On March 19, 2025, the European Commission presented a report entitled, Joint White Paper on European Defense Readiness – 2030.
This White Paper lays out a clear roadmap for increased defense spending and a more integrated European defense industry, ensuring better cooperation among member states.
It also proposes solutions for increased mobility of armed forces, stockpiling of weapons and ammunition, and border security, especially along the EU’s eastern borders. The document also emphasizes the need for deeper integration with Ukraine’s defense sector, highlighting Europe’s commitment to long-term security support, i.e., to the continuation of the Kiev junta’s current conflict with Russia.
Unambiguously, the authors of this document make it clear that it is Russia that is the main threat to them. The White Paper states that
Threats to European security are proliferating in a way that poses an acute threat to our way of life. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there was growing consciousness of just how dangerous a security environment we operate in…. Russia poses a major strategic threat on the battlefield. It has forced Europe and our partners to confront the reality of major mechanised high-intensity war on the European continent on a scale not seen since 1945. Russia – already the most heavily armed European state by a huge distance – is now running a war economy, focused overwhelmingly on the prosecution of its war aims, based on industrial mobilisation and technological innovation…. Russia has made it clear that according to their understanding they remain at war with the West. If Russia is allowed to achieve its goals in Ukraine, its territorial ambition will extend beyond. Russia will remain a fundamental threat to Europe’s security for the foreseeable future, including its more aggressive nuclear posture and the positioning of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Russia is exploiting a network of systemic instability, including through close cooperation with other authoritarian powers. It is persistently fuelling tensions and instability in Europe’s neighbourhood, whether it is in the Western Balkans, Georgia, Moldova or Armenia and has a growing destabilising influence in Africa.
In general, we have the entire array of classic scaremongering clichés, which used to be characteristic of analytical centers from the United States, but which now have migrated to Europe.
To be fair, it should be noted that China is also mentioned both in the context of the successes of the military-industrial complex of this country and in connection with partnership agreements with Russia. Iran is similarly mentioned, and, of course, Belarus. But they are in the background, while Russia is mentioned repeatedly.
At the same time, the EU released the European Rearmament Plan – Readiness 2030, which provides financial instruments for the implementation of the strategies outlined in the White Paper:
It enables Member States to access over €800 billion in defence investments, with mechanisms such as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE), which will raise €150 billion in funding for joint military procurement. This funding will be channelled into European-made defence equipment, supporting innovation and ensuring interoperability between national forces.
As part of the financial strategy, the European Commission also encouraged member states to use the Stability and Growth Pact’s clause allowing them to temporarily increase defense spending within budgetary rules. In addition, the European Investment Bank will play a key role in mobilizing private capital to support defense projects.
Speaking on the urgency of the initiative, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “The era of the peace dividend is long gone. The security architecture that we relied on can no longer be taken for granted…. Europe is ready to step up. We are ready to take control of the change that is inevitable…. We must invest in defense, strengthen our capabilities and take a proactive approach to security.”
While the EU has had examples of various overly ambitious programs that got stalled, such as green energy, there is a good chance that the EU will still try to build up its military capabilities, partly at the expense of taxpayers and reorienting budgets from other areas. By the way, von der Leyen, speaking about the importance of this initiative, also justified it by referring to the US demand for Europe to invest more in its own defense.
Incidentally, this month also saw the release of the US Intelligence Community’s Annual Threat Assessment.
Although, in all likelihood, this report was prepared under the previous administration, still, objectively speaking, Washington continues to think in old clichés, despite the official rhetoric of Donald Trump and his colleagues about the urgency of it.
This Assessment states that “Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—individually and collectively—are challenging U.S. interests in the world by attacking or threatening others in their regions, with both asymmetric and conventional hard power tactics, and promoting alternative systems to compete with the United States, primarily in trade, finance, and security. They seek to challenge the United States and other countries through deliberate campaigns to gain an advantage, while also trying to avoid direct war. Growing cooperation between and among these adversaries is increasing their fortitude against the United States, the potential for hostilities with any one of them to draw in another, and pressure on other global actors to choose sides.”
If Trump really wanted détente, peace and disarmament, it is unlikely that this document would have been released unedited. What it does document is how U.S. security officials see Russia. And it is little different from both the Joe Biden era and the first term of President Donald Trump (2017-2020).
The document also says that Russia has learned important lessons from the war in Ukraine, and has since modernized a number of its weapons systems and become more effective on the battlefield. Adding to this the resilience of the economy to sanctions, especially in the military-industrial sector, we can see that the U.S. has simply realized the futility of its tough measures against Russia (as they have the opposite effect, for example, the development of alternative methods of banking transactions) and is trying to develop a different strategy of behavior. The current negotiation process on Ukraine is one of the operational elements of this emerging new U.S. strategy. We need to realize that, given the historical retrospective of this state’s actions in the foreign arena, it is unlikely that there will be dramatic changes there, and yesterday’s hawks will suddenly become doves of peace.
Courtesy: Geopolitika.
