The EU push for rearmament: a step backward for Europe

Recent proposals to rearm Europe by European leaders, including by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, European Parliament president Roberta Metsola, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, have reignited a debate about the direction the European Union is taking as a political and strategic entity.

While the stated goal is to strengthen the continent’s defence capabilities in response to current geopolitical threats, this approach raises fundamental questions about the very nature of the European project and its long-term vision.

Since its foundation, the EU has been built on the principles of peace, diplomacy and economic cooperation. It was designed to ensure that Europe would never again descend into the devastating conflicts that defined the first half of the 20th century.

The Union has always positioned itself as a model of soft power, relying on economic strength, multilateralism and diplomacy rather than military might to safeguard its interests and promote stability worldwide. A shift towards rearmament risks undermining these founding ideals, leading the EU down a path that contradicts its historical commitment to peace.

The push for rearmament comes at a time when Europe faces numerous challenges: economic uncertainty, climate change, energy insecurity and social inequality. Prioritising military spending over these urgent issues could create a dangerous imbalance.

The principle of subsidiarity, a cornerstone of EU governance, emphasises that decisions should be taken as close to citizens as possible, ensuring that the Union acts only when necessary and in areas where its intervention brings clear added value. A large-scale investment in defence, directed from Brussels, risks sidelining the real needs of individual member states, many of which continue to struggle with post-pandemic recovery and economic hardship.

Additionally, there is a fundamental question about whether this military push reflects the will of European citizens. The European project was built on democratic participation, yet, major decisions on security and defence often occur at the highest levels of government, far removed from public debate. Where is the citizen consultation in this shift towards mili­tarisation? If the EU is to remain a democratic institution, decisions of this magnitude should not be made without the clear consent of its people.

If the EU moves towards becoming a military power, it risks transforming itself into something fundamentally different from what its founders envisioned. There is also the question of who controls this newfound military power.

Would a European army, or an EU-wide defence strategy, be fully aligned with the democratic principles that member states hold dear? How would this rearmament effort fit into NATO, given that most EU countries are also NATO members? Would it lead to greater European autonomy in defence matters or simply create another layer of bureaucracy and potential conflicts of interest?

Macron has been one of the most vocal supporters of European strategic autonomy, arguing that the EU should be able to defend itself without relying too heavily on the United States.

While strategic independence is a valid goal, it must not come at the expense of the EU’s core identity. Militarisation is not the only, or the best, way to achieve sovereignty. A strong Europe is one that leads by example in diplomacy, economic cooperation and innovation, not one that competes in an arms race.

Are we willing to trade the soul of the European project for the illusion of security?- Regina Egle Liotta Catrambone

The US, as Europe’s main security partner, has long encouraged Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defence. However, this encouragement must be seen in the context of broader American strategic interests. The US has a vested interest in Europe’s military strength, not just for European security but for its own global positioning. The EU must ask itself: are we rearming for our own security or are we doing so to align with American geopolitical strategies?

Malta, as a neutral country, has always advocated for dialogue and conflict resolution over militarisation. Foreign Affairs Minister Ian Borg has repeatedly emphasised the importance of diplomacy in addressing international crises, stating: “Now, more than ever, the international community must remain united in our efforts for peace in Ukraine, as we uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

This approach aligns with the EU’s historical role as a global mediator. Instead of pouring billions into weapons and military infrastructure, the Union should be investing in peace-building initiatives, conflict prevention and humanitarian aid. The EU has the potential to be a leader in diplomacy, setting an example for the rest of the world in how to resolve disputes through dialogue rather than force.

Moreover, increased militarisation risks entangling Europe in conflicts that it might otherwise be able to navigate through diplomatic means. The EU has long prided itself on its ability to act as a bridge between competing global powers, using economic incentives, cultural ties and political engagement to defuse tensions. If Europe begins to arm itself at the rate some leaders are proposing, will it still be viewed as a neutral and credible peace broker?

The debate over rearming Europe is not just about security, it is about the kind of Europe we want to build for future generations. Do we want a Union that follows the path of military superpowers, where strength is measured in weapons and defence budgets? Or do we want to remain true to the ideals that have made the EU a beacon of peace and cooperation?

While the intention behind rearming Europe may be to safeguard its interests, we must carefully consider the long-term implications. Prioritising peaceful solutions, reinforcing economic resilience and addressing socio-economic challenges will lead to a more stable and prosperous Europe. A militarised EU risks becoming an entity driven by fear and force rather than diplomacy and unity.

The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that decisions should be made at the most local level possible and with the consent of those affected. Have European citizens been asked whether they want this shift towards militarisation? Are they willing to redirect funds from social programmes to defence budgets?

These are fundamental questions that EU leaders must answer before committing to a path that could redefine Europe’s identity for generations.

As European citizens, we must ask ourselves: are we willing to trade the soul of the European project for the illusion of security? The real strength of Europe lies not in its ability to wage war but in its commitment to ensuring that war never becomes necessary.

Regina Egle Liotta Catrambone

Regina Egle Liotta Catrambone is a migration expert and Mediterranean Aid Education Centre founder and director.