At the beginning of March, at the special EU summit in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defined Europe's current situation as a 'watershed moment' and announced a 'rearm Europe' plan worth approximately 800 billion euros. This move is regarded as a crucial step for the EU to shake off its status as a'security vassal' and reshape its strategic autonomy, and it is also a forced action. However, whether this plan can enable Europe to truly build up a common defense capability is constrained by the path - dependence of historical inertia and also faces numerous dilemmas of real - world constraints.
Shortly after the summit, at the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, von der Leyen confidently briefed European lawmakers on the results of the special EU summit. 'We need to boost European defense capabilities very quickly,' 'We need it right now,' 'It's time to establish a common defense.' Under her impassioned speech, stocks in the European defense sector soared for a while. Armin Papperger, the CEO of German defense company Rheinmetall, said that Europe has entered an era of arms expansion, which means 'unprecedented growth prospects' for the company.
In fact, the idea of European defense autonomy has been proposed for a long time, but there has been little progress in implementation and action. An important factor is the historical security dependence on the United States. World War II greatly weakened the economic and military strength of European countries. The United States helped Europe's economic recovery through the Marshall Plan and dominated the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a US - controlled military organization, in 1949. NATO became the foundation of Europe's security strategy for decades. 'Relying on the US for security' has become the biggest weakness of post - war European defense.
Now, it is no easy task for Europe to correct the path of defense dependence. Not only is there a lack of decision - making thinking for defense autonomy, but the material basis of each country's defense capabilities is also obviously insufficient. Especially in the production of military equipment, the European defense industry chain is deeply embedded in the US system, and there are many difficulties in establishing an independent and complete defense industry system in the future. Data shows that EU countries are heavily dependent on foreign defense equipment, with nearly two - thirds of military purchases coming from the United States.
A recent inventory of the current strength of European military powers by a media outlet revealed Europe's predicament: France is a nuclear power and a comprehensive player in the defense industry, but it has a shortage of ammunition stocks; the nuclear - armed United Kingdom has clearly shown its weakness in ammunition supply capacity during the process of aiding Ukraine; Germany's equipment inventory is full of obsolete weapons... Some people say that under the US umbrella, Europeans have already packed their defense production capacity into museums.
Under the NATO framework, European countries have focused on developing special - purpose equipment to avoid homogeneous competition, resulting in a complex pattern of 178 weapon systems. The low degree of weapon standardization affects the synergy of joint operations. Some military experts analyze that this 'arms jigsaw puzzle' phenomenon has increased maintenance costs and weakened the rapid - response ability. The EU has begun to realize that the biggest enemy of European defense is not the geopolitical storms, but the never - overlapping procurement preferences on each country's military supply lists.
What also never overlaps are the security perceptions and interest demands of European countries, which makes defense autonomy face structural contradictions. The United Kingdom adheres to the principle of giving priority to NATO. Poland's vigilance towards joint command exposes the trust deficit between old and new Europe. The differences in funding allocation between Southern and Northern Europe reflect the differences in strategic perception. Although the special summit passed the 'rearm Europe' plan, some leaders of member states still expressed dissatisfaction. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that she was worried about the pressure on Italy's public debt caused by increased military spending. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on social media that he agreed with the proposal to strengthen the defense capabilities of European countries, but it should empower member states rather than increase the power of EU officials.
It is also necessary to mention the issue of macro - economic policy. 800 billion euros is no small amount. The huge expansion of defense spending may also reshape the logic of European monetary policy, and the traditional inflation - control framework faces structural challenges. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde issued a warning in Frankfurt, Germany on the 12th: As the EU initiates counter - measures against US steel and aluminum tariffs, the escalation of the trade war combined with the sharp increase in member states' military spending may lead to continuous inflation out - of - control in the eurozone.
Europe regards defense autonomy as an important part of strategic autonomy. But even if the 800 - billion - euro defense plan breaks through numerous difficulties and is implemented, will European strategic autonomy really take a step forward? Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University in the United States, provided another perspective in a recent speech in the European Parliament. In his view, when the world talks about major powers, Europe is not included because Europe has no foreign policy, 'only loyalty to the United States'.
This means that if Europe wants to achieve strategic autonomy and become an important 'pole' on the world stage, it needs to have a political mindset that refuses to be a vassal and a truly independent foreign strategy. Relying solely on the 800 - billion - euro 'rearm Europe' plan, this goal is likely to be difficult to achieve.