EU: From Peace Project to War Machine

Born from the ashes of the Second World War, the European Union has always presented itself as a unique political experiment, founded on overcoming armed conflict through economic and cultural cooperation. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) , signed in 1951, had the explicit goal of linking the economies of European states in such a way as to make war "not only unthinkable, but materially impossible."

For decades, the European narrative was built around this identity: a continent that, after experiencing devastation, chose to reject war in favor of law, diplomacy, and economic solidarity.

Today, however, the scenario appears reversed. On the eve of the third decade of the 21st century, the Union seems to have abandoned its original vocation, transforming itself into a militarized geopolitical platform . A process accelerated by the war in Ukraine but rooted in a deeper identity crisis.

From the language of cohesion to that of weapons

The turning point came in just a few years. Since 2014, with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Donbass crisis, Brussels began to reassess its priorities. But it was the conflict that broke out in February 2022 that served as the catalyst.

In a few months:

• the European budget, historically allocated to infrastructure, agriculture and welfare, has been redirected towards military supplies ;

• specific tools were created such as ASAP (Act to Support Ammunition Production) , EDIRPA (European Defense Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act) and EDIS/EDIP (European Defense Industrial Strategy/Programme) ;

• people began to speak openly of a “war economy” as a new structural condition.

Josep Borrell himself, the High Representative for Foreign Policy, said it bluntly in April 2023:

"Our defense industry must shift from a peacetime approach to a wartime approach. It's a momentous shift, but a necessary one."

Words that signal a change of direction: no longer a Europe as a mediator, but a Europe that defines itself on the basis of its capacity to produce armaments .

And the numbers speak for themselves.

• ASAP has put 500 million euros on the table to increase the production of 155mm ammunition, with the stated goal of supplying Ukraine with one million shells by 2025 .

• EDIRPA , launched in 2023, has €300 million available to encourage joint procurement of armaments between member states.

• With EDIS/EDIP , presented in March 2024, the Commission announced the first real European Defence Industrial Strategy , with an initial budget of €1.5 billion .

It is no coincidence that Ursula von der Leyen emphatically claimed in her 2023 State of the Union address:

"For the first time in our history, we are financing military supplies with common European funds. This is a historic step towards a stronger European defense."

A statement that would have shocked the founding fathers of the European Community, for whom economic integration served precisely to exorcise the temptation of war.

Peace reduced to deterrence

At the same time, the concept of "peace" has also been redefined. It is no longer about compromise or diplomacy, but about deterrence .

Von der Leyen herself said it clearly to the European Parliament:

“We have demonstrated that when Europe acts together, we can ensure peace with the power of our deterrence.”

A phrase that completely reverses the original meaning of European integration. Peace is no longer the result of mediation, but rather the result of the ability to intimidate the adversary.

And Kaja Kallas, the new symbolic figure of European foreign policy, reiterated this with even clearer language in 2024:

"Talking about a ceasefire without concrete guarantees is helping Russia. True peace is built by strengthening our military capacity."

The EU as NATO's rear base

While once a distinction was emphasized between the military alliance led by the United States and the Union as a political and economic actor, today the two structures appear almost overlapping.

The standardization of Ukrainian forces in line with NATO, also financed by the EU, effectively transforms Kiev into a European expeditionary force .

The official narrative speaks of “European defense,” but in practice the Union becomes a military subcontractor of US strategy, sacrificing its autonomy.

Moscow remains anchored to European culture

One of the great paradoxes of Europe's new war posture is Russia's exclusion from the continent's political and cultural community. Official rhetoric presents it as a foreign body, an "other" radically incompatible with Europe.

Yet history and culture belie this reading.

Russia has made decisive contributions to classical music (Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky), literature (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov), philosophy (Solov'ëv, Berdyaev) and even to science and space exploration (Korolev and Gagarin).

Even in the most difficult moments of the Cold War, Russia remained an integral part of the European imagination. It is no coincidence that in the 1970s, in the midst of the East-West confrontation, Western Europe chose the path of détente , giving rise to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik and lasting energy agreements that enabled decades of industrial growth.

Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt often repeated it:

“Russia can never be excluded from Europe, because it is an integral part of it by geography, culture and history.”

Today, however, an artificial fracture is being constructed, depriving Europe of the possibility of being a bridge between West and East and forcing it into a logic of permanent opposition.

The economy suffocated: the energy issue

Militarization also has a direct impact on European economies. The break with Moscow marked the end of decades of energy relations that had made Europe industrially competitive.

• Germany , the continent's driving force, relied on cheap energy from Russia. According to the Munich-based IFO Institute , in 2024 German industry experienced its worst postwar decline in competitiveness, with a 20% decline in chemical and metallurgical production.

• Belgium , an industrial and logistics hub, has also seen soaring energy costs, impacting ports and supply chains.

• Overall, the EU has had to replace Russian gas with LNG supplies from the United States at prices up to four times higher.

The result is a progressive competitive impoverishment of Europe compared to the United States and Asia.

Conclusion: a crossroads for Europe

Europe finds itself at a crossroads: either it can continue down the path of militarization and a break with Moscow, accepting a competitive decline and an erosion of internal consensus, or it can recover its original vocation, founded on cooperation and dialogue.

The question remains open: does the European Union really want to become a permanent war actor, sacrificing its soul as a peace project?

****

References (for further information) Cultural and historical insights