Militarism: The Greatest Threat to Security Policy Today

Militarism in Security Policy Is the Number One Security Risk

Walter Baier, President of the European Left

Introduction

Neither a Continuation of the War Nor an Imperialist Predatory Peace

The European Left has condemned Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which violates international law, from day one. However, it has also criticized the European Union’s strategy of “ruining” Russia (quoting Annalena Baerbock, German Minister of Foreign Affairs) militarily and economically, which was unrealistic from the outset. Instead, the EL has called for initiatives for a political solution to the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and between Russia and NATO that underlie the war.

The normalization of relations between Russia and the USA is in the interest of world peace. However, it cannot replace a peace process in which the Ukrainian government participates on an equal footing.

Following Trump’s U-turn in US foreign policy, two scenarios are emerging: (a) a continuation of the war, even if US involvement is stopped or reduced, as the EU Commission is preparing; and (b) a predatory peace à la Putin and Trump, who divide up the country and Ukraine’s resources between them. Both are unacceptable from a democratic and internationalist perspective. Neither scenario addresses the fundamental role of capitalist expansion and militarization in perpetuating global conflict.

The EL demands a return to international law, the conclusion of a ceasefire agreement, and its implementation within the framework of the United Nations. The EL calls on the EU to redirect the billions allocated at the special summit for further arms deliveries to Ukraine towards reconstruction and, as a first step, cancel Ukraine’s debts.

Return to International Law

The EU has neither supported political initiatives to end the war nor taken any initiatives of its own but has relied exclusively on Ukraine’s military victory. Today, it is obvious that this strategy has failed. Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer are now trying to engage militarily outside the EU by offering to deploy peacekeeping troops at the head of a “coalition of the willing.” That would be like setting a fox to guard the geese. Worse still, for the first time, troops from the three European nuclear powers—Russia, France, and the UK—would be directly confronting each other in Ukraine. We would be one step closer to a general European war.

Given the risk of escalation, it must be said: Neither NATO membership for Ukraine nor a so-called “coalition of the willing” led by NATO countries can contribute to peace. The war, which began with a breach of international law, can only be ended by a return to international law. The only body authorized to mandate international peacekeeping troops is the UN Security Council through a consensual decision by its permanent members.

There Are Not Too Few but Too Many Weapons in Europe

The shift in US foreign policy has dramatically increased the urgency of Europe’s responsibility for its own security. On March 6, the European Council will meet for a special summit in Brussels, where Ursula von der Leyen will present a comprehensive armament program for the European Union. In doing so, she is repeating and exacerbating her previous mistake of misunderstanding security as primarily a military problem.

The demand for member states to increase armaments expenditure as a share of GDP was 2% yesterday, 3% today, and 5% tomorrow. Meanwhile, funds on this scale are unthinkable in the fight against climate change. This prioritization of military spending over social welfare reflects the neoliberal logic of austerity for the poor and limitless funding for war.

While new financial rules force EU states to resume the austerity policies that were suspended to deal with the consequences of the pandemic, defense spending is exempted from austerity targets. Eight hundred billion euros for armaments are to be raised in part through joint EU borrowing, and the European Investment Bank, responsible for promoting regional and cohesion policy projects, is being reprogrammed as a money machine for the arms industry. This further enriches arms manufacturers while working-class people bear the burden of economic hardship.

The assertion that the West is inferior to its potential opponents in terms of armaments—on which this insane armament is based—is false. In fact, the 23 European NATO members spend more than twice as much on armaments as the Russian Federation. On a global level, the picture is similar: The combined military expenditure of NATO and its allies is three times that of China and Russia combined. This shows that there are not too few weapons in Europe but too many. So, what is the purpose of overarmament if not to enable arms companies to make exorbitant profits at the public’s expense and to pursue strategic superiority?

The Demilitarization of Security Policy Is Needed

Strategic superiority between nuclear powers is a dangerous illusion. Armament leads to counter-armament, which in turn leads to further escalation. As a result, insecurity increases for everyone. In the nuclear age, militaristic security thinking is the number one security risk.

Security in a humane sense means protection from pandemics, climate change, and shortages of water, food, and healthcare. It requires redistributing resources away from the arms race toward humanitarian purposes. None of the major social and environmental problems within our societies or on a global scale can be solved without overcoming militarism in politics and public discourse. Anti-militarist politics must be inseparable from climate justice, public health, and social equality struggles.

“If you want peace, prepare for war”—a phrase often cited by EU leaders, NATO representatives, military officials, and policymakers to justify their reckless agenda—has a troubling history. Originally used in ancient Rome to legitimize imperialism and militarism, it now serves as a dangerously flawed rationale in the nuclear age. Today, this misguided logic is not just a call for military preparedness—it is a pathway to global annihilation. In a world armed with nuclear weapons, this mindset no longer guarantees peace but instead threatens the very survival of humanity.

Europe – Nuclear Weapon-Free by 2050

With 500 major cities and 167 nuclear power plants on our continent, the assumption of a nuclear shield stretched across Europe has always been absurd. Could one ever assume that a US government would sacrifice New York or Chicago to defend Berlin or Brussels? In fact, the US nuclear doctrine of “Flexible Response” was designed to limit an assumed nuclear war to Europe. The planned stationing of US medium-range missiles in Germany next year would once again increase the risk of war in Europe. Instead of turning the armament spiral, the EU must advocate for the reduction and abolition of all nuclear weapons in Europe, as provided for in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which is valid under international law. Our goal must be to free Europe from nuclear weapons by 2050.

Europe’s strategic autonomy cannot be achieved militarily or through the expansion of the arms industry but requires reducing military tensions on our continent.

The EU is not Europe and will not be in the foreseeable future. Security cannot be conceived as a privilege of individual states or a group of states. Given the current state of weapons technology, Europe will either have common security for all states or general insecurity. When this realization took hold during the Cold War, 33 European states, plus the USA and Canada, signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Helsinki 50 years ago. Without military détente and cooperation among European states and neighboring countries, there can be no European autonomy. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which emerged from the CSCE, forms the appropriate international legal framework for Europe’s peace policy autonomy.

To achieve this, the EU must adopt a policy focused on peace and disarmament. This requires a peace movement encompassing broad sections of society, uniting parties, trade unions, religious communities, and social movements. The Left in Europe and in every country must contribute to this effort.