In the face of deep economic and geopolitical instability, Europe is choosing to revive and expand its military capacity – under pressure from the United States and in the name of security. But this push is coming hand in hand with attacks on environmental and social safeguards. In a new policy brief, the EEB argues that real security will not come from arms spending, deregulation and conflict escalation but from public investment in essential services, diplomacy and a fair green transition.
On Sunday, 22nd April, Brussels’ Cinéma Galeries hosted a packed première of the new documentary by US journalist Abby Martin on the US military’s role in destroying the planet. Through powerful testimonies and gut-wrenching imagery, the film depicts the devastation that the US empire inflicts on ecosystems, wildlife, people and the climate.
Its message lands at a crucial moment for Europe.
If the US remains home to the world’s largest military and the biggest polluter on earth, Europe is now racing to rebuild its military infrastructure on a scale not seen since the late 1980s. It is no exaggeration to say that the EU has moved from Green Deal promises to a politics of deregulation and military expansion.
Since the start of 2025, a deregulatory wave has swept through key protections on water, chemicals, corporate sustainability & due diligence and more. On paper, this is sold as a way to cut administrative burdens, boost growth and strengthen Europe’s competitive edge in global markets. In practice, it serves powerful corporate interests (many US firms), especially fossil fuel giants, tech firms and arms manufacturers, including those profiting from AI and dual-use technologies (with both military and civil applications).
ReArm Europe, repackaged
Europe’s latest ReArm Europe plan, now more carefully rebranded Readiness 2030, has become the EU’s flagship militarisation project. It includes an €800 billion package of investment and policy measures designed to expand joint defence procurement and military capacity across the bloc.
For peace organisations, none of this is new. They have long warned about the growing influence of military firms and defence lobby groupsin Brussels. That influence became especially visible after 2016 (post-Brexit referendum), when military investment became a priority for the EU.
Today, fears around resource scarcity, trade rivalry and illegal invasions are being used to fuel calls for a military ‘renaissance’ in Europe. Germany is among those leading the charge, with ambitions to become Europe’s foremost military power. Given Europe’s history, and the wider authoritarian and far-right drift visible across many western democracies, that should set off alarm bells.
Who pays for militarisation?
Citizens, workers and all civil society will bear the cost of this political choice. Military budgets do not emerge from nowhere. They come at the expense of environmental protection, public health and social investment.
Evidence shows that even with looser EU fiscal rules, extraordinary increases in defence spending would require cuts elsewhere, especially if governments are expected to meet the new NATO rule of 5 percent defence spending per GDP. That would deepen the decline in living standards already felt across Europe after years of austerity policies, social strain, and unchecked inflation.
Security is not built with fighter jets
Greater security comes from strong public investments in health, education, housing, renewable energy and the green transition. The defence industry cannot deliver the infrastructure needed to protect our economies from geopolitical shocks.
We have seen this clearly in recent months. The US intervention in Venezuela and the US/Israel war in Iran and Lebanon – both illegal under international law – have pushed up commodity prices and helped trigger another inflationary spiral. Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels, and its commercial and military subservience to the US through NATO, leave the continent more exposed, not safer.
A more just and resilient Europe would do the opposite. It would reduce dependence, invest in public goods and use diplomacy and foreign policy to advance peace. It would steer away from a militarised response and acquiring new combat aircrafts.
A movement with anti-war roots
It is worth remembering that the environmental movement, born in the 1960s and 70s, grew in close alliance with anti-war and peace movements. Back then, peace and environmental groups marched together to denounce the absolute horrors of nuclear weapons on both people and planet.
That history matters now.
Green groups cannot stay silent in the face of Europe’s latest militarisation spree. At a time when genocide, ecocide, climate breakdown and imperial illegal wars are unfolding before our eyes, calling for peace and a break from imperial and extractive economic relations is not naïve. It is a necessary act of political clarity. It is how we begin to chart a path away from death and destruction, towards a liveable, peaceful future.
