The European Union on the Path to War
Analysing and denouncing the new arms race unfolding before our very eyes monopolizes Die Linke MEP Özlem Demirel’s schedule. Nevertheless, she still found time to speak with André Crispin, in an interview firstly published on Belgian Marxist journal Lava, about how fear is being stirred up among the population to justify irrational and dangerous military spending. Özlem speaks out as someone who opposes both NATO and European militarization and fights for peace, which includes social security. She calls on the working class to refuse to be the sacrificial pawns on a geopolitical chessboard, and, inspired by Karl Liebknecht, calls on peace activists to take a firmer stand against ongoing militarization.
Based on your experience as an MEP, how have you seen the militarization of the European Union develop over the past few years, and accelerate in recent months?
The militarization of the European Union is a long-standing process. While many claim that this trend accelerated with the war in Ukraine, such an analysis is reductive. In reality, the real turning point came with Brexit: The United Kingdom had always pushed to keep European countries fully aligned with NATO and had blocked other European endeavours. Only after the United Kingdom’s departure, the EU’s leading powers — especially Germany and above all France — intensified their efforts to build a European defence union.
It all began with the activation of mechanisms like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), a systematic collaboration in the military sector, which had already been included in EU treaties but had not previously been implemented. These mechanisms were gradually revived and then expanded with additional tools, backed by increasing financial support.
This was followed by projects such as “military mobility” and the “European Defence Fund”, as well as the “European Peace Facility” — a mechanism whose name suggests peace, but which mainly serves to finance arms deliveries to various partners around the world. These instruments have multiplied, and their deployment accelerated after Russia launched its war in Ukraine.
European populations have shown reservations to militaristic projects, shaped by the bloody lessons of the twentieth century, but the advocates of a military build-up have skilfully exploited Russia’s violation of international law to spread a sense of insecurity and justify their plans. As the war in Ukraine continues, the return of Trump to power in the United States only reinforces this European militarization dynamic. The difference in approach between the Biden and Trump administrations reveals a harsh truth: while the former had the American interests always in mind, but maintained a partnership with Europe to a certain degree, the latter disregards European interests fully and openly.
It is in this context that the European Commission is rolling out its alarmist discourse: faced with the rise of authoritarian regimes and the resurgence of imperialism, we are allegedly compelled to develop an ever-stronger European military industry, and to accelerate militarization — all in the name of defending our democratic values.
This rhetoric does not stand up to scrutiny. The arms race we are witnessing — in Europe and beyond — only serves to intensify the global competition between economic, political, and military powers. This dynamic contributes to redrawing the global geopolitical map. Instead of peace, they are preparing for war. As left-wing forces in Europe, we must denounce this development and make clear that the EU is part of this imperialist competition and struggle.
Can you elaborate on this issue of global competition? What is the European Union seeking to achieve?
Statements made by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, reveal a clear strategic orientation. She said openly that the EU must not only develop instruments of power, but also show its willingness to use them in defence of its interests on the international stage — that means, in a world that is shaped by great power competition. Although Germany and France often appear to have differing views, they are gradually converging on this as well. Europe is trying to position itself as an imperial power in relation to the United States and China, while Russia, though militarily strong, carries less economic weight.
Imperialism today shows its more robust side more clearly, in which it is no longer just political and economic strength, but also military power dynamics that determine access to markets and resources. Technological and industrial change is accelerating this competition and has become a battleground in this global economic war, as has the struggle for access to lithium, rare earths and control of global sea lanes.
This European ambition is materializing through deep structural reforms, such as the relaxation of budgetary rules like the Stability and Growth Pact, allowing member states to increase military spending.
The “European Defence Fund” illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Initially contested by several countries concerned that it would mainly benefit the major arms manufacturers in Germany, France and Italy, the mechanism was later adjusted to formally include small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, this inclusion does little to alter the broader trend: Europe’s military industry is undergoing rapid consolidation, concentrating and hence monopolizing power in the hands of a few national champions. Smaller companies, for example from Croatia or Belgium, are increasingly relegated to the role of subcontractors within this new architecture; their industrial benefits will be marginal — if they exist at all.
Europe’s economic situation is complicated. We are witnessing an unprecedented loss of industrial jobs across the continent. What do you think about the voices saying the development of arms factories offers job opportunities for European workers?
Today, workers — whether in Germany, Belgium, or elsewhere — are being told not to worry about losing their jobs in sectors like the automotive industry: “Jobs await you in the arms industry; your future is secure.” But jobs in the arms industry are never safe, because they depend on the continuity of war. Weapons and ammunition that are produced must inevitably be used before new ones are made. And let’s be clear: when these weapons are used in war, it will be the workers who are sent to die on their battlefields. There are no safe jobs in an unsafe world — and at the same time, we have to think of peace also from the point of social security.
We criticize NATO for its aggressive nature, its interventions in Afghanistan or Libya, but would developing a European army — with a defensive purpose, based on cooperation — be a viable option? Belgium, for example, is already cooperating militarily with the Netherlands and France.
This debate remains largely theoretical, because, to be honest, no country in the world, least of all any EU member state, is realistically willing to give up its national army or transfer all of its military capacities and decision-making powers to the European level.
That means, what is actually being proposed is not the abolition of national armies in favour of a single European army. Rather, it’s about maintaining national armies as they are, while layering additional military structures on top at the European level — so-called “battlegroups” or other joint mechanisms. At the European level, that goes with less democratic control. For example, in Germany, any decision involving the deployment of our armed forces falls under the authority of the national parliament. No government can unilaterally decide to go to war. Only the German Parliament has that power, and only after extensive debate.
At the European level, however, the question is different: Who really gets to decide? I work intensively on this issue in the European Parliament, and I must say that the European Parliament does not have the same powers as national parliaments — nor the same level of transparency. We risk creating combat units that could be deployed around the world without European citizens even being informed. This is an unacceptable prospect.
But isn’t the idea of European countries collaborating more economical after all? Can’t we achieve economies of scale in such an expensive sector?
Some political groups, like the European Greens, promote the idea of enhanced military cooperation in the name of budgetary rationalization. Their argument is based on three pillars: pooling weapons development, expected synergies, and supposed savings that would allow funds to be redirected to other priorities.
But this rhetoric does not stand up to closer scrutiny. As I said earlier, the project of European military integration is not a rationalization of existing capabilities. Rather, it is a structural overlay, the massive expansion of capabilities. It is throwing sand in the eyes of the population and we should ensure a clear view here.
As for the argument of cost savings, it is a blatant deception. Jointly developed weapons systems represent colossal investments. The arms industry actively promotes this European “cooperation” precisely because it paves the way for mega-projects that would be unaffordable on national budgets alone.
The current dynamic reveals a worrying logic: under the guise of budgetary efficiency, we are witnessing an escalation of militarism. Each new common structure becomes a pretext for additional investments, creating a spiral of spending whose only real beneficiaries are the military-industrial consortia. The so-called promised savings are turning into exorbitant bills for European taxpayers in form of social cuts. I am strongly critical of this situation. My message is clear: we want peace in Europe. Drawing on the lessons of our two world wars, we must break away from the logic of armament and build a security system that includes all European countries — that is, one far broader than the European Union.
Some justify the current militaristic surge by saying we can no longer rely on NATO’s protection — at least as long as Trump is in power in the United States. What do you say to them?
Some even claim that NATO no longer exists. That is a lie — it is simply false. There may indeed be divergences between the Trump administration and European leaders, particularly on trade and economic interests. But NATO is far from dead today — it maintains numerous military bases across Europe, stockpiles weapons in all European countries, and remains the most powerful military alliance in the world.
The current push towards integrated European defence is driven more by geopolitical capital interests and industrial and commercial logic than by the need for real security, i.e. peace. The development of new high-tech weapons systems — particularly those incorporating artificial intelligence — requires large and stable markets. It is this economic imperative that is driving the creation of a European arms market.
It is not about our need for security, freedom and peace, as they claim. Creating the conditions for the development of ever more sophisticated weapons systems requires the creation of a sustainable industrial base and the guarantee of secure markets.
This reality must be made clear: the rhetoric of “savings” and “pooling” serves as a smokescreen for an artificial boost to the military-industrial complex. What we are witnessing is not a rationalization of military spending, but the creation of a new arms race on a continental scale — serving the interests of a handful of industrial players and undermining taxpayers and the real needs of collective security.
Ukraine is being militarily attacked by Russia and its territorial integrity is violated, which is a violation of international law. How do we support the Ukrainian people if not military?
The EU’s discourse on international conflicts reveals a deeply unequal approach. While the condemnation of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is legitimate and necessary, it is accompanied by a troubling political instrumentalization. I mentioned how the sincere solidarity shown by European citizens towards the Ukrainian people is systematically diverted to justify military escalation rather than diplomatic solutions.
Furthermore, the EU’s supposed commitment to international law quickly shows its limits when we look at other conflict zones. In the Middle East, repeated violations of international law by Israel do not provoke the same institutional outrage. Whether in Gaza, Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or elsewhere, wars often receive only marginal attention from European capitals. This selectivity demonstrates that behind the grand, stated principles, it is geopolitical and economic interests that truly guide European action. Even member states such as Germany are still supplying Israel with weapons. In other wars, they themselves are drivers in the background.
The rhetoric of solidarity with Ukraine — however justified — serves, in reality, as a cover for broader strategic calculations: strengthening the European arms industry and consolidating the EU’s position in Europe or for example in Africa, in competition with Russia or China. This reality does not negate the need to support Ukraine in the face of aggression, but it forces us to confront the hypocrisy of a system that claims to uphold universal values while applying them so selectively.
In this context, it is essential to reaffirm our solidarity with the Ukrainian people, while rejecting the military escalation promoted by the EU. True solidarity should be expressed through strong diplomatic initiatives to end the war, not through an arms race that only fuels the conflict.
Opinion polls show that European citizens fear Russia might soon invade another European country. Is that a valid reason to rearm and build a European army capable of responding?
The prolongation of the war against Ukraine is not accidental — it has been actively encouraged by NATO countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, until they began to view the investment as less worthwhile. Today, the European Union is taking over, driven by its own geopolitical interests. We are being sold two contradictory narratives: on one hand, we are told that by sending ever more weapons, Ukraine can “win” this war; on the other, we are warned of an imminent Russian invasion all the way to Berlin. So, in the first one, the Russian military seems quite weak, in the second it is so strong as to take it up with the NATO. These narratives — both alarmist and incoherent — serve above all to justify a military escalation that benefits the arms industry and imperial powers.
The fact is that NATO and the EU member states want to drive up the price for an imperial rival, Russia. This is not about sovereignty nor the interests of the Ukrainian people. And the fact is that the longer this war lasts, the more militarism will grow stronger and the danger of war will increase.
I have no illusions in liberal democracy as a form of capitalist rule. As a socialist, I fight for a system that goes well beyond liberal democracy. At the same time I will always defend liberal democracy against autocracy. But today, I am being asked to accept the militarization of German society in the name of defending that same democracy. That logic is profoundly flawed. In fact, reality shows that militarization fuels nationalism and erodes democratic freedoms.
This contradiction must be clearly exposed: these are not our, the working class’s, wars, and they do not serve our, the working class’s, interests. If we want to avoid another war in two, five, or ten years, the only effective response is the rise of a broad peace movement — in Europe, but also in the United States, in China, in Russia, and in Ukraine. The people must refuse to be pawns sacrificed on the geopolitical chessboard.
In Belgium, many people are worried. They’ve seen the video of European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib recommending that people prepare a survival kit, heard Minister Theo Francken suggesting stockpiling supplies at home, or listened to military officials saying that we’re not at war, but not at peace either. What can we say to them?
We must be honest and tell them clearly: if we don’t build a broad peace movement, the current policy of militarization will only increase the danger of war and multiply global conflicts. If we want to avoid that outcome, our only option — as people, as a working class resisting these escalation policies — is to maintain genuine solidarity with all peoples affected by war, be it in Gaza, Ukraine, or elsewhere. Our goal must be to end wars, not prolong them. This stance must be clearly stated.
On the other hand, we are being presented with a new narrative that portrays Russia as the greatest global threat. But let’s be clear-eyed: the current rearmament of the European Union is not justified by an actual need to defend against Russia. In most areas — naval forces, aircraft, weaponry — Europe’s military capacities already exceed those of Russia. This arms race is driven by motives other than mere defence. It is about strengthening our military arsenals to wage wars outside the European Union. That is the reality we must expose first and foremost.
The only area in which we lag behind Russia is nuclear weaponry. But do we really want to go down that path? In the past, it was the people of Europe and the world who declared: “We do not want more nuclear weapons. We must choose another path.” If our leaders were truly honest, if they sincerely believed in the need to arm, they would also be calling for a massive deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe. Clearly, this would not make the world any safer — quite the opposite.
I, too, fear that my children may not grow up in peace. But if I want to change things, the only viable path — and I wish it were simpler — is to fight this system. We may not have the easiest solutions, but we have the most honest answers, the clearest analyses, and we must find the courage to defend them more forcefully.
We are being bombarded with fabricated narratives, endlessly repeated to justify the unjustifiable. We’re constantly told the same story: “Ukraine must keep fighting, it can win this war.” But this claim is simply false. The problem is that when you hear something morning, noon, and night—day after day—you eventually start to believe it. It’s up to us to constantly remind people that reality sharply contradicts these claims.
Finally, what advice would you give to Lava readers who want to fight against militarization in Belgium and Europe?
It has never been easy to oppose war and militarization during times of conflict, but with time, people eventually come to see that what they were told was false. The war in Afghanistan is the clearest example.
I remember at the beginning, when peace as well as left movements opposed it, we were asked: “Do you support the Taliban?” Twenty years of war later, everyone admits that it was a mistake. That’s an important reminder when we fight against wars — and perhaps it should give us the courage to resist more firmly now.
Moreover, the war in Ukraine did not mark the beginning of geopolitical rivalries, but it was a turning point where their consequences became more visible. Perhaps we should look again at the history of the workers’ movement before World War I, at the history of the socialist movement: how did they respond at the time? What were their arguments? Karl Liebknecht, for example, a prominent antimilitarist and socialist voted in his capacity as member of the German parliament of the historic Social Democratic Party against war loans at the beginning of World War I — the only MP to do so. He argued that the war helped to break the beginning of workers mobilizations, and therefore was not in the best interests of the people. With this, he positioned himself against all other members of the parliament, including his own party, and pushed a socialist movement.
History never repeats itself in exactly the same way, don’t get me wrong, but we can observe similar arguments, parallel dynamics… and we should probably study our own history much more than we have over the past ten years. There is much we could learn from it.
English translation of an interview, published in French and Dutch in the summer edition of Lava, De Europese Unie op weg naar oorlog | LAVA