The EU Shifts to “Warfare” State (Uncut) 03-06-2025

 WW3: The EU Shifts to “Warfare” State, Will Cut Social Spending to Re-Arm for War

The European Union is planning to militarize its economy. Ursula von der Leyen recently laid out her plans to, quote, rearm, using her own words, to rearm Europe and do so urgently and as urgently as possible. She feels that there is an imminent threat and she’s really looking out for your best interest, Europeans.

But jokes aside, of course, to support her plan to transition to a war economy, you will be required to contribute. You will be required to give up the lifestyle that you may be used to or the lifestyle that you would like to have, but she wants you to know that it is a small price to pay. The degree of absurdity is quite entertaining.

Following the Ukraine summit in London, Ursula von der Leyen explained what needs to happen, what she wants to happen in order for Europe to transition to a war economy. Here’s the clip. Take a look.

We are in an era of rearmament, and Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending, both to respond to the short-term urgency to act and to support Ukraine, but also to address the long-term need to take on more responsibility for our own European security. And this is why today I have written a letter to the leaders ahead of Thursday’s European Council. This is why we are here together today.

I have outlined in this letter to the leaders the Rearm Europe plan. This set of proposals focuses on how to use all the financial levers at our disposal in order to help member states to quickly and significantly increase expenditures in defense capabilities, urgently now, but also over a longer period of time over this decade. Financial Times recently published an article to really drive that point home because it appears that many don’t really understand what will be required of them.

They don’t understand what is needed in order to militarize. And what’s needed is for every EU state to slash, to cut its spending on social programs, to increase taxes as a possibility, and naturally to take on more public debt to finance rearming initiatives. The title of the article is Europe must trim its welfare state to build a warfare state.

The author explains there is no way of defending the continent without cuts to social spending. So it is quite interesting that he’s talking about the continent. He’s talking about the continent to make it more dramatic, even though he’s really speaking about the EU.

But, you know, the goal here is to dramatize, to make it scary. So it is clear as day now building a warfare state, as the EU leaders announced, will impact every single European through new policies that the EU will put in place to support this agenda. Anyone under 80 who has spent their life in Europe can be excused for regarding a giant welfare state as the natural way of things.

In truth, it was the product of strange historical circumstances which prevailed in the second half of the 20th century and no longer do. So he’s telling you to just forget about those good old days. In reality, what we had in the second half of the 20th century was relative peace.

And that’s what enabled opening borders, that’s what enabled international trade, and that’s what enabled prosperity. The article sort of corners us with a question. The mission now is to defend Europe’s lives.

How, if not through a smaller welfare state, is a better armed continent to be funded? Again, he’s referring to the continent. He wants to dramatize this. He wants you to fear for your life.

And they’re not really telling you that their fear-mongering is based on a quiet, troubled imagination and servicing the interests of a small group of people. Of course not. They don’t leave you an option to ask good questions, such as, why don’t we just start really working and supporting peace initiatives? Why don’t we get competent diplomats in to resolve any issues that we may have? Why don’t we respect each other’s security interests as a way to coexist peacefully? Those questions are not allowed.

They prefer to phrase this as if you don’t really have a choice but to support the solution for the problem of their own making. Here, Financial Times says the quiet part out loud. The question is whether the public agrees.

This is my favorite part of the entire article. The question is whether the public agrees. They know that you wouldn’t agree.

Then they say there’s no assurance whether rich democratic societies can make difficult reforms, except in a crisis. So therefore, this is key, therefore a crisis must be created. Chronic discomfort isn’t enough.

An element of real fear has to come in as perhaps it has now. So this is quite shocking. They tell you that you being simply in a chronic state of discomfort, which is this permanent state of discomfort and fear, that is no longer enough.

They want you to live in fear constantly, quite literally. And to accomplish that goal, they’ve been focusing on fear-mongering and warmongering, pushing propaganda efforts into overdrive, just so that you accept the plans that they have for you and you don’t rebel against these plans that clearly hurt you and your well-being in the long term. Financial Times even admits that Europe has substantial structural financial issues.

It first says financing its military ambitions through public debt isn’t as easy as it may seem. Borrowing, Britain and France have had tense moments with bond investors of late. Public debt nears or exceeds national output in both countries, as it does in Italy.

One way around this might be some Europeanization of debt. So the solution might be to privatize gains and to socialize losses. Europeanization of debt is a great sugar-coated phrase.

It’s quite a genius, in fact, I would say. Of course, then they offer you a solution how you can make a difference. It says, well, because the EU countries are in this financial hole, we just told you that taking on debt is really difficult for us, you can actually pay higher taxes and contribute a fair share, but you will be okay with that, right? It goes on to say, the other option is to raise taxes.

At the margins, this could happen. So the author seems to know that none of these options, raising more debt or raising taxes, would be popular, but he still leads you to the conclusion that he would like you to make. He says, either way, the welfare state, as we have known it, must retreat somewhat.

Not enough that we will no longer call it by its name, but enough to hurt. So it’s okay if it hurts, he says. It was never designed for a world in which living to 100 is banal.

As the most military-exposed place, this isn’t tenable. So the entire argument appears to be based on the fear-mongering narrative that has been used by many European leaders to funnel billions of dollars to fund NATO’s proxy conflict against Russia and to fund the most corrupt regime in Europe, Zelensky’s regime. Yet despite Zelensky being told during the summit in Europe that he must find ways to apologize to the White House for his behavior at the Oval Office about a week ago and to figure out ways to align with the Trump administration, despite those facts, the EU appears to be set on pushing the same old tired narrative that there is an imminent threat to it, to its security, and it must react in the most illogical and self-detrimental way imaginable.

The article published by the Financial Times is one of those things that really make you regret and even, you know, possibly change your subscription to this news outlet. This is truly one of those things that make you regret even subscribing to them. Well, thank you so much for watching.

Let me know what you think about this in the comments below. I would love to hear from you. Remember to follow me on worldaffairsandcontacts.com, become a subscriber, support my work.

Enjoy the rest of your day, and I will see you back here tomorrow. Bye for now.