A scene from Armed Forces Day in Zaragoza, Spain. (Photo: Mario Antonio Pena Zapatería from Irun, Spain, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

This article was originally published by La Marea on 12 November 2024 and translated by John Collins.

It is clear that Donald Trump's broad victory in the US elections will have – and already has, in fact – important economic, social and political consequences, both in the United States and on a global scale. And, of course, it also affects Europe.

It will be necessary to see how the electoral proclamations are carried out and how they are translated into concrete policies, but it seems likely that a Trump-led government will distance itself from the logistical and financial support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It intends to reduce this support in order to focus on spaces of greater strategic relevance for the United States - the Middle East, Asia and, especially, China - and a rapprochement with Russia with the purpose of finding a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine.

The dangers of escalation

In this context of uncertainty and a certain redefinition of the strategic priorities of the United States, relevant voices are being raised to demand a substantial increase in military spending by the European Union (EU). Most recently, [European Commission Vice President] Josep Borrell insisted on his last trip to Ukraine on the need for the EU to maintain and expand its military commitment to that country in order to be able to cover, at least in part, the "withdrawal" of the United States. and to take charge of the supposed threat to Europe from “Putin's Russia.”

“We must keep in mind that any increase in military spending, following the lead of the United States, has devastating consequences for the economy and the population, because this spending occupies a privileged position when competing with what is allocated to the social and productive spheres...[I]t is also clear that moving in this direction simply removes the already greatly diminished possibilities of confronting climate change and the energy transition. ”

In fact, defense budgets in both individual European countries and at the community (EU) level, under pressure from the industrial and financial complex, have already registered notable growth in recent years (although it is still far from the exorbitant spending of the United States). The exact quantification of these figures constitutes an opaque space, since many items initially intended for the civil sphere actually have a military purpose.

We are told that this would be the path for Europe to become what it is currently not: a relevant actor with strategic autonomy, with the capacity to assert its own voice in an international arena increasingly dominated by tension and conflict.

From this perspective, the demand is for more Europe; a stronger and more solvent Europe, assuming that the key to moving in that direction is to have a powerful military industry, with deterrent capacity and, where appropriate, to intervene in areas of conflict (such as the one that Ukraine now represents). In the height of folly, some even go so far as to affirm that "if Europe wants peace, it must prepare for war" - a war, let us not forget, that would confront nuclear powers and that could take us directly to the abyss.

The urgent need for a new approach

We are truly at a crossroads. The last few years – think of the financial crash, COVID-19, hyperinflation, or the war in Ukraine – and the economic, social and environmental responses have been disappointing and biased. But precisely because we are facing critical moments that require actions of strategic significance, it is necessary to act in a radically different direction from the one that the increasingly influential militarist narrative has adopted and seeks to impose.

Instead of continuing to fuel the military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine by supplying the Ukrainian government with logistics and increasingly sophisticated and powerful weapons, Europe should defend as an inalienable political position that the doors to Ukraine’s entry into NATO, now and in the future, are closed. This could be the first step for an undoubtedly complex negotiation between the parties involved, aimed at putting an end to the conflict. Because confrontation, let us not forget, is desired and promoted by the United States and NATO, to which community institutions and governments, including ours [in Spain], have responded submissively.

Taking this decisive step would help place the EU as a relevant actor in a radically different logic from the current militarist one and from the companies that benefit from it and that are objectively interested in the entrenchment and aggravation of the war(s).

The true costs of militarization

Beyond this, we must keep in mind that any increase in military spending, following the lead of the United States, has devastating consequences for the economy and the population, because this spending occupies a privileged position when competing with what is allocated to the social and productive spheres. Assuming that it contributes positively to the expansion and strengthening of aggregate demand, consumption, and investment is a serious error, not only because it actually takes resources away from these areas, but also because it shapes their use. In addition, given that the military industry and wars constitute one of the main factors of pollution, it is also clear that moving in this direction simply removes the already greatly diminished possibilities of confronting climate change and the energy transition.

As noted above, those who defend increased military spending do so in the name of “more Europe”. Such is the argument of the report authored by [former Italian Prime Minister] Mario Draghi and recently published by the European Commission, which is committed to the substantial increase in defense budgets in the community countries and in the EU. But this statement aims to stigmatize those of us who maintain the need for an in-depth debate on the really existing Europe, on the policies applied and their consequences. Because the truth is that the so-called European project has been captured by the economic and political elites, a process that has maintained or even increased the unacceptably high levels of social and territorial inequality while effectively ruling out the implementation of policies aimed at facing climate change, the unstoppable deterioration of ecosystems, and the transition towards sustainable energy patterns.

I do not want to close these reflections, focused on the role of military spending, without referring to the genocide being carried out by the army and government of Israel. We are talking about tens of thousands of murders committed with impunity, with the explicit support or complicit silence or the rejection via protocol of community institutions and governments. This represents an opportunity painfully lost by Europe and European countries to raise a voice and take effective and forceful measures against the genocidaires and in defense of the rights of the Palestinian people and, in this way, claim to be a global and relevant actor in defense of peace and against war.