In light of rapid geopolitical transformations, Europe faces unprecedented challenges that require decisive responses to enhance its security. Calls within the European Union have intensified to reassess its defense strategy; this has prompted Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, to outline the new direction of European defense in her speech to the European Parliament on March 11, 2025.
In her address, von der Leyen emphasized that “the era of illusions is over,” underscoring the necessity for Europe to assume greater responsibility for its defense, especially amidst the waning of American security guarantees, indicating that “full American protection is no longer assured.”
These statements are not merely political rhetoric; they reflect a fundamental shift in European strategic thinking in response to significant challenges, primarily the ongoing and intensifying Russian “threat,” the worsening war in Ukraine, and the political approach adopted by U.S. President Donald Trump since the start of his second term on January 20, 2025. The program aims to enhance European defense capabilities, strengthen the military industry, and broaden the scope of joint military procurement to reduce reliance on the United States and bolster the EU’s capacity to act independently in security matters.
This analysis reviews recent developments in European defense policy in the context of Trump’s policies and the Ukrainian crisis, highlighting the plan to achieve defense independence, the financial and political mechanisms supporting this transition, and the challenges that could hinder Europe’s objectives in this domain.
First: Europe’s Rearmament: A European Defense Revolution
The EU’s new defense program, “ReArm Europe,” which is valued at €800 billion, marks a turning point in Europe’s security approach. This program focuses on three main objectives:
- Strengthening European defense capabilities: Investing in European defense industries and ensuring long-term military production contracts.
- Reducing strategic dependency: Moving away from reliance on American and non-European suppliers.
- Ensuring Ukraine’s ability to defend itself: Maintaining and expanding military aid to Kyiv, even in the absence of U.S. support.
The plan is based on five essential pillars:
Easing Financial Rules to Enhance Military Spending: The plan aims to amend strict EU rules that require countries to keep their budget deficit below 3% of GDP. This amendment would allow member states to increase their defense spending by up to 1.5% of GDP over four years, potentially providing an additional €650 billion for the European defense sector.
Establishing a €150 Billion Loan Mechanism for Defense Investment: The program also includes offering loans up to €150 billion for supporting large-scale military procurements, provided they are sourced from European manufacturers to ensure the enhancement of the European defense industry. These loans will provide direct financing to member states wishing to invest in specific areas such as air and missile defense systems, artillery, missiles, munitions, drones, and counter-drone systems. These investments aim to strengthen the defense capabilities of European states, in addition to ensuring the rapid delivery of military equipment to Ukraine.
Reallocating European Cohesion Funds toward Defense: Instead of using cohesion funds to support the development of the poorer European countries, part of these funds will be redirected to defense programs. This restructuring will enable member states to allocate developmental budgets towards enhancing military infrastructure, including expanding local defense production capacities.
Creating a Savings and Investment Union to Support Defense Industries: This initiative aims to facilitate defense companies’ access to capital through establishing a financial framework that allows for increased investments in military industries, enhancing Europe’s ability to produce defense equipment independently, without relying on external suppliers.
Expanding the European Investment Bank’s Financing for Military Sectors: The plan includes easing financial constraints on military spending and removing restrictions that prevent the European Investment Bank from financing military projects, making it easier for governments to fund large military projects and support defense industries, including equipment for the army and police, although it will not directly finance weapons and munitions.
Moreover, the European Commission has laid down a defense roadmap that includes mechanisms for joint procurement, incentives for cross-border defense cooperation, and accelerated research and development in advanced weaponry. Von der Leyen announced the establishment of a European Defense Industrial Center, which will coordinate large-scale defense manufacturing projects to ensure that production meets strategic needs and enhances European defense readiness.
Second: The Preceding Signs of the Plan
The “ReArm Europe” plan was not merely a reactive measure; it represents a natural outcome of political and security transformations that have imposed themselves on the continent. Rising threats and declining U.S. commitment to European security, particularly during Trump’s presidency, necessitated a reevaluation of European defense strategy. With Trump returning to the White House in January 2025, it became clear that reliance on American protection was no longer an option as it had been in past decades, forcing the EU to take decisive steps to bolster its own security. The following are the key factors pushing Europe toward a new defense strategy:
- Trump’s Presidency and the Shift in European Security Calculations: Trump’s re-election in the 2024 U.S. elections marked a pivotal moment in European defense strategy. From the outset of his campaign, it was apparent that Trump would revert to a more isolationist approach; this was swiftly manifested after his inauguration in January 2025 when he decided to suspend military aid to Ukraine. This decision was a severe blow to Ukraine and raised widespread alarm in European capitals, where American support, previously viewed as the “core guarantee” of European security, seemed to be gradually diminishing.
Additionally, Trump reiterated his stance that European countries must entirely bear the costs of their security, emphasizing that the U.S. would not “pay the bills for others.” His demand for NATO countries to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP made it clear that Europe faced a dichotomy: either take security into their own hands or become vulnerable to geopolitical pressures without guaranteed American support. Consequently, the EU began searching for serious solutions that shaped Ursula von der Leyen’s plan for Europe’s rearmament.
- The War in Ukraine and the Depletion of European Military Stockpiles: Since the onset of the Russian-Ukrainian war in 2022, Ukraine has relied almost entirely on Western military support, particularly from the U.S. and EU countries. As conflicts escalated, European nations depleted a significant portion of their military arsenals, sending large quantities of weapons and munitions to Ukraine. Although European countries had hoped for continued American support, Trump’s decision to halt aid made it clear that they must depend on their own capabilities to enhance their national security.
This decision had direct implications for Europe, as European governments raced against time to rebuild their military stockpiles. However, the fundamental issue was that European defense budgets were not prepared for such rapid expansion, especially amidst the EU’s strict financial laws. This prompted von der Leyen to propose “amending the financial rules to allow member states to increase their defense spending without breaching the Stability and Growth Pact,” a key component of the ReArm Europe plan.
- Weak European Defense Spending and Hesitance to Confront Threats: For a long time, Europe has relied on the U.S. for military protection through NATO, leading to relatively low defense spending compared to the threats facing the continent. While some countries, like Poland and the Baltic states, significantly increased their defense budgets following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, major countries like Germany and France hesitated to allocate substantial funds to the military.
However, with the cessation of American support, European nations recognized that they needed to fully assume responsibility for their security. Yet, a new problem emerged: from where would Europe secure the necessary funding to bolster its defense capabilities? Here, the solution came through von der Leyen’s plan, which included allowing member states to exceed the budget deficit ceiling and increase defense expenditures, as well as establishing a new €150 billion European Defense Fund to assist member states in financing arms purchases.
- Growing Pressure from Eastern European States: Eastern European states, led by Poland and the Baltic nations, have always been the most concerned about the Russian threat, especially after the war in Ukraine. With Trump’s arrival in power and his abandonment of support for Ukraine, these countries felt they had become the “first line” in facing Russia without reliable American backing; hence, the pressure on Brussels increased to take swift action to enhance European defense capabilities.
This pressure led the EU to consider practical solutions, such as expanding military production capacities within Europe to reduce dependency on American suppliers and establishing a new financing mechanism for joint arms purchases among member states—one of the fundamental elements of the “ReArm Europe” plan.
- The Need for Military Independence and Reducing Dependency on Washington: The idea of strengthening European military independence had been proposed for years, but it only became a priority following Trump’s return to the presidency. It became clear that the U.S. might not always be a reliable ally, prompting Europe to rethink its security future.
However, this ambition was challenging to realize due to divisions among member states, where some preferred to remain under the American security umbrella while others, like France, pushed for the establishment of an independent European military force. Nevertheless, the pressure exerted by Trump compelled European nations to overcome their differences, rendering the idea of “ReArm Europe” acceptable to almost all, even to those who had previously been reluctant.
- The Need to Develop European Defense Industries: One of the challenges Europe faced in its quest to enhance its military capabilities was its significant reliance on the U.S. for arms purchases. Although Europe has advanced military industries, many of its defense systems are reliant on American technology, complicating its military independence. However, with the shifting American stance, there is a pressing need to build a comprehensive European military industrial complex. Therefore, von der Leyen’s plan included support for investments in defense industries and encouraged European countries to procure weapons from European companies rather than relying on American or other suppliers.
Third: The Challenges Facing “ReArm Europe”
Despite the increasing momentum toward achieving European defense independence, fundamental obstacles still hinder these efforts, making the goal more complex than it appears. While the EU seeks to strengthen its military capabilities and reduce reliance on the U.S., it faces political, economic, military, and bureaucratic challenges that could derail this path, including:
- Financial Challenges: The “ReArm Europe” initiative relies on increasing defense spending by allowing member states to raise their military budgets without breaching EU financial rules. This is achieved through activating the “exceptional national clause” within the Stability and Growth Pact; this allows countries to surpass fiscal deficit constraints to fund their defense projects. However, while this move could provide around €650 billion over four years, its success is not guaranteed. Merely giving the green light for additional spending does not ensure that governments will allocate this money towards military enhancements, particularly since many European countries suffer from chronic budget deficits and are looking to control public spending.
Amid ongoing high inflation rates and difficulties recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, governments may find it difficult to justify increased defense spending at the expense of social sectors like healthcare and education. Additionally, the initiative does not present new funding sources as much as it relies on reallocating existing financial resources, raising questions about the sustainability of the plan without creating new financial burdens on member states already facing economic challenges.
- Political Challenges: Among the prominent obstacles facing “ReArm Europe” is the need for substantial political consensus among EU member states, which is a difficult feat given the differing security priorities among European capitals. On one side, Eastern European nations, like Poland and the Baltic states, view Russia as an existential threat, prompting urgent calls for actions to enhance defensive capabilities and expedite military support for Ukraine. On the other hand, Western European nations, like France and Germany, tend to perceive national security from a long-term strategic perspective, preferring to focus on building independent defensive capabilities and strengthening the European military industrial base, rather than getting directly involved in current conflicts. These differences in perspectives could impede the smooth execution of the initiative, especially since the allocation of funding and military planning requires collective approval from member states.
Moreover, an additional challenge is reconciling the EU’s vision for self-defense with NATO’s priorities, particularly after President Trump called upon NATO countries to raise their defense spending to 5% of their GDP—a level deemed unrealistic for most European countries, while the new NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, proposes a lower goal of 3%. This gap in expectations could create confusion regarding the compatibility of “ReArm Europe” with the broader defensive trends of the alliance.
- Bureaucratic and Administrative Challenges: One of the barriers that hinder effective implementation of the initiative is the bureaucratic complexity inherent in decision-making processes within the EU. Brussels is known for relying on complex administrative mechanisms that require consensus among member states before passing any new policy, which could delay funding and military procurement processes, integral to the “ReArm Europe” plan. Historically, the EU’s administrative history is filled with experiences that have revealed weak coordination among its institutions, which may adversely affect the initiative’s implementation speed.
Additionally, the process of distributing defense contracts among member states could turn into a battleground among governments vying to support their local military industries. This could threaten the plan’s ability to achieve one of its primary objectives, which is to enhance the integration of European defense industries and standardize military production criteria. Without sufficient transparency in the funding allocation processes, the plan may face accusations of bias in favor of certain countries or companies, leading to increased divisions among member states and diminishing the overall effectiveness of the initiative.
- Strategic and Geopolitical Challenges: On the geopolitical level, the “ReArm Europe” project grapples with the dilemma of balancing the enhancement of European military independence with maintaining strong ties with the United States and NATO. While Brussels seeks to reduce its dependence on American military support, concerns arise that this path could strain transatlantic relations, particularly against the backdrop of rising isolationism in Washington. If Trump continues to reduce U.S. commitments to Europe, the EU may find itself compelled to accelerate its defense initiatives without alternative guarantees of protection.
Conversely, an increase in European military spending may fuel a new arms race with Russia, as Moscow might perceive this shift as a direct threat, prompting it to bolster its military capabilities further. If effective coordination between Europe and NATO is not achieved, there may emerge a redundancy in defense strategies, weakening both parties’ military readiness rather than enhancing it.
- Continued Dependency on the U.S. and NATO: Many European countries remain heavily reliant on the United States, both in terms of armaments and military infrastructure. A significant portion of European forces employ American weapon systems, limiting their ability to achieve complete independence. Furthermore, many European nations are bound by long-term contracts for purchasing American arms, such as the advanced F-35 aircraft, which are scheduled for delivery over the coming years. This means that European nations will still require logistical and technical support from the U.S. for the maintenance and operation of these systems, complicating efforts to establish an independent European defense industry. Additionally, NATO remains the cornerstone of European security, as most member states still view the U.S. security umbrella as a vital guarantee. Given the ongoing security threats, such as the war in Ukraine, European nations struggle to reduce their dependence on the alliance, which slows down European rearmament efforts.
These complexities necessitate that the initiative be implemented cautiously while maintaining open dialogue channels with the U.S. and NATO to avoid clashes in defense priorities.
- Potential Impacts on Global Security: The repercussions of the “ReArm Europe” project extend beyond the European continent, with potential to reshape the global security landscape in various ways. If the initiative succeeds, it could grant Europe greater military autonomy, reducing its reliance on American support and helping to establish a more stable European security system. This scenario could fundamentally alter the nature of security relationships across the Atlantic, with Europe becoming less tethered to American strategic interests, potentially prompting Washington to reassess its long-term defense strategies. On the other hand, the failure of the initiative could undermine the EU’s credibility as an emerging military power, reinforcing American doubts about Europe’s capability to protect itself without direct NATO or U.S. intervention.
Regarding Russia, bolstering European defense capabilities could deter Moscow from escalating its aggressive policies toward neighboring states; however, it may simultaneously prompt Moscow to take retaliatory steps to counter the increasing military power on the continent.
Industrially, the success of the initiative could lead to a flourishing European defense industry, reducing Europe’s dependence on American arms or non-NATO suppliers. However, if not properly implemented, poor planning and funding could lead to decreased competitiveness of European defense industries, leaving the EU reliant on external partners for advanced military technology.
Conclusion
Europe today stands at a crucial crossroads, facing an existential challenge in reshaping its security architecture to ensure its ability to confront rising threats and respond to geopolitical shifts. With escalating global tensions and diminishing reliance on the American security umbrella, the push toward European defense independence has become an unavoidable option, rather than merely a distant ambition.
These efforts, led by Ursula von der Leyen, mark a significant step toward enhancing European defense capabilities, relying on unprecedented support from military investments, expanding defense cooperation among member states, and developing independent military industrial projects. Nevertheless, the road to achieving this goal remains fraught with challenges. Despite the political and economic momentum supporting European rearmament, major obstacles persist, such as internal political divisions among EU states, industrial and financial constraints, and the continued close military ties with the United States through NATO and major arms deals, complicating the gradual separation from Washington.
In this context, Europe’s success in balancing defense independence with transatlantic cooperation will be crucial in shaping the contours of European security in the coming decades.
If the EU can overcome internal obstacles and strengthen its self-defense capabilities, it may witness the birth of an independent European security pole capable of safeguarding its interests beyond the fluctuations of American politics. Conversely, if these efforts fail, Europe will remain a hostage to changing geopolitical circumstances, perpetually dependent on U.S. military relations, which could weaken its strategic position in the future.
references
[1] Speech by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary joint debate on European Council meetings and European Security, Official EU Website, March 11, 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_739[2] Vikram Mittal, ReArm Europe Plan Will Help Address Shortages In Europe’s Militaries, March 11, 2025: https://tinyurl.com/4mdaej3e[3] Anand Sharma, Europe’s rearmament plan faces financial and political challenges, Weekly BLiTZ, March 12, 2015:
Subscribe to our email newsletter to get the latest posts delivered right to your email.
Comments