War comes from above, peace from below

The Ukrainian conflict, driven by geopolitical interests and the race for resources, has claimed countless lives and and displaced millions of people. The idea that more weapons will bring peace is a dangerous illusion.

As I wrote in Mutiny (2023), this war has always been two-faced. On the one hand, Russian agression violates Ukraine's territorial integrity, in contradiction with international law - a reality that countries of the Global South understand well. On the other, the United States and Russia, wage a proxy war, on the backs of Ukrainians, and tens of thousands of young people are being sent as cannon fodder for a geostrategic conflict.

Washington now shamelessly admits that it was indeed a proxy war, fueled and directed in part by the United States. Only, Trump now believes that this was the wrong proxy war, that Russia is not America's adversary. In fact all their efforts should be focused on the next war they're preparing: the one against China. Why? Because Washington's economic and technological hegemony is challenged by China.

It's clear that the US strategy of prolonging the war in Ukraine through massive investment, to exhaust Russia economically and militarily, is coming to an end. Washington is faced with a choice: intervene more openly, risking a Third World War, or seek diplomatic solutions. The United States chose the second option, not because they have suddenly turned pacifist, but because they are opportunists. They are hoping to gain the greatest possible advantage from the situation.

Trump wants to impose an agreement that would make Europe shoulder the cost of war, while the US will gain control over the extraction of raw materials and minerals from Ukraine through a new fund. Trump wants to treat Ukraine like a colony, as with many countries in the Global South. This confirms that this dirty war has never been about values, but always about geopolitical interests and control over resources and fertile land.

The failure of the European strategy

The failure of European states to take any serious diplomatic initiative to achieve a ceasefire over the past three years is now taking its toll. One European leader after another promised "military victory", but this was unrealistic from the start.

Now Trump is taking the initiative on his own and negotiating directly with Russia. But instead of drawing lessons, part of the European establishment wants to persist in this doomed strategy and prolong the war in Ukraine at all costs.

There's no shortage of contradictions. The same people who only yesterday were insisting that victory over Moscow was within reach are today telling us with a straight face that Moscow could be on the Grand Place in Brussels tomorrow if we don't urgently rearm. Both claims cannot be true at the same time. More and more it seems that the main purpose is to foist huge armament plans on us.

From "never again  " to rearmament: the spectre of German militarism

Many of us who grew up in the 20th century know that the mix of Germany, chauvinism and militarism is a bad idea. Gun manufacturers in the Ruhr region were behind two of the most devastating world wars in human history After the Second World War, consensus prevailed across Europe: no more German militarism.

But suddenly the world seems to be in a bad B-movie, with a déjà-vu. The pantzer manufacturers are back, and Germany must become great again. On 18 March 2025, the German parliament voted on constitutional amendments that would allow for the biggest rearmament programme since World War II. Germany already has the world's 4th-largest military budget, but it's shifting into higher gear to become "kriegstüchtig" ("ready for war").

German armament will henceforth be possible by taking on debt. This is completely new, because until recently Berlin blocked just about any investment proposal that would increase debt. All this proves, moreover, that these budgetary regulations are primarily political. They depend on the balance of power, and not dogmatic financial views.

In addition to German spending, the European Commission is launching a vast militarisation plan, financed by debt... and by cuts in cohesion, climate and development funds.

Feeding into anxiety psychosis

The big boss of NATO, Dutchman Mark Rutte, recently stated that we had better open our wallets for weapons, or we might all be speaking Russian soon. Thus further fuelling the fear psychosis.

But the facts say otherwise: Russia's GDP is no higher than that of the Benelux countries. Russia's economy is struggling, and after three years of war, Russian troops have failed to take more than 20 per cent of Ukraine. It has been fighting for months to take Pokrovsk from an exhausted Ukrainian army. It can't do it. And you'd have us believe that this army would be capable of defeating the combined forces of Poland, Germany, France and the UK? That's absurd.

Even with the help of Korean troops, it took the Russians months to retake only two-thirds of Kursk. Europe right now already has four times as many warships, three times as many tanks, armoured vehicles, and artillery; and twice as many fighter planes as Russia.

Those who really want peace, should negotiate for disarmament. The narrative of an "imminent Russian invasion" primarily serves the military-industrial complex.

An age of rearmament is an age of social regression

Europe's "defence capability" is priceless, they say. But of course there's a price. Literally. The price is paid by schools, healthcare, social security, culture and development coopertion. But also figuratively, by militarizing the whole of society.

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen describes "the era of militarisation", to position the European Union in a new battle for world division. For the peoples of Europe, this will only ever be the "era of social breakdown".

While billions are being invested in the war, climate budgets, healthcare and pensions are being severely cut. Shares of arms manufacturers are going through the roof. Rheinmetall, Dassault, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales and Saab are cashing in while the working class is footing the bill.

More money for tanks means less for pensions; more for drones means less for childcare. These are political choices that will have haunt us for decades to come.

"For workers, there is nothing worse than a war economy," Sophie Binet, General Secretary of the French trade union federation CGT, states rightly.  Every euro spent on weapons is a euro that does not go to schools, hospitals or public services.

Arms production won't boost the economy

The military industry claims that militarisation will boost the economy. This is what they themselves like to call ‘military Keynesianism’: encourage governments to support the weapons industry on a massive scale. At a time when the European automotive sector is in difficulty and Germany is entering its third consecutive year of recession, they would have us believe that it would be preferable to switch production from cars to tanks.

Which is nonsense of course. Families don't buy tanks. You don't go visit grandma by tank. And yet, these tanks have to be sold. So they need to make sure they are actually used, otherwise the industry will collapse. In other words, the militarisation of the economy permanently pushes a society towards war.

Moreover, they want the new arms race to be partly paid for by new debt. "Just like in the United States," say the war-mongers. They then forget to add that Washington's debt burden is historically high, and inequalities between rich and poor have never been larger. That is the price of a near-permanent war, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Ukraine

So no, increased military spending won't improve living standards. Weapons production doesn't offer any economic advantages. The manufacturing of a tank, a bomb or a missile system does not benefit the rest of the economy. And the idea that the military industry would create a lot of jobs, is nothing but a myth. Every euro invested in hospitals generates 2.5 times more jobs than a euro invested in weapons. In terms of investment efficiency for employment, defence only ranks 70th, out of 100 different sectors

Where is Europe headed?

The new tariffs that Trump wants to impose on German car imports could well be the death knell for the German car industry. Until recently, the German elite was very Atlanticist, but in Frankfurt's financial circles more and more voices are advocating for European sovereignty independent of Washington.

This is also the spirit of the new European White Paper on Defence: Europe must stand on its own two feet. Today, according to this document, 78% of new defence purchases are made outside the European Union, mainly in the United States. The White Paper aims to change this radically: by 2035, at least 60% of military equipment will have to be produced in Europe.

The big question is whether this is feasible, since the weapons industry is organized nationally. Rivalries abound between German, French, Italian and British producers, all greedy for the extra billions that will fall in their laps. While the German economy is opening the financial floodgates for Rheinmetall and co., Franco-Italian and Franco-British cooperation agreements are trying to catch the Germans off guard.

There isn't even a unified command. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy (KfW) may well call for an additional 300,000 soldiers in Europe, but these soldiers would depend on 29 different national armies. And, they still need to be found and trained first.

Europe is politically fragmented and facing an identity crisis. For capitalists, it can go one of two ways. Either the devide between member states becomes deeper and sharper and the Union splinters into a modern version of rival Goths, Franks and Celts. Or Berlin, Paris and London are forced to cooperate more to create a new, warmongering, imperial European power.

For Marxists, it's time to imagine a radically different Europe: a socialist and peaceful Europe.

Breaking out of the deadly arms race spiral

The arms race is becoming increasingly extreme: proposals to devote 3% of GDP to military spending are are being trumped by clamours to quickly move to 5 per cent. The sky is the limit!

A global arms race always follows the same logic: if one country upgrades, another will follow. Anyone who takes the logic of deterrence to its logical conclusion will inevitably end up advocating for the nuclear armament of Germany and Europe.

At worst, this spiral ends in a major war with many losers and few winners. History teaches us that this dangerous vortex can only be broken by mutual disarmament treaties. This requires pragmatic diplomacy, but also a strong international anti-war movement capable of exerting pressure from the base.

If you want peace, prepare for peace

To further fuel the overheated arms race, Belgian prime minister Bart De Wever and his lot like to revert to a late Roman text intended to reverse the decline of the Western Roman Empire through stricter military discipline and increased military spending: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war"). That has never been a slogan of peace, but always a slogan of militarisation and war. And, it did not get the Romans much further: a few decades later, their empire had collapsed.

History teaches us that wars and arms races are not stopped by those at the top, but by those who pay its and are the first to suffer from war. Both in the period before the First and Second World Wars, the workers' movement was a powerful force against militarisation and for social progress. The left should not simply adjust to the new militarist consensus, its role is to question the hypocrisy of the West, the bellicose conflicts of interest and the destructive arms race.

The reality is simple: if you want war, prepare for war. If you want peace, prepare for peace. We will have to enforce that peace, from the bottom up, working for social justice and socialism.