The article transmitted below considers a major reason why most European governments are now hugely unpopular among their own peoples -- the almost universal view among European politicians that, at a time of widespread economic suffering among their peoples and unsustainable governmental debt burdens, spending on education, healthcare and other services intended to improve the quality of life for their citizens (or at least to slow its further deterioration) must be sacrificed in favor of greatly increased military spending.
In France, outrage at such missplaced priorities has been reflected in the nationwide student protests, degenerating into shocking scenes of violence and schools aflame, this week (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/01/france-school-protests-escalate-pm-crisis-cabinet-meeting)
In my humble opinion, in light of Russia's failure after 4-1/2 years of its "special military occupation" to fully occupy the four Russophone-majority oblasts which it formally annexed in September 2022, believing that Russia has both the incentive and the military means (both being necessary to constitute a realistic "threat") to invade Germany, France or the United Kingdom (or, indeed, any NATO country) requires either (i) having one's services purchased by the merchants of death, (ii) being afflicted with pathologically irrational Russophobia or (iii) persistent smoking of an extremely strong controlled substance.
As I have written in the past (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/27/has-the-world-gone-mad), European countries should now "be able to significantly decrease their military spending and consecrate their freed-up resources to trying to improve the quality of life for their own people."
As an adoptive European, I find it both depressing and incomprehensible that the élites of a continent where Britain, France and Germany were enemies for centuries -- indeed, as recently as World War II -- yet are now the best of friends appear to assume that Russia, with which Britain and France were allied in World War II and which played the preeminent role in defeating the Nazi regime, must remain a perpetual enemy and object of hatred and fear.
Indeed, a simple look at a map should suggest that it might well make more sense for European states to seek correct and cooperative relations with a huge, resource-reach and no- longer-communist neighbor than to perpetuate a subordinate and submissive relationship with an ocean-away and increasingly deranged country still seeking full-spectrum global dominance, treating them with humiliating contempt and dragging them into wars against countries that pose no conceivable threat to them.
The summit took place after weeks of allegations of hybrid attacks on EU members, which pushed the already tense rearmament narrative permeating the European political establishment up a couple more notches. It also followed, by only a couple of days, the Council of the EU’s announcement of the next phase of five European Defence Projects of Common Interest (EDPCIs)—projects that “allow EU countries to work together on major defence initiatives that are too large or too complex for individual countries to develop on their own.” While separate, the two events shared several points in common, starting with a focus on increasing coordination between EU countries to arm more efficiently—and spend the billions of euros planned for defence over the coming years. They also emphasised sections of the military sector to receive the most attention—including drones and military capacities in Eastern Europe. This geographical focus goes beyond EU members, expanding to—at least—Ukraine and Moldova. Most EDPCIs—like the Drone and Counter-Drone European Resolve (DECODER) and the Eastern Flank Watch—list Ukraine as a partner. Ukrainian arms entrepreneurs were also present at the summit in Brussels, including leading figures from Fire Point, one of the country’s most prominent arms companies. Very imminent investments into arms While NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated in his summit intervention that there is “no imminent danger” to the alliance members’ territories, he and others did not hold back in offering anticipations of an unstable period. Belgian Minister of Defence Theo Francken, for one, anticipated “more hybrid threat actions” and an overall “dark winter for Europe”—a scenario he seems to want to address by spending more on arms and cutting social services, as he has explicitly stated on numerous occasions. “Europe has been very good in investing in soft power, in social security,” Francken said. “And it’s beautiful to have a pension system, to have social welfare systems when someone gets sick, when somebody loses his job—we have everything. But when there’s a war or there are hybrid threats, we don’t have anything.” Considering the significant amount of money European countries have already invested into armament, his assessment that “we don’t have anything” is inaccurate at best. It also remains contested on a regular basis on the streets of many European cities, where trade unions, students, and peace movements continue to protest against austerity budgets that aim to provide for war. Europe needs a policy that builds security with its neighbours. In addition to large-scale demonstrations against social security and labour cuts in France’s proposed 2027 budget and student strikes against conscription in Germany last week, mobilisations are expected to grow over the coming months—including an international youth strike in November. “We reject the militarisation of our societies and support the young people who are refusing it,” the Stop ReArm Europe coalition wrote on 23 September. “Thousands of high school students and university students across Europe are rising up to refuse militarisation and the return of conscription.” “Nearly 20 million children in the EU—one in four—live at risk of poverty or social exclusion,” the group added. “Meanwhile, governments have committed to military spending that the EU’s own Defence Commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, puts at €7 trillion by 2035.” “The trillions earmarked for militarised security will leave us staring down the barrel of a gun and indebted to global financiers,” Stop ReArm wrote, calling for a solidarity- and care-based alternative. “This must go hand in hand with a non-aligned foreign policy that resolves conflicts through diplomacy, upholds international law and human rights, and builds common security for all: security with our neighbours, not against them.”
©
2026 Savage Minds |