EU debates €800bn arms plan for common army

EU debates €800bn arms plan for a common European army

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has staged what some interpret as a break with the United States and the start of an urgent militarization phase. The debate centers on a plan worth around €800 billion in massive weapon purchases, aimed at creating a common European army. This figure, spread over a decade, would equal four years of Spain's pension spending, according to calculations repeated during the discussion. The announcement comes amid the war in Ukraine and against the backdrop of NATO, triggering contradictions.

Break with the US or business for the US?

The central paradox is hard to ignore: a break with Washington is announced while, according to participants, most of the weaponry purchased would come from the American industry. "How do you break with the US by buying all its fighter jets and missiles?" one intervention summarizes. Another compares it to an operation where "what breaks is our ass." Furthermore, European manufacturers are largely owned by US investment funds, diluting any claimed autonomy. Thus, mass purchasing could end up being a covert bailout of the American industry.

Industrial bottleneck: manufacturing in Europe takes time

Even if the intention were to produce on European soil, current industrial capacity cannot handle such volume in the short term. A participant with sector knowledge compares it to the S-80 submarine program or building a series of five ships: long deadlines and skyrocketing costs. "This is a plan for more than a decade because industrial aspects are important and slow," notes another. Programs like FCAS (Future Combat Air System), missile stocks, satellites, or tanks would absorb this money, but first results wouldn't be seen until 2033. The human bottleneck—training soldiers—is even greater.

Unified command: the political obstacle

A common army would require unified command, not permanent negotiation among the twenty-seven members. "Decisions should be made by a single command, not negotiated and voted on by all members," one intervention points out. The experience of UN Blue Helmets, cited as an example of multinational force with limited capacity, does not invite optimism. Added to this is the contradiction of remaining in NATO, keeping US bases in Europe, and simultaneously seeking autonomous defense. "Will we stay in NATO and also create a European army?" asks another, calling it a "pipe dream."

Spending: taxes, pensions, and priorities

Funding the rearmament opens another front. Options include tax hikes, social cuts, or both. The comparison with pensions is recurrent: €800 billion would equal four years of pensions in Spain. "That's 9 million pensions for one year," calculates a participant, imagining the EU with nine million soldiers, more than Russia, China, and the US combined. Irony about the money's destination reflects skepticism about spending efficiency. Others demand cuts to "unnecessary" items and prioritizing domestic industry.

The real enemy: discrepancies on the threat

While the official narrative points to Russia as an imminent threat, part of the discussion argues the true enemy is different: mass immigration. "The only enemy is the horde of millions who invaded European soil," it is stated, adding that €800 billion isn't needed for that. Another current suggests intentions are offensive against Russia, not defensive, and elites don't want the war to stop. Also included is a warning from an Sarracinic preacher about Muslim control of the West in 50 years, with comments that neither Ukraine, Russia, nor the US will save Europe. These views, though not majority, set the tone of discontent.

---

The plan remains at the announcement stage. There is no official breakdown of how much goes to each program or where the money will come from. What seems clear is that the EU wants to stop being a secondary actor in defense. Whether the numbers add up and voters accept paying the bill is another matter. As one participant summarizes: "For the journey they are taking, they thought their backpack was too heavy, so they decided to throw it away, but to reduce weight they cut off their two arms and are thinking of cutting off their legs without realizing that without legs you can't walk."