On Euphemisms and Military Spending

This article was originally published by El Salto on 24 March 2025 and was translated by John Collins. 

According to the Real Academia Española, a euphemism is defined as a word or expression used in place of one that is harsh, unpleasant, or rude. Euphemisms are more and more rampant in political and economic debates (which is a way of describing what is often mere propaganda). The citizenry, passive and defenseless spectators, summoned only when there are elections and in the face of the enormous power of the mass media and social media, swallow them one after another, incorporating them into our everyday language as if they were undeniable truths. 

Examples are all around us. When the talk turns to “wage moderation” - ah, moderation, what a great virtue! - what’s really happening is they are applying measures that reduce the purchasing power of workers, especially the ones least represented by unions. When they tout the merits of “flexibilizing labor relations,” what they are really seeking is to give more power to companies and to weaken or eliminate collective bargaining. 

“Those who specialize in crafting political messages and manipulating public opinion must have realized that the term “rearmament” was too explicit and forceful and could provoke some rejection. So they immediately got to work sugarcoating it.”

When they defend “budgetary austerity,” in fact they are cutting public environmental and social policies, allowing the privileged to grab everyone’s resources and turn them into a lucrative business. When we hear about the need to “tighten our belts,” the privileges and benefits of the rich and the corporations, without any tightening at all, have scandalously reached astronomical proportions just because they assert their privileged status. 

When they talk about “bringing inflation under control,” they fail to notice that the price of the goods and services that form the main part of the shopping basket of many workers continue to soar, and they hide the fact that inflation has been and continues to be a tremendous business for the companies that operate in markets under privileged conditions. 

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen speaks at the European People’s Party Summit on 20 March 2025. (Photo: European People's Party, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

The list of euphemisms, banal but effective, is endless. The most recent one, but certainly not the last, refers to military spending. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in a display of sincerity, has used the term “rearmament.” She is not mincing words. In the view of a large portion of the European political class, this is the great challenge that must be addressed immediately. Under various pretexts presented as arguments - the withdrawal of US support, the need to defend against the Russian threat, support for the Zelenskyy government - a substantial increase in military spending is being proposed. 

Those who specialize in crafting political messages and manipulating public opinion must have realized that the term “rearmament” was too explicit and forceful and could provoke some rejection. So they immediately got to work sugarcoating it. So, to give a nearby example, Pedro Sánchez, the president of Spain’s government, now speaks of growing the “security and defense capabilities.” This sounds more palatable to the public than talk of rearmament and military spending, but nothing has fundamentally changed; it’s just a smokescreen. This is how the terms “security” and “defense” are contaminated. 

EuroNews article published on 21 March 2025 after the European Commission agreed to “phase out” its use of the term “Rearm Europe.” 

The truth is that moving in that direction doesn’t mean rearming Europe, whose military budget is already increasing substantially and, if the current militaristic policies continue, will increase even more in the coming years. On the contrary, it would mean taking concrete steps, not just propagandistic ones, regarding social and environmental rights, and defending policies in conflict areas like Ukraine to guarantee a just and lasting peace. 

At this point, it is impossible and would be indecent to ignore the genocide that the Israeli government and military are carrying out in Gaza, a policy of extermination and expulsion of the Gaza population and an appropriation of its land and resources. We should say loudly and clearly that this policy benefits from the active or passive complicity of Europe. 

Do we want a strong and secure Europe? Moving in that direction doesn’t involve increasing military spending, regardless of what it’s called, nor does it involve converting the military-industrial complex into a fundamental pillar of European economies. These policies actually make us weaker and more vulnerable even as they place us in a scenario of confrontation and war. 

This is the Europe that is trying to forge ahead. Where is the political and civic debate that this moment demands? It isn’t here, nor is it likely to come.