The European Council’s recent meeting in Brussels was marked by a sense of unease and a shifting landscape. The 27 heads of state and government, who gathered on March 6, had a common goal: to project an image of unity. Two key points, intertwined, dominated their agenda: the “rearmament of Europe” and the strengthening of support for Kiev.
This image of unity was already the primary concern in February 2022, when Russian troops invaded Ukraine. However, the situation has drastically changed, particularly since Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In a matter of weeks, the worst nightmares of European leaders came to pass.
Initially, Washington confirmed that it would not deploy US troops in Ukraine and ruled out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. Shortly after, the US Vice President declared in Munich that the threat to “our values” did not come from Moscow or Beijing, but from Europe, particularly in terms of freedom of opinion. Ten days later, the US diplomacy aligned with Russia against a UN resolution, supported by the EU (except Hungary), that condemned Moscow.
Meanwhile, the Europeans were left out of a high-level meeting between Russians and Americans in Riyadh, made to clear that they would not even have a seat at the negotiating table if peace talks began. President Trump also labeled Ukraine’s leader a “dictator” and held him responsible for the outbreak of the conflict.
A few days later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was publicly humiliated in a scene that went viral and marked a premiere in diplomatic annals: Trump and Vance accused him of playing with the prospect of a third world war and made it clear that Ukraine’s defeat was the only perspective if the Ukrainian leadership did not comply with American demands.
And to underpin their words, Washington cut off all military and financial aid to Kiev, even the provision of information on the front line situation – a further heavy blow to the Ukrainian army.
The list is not exhaustive, but all this was described by completely disoriented Western leaders as “betrayal” and “breach of alliance.” And as for the prospect of the European Union compensating for the loss of US support for Kiev, this quickly proved unrealistic. The EU and its member states have since 2022 paid out 135.4 billion euros, of which 49.2 billion euros were for military support and have already planned to increase the outlays by 30 billion euros this year.
In the midst of this panic, French President Emmanuel Macron on February 17 called a mini-summit with some “important” EU leaders. This led to tensions, particularly with those who were not invited (Czech Republic, Romania, etc.). A follow-up meeting was organized a day later in a new configuration, which included non-EU countries, but did not calm the frustration.
Another meeting took place on March 2 in London, this time at the initiative of the United Kingdom – a non-EU country – with Canada and Turkey, further complicating the situation. And it confirmed what some European politicians and experts had suspected: the European Union is not a valid framework for defense.
Especially Hungary and the Czech Republic show a greater affinity with the analysis of Washington and Moscow. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni continues to maintain her privileged relationship with the Trump administration. And finally, elections are scheduled in Romania and the Czech Republic this year, which could shift these countries towards the position of Budapest. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban repeatedly claims that there is “no solution on the battlefield” which annoys his colleagues.
Against this backdrop, the European Council met on March 6. As its first point, it confirmed the two-day earlier presented plan by the President of the European Commission, titled “Rearming Europe.”
The leaders want to replenish national stockpiles of material and ammunition that have been depleted by generous deliveries to Ukraine. They are also concerned about the possibility of a severe blow without the military support of the US. Many of them are now following the warlike discourse of Emmanuel Macron, who has made the “strategic autonomy of Europe” his top priority. A thesis that has now – a still unimaginable turn of events – been picked up by the likely future German Chancellor, who was previously committed to the vassalage to Uncle Sam.
More specifically, Ursula von der Leyen has announced an enormous sum of 800 billion euros (over five years) for this rearmament, of which 150 billion euros would be granted to member states by Brussels in the form of loans, with this fund being created through a bond issued by the Commission on the financial markets. The remaining 650 billion euros would come directly from the finances of the member states. This would particularly encourage countries to buy weapons collectively, rather than making individual purchases.
Other options are also on the table to persuade European capitals to spend money on defense and deterrence, as the Danish Prime Minister put it – a country that has traditionally been very watchful of public deficits.
Even Germany – represented by Olaf Scholz in the Council but in agreement with his likely successor – surprised with the proposal to further relax the requirements for budgetary discipline. A statement that illustrates the magnitude of the ongoing upheaval. Under the countries that are traditionally described as “frugal” only the Netherlands and Austria are still concerned about these possible spending orgies.
Another point on the agenda was the support for Kiev. The Hungarian Prime Minister distanced himself from it. His colleagues, however, emphasized the need to “achieve peace with force” and therefore to “put Ukraine in the best possible position before, during and after the negotiations to end the war.” And they reaffirmed their willingness to deliver air defense systems, ammunition and rockets, as well as to train and equip Ukrainian brigades.
Although the European leaders are persistently trying to project an image of unity, it appears more precarious than ever. But they face an even greater problem: how can they convince their populations to accept social sacrifices in the name of the fight against budget deficits and at the same time open the floodgates to finance the war efforts?