Europe is experiencing a war on its territory, the invasion of Ukraine. The EU fears that Putin will attack a country of the NATO -Ukraine is not a member- before 2030. Europe should be able to defend itself "within three to five years," because the main and "credible" threat comes from Russia, insisted Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen yesterday. Europe adopts a warlike language and stance.
The EU institutions have taken on a warlike vocabulary; they call on and pressure countries for "urgent" rearmament, with missiles and drones, while Spain immerses itself in the language battle, trying to save its strategy of presenting Defense spending as a broader concept, not limited to ammunition, missiles, or tanks, but extending it to concepts such as cybersecurity, border control, ecological transition that triggers migrations or disasters...
In this context, the European Commission presented this week the ReArm Europe Plan, which leaders discussed yesterday at a European Council. The document already makes its intentions clear with the name, an idea that is emphasized in its 23 pages: "This white paper sets out a comprehensive plan to rearm Europe and strengthen its defense to address threats." Another reflection: "This white paper provides a framework for the ReArm Europe Plan, outlining the reasons for an exceptional increase in European investment in Defense."
This language and the fact that a massive investment in missiles, ammunition, air defense, or drones is requested disrupts La Moncloa's strategy, which is aimed in two directions: 1. Sweeten that Defense spending to try to insert a broader and less belligerent vision into the collective imagination. 2. Appease the discomfort and rejection of its partners, who are opposed to increasing military spending. Just yesterday, in Congress, Sumar voted against the rearmament plan and called for leaving NATO.
"I really don't like the term rearmament at all," Sánchez criticized upon his arrival at the European Council. He reiterated this stance late into the night. His thesis is: "I do not share that term at all. We have to address our citizens in a different way when we talk about the need to improve European security and defense capabilities." An attempt to stake out a position to distance himself, with a national context component, as his governance partners have already indicated that there will be no unity on this matter.
Although Sánchez's strategy is clear, and despite his complaints upon arriving in Brussels, he did not garner support, as can be inferred from his responses after the meeting, well into the night. He was asked if he had managed to "convince" his counterparts "to change the rearmament approach," a criticism that seems to be shared only with Meloni. The Spanish president avoided clarifying whether he had managed to "convince" anyone, simply repeating his argument about the difference between Defense and Security. Later, he was pressed on whether Von der Leyen "was wrong" or "did not consult" that ReArmament titled in the EU plan. Sánchez then slipped in a "I don't want to talk about decisions already made," an acknowledgment that the semantic battle is lost, although he reiterated the different needs between Southern European countries (terrorism or migrations from the Mediterranean, for example) and the threats to Eastern countries (direct military aggressions from Russia).
While making pedagogical efforts, the reality in Brussels is moving in a different direction. The prevailing idea in European institutions is: "Europe must prepare for war." Kallas demanded yesterday to prioritize the 5 billion plan to supply two million rounds of ammunition. Once again, warlike language and approaches. "We should start taking really concrete steps, not just words, but also actions to help Ukraine right now," indicated the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy.
Sánchez has the support of Giorgia Meloni on this matter, who also does not view calling it Rearm Europe favorably because she considers it "misleading for citizens." Despite this endorsement, Sánchez's position is in the minority. He is walking a different path from most leaders, far from leading as he could have done in the past. The focus on military spending and a context of war blur it.