EU's von der Leyen proposes €800 billion defense plan

Europe’s Plans

The EU summit in Brussels is taking place today. I’ve lost count of how many there have been in the past two weeks—this might be the fourth? Zelensky will also be attending. I assume this summit will be crucial for shaping the EU’s future policy on Ukraine.

If any major decisions are made—especially regarding funding the war not just with money but also with weapons to replace U.S. supplies—it will happen now. There’s no more time to delay; Trump has already halted deliveries, so if not now, then when? However, I expect things will end much the same way as before.

The problem is that Europe simply lacks the physical capacity to supply weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Financial aid is one thing—money can still be found or printed—but weapons are another matter. For instance, a representative of the Bundeswehr has once again confirmed that Germany has exhausted its ability to send anything from its stockpiles to Ukraine.

But there are financial issues too. Ursula von der Leyen has presented her plan for rearming Europe, which has already been met with significant criticism in the Western press. Her plan includes:

Spending €800 billion on rearmament;

Creating a €150 billion credit fund for collective arms procurement;

Attracting private investment into the defense sector;

Offering incentives to countries that increase military spending.

However, this is merely a wishlist. Ursula is not a tactician but a strategist. The EU leadership doesn’t have—and won’t have—real money for this plan. The document itself states that the €800 billion should come from national governments, primarily by lifting borrowing restrictions. In other words, she is proposing that individual countries take on debt to rearm their militaries in exchange for vague incentives that will never truly offset the costs.

At the same time, it seems national governments are struggling to convince their voters that rearmament is genuinely necessary. The average European doesn’t believe that Putin—who has been fighting a single country, Ukraine, for three years without capturing a single regional capital and is now looking for a way to end the war—would suddenly turn around and attack NATO. Given the rising wave of nationalist sentiment in Europe, voters are focused on entirely different issues that contradict the idea of sharply increasing military spending.

As for real assistance, Politico reports that even the proposal to allocate €20 billion from EU funds is no longer being pursued due to opposition from Hungary. Anyone who thought Hungary was merely bargaining now has their answer—Orbán is seriously blocking military aid, unlike sanctions, which he has negotiated over before.

There is nothing stopping individual countries from pooling the same €20 billion without Hungary if they genuinely want to help Ukraine. But it’s clear that few are willing to do so. Those who do want to help already do—for example, Ireland recently announced a €100 million aid package, though it appears to be non-lethal aid, likely radar systems. But Ireland didn’t need Ursula or the EU to make that decision; if they want to help, they simply do. France, Italy, and similar countries could do the same, but they don’t.

That’s why I don’t see any reason to expect today’s summit to change anything. We’ll hear a lot of big words, see very little action, and once again, Zelensky will be pressured not to clash with Trump and to agree to his deals.

22 comments

Hopefully to spend it all in Europe!
- And most of the profits taxed.
- Not sure, if we can completely replace US weapons, including jets and so on, already.
  I guess, that much will be spend at European companies, but I'm pretty sure a bulk will go the the USA military industry
  and maybe also other countries - I'm not really up-to-date with current military capabilities and production facilities in Europe or worldwide
  Maybe someone more knowledgeable could chime in
  
  We can. The US only pushed us to buy F35 to carry their atomic warheads.
  Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen are excellent fighter jets.
  
  Jets? The Eurofighter is made by European companies only.
  Especially France has some leading Jet / Air combat companies.
  Italys Leonardo is leading for combat Helicopters
  For ground forces Germans Rheinmetall produces some good tanks.
  The UK is also not too weak but it’s ties to the US are a bit too strong… (BAE Systems gets tons of money from the US and I personally wouldn’t be too sure if they would choose the UK over the US if they had to)
  
  Kill switches makes USA's F35 garbage in EU
Europe’s Plans
The EU summit in Brussels is taking place today. I’ve lost count of how many there have been in the past two weeks—this might be the fourth? Zelensky will also be attending. I assume this summit will be crucial for shaping the EU’s future policy on Ukraine.
If any major decisions are made—especially regarding funding the war not just with money but also with weapons to replace U.S. supplies—it will happen now. There’s no more time to delay; Trump has already halted deliveries, so if not now, then when? However, I expect things will end much the same way as before.
The problem is that Europe simply lacks the physical capacity to supply weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Financial aid is one thing—money can still be found or printed—but weapons are another matter. For instance, a representative of the Bundeswehr has once again confirmed that Germany has exhausted its ability to send anything from its stockpiles to Ukraine.
But there are financial issues too. Ursula von der Leyen has presented her plan for rearming Europe, which has already been met with significant criticism in the Western press. Her plan includes:
Spending €800 billion on rearmament;
Creating a €150 billion credit fund for collective arms procurement;
Attracting private investment into the defense sector;
Offering incentives to countries that increase military spending.
However, this is merely a wishlist. Ursula is not a tactician but a strategist. The EU leadership doesn’t have—and won’t have—real money for this plan. The document itself states that the €800 billion should come from national governments, primarily by lifting borrowing restrictions. In other words, she is proposing that individual countries take on debt to rearm their militaries in exchange for vague incentives that will never truly offset the costs.
At the same time, it seems national governments are struggling to convince their voters that rearmament is genuinely necessary. The average European doesn’t believe that Putin—who has been fighting a single country, Ukraine, for three years without capturing a single regional capital and is now looking for a way to end the war—would suddenly turn around and attack NATO. Given the rising wave of nationalist sentiment in Europe, voters are focused on entirely different issues that contradict the idea of sharply increasing military spending.
As for real assistance, Politico reports that even the proposal to allocate €20 billion from EU funds is no longer being pursued due to opposition from Hungary. Anyone who thought Hungary was merely bargaining now has their answer—Orbán is seriously blocking military aid, unlike sanctions, which he has negotiated over before.
There is nothing stopping individual countries from pooling the same €20 billion without Hungary if they genuinely want to help Ukraine. But it’s clear that few are willing to do so. Those who do want to help already do—for example, Ireland recently announced a €100 million aid package, though it appears to be non-lethal aid, likely radar systems. But Ireland didn’t need Ursula or the EU to make that decision; if they want to help, they simply do. France, Italy, and similar countries could do the same, but they don’t.
That’s why I don’t see any reason to expect today’s summit to change anything. We’ll hear a lot of big words, see very little action, and once again, Zelensky will be pressured not to clash with Trump and to agree to his deals.