this is the current situation, i.e., European prosperity is over and Europe is in danger; therefore, rearmament is necessary and inevitable. Some even claim that ReArmEurope will not lead to a reduction in social spending or public investment in public goods and services, while others argue that the sum of 800 billion euros is not enough to warrant concern about the dangers of militarization.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the arms race, in addition to the existing ones, creates additional conditions for the outbreak of wars and, in the current situation, for the maintenance and expansion of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Those of us who support this position note that since the increase in military spending must be justified somehow, a demand for armed operations is also created. In this way, wars can be provoked and expanded. Furthermore, we argue that the logic of existing armaments is that they must be used in wars or other military operations in order to create a demand for additional armaments that will sustainably justify military spending. This is done until capital needs it and until people are exhausted under the pressure of the war economy and war mentality, or until millions are sent to die in the wars into which they are now increasingly being pushed.
In a sense, the new arms race is inevitable, not only as a result of international relations between liberal and illiberal, democratic and autocratic countries, but also in the context of the deep economic crises of capitalism. It is taking place at a crucial moment in the global order established in the late 1970s by the neoliberalization of capitalism and the end of the first Cold War in the 1990s. At today’s post-neoliberal turning point, the economic needs of the great powers are no longer satisfied by their positions in the global hierarchy, and the interests of capital impose the need for militarization both as an end in itself to generate profit and as a means to conquer new resources. We are on the verge of a revolutionary moment. However, it can be consumed by the destruction of humanity and the planet, or it can become a prolonged agony of the total mental and material subjugation of the working class through the ideology and practice of militarism.
Armament is inevitable in capitalist logic, but it would not be necessary if the global order were restored by a political agency other than that of capital and the bourgeois state.
The alternative: rebirth without militarism
The resurgence of militarism through ReArmEurope / Readiness 2030 is another moment in the historical cycle of how capitalism destroys productive forces or conquers new markets as a solution to its own increasingly destructive crises because it is trapped in the need to constantly revolutionize the forces of production until the bourgeoisie can no longer master what it has created, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels suggested.
Militarism is a war against the people, against the working class, which includes all individuals, whether employed, informal, domestic, paid or unpaid, involved in economic production or social reproduction. Ultimately, it is a war against humanity and the planet – a War on Earth –, pitting workers from different countries against each other to fight for the interests of capital. Militarism and wars destroy the natural and built infrastructure of life, ruining it directly and indirectly by diverting resources from its development.
Therefore, the alternative to the planned European renaissance through militarism should be imagined and pursued through an anti-war movement that unites various social movements worldwide under the vision of internationalist socialism. Instead of ReArmEurope, transnational cooperation in the service of the working classes, the promotion of partnerships based on the value of economic justice, the avoidance of wars and global interventions for disarmament should be the guiding principles around which the EU should be reborn as a socio-economic union that invests in the social and ecological infrastructures of life as part of the global commons.