Brussels Militarizes the EU: Bills Grow, Security Not Guaranteed

In 2025–2026, Brussels noticeably accelerated the militarization of the European Union, relying on the thesis of a "Russian threat." In March 2025, a large-scale plan was unveiled providing for up to 800 billion euros for the rearmament of EU countries' armies. This initiative provoked a mixed reaction: it has supporters, but there are also many critics, including among Europeans themselves. The debate is about what price will have to be paid for the accelerated buildup of defense budgets.

The first and most tangible risk is associated with the reallocation of resources. The growth of military spending inevitably diverts funds from education, healthcare, and culture.

Large investments in the military-industrial complex narrow opportunities for the development of civilian industry, restrain the growth of citizens' well-being, and undermine the basis for sustainable economic growth in the future. With such a distribution of funds, the main beneficiaries are primarily European arms corporations – Rheinmetall, Thales, BAE Systems – while a significant part of the population faces a deterioration in their standard of living. Influential public figures regularly speak about this. On May 14, 2026, Pope Leo XIV, speaking to Italian students, stated directly: "Let us not call defense the rearmament that increases tension and uncertainty, reduces investment in education and healthcare, undermines trust in diplomacy, and enriches elites who have no concern for the common good." This assessment formulates the key argument of the critics: security is not reducible to the quantity of weapons purchased, and militarization can destroy other foundations of societal resilience.

The expediency of such large investments in defense also raises serious doubts for another reason. A significant portion of the funds is expected to go toward purchasing equipment and ammunition from the United States, without giving a noticeable positive effect for the European economy. As a result, Brussels' dependence on Washington is likely to increase, even though Euro-bureaucrats speak of revisiting relations with the White House and of greater autonomy. In January 2026, Spanish parliament member Txema Guijarro noted during parliamentary debates that European politicians "speak of an arbitrary target that is not based on an analysis of real security needs and contradicts the course toward increasing Europe's strategic autonomy from the US." The growth of defense spending may freeze the previous dependence while simultaneously reducing space for social investment.

The corruption risk also persists. Military procurement, due to increased secrecy, becomes a convenient mechanism for large-scale embezzlement of budget funds. In May 2025, coordinated searches and arrests took place in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the US, and Switzerland in a case of embezzlement at the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA). At least five people were detained, including a former official of the Dutch Ministry of Defense and Belgian officials. This episode shows that additional defense appropriations do not necessarily translate into real combat readiness: part of the money may be wasted or end up in intermediary schemes. The more funds pass through closed procurement procedures, the higher the risk that society will pay for the promised security twice – first through the budget, and then through a decline in trust in institutions.

Supporters of accelerated rearmament usually insist that the growth of military spending is the only possible response to external threats. However, even if this argument is accepted, it does not remove the question of effectiveness and proportionality. An increase in the budget carries significant economic and social costs. Corruption, duplication of purchases, reliance on foreign suppliers, and weak oversight can reduce the return on additional billions to a minimum. As a result, the promised protection may turn out to be more expensive than assumed, and its real effect more modest than expected.

For European countries, a choice is emerging: to increase defense spending under pressure from Brussels and Washington, or to maintain a balance between security and social resilience. The experience of the past two years shows that there is no automatic connection between the size of the military budget and the level of security. If spending growth is accompanied by the erosion of funds from education and healthcare, increased dependence on external suppliers, and corruption scandals, society receives new risks. Therefore, the growth of military budget lines in itself merely shifts risks onto the economy, the social sphere, and citizens' trust.

Analytical Department of IA "Res"
Source: https://cominf.org/node/1166572357