One of the first ReArmament plans was introduced by the European Commission on March 4, 2025, featuring extensive strategies for mobilizing and managing funds for future defense development. The inauguration of Trump’s administration created a particularly turbulent environment and heightened tensions in trans-Atlantic relations. The reliability of the US defense and security umbrella was seriously questioned, which likely incentivized European decision-makers and investors to focus on defense capacity-building.
Most recently, on June 25, 2025, NATO member states agreed to invest 5% of national GDPs in defense, achieving a long-argued and long-delayed goal for the alliance. European leaders have assured alliance partners of their genuine commitment and readiness to make real efforts in defense and security.
Strengths
The year 2025 has made some threats extremely clear to European leaders, communities, and political establishments. Escalating Russian aggression in Ukraine, including increasing nuclear brinkmanship maneuvring, and a questioned trans-Atlantic partnership have brought the European community to a natural common ground about the urgency of European ReArmament.
The clarity of threats and geopolitical challenges represents the major strength of the ReArmament process and the foundation for its success. The context which has brought and highlighted this issue is crystal clear for almost every actor, party, or stakeholder, preventing ambiguities and vagueness in political discourse.
Another strength of the European ReArmament process is the relative unanimity about this issue among key European powers and economies. Germany, France, Italy and the UK share fairly common postures about the ReArmament. Although each state has its own political, fiscal, and industrial issues to address, the strong agreement about the need to increase efforts in the defense and security field is quite evident. This general agreement about the issue increases the chances of European ReArmament realization and accomplishment of the set goals.
Weaknesses Regarding the weaknesses of the European ReArmament, the most obvious complication is the application of cohesive policy in a system, where national security, defense spending, and fiscal policies are national prerogatives and are largely disconnected from supranational authorities and organizations. Article 4(2) of the Treaty of the European Union explains that national security is the sole responsibility of each member state. The European Union still lacks a clear framework for how defense and security issues can be addressed unanimously, which can delay or hinder efficient implementation of ReArmament plans.
Additionally, another fragility lies in the lack of cohesive views and different readiness levels for increasing efforts in defense and security domains among European states. Despite the fact that the common ground around ReArmament is stronger than ever in Europe, still the situation is still far from idyllic harmony and unity.
It is important to mention that Europe is facing a major shift towards a defense-focused economy, which naturally entails various changes in policies and controversies throughout the region. Increased defense spending typically requires massive adjustments in fiscal policies and budget management, and consequently can trigger huge public debates and anxieties.
Opportunities
Every crisis can be seen as an opportunity. The existing geopolitical challenges can also incentivize European political elites and governments to focus on issues that would hardly be at the center of attention without circumstances that are strategically important. First, the artillery-centric war in Ukraine has made it clear that Europe is significantly behind in ammunition production. Therefore, this period of history may be one of the best moments to develop production capacities and military manufacturing.
Furthermore, such critical situations can create a fertile ground for major changes in EU institutions and their procedures. The two key points in creating and reshaping the Union were the Treaties of Maastricht (1992) and Lisbon (2007). The current position of European powers can lead public and political discourse towards developing the EU framework in defense and security fields as well, which have been mainly left under national jurisdictions. One could argue that better circumstances for opening this topic are unlikely to occur in the near future. In 2019, the EU first established a common framework for the screening of foreign direct investments in crucial domains for member states’ and the union’s security - critical infrastructure and technologies, including key enabling technologies. The crisis-driven atmosphere around the European ReArmament can foster further discussion about investments and the union’s frameworks that can reshape the EU itself and make it more resilient in security matters.
Threats
Concerning the potential threats to Europe’s ReArmament efforts, the turbulent international environment offers various risks coming from outside Europe. First and foremost, the rise of far-right powers in many European states can threaten European integrity and cooperation in defense and security. While there may not be a direct linear correlation in defense policies, almost all these powers have Euroscepticism as their core foundation, thereby endangering European unity especially in domains that are traditionally perceived as territories of national sovereignty.
Moreover, the long-term future is expected to be characterized by considerable instability. These fluctuations may come from changing dynamics of American politics, the 2026 midterm elections, or the 2028 presidential elections. Some actors in Europe may hope to reverse the course of history, continue massive dependency on the U.S. and not feel an urgency to increase defense efforts. Additionally, a sudden shift in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war can significantly modify European positions and attitudes. Ultimately, these and other unsettled variables over the long term can complicate the perspectives of European ReArmament.
Conclusion
The European ReArmament initiative represents a pivotal moment in the continent’s post-Cold War history. While clear threats and unprecedented unity among major powers create a strong foundation for success, significant institutional and political challenges remain. The current geopolitical crisis offers unique opportunities to strengthen European defense capabilities and reshape EU frameworks, yet long-term instability and rising Euroscepticism pose substantial risks. The ultimate success of European ReArmament will depend on overcoming structural weaknesses while capitalizing on the current momentum for change. Europe’s ability to navigate these complexities will determine whether this initiative becomes a transformative milestone or falls short of its ambitious goals.
Follow the comments:
|
