Berlin rearms, Washington directs—but who pays the price? Money for pensions, healthcare, and public services is now funneled into tanks, missiles, and frigates. We must reject a model that reforges plowshares into weapons. By Peter Mertens
“The rearmament of Europe is not meant to replace NATO but to strengthen and diversify it. It will allow the U.S. to focus on the Pacific and East Asia while Europe concentrates on defending NATO’s eastern flank,” says Belgium’s defense minister, Theo Francken, who is also vice-chair of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly.
According to Washington, the U.S. is currently “overstretched” in the Indo-Pacific. Here, it is working to militarily encircle China. It already has bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, patrols the South China Sea, has partnerships like AUKUS (with the UK and Australia) and QUAD (with Australia, India and Japan), and an unwavering focus on Taiwan. But these military initiatives demand colossal resources: money, personnel, and logistics. Washington’s response? Europe should handle Russia. The consequence? Europe must cut pensions, privatise public services, and dismantle social protections—to meet NATO’s demands, while the U.S. prepares for confrontation with China.
The Failure of Europe’s strategy
In Mutiny (2023), I argued the war in Ukraine always had a dual nature. On one side, Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is a clear breach of international law. On the other, it’s a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, fought at Ukraine’s expense—with thousands of lives lost in a geopolitical conflict.
Washington now acknowledges this. Trump, however, claims it was the wrong proxy war. He says the real enemy is China. His proposed “peace deal” would let Europe foot the bill while the U.S. gains control of Ukraine’s resources—treating it like a neo-colony, just as it has done in the Global South. This reveals the war’s true nature: it’s not about values, but about geostrategic interests, as well as control of resources and fertile land.
Europe’s failure to pursue serious diplomatic initiatives for a ceasefire over the past three years is now backfiring. From the start, the EU refused to consider any resolution beyond escalating war. In Europe’s narrative, the words “peace” and “negotiations” became taboo. Europe’s refusal to pursue serious diplomacy is now backfiring. Despite this failure, Europe clings to a broken strategy.
When German militarism gases east
When German militarism gases eastward, Europe picks up the pieces. This summarises the two World Wars of the 20th century. In World War I, German youth were mobilised against “Russian despotism.” In the second war, the sons of German workers were sent to the front to suppress the “Bolshevik threat.” The slogans changed, but the goal of eastward expansion remained.
Many who grew up in the 20th century learned that the combination of Germany, chauvinism, and militarism is a bad idea. The Ruhr Valley’s arms manufacturers fueled two of history’s most devastating wars. Post-1945, Europe agreed: never again German militarism.
Suddenly, the world feels like a bad B-movie. Here it is again: Germany must rapidly reassert itself. Germany must embrace its “historic role.” Germany must militarise. We must “do whatever it takes” to counter the “Russian threat.” These words echo again in the Bundestag. It’s a déjà vu.
It’s not that Germany doesn’t have an army today. To the contrary, Germany already ranks fourth globally in defense spending, up from the seventh place. Now, it’s turbocharging its “war readiness” to get kriegstüchtig. Parallel to this, the European Commission unveiled “Readiness 2030,” a €800 billion militarization plan, partly funded by debt and loans, partly by pillaging cohesion, climate, and development funds.
The military arm of an Imperial Europe
While the EU speaks of peace and security, its policies say otherwise. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is clear: The EU must not only develop the means to defend its global interests but also to be ready to deploy them. In short, the EU wants to be a geopolitical actor alongside the U.S. and China.
But no EU state is willing to dissolve its own army. Instead, joint “battle groups” and command structures are layered on top—without real democratic oversight. National militaries face some accountability, but EU-level control remains opaque. The European Parliament lacks power and transparency, raising the risk of troop deployments without public awareness.
In 2024, EU warships were sent to the Middle East—not to stop Israeli bombings or annexations, as urged by the International Court of Justice, but to secure “free passage” in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, crucial trade routes. Military ships protect European interests, not people.
Germany continues arming Israel; France arms Cameroon and Indonesia. European companies sell weapons to India, Pakistan, and Nigeria despite wars and oppression. In the Sahel, EU military mis-sions over two decades have brought instability, not stability. The EU cares not for human rights but resources, trade routes, and spheres of influence.
EU rearmament isn’t just about freeing the U.S. to focus on the Indo-Pacific; it’s about building a European military layer for interventions beyond defense. Some dream of a strong military arm for a new imperial Europe.
Tanks don’t fill lunchboxes. Higher military spending won’t raise living standards. Building tanks, bombs, or missile systems contributes nothing to the broader economy. The myth of job creation is equally false: €1 invested in hospitals creates 2.5 times more jobs than €1 in weapons.
Arms production won’t save the economy
The theory that increased militarisation will boost the economy is an evergreen of the military-industrial complex. They proudly call it “military Keynesianism”: have governments massively subsidise the arms industry. Now that Europe’s auto sector is floundering and Germany faces its third consecutive year of recession, they want us to believe switching from cars to tanks is the solution.
This is nonsense, of course, because families don’t buy tanks. You don’t drive a tank to grandma’s house. Yet these tanks must be sold. To sustain this industry, they must be used — otherwise, the sector collapses. In other words, militarising the economy creates permanent pressure for war. A war not meant to be won, but to be endless, because peace threatens profit margins.
Tanks don’t fill lunchboxes. Higher military spending won’t raise living standards. Building tanks, bombs, or missile systems contributes nothing to the broader economy. The myth of job creation is equally false: €1 invested in hospitals creates 2.5 times more jobs than €1 in weapons. In terms of employment efficiency, defense ranks 70th out of 100 sectors.
The billions funneled to arms manufacturers don’t ‘flow back’ to society. They flow to one group: the arms makers themselves. Profits for Rheinmetall, Dassault, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales, and Saab have reached astronomical levels.
Peace builds care, war builds ruin
History teaches us: Wars and arms races are not stopped from above. Those in power halt militarisation and war only when pressured from below. It is the people who pay the price—with their livelihoods, their futures, their children—who can make the difference. If the labor and peace movements join hands and unite, much becomes possible.
The left must resist the new military consensus. It must challenge the West’s hypocrisy, its imperial double standards, and its addiction to rearmament. German poet Bertolt Brecht warned: “If we prepare for war, we will have war.” He was right. Those who want peace must prepare for peace, not war.
Peace is the result of struggle. A struggle that embeds demands for social progress into a different logic, one daring to think beyond the constraints of capitalism. This system, where powerful monopolies impose profit-driven domination through conquest, war, and an economy of destruction, offers no future for humanity or the planet. Instead, we choose the side of labour, peace, and socialism.
Peter Mertens is a Belgian MP and leader of the Workers Party of Belgium. He has authored numerous books, on the Euro, trade unions, fascism, class and capitalism. His latest book
is Mutiny.
Photo: German Army Leopard II/ Public Domain/PDM 1.0
This article first appeared in Liberation journal.
The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation
Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer
