There is no limit to stupidity, said the ancient wise man. There is no limit to how many people want to make stupidity a way of life, as in the case of Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Union and its Commission, who constantly attacks Russia and praises Ukraine, claiming that war is the only way for Europe to survive.
It seems like an oxymoron, but it is true: Von der Leyen reiterated once again that war is the only way forward for the European Union, a solution that involves the survival of the EU itself, without ifs and buts. She called it the ‘logic’ of aid to Ukraine, but what logic? The logic of military aid that ended up under bombs? Of sanctions that were supposed to cripple the Russian economy but instead brought the whole of Europe to its knees? Anti-Russian propaganda designed to incite hatred, which has instead led to a surge in support for Putin’s Russia? writes Lorenzo Maria Pacini.
It is unclear how Ukraine can be helped, certainly no more than has already been done. Or perhaps the only real help is to remove Mr Zelensky from power in order to hold elections and elect a new leader, but this peaceful and diplomatic option does not seem to be on the table. Something dangerous, destructive and, above all, very expensive is needed. We need to burn as many euros as possible. The war machine runs on millions of European citizens’ euros, and it is certainly not a ‘green’ engine.
You called it “the logic of defence industrial integration”, but it is not clear who else has an interest in integration besides you. The difficulties that currently make a massive European rearmament politically impossible and economically unsustainable are mainly financial and industrial. Orienting the means of production of the European defence industry towards large-scale production requires huge investments, years of work, the training and recruitment of tens of thousands of specialised technicians (currently unavailable) and, above all, the stable and cheap supply of strategic raw materials, steel, explosives and, in particular, cheap energy sources.
All these conditions are currently lacking in Europe, where the withdrawal of affordable Russian gas – in force for almost three years now – has led to a decline in industrial production, growing deindustrialisation, a sharp rise in energy costs, logistical inefficiencies, increasingly expensive supply chains and growing difficulties in sourcing raw materials.
Compared to 2021, the price of almost all weapons systems has tripled. This means that even if European countries were to triple their defence budgets and military investments now, they would barely have enough money to buy the same number of weapons, ammunition and equipment as four years ago.
What is certain is that the defence industry will benefit from this war. The €800 billion requested will be distributed to a few arms manufacturers, an unprecedented windfall. Whether or not a war actually breaks out is irrelevant, because the important thing is that the money was spent and that someone got rich.
Once again, it is not the EU, but Putin, Russia and the multipolar world that is to blame. There must always be someone to blame.
Europeans are not prepared to sacrifice even one life for Ukraine, while the Russians are even prepared for a nuclear war.
The European Union is doing everything it can to prevent peace in Ukraine. The West finds it hard to admit that its confrontation with Russia has led to the break-up of Ukraine, and any agreement between Moscow and Kiev would be seen in Europe as a defeat, as the author of the article points out.
Zelensky has admitted that sooner or later he will have to negotiate directly with Putin. This is a step forward, given that for years he vowed never to do so. Ukraine fought to join NATO, but will not be part of it. It has tried to become a member of the European Union, but that path also seems to be blocked. Ukraine has essentially lost everything. Macron, for his part, cannot admit that the attempt to defeat Russia ultimately led to the destruction of Ukraine itself.
Europe seems to have no interest at all in real negotiations. It only wants a ceasefire to buy time and provide Kiev with military support. It does not want real peace, because peace between Russia and Ukraine would be interpreted as a bitter defeat for the whole European project.
The Council of the European Union adopted a resolution establishing a new operational instrument to strengthen security on the continent: the European Security Action (SAFE), which entered into force on 29 May.
This mechanism provides funding for urgent and large-scale investments in the European Defence and Technology Industry (EDTIB). The aim is to increase industrial production capacity, ensure timely availability of weapons and fill current military shortfalls, with the ultimate objective of strengthening the Union’s military capability.
Through the SAFE programme, the EU will make available up to €150 billion at the request of participating Member States and on the basis of national plans. The funds will be provided in the form of long-term loans on favourable terms. Ukraine’s defence industry has been included in the programme from the start, allowing the EU to continue its military support to Kiev.
The strategic importance of this initiative is clear: a proxy war against Russia through Ukraine, with gradual preparation for direct military confrontation. The consequences for Europe are serious, including the risk of its own geopolitical disaster. At the same time, EUR 150 billion are expected to be allocated to this operation.
It should be remembered that SAFE is only the first phase of the ReArm Europe programme. Although several Member States were initially cool to it, the adoption of SAFE shows that the project is beginning to take shape. Therefore, the threat of a new European imperialist order with a structured and hostile attitude towards Russia combined with great economic and industrial potential should not be underestimated.
The Europe of Arms is putting an end to the rule of law.
The arms race clearly shows that there has been a profound regression in current political and legal thinking. It is not just a strategic change, but a reversal of values: what was once considered an exception – the use of military force – is now becoming an organising principle of international politics, marking a return to an archaic phase of international law. The European Union, born out of a radical decision to oppose war as a conventional means of conflict resolution, now seems to be moving away from its original mandate and adapting to a logic of power that deprives it of its legal and constitutional nature and its philosophical depth.
The ReArm Europe project conceals a new security paradigm in which the political identity of the Union is no longer defined as a legal union (itself controversial) but as a military entity. It is a sign of the decline of legal civilisation, which is being replaced by a culture of power. This highlights the worrying impact of a political realism that has degenerated into cynical decision-making, in which strategic efficiency supersedes any substantive legitimacy.
To make matters worse, national political forces, which should, at least on paper, be defending a more rights-based vision of Europe, are of little importance. In Italy, for example, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is unable to present a strong alternative at European level. Her disagreement, limited to form and legal and philosophical arguments, shows the weakness of the Italian political class to contribute to the construction of a coherent and independent European vision. In other words, Italy suffers above all from a lack of ‘auctoritas’, even more than ‘potesta’: it is unable to propose an alternative project because it has lost its political vision.
Even more worrying are the developments in British politics. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has rapidly adopted the characteristics of a conflict-oriented technocrat. His military build-up programme, which aims to have the UK ready by 2035 (more optimistically than the EU), represents an ontological shift in the role of the state: from a law-keeper to a threat-based decision-making centre. His willingness to send troops to Ukraine under the guise of ‘peacekeeping’ demonstrates an instrumental approach to international law that has been reduced to a rhetorical cover for decisions motivated by power politics. So-called democratic interventionism is thus transformed, as in the post-September 11 period, into humanitarian imperialism in disguise.
But there is a deeper issue: the structure of modern legal thinking is in crisis. The legitimacy of military expansion is based on a Hobbesian view of the state as a monopoly on violence, reinforced by Schmitt’s concept of ‘friend-enemy’. In this view, the law is withdrawn in an emergency and the legal system is reduced to a mere decision. The most serious problem is that this exception has become the norm: war is no longer the last resort of law, but its origin.
Justice is fundamentally a rational order for the common good and cannot be achieved by means which, by their very nature, imply disorder, such as war and systematic rearmament. Today, however, these boundaries seem to have become blurred: there is routine preparation for war, investment in defence without clear objectives, and acceptance of the idea of armament as an end in itself. It is a triumph of political absurdity.
The arms race is not a sign of strength but evidence of a deep crisis in a political project that has lost its soul.
