It is just six weeks since US Vice President JD Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference in February and told Europe that the decades-old relationship the US had with the old continent was over. Ever since, the European leaders have been frantically running around from one summit to another – from a virtual meeting to a gathering of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – looking in all directions and none at the same time to try and deal with this major shift in world relations.
US and Europe: from allies to rivals?
For the best part of 80 years, US imperialism propped up Europe, under its domination, as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. This was a very useful arrangement for European capitalism as it was able to outsource a sizeable portion of its military defence costs to its powerful cousin on the other side of the Atlantic.
That is now over. US imperialism under Trump has decided to manage its relative decline by trying to reach an agreement with Russia so as to better concentrate on its main rival in the world arena: China. The centre of world politics and the economy is no longer the Atlantic but the Pacific. That shift has been in the making since the end of World War Two, but has now come to the fore with a bang.
This is a major shock to world relations which no one can ignore. If the US wants to reach an understanding with Russia, in what position does that leave European imperialism? A very weak position indeed. The US is no longer its friend and ally. Some have even gone as far as to say that Washington now regards Europe as a rival or an enemy.
At the very least, Trump has made it clear that the US is no longer prepared to subsidise Europe’s defence. The withdrawal of the US’ protective umbrella, as some have described it, has revealed starkly all the accumulated weaknesses of European imperialism, which have built up over decades of decline.
Europe’s economy is sclerotic and has been overtaken by its rivals in terms of productivity growth; Europe is not one single united capitalist economy with a single ruling class, but rather a collection of second and third-rate powers, each with their own interests in contradiction with one another.
All the talk of European rearmament, all the bravado about “we need a new leader of the free world” (European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Kaja Kallas), the loud shrieks of “spend, spend, spend” (Danish PM Mette Frederiksen), and Ursula von der Leyen’s bombastic promises of €800 billion for defence spending have come crashing against the real limits imposed by Europe’s decline as a world power.
The impotence of Europe
A striking example of this was Kallas’ attempt to cobble together a €50 billion package of urgent military aid for Ukraine. This is a crucial issue. Russia has won the proxy war in Ukraine against NATO and western imperialism, but European capitalist leaders cannot bring themselves to recognise reality, as it would mean accepting they have a very strong imperialist power to the east that they are unable to defeat.
Many of them (particularly Germany) had to be cajoled into getting involved in this war against Russia, against their interests. They were pushed into it by Biden. Now that Washington is pulling out, they are determined to keep the war going, but all their attempts simply reveal their impotence to the whole world.
Kallas’ much-talked-about €50 billion package had already been reduced to just €5 billion by the time of the summit of European leaders. There was talk of using frozen Russian assets to replace US funding for the war in Ukraine. There were threats of even more sanctions on Russia.
What did the summit agree to? Precisely nothing. Not even the much-reduced €5 billion in ammunition. No use of frozen Russian assets. Not even further sanctions, which, really, would have hurt Europe more than anyone else. Ah, yes, there was a statement which threatened fire and brimstone … at a later unspecified time. In fact, the actual statement was not even an official declaration of the summit, as Hungary vetoed it.
That fracas really shows the limits of what Europe can do.
The same can be said about the attempts by Macron and Starmer, who think of themselves as the reincarnations of de Gaulle and Churchill, to cobble together some sort of ‘peacekeeping force’ to be sent to Ukraine. It started with great fanfare, summits, the promise of 30,000 troops covering land, air and sea, a ‘coalition of the willing’ (since they could not get any actual institution to agree to it), a promise to move into an ‘operational phase’ … but it ended in nothing. The latest idea being floated is a small force of about 10,000 soldiers, perhaps under the UN flag, stationed far away from the actual front, providing ‘reassurance’ rather than actual interposition.
Facts are facts. Neither London nor Paris (Berlin has already made it clear they are not interested) can send troops to Ukraine without the backing of the US (hence the grovelling trips to Washington, cap in hand) and the permission of Russia (which has already said this is off the table). That is the real impotent position of European powers vis-à-vis Russia and the US.
There is more.
Europe’s drive to rearm and its limits
Let’s look at Von der Leyen’s plan, which goes under the dual name of ReArm Europe Plan / Readiness 2030. Some European capitals are squeamish about using the word ‘rearmament’, so they added ‘readiness’ to make it more palatable.
The headline figure used in the declarations and press conferences is €800 billion. After all, this is a major emergency. But as usual, all that glitters is not gold. Of this amount, €150 billion is in the form of a new EU financial instrument – the Security Action for Europe (SAFE). Some of the money to be used is not new money at all, but leftovers from the EU Covid relief instrument.
The money in SAFE is in the form of loans, not grants. That means that EU states that use this money will acquire new debt. This is the first stumbling block. Already, major European economies like Italy and Spain have said they are not pleased with this proposal. They would much prefer grants. This is understandable. These countries’ economies are already saddled with massive debts (135 percent and 105 percent of GDP, respectively). What Madrid and Rome are saying is, ‘give us a handout’ which would, in effect, be paid for by the richer European capitalist countries. Germany is not in favour of this.
Countries are free to resort to SAFE loans or not, which means many will decide against using them.
What about the rest of Von der Leyen’s €800 billion? Ah, well, that is not real money either but rather “a coordinated activation of the National Escape Clause under the Stability and Growth Pact, allowing Member States flexibility to increase defence expenditure without breaching EU fiscal rules”. In plain English, countries are allowed to break the EU fiscal criteria without being penalised. The EU, very graciously, is telling countries to spend more money by increasing their budget deficit and therefore get even more into debt.
That is not possible for many EU countries. Take France, for example, the EU’s second largest economy. Its debt to GDP ratio is 112 percent and its deficit to GDP ratio is 6.2 percent. In fact, the country has just gone through months of political crisis trying to find a parliamentary majority able and willing to carry out the massive cuts and tax increases required to bring the deficit under control.
It is clear that the €800 billion will never actually materialise in full. The problem is that Europe’s economy is not strong enough to be able to afford the rearmament plan European capitalism would require.
Incidentally, the measures included in Readiness 2030 have been expedited through article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows the European Council to take emergency measures in case of “natural disasters or exceptional occurrences”, thus bypassing the European Parliament. Very democratic. Why risk sowing division with even a semblance of democratic debate when EU bureaucrats know what is best for the continent?
Readiness 2030 identifies what it considers as “critical capability gaps” that Europe has when it comes to defence. The list is long: “air and missile defence; artillery systems; ammunition and missiles; drones and anti-drones systems; military mobility; AI, quantum, cyber and electronic warfare; and strategic enablers and critical infrastructure protection including strategic airlift, air-to-air refuelling, maritime domain awareness, and protection of space assets.”
One is left wondering: is there any field in which Europe’s defence capabilities are up to standard?Italy entered into talks with Elon Musk about the use of his Starlink satellite systems for the simple reason that Europe’s own alternative, Iris2, is scheduled to be operational only in 2030! A similar situation exists in a whole series of other areas, which means that it would be very costly for Europe to achieve strategic autonomy from the US in the field of defence any time soon.
The plan is coming up against additional obstacles. Europe does not possess a unified army, nor does it have a unified defence industry. What it does have is closely integrated with (read: dependent on) the US military apparatus and military-industrial complex. NATO relies heavily on the United States for crucial capabilities such as intelligence, air-to-air refuelling, missile defence and above all, nuclear deterrence. They now realise they can no longer just rely on these assets.
It is for this reason that Readiness 2030 also talks about ensuring that weapons systems purchased “are not restricted by external entities in terms of maintaining, modifying, or upgrading key defence systems”. There has been a lot of discussion in Europe about whether the US-made F35 fighter jets have a ‘kill switch’ button that the Pentagon could use to remotely deactivate or limit their combat functions.
While it seems that there is no kill switch in the F35s as such, the truth is that these are “software-defined weapons systems of a highly networked nature” which are heavily dependent on logistics systems and software updates which are wholly under US control. Furthermore, US allies, with the exception of Israel, are not allowed to operate and test them independently of Washington.
To add insult to injury, Trump has announced that the new generation of F-47 fighters that will be sold to allies will have their capabilities deliberately downgraded by 10 percent. “It probably makes sense, because someday, maybe they’re not our allies,” he said. The very fact that such questions are being discussed is an indication of the new relationship between US and European imperialism.
In fact, the Ukraine war has increased European dependence on US weapons imports, which went up from 52 percent of total purchases in 2014-19 to 64 percent in 2020-2024. Readiness 2030 includes a clause that stipulates that procurement must be from companies “located within the territories of Member States, EEA, EFTA States, or Ukraine”, and that components originating in these countries “must constitute at least 65 percent of the end product’s estimated cost.”
The clause, which is aimed at excluding or limiting the role of US companies, but also British and Turkish ones, was introduced under pressure from France, which would like its defence industry to benefit from any military spending by other countries. Rather than a single defence industry, Europe has different national defence industries, in France, Britain, Sweden and Italy, each one with their own interests which are in contradiction with the others.
The ability of European capitalism to rearm and play an independent role in the world comes up against two different obstacles: its fragmentation and its dependence on the US. There is no unified European army, no unified European defence industry, no unified European military command. There cannot be, as Europe does not have a unified economic market nor a unified ruling class. There are 27 different ruling classes of varying sizes and power, which for a period of time achieved a certain degree of integration, but which now, at a time of crisis and strain, are pulled in completely different directions.
The French are very keen, for example, for Europe to wean itself off its dependency on US and British weapons and replace that with a dependency on France. The Germans, however, do not see the beauty of being beholden to the French, who, after all, are a very near and present competitor for influence in Europe, whereas the US is pleasantly far away.
Germany’s plan to rearm
There is one country which does seem to be determined to carry out a significant programme of defence spending: Germany. The new Chancellor Merz, even before the formation of a new government, has rushed through legislation allowing for unlimited spending on rearmament (‘readiness’) as well as €500 billion in infrastructure over 10 years, for a total which will possibly be in the region of €1 trillion.
The difference here is that Germany, as a result of over a decade of brutal fiscal austerity policies, has a relatively low level of public debt (63 percent of GDP) and therefore a certain room for manoeuvre, certainly much more than its partners to the south.
The German ruling class also calculates that this massive increase in debt will help kickstart the economy, which has now entered its third year of recession. Whether and to what extent that will be the case remains to be seen. Trump’s tariff announcement has only made matters worse. The problems of the German economy have deep causes which will prove difficult to resolve, no matter how much money the state throws at them.
The German economy suffers from lower productivity growth than its rivals, which have overtaken it in key new technology sectors (electric batteries, electric vehicles, photovoltaic cells, etc). It has also been hit hard by the loss of its cheap Russian energy supply as a result of following US imperialism into the proxy war against Russia.
Already, the announcement of these massive debt measures has pushed up borrowing costs in Germany, and the rest of Europe has followed. In the medium term, the attempt to solve the problems of German capitalism through state debt will push the country into a situation more similar to that of other EU countries, saddled with massive levels of debt, stoking inflationary pressures.
In any case, Germany is following a policy of Germany First rather than helping other European ruling classes.
Still, across Europe, we see a drive towards militarism and the hyping up of the threat of Russia. The grandly named EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management recently presented a ‘survival kit’ for EU citizens to be self-sufficient for 72 hours in case of crisis. The idea of reintroducing or extending conscription is being discussed across the continent, with some countries having already taken concrete steps towards it.
Is Russia a threat to Europe?
Is this all propaganda? Is Russia really a threat to Europe? Are Russian tanks about to roll into the Baltics and Poland?
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Russia’s military expenditure for 2024 was around 13.1 trillion rubles ($145.9 billion), which accounts for 6.7 percent of the nation’s GDP. This marks an increase of over 40 percent compared to the previous year. When adjusted for purchasing power parity, this figure approximates $462 billion. Meanwhile, Europe has substantially increased its military spending by 50 percent in nominal terms since 2014, reaching a collective total of $457 billion in 2024. In this case, adjusting the Russian figure for purchasing power makes sense, since what we are comparing is the amount of tanks, artillery pieces or ammunition that each dollar can purchase, in Russia and in Europe.
Not only is Russia outspending Europe, but it is also outproducing all of NATO, including the U.S, in terms of ammunition, rockets, and tanks. According to NATO intelligence estimates, Russia is producing 3 million artillery munitions a year. The whole of NATO, including the US, has the capacity to produce only 1.2 million, less than half the Russian figure. The war in Ukraine has allowed Russia to develop an efficient military industry under state control, while the West relies on a cumbersome system of military procurement from private companies, which has been progressively scaled down over many years.
According to some estimates, in 2024 Russia produced and refurbished 1,550 tanks, 5,700 armoured vehicles and 450 artillery pieces of all types. Tank production has gone up by 220 percent, armoured vehicles and artillery production by 150 percent, and long-range loitering munitions production by 435 percent.
Furthermore, the war in Ukraine has completely transformed the way warfare is conducted. As is always the case, war allows for the testing of new technologies and techniques in real-life conditions, which rapidly propels them forward, allows them to adjust to the battlefield, and forces combatant armies to quickly develop means to counteract them. We have seen the introduction of large numbers of drones (aerial, land and sea), electronic surveillance and jamming techniques, etc.
Drones have completely transformed the war theatre, allowing combatants almost 24/7 visual control over the enemy, forcing warfare to adapt. Rather than tank battles, we have seen battles between rival kamikaze drones. Speed is of the essence if infantry is to avoid detection by FPV drones and so, instead of tanks and trucks, motorbikes and even electric scooters are used by small groups of men to cover short distances. In order to counter the electronic jamming of drones, the Russians have now introduced drones which are controlled by very thin 10km or even 20km long fiber optic cables. The Ukrainian army is catching up.
The only armies to have real-life experience of these new methods are Ukraine’s and Russia’s. Though NATO armies are able to get some knowledge and experience from the war in Ukraine, and though some of the weapons systems tested are western-made (for instance, submarine drones), the West is seriously lagging behind in all these fields. The most modern western tanks, medium and long-range artillery pieces, and air defence systems have been tested in Ukraine and have not been able to make a substantial difference. The Ukraine war has dramatically shifted the military balance of forces in Russia’s favour.
That does not mean that Russia has an interest in invading Europe, nor parts of it. That so-called threat has been massively hyped up by the ruling class in order to justify a massive increase in military spending and in an attempt to reduce public opposition to it. Russia has no interest in invading western Ukraine – which would be a far more costly and taxing enterprise than the present Russian military campaign – let alone invade NATO countries.
With the prospect of the US withdrawing from Ukraine and scaling down its presence in Eastern Europe, the diplomatic and economic influence of European imperialism is under threat in the region. It is those interests that the European capitalists are arming to ‘defend’. In reality, in doing so, and in continuing their support and funding for the war in Ukraine, they are the ones pushing towards a confrontation with Russia. That is the meaning of the words of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen when she said that Ukraine should ignore all of Russia’s ‘red lines’.
The Ukraine war was, from its inception, a NATO war against Russia. From the point of view of the interests of the Russian ruling capitalist class, it is fighting an existential war for survival.
What is at stake for them is the defence of the continued existence of Russia as a sovereign country with its own interests, as opposed to one which is subjugated to foreign powers. It will take action if it thinks that is in question, as was the case in relation to Georgia joining NATO in 2008 and then in relation to Ukraine becoming a country dominated by US-imperialism, hosting western weapons and troops, and perhaps even joining NATO.
In its negotiations with Trump, Putin is demanding a rollback of NATO troops, bases and missiles from Eastern Europe. Russian demands prior to the war in Ukraine were for a new ‘European security architecture’ which would accommodate Russia’s ‘national security interests’. Russian imperialism is saying, “we are a power in this region and our interests must be taken into account”. Having defeated the West in Ukraine, its position is now much stronger.
Europe’s imperialist interests
Since the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, German imperialism has projected its power into Central and Eastern Europe, mainly through economic means. It was aided by US imperialism, which pushed the expansion of NATO eastwards in a move which was ultimately aimed at cutting Russia down to size. Now that the US is signalling its withdrawal, German imperialism is pushed to rearm to defend its interests in the region.
From France’s point of view, Russia is a rival in Africa, where a number of countries which were within its imperialist reach in the so-called francophonie have now broken away with the help of Russian military aid. Allowing Russia to emerge strengthened from the war in Ukraine would increase the appeal of Russian imperialism in France’s African backyard. That is an important factor driving France’s push towards rearmament.
There are certainly a number of potential flashpoints, including Transnistria – the thin strip of land along the border of Ukraine and Moldova – and the Suwałki corridor, which is the shortest connecting route between Belarus and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad but which lies on the border between Lithuania and Poland. There are also the Russian minorities in the Baltic states, which are facing increasing repression of their language and democratic rights.
The threat from the point of view of European capitalism is not really that of a Russian invasion or an open conflict between Russian and European armies. That would be very costly for both sides. Furthermore, it would involve two sides possessing nuclear weapons, a very dangerous proposition.
The real threat for European imperialism in crisis is to have been abandoned or downgraded by the world’s largest imperialist power, while at the same time being neighbours with another powerful imperialist, which is emerging massively strengthened from a war. Russia has enormous clout (militarily and in terms of energy resources) and is already exercising a powerful pull on Europe’s political scene. A series of countries (Hungary, Slovakia) have already broken ranks with the Atlanticist orientation of the dominant European powers. In others, there are rising political forces moving in a similar direction, to one degree or another (Germany, Austria, Romania, Czech Republic, Italy).
What European imperialism is defending is not the lives and homes of the people of Europe, but the profits of its multinational companies and predatory imperialist ambitions of its capitalist ruling classes.
The long drawn-out crisis of European capitalism means that once the protection of the US is withdrawn, it will be unable to stand on its own. It is threatened with being carved up between the rival interests of US and Russian imperialism. Centrifugal tendencies are becoming dominant.
Warfare not welfare: Europe’s militaristic drive
The drive towards rearming and militarism in Europe is to be carried out at the expense of social spending. NATO’s general secretary Mark Rutte has made this point repeatedly when demanding that Europe increase defence spending to 5 percent of GDP, a massive jump from the previous target of 2 percent agreed ten years ago.
Defence spending has already gone up sharply in the last two years, by 9.3 percent in the NATO countries of Europe and Canada in 2023 and by a massive 17 percent in 2024. Still, nine of its member states do not meet the 2 percent target, including some sizeable ones like Italy, Belgium, Spain and Canada.
Rutte put it bluntly to the European Parliament: “in order to increase military spending you must make cuts in other areas of spending”. He specified: “on average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health and social security systems, and we need only a small fraction of that money to make defense much stronger.”
A long article in the Financial Times by its associate editor Janan Ganesh had a clear headline, demanding “Europe must trim its welfare state to build a warfare state”. In case there was any doubt, the subheading stressed the point: “There is no way of defending the continent without cuts to social spending”. He went on to explain that the welfare state Europe built during the postwar boom was not “a natural state of things”, but rather an historical anomaly. One of the factors that allowed it “was the implicit American subsidy through Nato, which allowed European governments to spend a certain amount on butter that might otherwise have gone on guns.”
When writing in the financial papers, whose audience is mainly the bourgeois themselves, the strategists of capital can afford to be clear and speak without subterfuge. “The welfare state as we have known it must retreat”, instructed Ganesh, “enough to hurt”. The reason for this? The survival of Europe (read European imperialism) is at stake: “The purpose is survival. Europe must never again find itself in a position where the likes of US Vice President JD Vance have life-and-death power over it. All other priorities are secondary.”
We are not just talking about the European Union here. This applies also to Britain, where Starmer has already started the task by wielding the axe against disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance for old-age pensioners, in order to pay for his commitments to the war in Ukraine and increased military spending to please Washington.
What the working class in Europe is faced with is an all-out assault on living conditions and the conquests of the past in order to fund the bellicose needs of European imperialism. The choice is stark: health care or missiles, education or drones, pensions or artillery. All in the name of a doomed attempt to maintain the position of European imperialism in the world, which means the ability of European companies to dominate markets and the imperialists’ subjugation of countries to the yoke of European capital.
This will be a central battleground of the class struggle in the next period and will compel all political forces and tendencies to take a clear position. The interests of the ruling class are in direct conflict and in contradiction with the interests of the working people of Europe.
The answer should be obvious. The working class organisations, political and trade union, across the continent should embark on a sustained campaign against war and militarism and in defence of all social conquests. Instead, we see the lamentable spectacle of social democratic and ‘left’ parties in government (Spain, Germany, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) enthusiastically carrying out the policies of European imperialism. The general secretary of Britain’s second largest union, Unite, has cheered Starmer’s announcement of increased military spending on the grounds that it will create jobs.
Even more despicable is the complicity of parties which are nominally to the left of social democracy. Thus, the German Left Party (Die Linke) voted for unlimited defence spending in the Bundesrat (regional representation council) through their representatives in two states. In Spain, the Communist Party has ministers in the Pedro Sanchez government, which is pushing for increased defence spending, although he refuses to call it “rearmament” and would prefer it to be called “improving security”.
As communists, we need to be clear. The main enemy of the working class of the European countries is at home. It is our own ruling class. The defence of pensions, education and health care, and all the conquests of the past should be our starting point.
But we need to go further. It is the crisis of European capitalism that is driving the ruling class towards rearmament and militarism, in an attempt to maintain its position in the world. The working class must stand independently from the interests of the ruling class, at home and abroad. In the last instance, if we want to fight against war and austerity, we need to fight against imperialism and for the abolition of the capitalist system.
