European leaders gave the green light to a historic continental rearmament plan at an extraordinary Brussels meeting of the European Council held on Thursday, March 6th. This plan is a direct response to the war in Ukraine and the anticipated withdrawal of U.S. military support since Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal involves mobilizing over €800 billion through relaxed fiscal rules on debt and deficit and creating a European financial instrument endowed with €150 billion in loans backed by joint European debt. The clear objective is multiplying the bloc’s defensive capacity against what they describe as an “existential threat” posed by Russia.
But some questions need to be raised before flashing out the details. How do they expect to finance this much public debt? Will there be more taxes on citizens, already crippled by the tax burden of successive climate taxes and the subsidized cost of mass migration? Will all this investment be to the detriment of social services that have been declining for years in Western countries? How do we make sure every member state can benefit equally from common investments, without the risk of ideological discrimination, like we’ve seen in the case of the pandemic relief funds?
Looking past the money issue, we can go even deeper with more uncomfortable questions. For instance, is this truly for strengthening national armed forces or the first step towards a European army? Boosting defense spending is one thing, but how do they expect to fill in the ranks? You either reintroduce the military draft which the people may not accept, or hope to rely on voluntary conscription which is unlikely to yield the desired results, especially when taking into account large foreign-born populations. And besides all this, did anyone ask the opinion of voters before agreeing to this plan? Nobody has given, for the time being, any answer to these questions.
A pivotal moment for Europe is here.
— European Commission (@EU_Commission) March 6, 2025
We are ready to mobilise up to €800 billion to help EU countries increase defence spending.
We'll present our proposals to all EU leaders at today's European Council meeting.
Europe is resolved to assume its responsibilities ↓
Moscow’s actions have, it is claimed, broken a taboo. The multiannual European budget for 2021-2027 is exhausted, and all leaders except Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán agreed to raise the debt ceiling by up to 1.5% of annual GDP for the next four years.
“Spend, spend, and spend,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphatically proclaimed. Germany even announced constitutional changes to launch a military investment program worth half a trillion euros. At the same time, Poland considers the current figures insufficient and calls for defense spending above 3% of GDP.
In parallel, countries like Spain and France insisted that part of the €150 billion should be granted in subsidies, not only as loans—although this option was ultimately rejected in favor of credits (meaning more loss of economic sovereignty due to increased uncontrolled debt). Brussels interprets this move as a first step toward a future request for community-funded Eurobonds, implying greater Commission control over member states.
Additionally, European leaders identified “priority areas” for military investments, including air defense, artillery and missile systems, drones, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection. They also agreed to make regional European funds more flexible and significantly expand the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in this area.
The unity displayed around the rearmament plan was not replicated in terms of military support for Ukraine. Hungary distanced itself from any additional military escalation, especially given Europe’s demands to increase defense spending. At the same time, Brussels continues to freeze over €20 billion of post-COVID recovery funds intended for Budapest.
In the joint statement, Orbán agreed to maintain common language regarding financial and humanitarian support for Kyiv but refused to sign any commitment to increase direct military aid. European Council President António Costa downplayed this stance:
One alone does not create division.
This implies that the actual functioning of the European Union has effectively broken down, highlighting that a lack of consensus is irrelevant if there is a de facto majority. This is precisely what the proposed reform of the EU’s founding treaties seeks, which, following this meeting, was formally acknowledged.
In contrast to Hungarian caution, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni surprised onlookers by proposing a controversial solution to ensure Ukraine’s security: applying NATO’s Article 5 without formalizing Kyiv’s full membership in the Atlantic Alliance. Meloni argued that “a just peace requires clear and serious security guarantees,” which only NATO could effectively provide.
Meloni’s proposal would mean that any future attack on Ukraine would automatically equate to aggression against all NATO members, triggering a collective military response against Moscow, carrying obvious risks of escalation towards a direct war between Russia and the West.
Il mio punto stampa al Consiglio europeo straordinario. pic.twitter.com/Hvpiw8XCQW
— Giorgia Meloni (@GiorgiaMeloni) March 6, 2025
Meloni clarified that this idea does not imply the immediate deployment of Italian or allied troops in Ukraine but rather “stable, long-term, and real security guarantees,” which are more effective than other initiatives discussed. Either way, the proposal met resistance and skepticism among European leaders due to the inherent risk of provoking an open conflict with Russia. Verbal escalation is easy; real escalation is another matter entirely.
Moscow’s reaction was immediate: the Kremlin labeled the plan a “dangerous provocation” and warned it could respond with equivalent measures. Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesman, stated that European rearmament “will not help continental stability and will only increase regional tension.”
The U.S. administration under Donald Trump, whose turn toward isolationism partly triggered this European initiative, responded coolly. The White House indicated that Europe must assume “greater responsibility for its security” and reduce its dependence on U.S. military support. Trump also reiterated that Ukraine’s future NATO membership is unlikely and undesirable.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who participated in the summit and was later asked to leave, used the occasion to reaffirm his demands for a negotiated peace on Kyiv’s terms. Zelensky positively assessed most European support and announced plans to travel soon to Saudi Arabia to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and U.S. representatives, hoping to move towards “lasting peace.”
