The image represents the MBDA: European multinational corporation specialised in the design, development and manufacturing of missiles and related systems. Headquartered in Le Plessis-Robinson near Paris, France.

By Maria Antonietta Fiocchi 

In the past few years, the world order has changed, Europe has long played a central role in the major geopolitical challenges of the last century, and now the war in Ukraine has become an imminent threat: Europe must now reconsider its priorities [1]. That is one of the reasons that brought, on 19 March 2025, the European Commission and the High Representative to present the White Paper for European Defence. This project aims to rearm Europe and to offer solutions to strengthen the defence industry [2]. The paper states that the future of the EU also depends on the situation of the war in Ukraine: now, investing in the military industry has become crucial.

Is the war in Ukraine the only threat Europe has to face?

The war in Ukraine, and Russia, which is now running a massive war economy based on industrial mobilisation, have had a tremendous impact on Europe, but it is certainly not the only reason that pushed the Commission to increase its investments in defence [2].

Firstly, our proximity to countries like North Africa and the Middle East, makes Europe vulnerable to phenomena like conflicts and migration [2]. Secondly, apart from the threats mentioned above, Europe has been struggling to deal with another range of security threats, called ‘hybrid threats’: terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime and cyberattacks [2]. That said, right now Europe has to make informed and strategic decisions in a very short period of time if we do not want to lose credibility, but especially if we do not want to risk being unprepared in the future [2].

The solution given in the White Paper is the “ReArm Europe” Plan [1]. As the name suggests, it is a plan that outlines the actions that must be put into place in order to achieve a better, safer and stronger Europe [1] [2]. It is divided into different points: firstly, a massive increase in investments in defence, a commitment asked to all the European member states, to reach a sufficient posture by 2030 [1] [2]. Secondly, the plan addresses critical capability shortfalls in seven priority areas [1] [2]. These areas include: Air and missile defence, artillery systems, ammunition and missiles, drones and counter-drone systems, military mobility, AI, Quantum, Cyber & Electronic Warfare, strategic enablers and critical infrastructure protection [1] [2].

Another crucial element of the White Paper is support for Ukraine through the so-called “Porcupine strategy” [1] [2]. The key pillars of this plan include: providing at least two million rounds of large-calibre artillery ammunition per year, supplying air defence systems, providing direct support and procurement orders to Ukraine’s defence industry, which is estimated to have a productive capacity of €35 billion in 2025, enhancing Ukraine’s access to EU space assets and services for navigation, communication, and Earth observation [1] [2].

Financial point of view

This kind of commitment, of course, requires a different amount of money that has to be allocated to defence expenditure. The goal finalised during the Hague Summit is to invest 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on defence spending requirements by 2035, while in 2025,  EU member states have to allocate 2% of their GDP to military-related spending [4].

ReArm Europe: a dilemma

This rearm plan provides the safety and defence Europe is seeking and that are vital nowadays, but it is important to look at both sides of the same coin. In fact, this vision has raised both economic and ethical dilemmas that cannot be ignored.

Ethan Ilzetzki, a professor at the London School of Economics, said “Buying the same old equipment from the same old producers provides limited incentives to innovate.” Additionally, big economic benefits from military spending happen, economists say, only if significant sums of money are spent on research and development that eventually spill into the civilian sector [3]. Another professor expressed his disapproval of this massive investment in the military industry: “There’s nothing good about having to buy a tank instead of building a school,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard [3].

This ambitious rearmament plan has raised a lot of questions and doubts. Weapons, artillery, military expenses in general request substantial financial resources. In this case, the European Commission estimates that by 2030 up to €800 billion could be allocated to defence-related investments[6]. Allocating such a large portion of funding to rearmament means slashing social spending.

Still, is this truly the best option? Has history not already taught us?

Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, European nations reduced their military expenses, allowing excess funds that were initially directed towards tax reductions and budget adjustments instead of social initiatives, which favored the affluent over the working population [5]. Currently, as Europe boosts its military budgets, depending only on debt or tax reductions could impose hardships on the poorer part of the population [5]. To finance these military expenses equitably, governments ought to increase taxes on large corporations, wealthy individuals, and capital gains, while also updating social programs [5].

Unfortunately, there is no exact science to it. These situations are complicated and governments must take different variables into account before acting. Nowadays a robust military industry is essential for a strong country, but the right balance always lies in the middle: defence and welfare should complement each other to establish enduring security, it is true that peace does not come from neglecting military investments, but on the other hand, social expenses for education and healthcare, for instance, are fundamental and just as important as the defence industry.​ 

Edited by Oriane Beveraggi.

References

[1] “White paper for European defence – Readiness 2030.” Defence Industry and Space, https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/white-paper-european-defence-readiness-2030_en.  Accessed 8 January 2026.

[2]  “ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030.” European Commission, 6 March 2025, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6d5db69-e0ab-4bec-9dc0-3867b4373019_en?filename=White%20paper%20for%20European%20defence%20%E2%80%93%20Readiness%202030.pdf.  Accessed 8 January 2026.

[3] Cohen, Patricia. “Europe Is Spending Big on Defense. Will That Help Its Ailing Economy?” The New York Times, 27 August 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/business/economy/europe-defense-spending.html. Accessed  23 November 2025.

[4] “Defence expenditures and NATO’s 5% commitment.” NATO, 18 December 2025, https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment  Accessed 8 January 2026.

[5] Vallée, Shahin, and Joseph de Weck. “Europe does not have to choose between guns and butter. There is another way | Shahin Vallée and Joseph de Weck.” The Guardian, 7 July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/07/europe-guns-butter-defence-spending-welfare-state. Accessed 31 August 2025.

[6] “Future of European defence – European Commission.” European Commission, https://commission.europa.eu/topics/defence/future-european-defence_en Accessed 7 January 2026.[Image]: Matti Blume (CC BY-SA <//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MBDA,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA45439).jpg> or GFDL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>) , via Wikimedia Commons