Forum user proposes dissolving NATO and building a European army

Europe as the world's leading military power: the plan shaking up the board

A continent that once ruled the world and now debates whether it can manufacture its own rifles. That is the paradox running through one of the longest and most heated discussions ever peine on the World War III subforum: the proposal that Europe stop depending on third parties, dissolve the defence architecture inherited from the Cold War and build its own arms industry capable of competing with any power. The idea is not new — a European military alliance was already attempted in the 1950s and the French side rejected it — but the tone in which it is defended today has little to do with back then.

What the European rearmament plan actually proposes

The central thesis of the thread's author is that Europe has spent nearly 150 years caught in a pincer between two blocs that divided the work between them: one supplies the force, the other supplies the banking. On this reading, the invasion of Ukraine would not be an autonomous move by Moscow, but an operation tolerated — when not encouraged — by Washington, which would exploit the conflict to sell weapons in a trickle, prevent Kyiv from using them against enemy territory and generate unpayable debt that would turn the country into a financial colony. The mechanism has a name in the jargon: Morgenthau-ization, the old banking trick of strangling the debtor to take over the business.

On that basis, the concrete plan includes several points. Dissolve NATO this very year and issue an ultimatum to the United States to withdraw its troops from the continent before the year ends. Found a European Military Union headquartered in Vienna. Create an emergency consortium with all the continent's arms manufacturers, plus state-owned companies in countries without sufficient industry. And manufacture at full tilt: enough rifles for every European to fire one, millions of drones, mobile artillery and unlimited ammunition. Aircraft carriers and heavy battle tanks are left out of the catalogue as obsolete.

The atomic bomb and the end of anti-nuclear treaties

The most sensitive point of the programme is the nuclear one. The proposal calls for ending all non-proliferation treaties and immediately starting to manufacture atomic bombs in Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Greece and Sweden. The argument is that without its own deterrence there is no real sovereignty: if a country depends on someone else's arsenal, its defence is conditioned by the interests of whoever lends it the weapons.

The idea that weapons bought from third parties come with usage restrictions — and that those restrictions are precisely the mechanism of control — underpins much of the discontent. It is argued that a domestic industry not only guarantees freedom of military action, but also keeps GDP at home, develops national engineering and protects patents. The stated goal is for Europe to become the world's leading military power, capable of destroying any invader without asking anyone's permission.

The cracks in the narrative: who pays, who decides and who stays

The enthusiasm is not unanimous. One strand of the analysis holds that Europe's greatest enemy lies neither to the east nor the west, but south of the Mediterranean, and that the coming wars will be fought on European soil with a population that is not prepared. Another line points to a prior demographic problem: within three decades the majority of Europe's population will not be native, and defence budgets will have to compete with pensions, healthcare and education sized for that new reality. Rearmament, in that scenario, would be a mental distraction before resolving who is going to sustain the country.

There are also those who point out that the Russian army, though inferior to NATO as a whole, retains an advantage the West has lost: social cohesion and unity of command. Facing a divided alliance, with internal crises and unstable borders, Moscow would hold out longer. And a third, more fundamental objection denies that Spain has any place in that project: the European founding myths would be anti-Spanish, and the future would lie with the Hispanic community, not with Brussels.

The 2030 map and the question nobody answers

The message that opens the discussion includes a map with the borders that, according to its author, should be fixed by 2030. The exact lines are not detailed, but the goal is summed up in one sentence: to disintegrate the neighbouring empire forever. The dilemma is framed in binary terms — them or us — and the conclusion is that only brute force can stop what is described as a twenty-century expansion.

The tone of the exchange heats up by the minute. Those defending rearmament receive responses ranging from mockery to accusations of serving foreign interests, and the replies are no gentler. Some openly call for expelling from the continent the two blocs that tutelage it and those who defend them. The conversation often drifts toward the clash between national projects: some consider the EU the grave of Europe and its greatest enemy; others reply that without a common framework there is no possible scale to compete with the real powers.

What becomes clear when reading through it all is that there is no consensus on the need to rearm, and the disagreement is not about the means but about the subject: who is Europe, who defends it and to whom does it belong. The unsettling fact is that, after nearly 150 years of wars, the discussion is still the same one as in 1945.