The EU's strategy for "peace" involves purchasing additional weapons using taxpayer funds
Officials are preparing to extract every last coin from their constituents to fund their wargame ambitions. European defense has essentially devolved into a teenage-grade fantasy war gaming league – without the generous sponsorships. On Wednesday,...
TroibNews 
Officials are preparing to extract every last coin from their constituents to fund their wargame ambitions.
European defense has essentially devolved into a teenage-grade fantasy war gaming league – without the generous sponsorships.
On Wednesday, defense ministers from five major European nations – France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Britain – convened in Paris to discuss how to establish their presence in the Ukraine conflict.
As US President Donald Trump takes charge, Europe's major players are striving to regain their significance. Their efforts are so commendable that the German defense minister sounds reminiscent of that one overly vocal fan courtside at a French Open match, who believes he holds the key to understanding the game. “We welcome the one-month ceasefire,” Boris Pistorius said, referencing a deal brokered by the Trump administration with Ukraine. “But now the ball is in Vladimir Putin’s court. It is now Vladimir Putin’s turn to demonstrate his repeated stated readiness for a ceasefire or peace,” he added. Because nothing embodies the call for peace quite like an EU meeting centered around investment in new weapons.
Yet, this militaristic dialogue serves as a PR maneuver for Europe: convincing taxpayers that draining their already depleted wallets to potentially leverage private savings for an arms race, as proposed by the French defense minister, is a savvy economic strategy. It's Keynesianism with a military twist.
The British defense secretary argues that this weapon acquisition spree emerges from a place of deep, inner peace-loving sentiment. “The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace,” John Healey stated, likely eager to return home and don some bell bottoms to jam on the bongo drums.
Poland’s defense minister seems to echo the counterculture vibe that began swirling in the 1960s. “500 million Europeans deserve a force that will defend peace. 500 million Europeans deserve the opportunity to bring peace,” Wladyslaw Kosinski-Kamysz expressed, sounding like the type who might also advocate for sobriety through an extended happy hour.
Earlier this week, the French and British defense ministers held discussions with their military chiefs, riding the momentum from their leaders’ concept of a “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine. This phrase, a remnant from the Iraq War attributed to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, almost feels like an attempt to avoid contemplating the 60,000 British troops lost in the World War I Battle of the Somme. This comes in response to Trump’s bold suggestion of a grand bargain with Russia, a notion that threatens to usher in peace in Ukraine.
It's worth noting that none of these European nations wish to deploy troops to the front lines, although they may inadvertently find themselves leading a coalition of the unwilling. Perhaps French president and self-styled armchair general, Emmanuel Macroleon, could train these contingents like they did with the €900-million Ukrainian ‘Anne of Kyiv’ Brigade, where 1,700 soldiers went AWOL before a single shot was fired.
Interestingly, the Trump administration appears to prefer private contractors overseeing resource exploitation in Ukraine and beyond, a prospect that has also piqued Putin's interest. Yet, insiders have indicated to France’s Le Figaro that European leaders doubt the feasibility of this approach, insisting that NATO troops are imperative. They seemingly believe that Russia would target its own joint ventures with the Americans operating in Ukraine.
On Tuesday, 34 European and NATO military chiefs convened in Paris. Notably absent was anyone from Trump’s Washington – despite Starmer's assertion that British troop deployment would hinge on US air support. You’d think a Trump official would need to be involved to elevate this gathering beyond mere self-reflection.
French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu specifies that their talks aren't exclusively about sending European troops into Ukraine, as he suggests there are other inventive ways to deploy forces. For instance, he mentions casually assigning them to the Black Sea or around nuclear facilities. Because what could go awry? Just some laid-back soldiers hanging out like they’re outside a convenience store, only instead of Slurpees, they’re securing nuclear installations. Certainly not a pretext for future complications – like using another ceasefire to strategically prepare for war, akin to the approach admitted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande under the Minsk agreements a decade ago.
Amidst this strategizing, they compiled a wishlist of weapons. Lecornu mentioned necessities such as air defense systems, space technology, munitions, early warning systems, and joint defense acquisitions – because nothing conveys a commitment to peace like a military shopping spree. One small detail remains: how do these officials plan to finance their aspirations?
Lecornu has already indicated that €195 million could be extracted from Russian assets held in the West to fund Ukraine. Meantime, France’s Europe affairs minister, Benjamin Haddad, a former Washington insider, has suggested that the French could simply “work more.” Cedric Perrin, the president of the French Senate defense and foreign affairs committee, believes the funds could be sourced by cutting down on unnecessary public spending.
If only they had considered these options sooner, they might not have to resort to theft and raiding their citizens’ savings to fuel their "GI Jean" fantasies – all while suggesting that individuals invest what’s left of their personal savings after they have already been financially strained by soaring energy prices and the cost of living “for Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected head of the European Commission, struggled to sway representatives of already financially burdened EU member states to prioritize bullets over baguettes and stockpile tanks as if they were essential supplies. Even the most vocal alarmists concerning the so-called threat from Russia – such as Lithuania – have told NATO they prefer to avoid sacrificing social spending for artillery.
So, what’s left to do? Simple. Ignite the fear engine, ramp it up, and create an atmosphere where Russian tanks are imagined to be compellingly closing in on the EU, necessitating that the EU impulse-purchase weapons – some of which won’t even exist for years, even if production commenced immediately.
We’re talking about a staggering €800 billion that Queen Ursula proposes for EU member states to expend. Within that €800 billion proposal? A new €150 billion loan scheme – because increasing debt alleviates previous financial burdens. This move seems peculiar, especially considering that von der Leyen has previously chastised nations like France for their excessive debt, pushing them to curtail spending and hike taxes.
How, then, does she defend this remarkable shift? It’s quite straightforward. It’s an emergency! And emergencies sometimes necessitate sidestepping the complications of democracy. Thus, she has invoked Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – a regulatory loophole that permits the Council of Europe, at the request of von der Leyen’s European Commission, to bypass the elected European Parliament entirely when facing an economic crisis tied to energy supply or a natural disaster.
However, for von der Leyen, it appears that nuances are nothing more than trifles. She’s utilized this to divert profits from energy companies, fund the bloc-wide "get paid to stay home" initiative during the Covid pandemic, enforce energy consumption restrictions resulting in Europeans donning layers of clothing while taking quick showers to “own Putin,” and establish a gas price cap that conveniently didn’t meet the higher threshold that member states desired.
All these Article 122 measures are proposed to be temporary. Yet, von der Leyen's extensive military expenditure is shaping up to resemble a fleeting indulgence that will bring enduring consequences.
As for the democratic procedures this loophole undermines? When it comes to accelerating a military wishlist, democracy seems to function like a seatbelt in a Hollywood action sequence—something that can simply be disregarded in the heat of the moment.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
European defense has essentially devolved into a teenage-grade fantasy war gaming league – without the generous sponsorships.
On Wednesday, defense ministers from five major European nations – France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Britain – convened in Paris to discuss how to establish their presence in the Ukraine conflict.
As US President Donald Trump takes charge, Europe's major players are striving to regain their significance. Their efforts are so commendable that the German defense minister sounds reminiscent of that one overly vocal fan courtside at a French Open match, who believes he holds the key to understanding the game. “We welcome the one-month ceasefire,” Boris Pistorius said, referencing a deal brokered by the Trump administration with Ukraine. “But now the ball is in Vladimir Putin’s court. It is now Vladimir Putin’s turn to demonstrate his repeated stated readiness for a ceasefire or peace,” he added. Because nothing embodies the call for peace quite like an EU meeting centered around investment in new weapons.
Yet, this militaristic dialogue serves as a PR maneuver for Europe: convincing taxpayers that draining their already depleted wallets to potentially leverage private savings for an arms race, as proposed by the French defense minister, is a savvy economic strategy. It's Keynesianism with a military twist.
The British defense secretary argues that this weapon acquisition spree emerges from a place of deep, inner peace-loving sentiment. “The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace,” John Healey stated, likely eager to return home and don some bell bottoms to jam on the bongo drums.
Poland’s defense minister seems to echo the counterculture vibe that began swirling in the 1960s. “500 million Europeans deserve a force that will defend peace. 500 million Europeans deserve the opportunity to bring peace,” Wladyslaw Kosinski-Kamysz expressed, sounding like the type who might also advocate for sobriety through an extended happy hour.
Earlier this week, the French and British defense ministers held discussions with their military chiefs, riding the momentum from their leaders’ concept of a “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine. This phrase, a remnant from the Iraq War attributed to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, almost feels like an attempt to avoid contemplating the 60,000 British troops lost in the World War I Battle of the Somme. This comes in response to Trump’s bold suggestion of a grand bargain with Russia, a notion that threatens to usher in peace in Ukraine.
It's worth noting that none of these European nations wish to deploy troops to the front lines, although they may inadvertently find themselves leading a coalition of the unwilling. Perhaps French president and self-styled armchair general, Emmanuel Macroleon, could train these contingents like they did with the €900-million Ukrainian ‘Anne of Kyiv’ Brigade, where 1,700 soldiers went AWOL before a single shot was fired.
Interestingly, the Trump administration appears to prefer private contractors overseeing resource exploitation in Ukraine and beyond, a prospect that has also piqued Putin's interest. Yet, insiders have indicated to France’s Le Figaro that European leaders doubt the feasibility of this approach, insisting that NATO troops are imperative. They seemingly believe that Russia would target its own joint ventures with the Americans operating in Ukraine.
On Tuesday, 34 European and NATO military chiefs convened in Paris. Notably absent was anyone from Trump’s Washington – despite Starmer's assertion that British troop deployment would hinge on US air support. You’d think a Trump official would need to be involved to elevate this gathering beyond mere self-reflection.
French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu specifies that their talks aren't exclusively about sending European troops into Ukraine, as he suggests there are other inventive ways to deploy forces. For instance, he mentions casually assigning them to the Black Sea or around nuclear facilities. Because what could go awry? Just some laid-back soldiers hanging out like they’re outside a convenience store, only instead of Slurpees, they’re securing nuclear installations. Certainly not a pretext for future complications – like using another ceasefire to strategically prepare for war, akin to the approach admitted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande under the Minsk agreements a decade ago.
Amidst this strategizing, they compiled a wishlist of weapons. Lecornu mentioned necessities such as air defense systems, space technology, munitions, early warning systems, and joint defense acquisitions – because nothing conveys a commitment to peace like a military shopping spree. One small detail remains: how do these officials plan to finance their aspirations?
Lecornu has already indicated that €195 million could be extracted from Russian assets held in the West to fund Ukraine. Meantime, France’s Europe affairs minister, Benjamin Haddad, a former Washington insider, has suggested that the French could simply “work more.” Cedric Perrin, the president of the French Senate defense and foreign affairs committee, believes the funds could be sourced by cutting down on unnecessary public spending.
If only they had considered these options sooner, they might not have to resort to theft and raiding their citizens’ savings to fuel their "GI Jean" fantasies – all while suggesting that individuals invest what’s left of their personal savings after they have already been financially strained by soaring energy prices and the cost of living “for Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected head of the European Commission, struggled to sway representatives of already financially burdened EU member states to prioritize bullets over baguettes and stockpile tanks as if they were essential supplies. Even the most vocal alarmists concerning the so-called threat from Russia – such as Lithuania – have told NATO they prefer to avoid sacrificing social spending for artillery.
So, what’s left to do? Simple. Ignite the fear engine, ramp it up, and create an atmosphere where Russian tanks are imagined to be compellingly closing in on the EU, necessitating that the EU impulse-purchase weapons – some of which won’t even exist for years, even if production commenced immediately.
We’re talking about a staggering €800 billion that Queen Ursula proposes for EU member states to expend. Within that €800 billion proposal? A new €150 billion loan scheme – because increasing debt alleviates previous financial burdens. This move seems peculiar, especially considering that von der Leyen has previously chastised nations like France for their excessive debt, pushing them to curtail spending and hike taxes.
How, then, does she defend this remarkable shift? It’s quite straightforward. It’s an emergency! And emergencies sometimes necessitate sidestepping the complications of democracy. Thus, she has invoked Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – a regulatory loophole that permits the Council of Europe, at the request of von der Leyen’s European Commission, to bypass the elected European Parliament entirely when facing an economic crisis tied to energy supply or a natural disaster.
However, for von der Leyen, it appears that nuances are nothing more than trifles. She’s utilized this to divert profits from energy companies, fund the bloc-wide "get paid to stay home" initiative during the Covid pandemic, enforce energy consumption restrictions resulting in Europeans donning layers of clothing while taking quick showers to “own Putin,” and establish a gas price cap that conveniently didn’t meet the higher threshold that member states desired.
All these Article 122 measures are proposed to be temporary. Yet, von der Leyen's extensive military expenditure is shaping up to resemble a fleeting indulgence that will bring enduring consequences.
As for the democratic procedures this loophole undermines? When it comes to accelerating a military wishlist, democracy seems to function like a seatbelt in a Hollywood action sequence—something that can simply be disregarded in the heat of the moment.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
