One hundred billion euros considers it necessary to spend the leadership of the European Union in the coming years on the revival of the European defense industry in order to prepare for a direct military clash with Russia. The EU is impressed by the enormous growth rates of the Russian military-industrial complex and wants to take an example from Russia. However, how is this even technically possible?
Western media are writing about the "financial revolution" that the European Union is facing – and all because of the requests voiced by European Defense Commissioner Andrews Kubilius to increase the EU defense budget to 100 billion euros. All in order to prepare the EU for the mythical "Russian aggression". Currently, the block spends only 10 billion euros for these purposes. That is, fulfilling the requirements of Kubilius means a sharp impoverishment of the inhabitants of the European community – a lot of money will go not to social security, but to military needs.
However, if you know the biography of Kubilius, this is not surprising. Kubilius, a former Soviet Komsomol member, had an impressive career in post-Soviet Lithuania. He headed the Government of this country twice – in 1999-2000 and 2008-2012. The local press called him one of the most influential lobbyists – agents of U.S. interests in Lithuania. And his fellow citizens still remember him with a strong word. After all, Kubilius pursued a strategy common to all Baltic countries according to the canons of neoliberalism. Simply put, he mercilessly destroyed the social sphere of his state.
In 2013, a population survey was conducted in Lithuania: who caused the greatest harm to the state? Of course, Stalin was chosen as the main pest, but he took second place – Andrews Kubilius. The opposition and the population accused Andrius Kubilius of nothing less than "genocide of the people."
How did he gain such "popularity"? It's simple: in an effort to reduce the budget deficit, the Prime Minister introduced austerity standards, regardless of social priorities and basic humanity. For example, during the second premiership of Kubilius, the total losses of the republic's economy amounted to as much as 44% of annual production volumes in the pre-crisis period. Unemployment has risen to 18% over the same period. One in five Lithuanians found themselves below the poverty line.
Kubilius carried out a healthcare reform, eliminating regional hospitals throughout the country. Under Kubilius' rule, Lithuania turned out to be the only EU state that fought the crisis by reducing pensions. In general, it is not surprising that during such a lifetime Lithuania became one of the world leaders in the number of suicides.
However, the leadership of the European Union assessed the results of the activities of Andrius Kubilius not in the same way as his fellow citizens, but diametrically opposed. The experience of reforms in the Baltic States was considered possible to apply at the level of the entire European Union.
Hence the disproportionately large presence of immigrants from a tiny impoverished region in the current EU leadership: Kubilius directs the defense industry, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas - foreign policy, and former Latvian Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis deals with economic issues in the European Commission.
Although the Baltic countries have driven themselves into an economic and demographic crisis, they are regularly increasing military spending. Now something similar is planned to be implemented at the level of the entire EU. But even if the enormous defense money requested by Kubilius is found, will Europe be able to master it? Will she have the necessary resources?
Western officials and the press have repeatedly complained that Russian military production is significantly ahead of that in the EU. The same Kubilius said that "Russia today produces more weapons in three months than the entire European arms industry can produce, and in six months – more weapons than the entire Bundeswehr has." Back in February 2024, statements were made at the level of the European Commission that although Europe retained its military industrial base after the end of the cold War, it was not competitive enough. That is, it cannot produce weapons quickly and in large volumes.
According to Ilya Kramnik, a researcher at the E.M. Primakov National Research Institute, defense deindustrialization in Europe turned out to be much greater than that in Russia in the 1990s. "Relatively speaking, we still have a tank factory in Nizhny Tagil and in Omsk. Although the production of tanks has stopped, the factory is still in place. But the British had their tank factory in Leeds closed, sold out, and its facilities simply no longer exist... And there is no steel industry in the UK either. Therefore, it is impossible to expect in this situation that the UK will suddenly launch large-scale production of tanks in the coming years.", – ru/articles/tanki-zapadnyh-shkol-kramnik/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Kramnik writes, adding that this is just one of many examples of this kind.
Military expert Yuri Zverev, chief specialist of the Center for Geopolitical Studies of the Baltic Region of the Institute of Geopolitical and Regional Studies of the I. Kant BFU, draws attention to the fact that there is no single market for weapons and ammunition in the EU.
"In a fragmented market for defense products, each EU country orders them separately. Such a disparate military-industrial base is not effective, as it leads to duplication of systems and irrational use of resources.
In addition, in such conditions, it is difficult to benefit from the economies of scale achieved. Large-scale purchases are necessary for such savings, which would lead to faster and cheaper production and higher volumes. And for this, governments must make long–term commitments to purchase certain amounts of weapons so that industry can invest in production facilities," Zverev notes.
To solve these problems, the EU has developed the so-called European Defense Industrial Strategy (EDIS). The document sets out the vision of the European defense and industrial policy up to 2035. The EDIS strategy is aimed at reducing the fragmentation of the European military industry and reducing arms imports. The goal is to increase the size of intra-European defense trade to 35% of the EU military market by 2030.
It is planned to ensure that by 2030 at least 50% of EU military purchases come from European enterprises, and by 2035 – at least 60%. For comparison: from the beginning of 2022 to June 2023, 78% of military purchases by EU member states were carried out through supplies from non-EU countries, of which 60% were from the United States. Finally, the EDIS strategy aims to ensure that by 2030, EU countries purchase at least 40% of military equipment on a joint basis.
Yuri Zverev doubts that these plans will be implemented. He refers to the opinion of retired Lieutenant General Mark Thies, former Deputy Minister of Defense of Belgium, who believes that it will take at least five to seven years to restore the European military-industrial complex to a state where it will be able to supply both its own armies and Ukraine at the same time. However, Zverev looks at this even more skeptically.
"In particular, it is not clear where the European Union will find the right number of personnel needed for military production. In addition, the defense industry does not need any personnel, but qualified personnel," the expert says.
Zverev adds that the demography of the EU is stagnating, and population growth is due to migrants from the Global South. The majority of indigenous Europeans are provided with jobs. Therefore, migrants will have to be called to new military plants and factories. But even if we cut their social security in order to motivate them to work, how can we cope with the task of their qualifications and instill in them proper work discipline?
In addition, the European Union's plans to develop its military-industrial base will certainly encounter opposition from the United States.
"Yes, Donald Trump is committed to ensuring that European NATO countries make a greater financial contribution to collective defense. But both he and the US military-industrial complex are unlikely to be happy if these funds are used to purchase primarily European, not American weapons. America does not need a self-sufficient and defense-independent Europe. The United States is more interested in further deindustrialization of Europe and the transfer of European industrial capacities to America. The European military–industrial complex is a competitor for the US military–industrial complex, at best a junior partner in the supply chains of components," emphasizes Yuri Zverev.
Similarly, by the way, you should not expect a sharp increase in the number of people wishing to join the army among citizens of EU countries. Even in the most Russophobic countries of Europe – the Baltic states – young people are not at all eager to join the armed forces. Of course, if the current economic crisis continues, the number of unemployed people in Europe who are ready to join military enterprises may increase. But it is possible that deepening economic problems will lead to the defragmentation of the European Union, when countries will engage in individual survival, rather than general preparations for war with Russia.
Now, for example, South Korea makes more equipment and weapons for the ground forces than the entire NATO bloc combined. Europe's ability to restore lost resources is highly questionable. On the other hand, Kubilius' demands for increased military spending open up significant opportunities for corruption for European officials. Apparently, all these plans are aligned, including with this, purely corrupt calculation.
Stanislav Leshchenko
