Introduction
The European Union (EU), under the leadership of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has unveiled an ambitious and far-reaching €2 trillion budget framework. This unprecedented financial blueprint encompasses a diverse range of objectives, spanning economic recovery, green and digital transitions, industrial competitiveness, defence integration, and heightened geopolitical influence.
Framed rhetorically as a transformative leap towards a more united, resilient, and strategically autonomous Europe, the budget arrives at a time of significant internal and external pressures. Chief among these is the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has catalysed a dramatic reorientation of EU priorities toward military readiness and unwavering support for Kyiv. While the Commission presents this dual-pronged agenda, lavish public expenditure combined with assertive geopolitical engagement, as essential for Europe's future, it also raises urgent and complex concerns.
Critics argue that such expansive spending risks overheating already fragile economies, while the increasingly militarised posture may entrench the Union in a protracted conflict with uncertain outcomes. This study contends that Von der Leyen's budget is fundamentally misguided, both economically and politically, and that Europe's blank-cheque support for Ukraine lacks a coherent long-term strategy. Taken together, these trajectories imperil the EU's financial stability, undermine social cohesion within member states, and erode the Union's diplomatic autonomy on the global stage.
1. Economic imprudence: The pitfalls of a €2 trillion budget
1.1. Unsustainable fiscal expansion
The €2 trillion budget plan is projected to significantly increase public debt levels across EU member states. While proponents argue that such spending is necessary for security, climate action, and economic resilience, critics rightly point out that this expansive fiscal policy comes at a time when many EU countries are already grappling with inflation, stagnating productivity, and growing deficits. According to the European Central Bank (ECB), debt-to-GDP ratios in countries like Italy and France are dangerously high, 132.6% and 111.9% respectively in 2024 (ECB Bulletin, 2024). Further expanding the EU's financial commitments risks triggering a sovereign debt crisis reminiscent of the post-2008 eurozone collapse.
1.2. Misallocation of resources
A major concern lies in the allocation of these funds. Significant portions are earmarked for military spending, green energy transitions, and subsidies for industrial "strategic autonomy." While these goals are commendable in theory, in practice they often fall victim to bureaucratic inefficiency and political favouritism. A 2023 report by the European Court of Auditors found that nearly 18% of EU cohesion and structural funds were inefficiently spent or lacked measurable outcomes. Von der Leyen's budget increases the potential for waste and corruption by concentrating decision-making in Brussels and prioritising abstract ideological goals over tangible socio-economic benefits.
1.3. Over-centralisation and democratic deficit
The budget plan further consolidates fiscal power at the EU level. While the European Commission has sought to establish new revenue streams through so-called "own resources" (e.g. carbon border taxes, digital levies), this shift undermines national sovereignty and exacerbates the EU's longstanding democratic deficit. National parliaments are increasingly sidelined in budgetary decisions, leaving citizens without meaningful oversight. This centralisation fuels Euroscepticism and erodes trust in EU institutions, particularly in countries like Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, where perceptions of EU overreach are already acute.
2. Militarisation of the EU: A dangerous precedent
2.1. The normalisation of military spending
A defining element of Von der Leyen's budget is its unprecedented focus on defence. The European Defence Fund and other initiatives are set to receive billions in new funding to bolster joint procurement, research, and manufacturing. This marks a stark shift from the EU's post-WWII identity as a peace project. Instead of promoting diplomacy and conflict resolution, the Union is now framing militarisation as essential to strategic autonomy. Such a shift risks provoking an arms race on the continent and undermines the EU's moral standing as a mediator in international affairs.
2.2. Dependency on the US military-industrial complex
Despite rhetoric about "strategic autonomy," the EU remains heavily dependent on NATO and the United States. Much of the new defence budget is likely to benefit American arms manufacturers, as European forces continue to rely on US-made equipment like F-35 fighter jets and Patriot missile systems. This undermines the goal of independence and cements the transatlantic military-industrial complex, rendering Europe a subordinate partner in Washington's global strategy. As a result, the EU sacrifices its ability to chart an independent course in global diplomacy, including in relation to the war in Ukraine.
3. The strategic misjudgement of supporting Ukraine
3.1. Escalation without exit strategy
Europe's support for Ukraine, while portrayed as a moral imperative, has become a geopolitical quagmire. The provision of arms, intelligence, and financial aid has not led to a resolution of the conflict but rather a prolonged war of attrition. According to the Kiel Institute's Ukraine Support Tracker, EU institutions and member states have collectively pledged over €150 billion in military and economic assistance to Kyiv. This level of commitment has created an open-ended dependency with no clear exit strategy or political solution in sight. The war has reached a stalemate, and continued support risks dragging Europe further into a proxy war with Russia.
3.2. Economic blowback for EU citizens
The Ukraine war has triggered massive economic repercussions across the continent, from skyrocketing energy prices to disrupted supply chains and inflation. While the EU has attempted to pivot away from Russian fossil fuels, the transition has been chaotic and costly. German manufacturing, the bedrock of the EU economy, has suffered significant setbacks due to high energy costs, prompting concerns of deindustrialisation. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens across Europe have faced soaring heating bills and food prices, costs directly linked to sanctions and the war effort. The continued flow of funds and weapons to Ukraine diverts attention and resources from pressing domestic needs such as housing, healthcare, and education.
3.3. Humanitarian concerns and hypocrisy
The EU's moral framing of the Ukraine conflict stands in stark contrast to its responses to other crises. While Ukrainians have been granted refugee protections and generous support, migrants and refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa continue to face harsh border regimes, illegal pushbacks, and inhumane detention conditions. This disparity has exposed deep racial and political biases in EU migration policy, severely undermining the Union's professed commitment to human rights and international law. Furthermore, Europe's support for Ukraine often turns a blind eye to Kyiv's own democratic shortcomings, including restrictions on media freedom, political pluralism, and the marginalisation of opposition voices since the war began.
Even more glaring is the EU's hypocrisy in addressing the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. While European leaders have framed their support for Ukraine as a defence of international law, democracy, and civilian protection, they have largely failed to apply the same principles to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite overwhelming evidence of mass civilian casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and potential violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza, the EU has refrained from taking meaningful action or even issuing consistent condemnations. Instead, it continues to maintain strong economic and diplomatic ties with Israel, while offering only muted concern for Palestinian suffering. This moral double standard not only erodes the EU's credibility on the world stage but also signals that the application of human rights principles remains selective and politically expedient.
3.4. Undermining diplomatic multipolarity
By aligning so closely with Ukraine and NATO, the EU has forfeited its potential role as a neutral mediator in international conflict. Non-Western powers such as Brazil, India, and South Africa have pursued more balanced approaches, promoting peace negotiations and a multipolar world order. Europe's embrace of a unipolar, US-led strategy alienates key partners in the Global South and reduces the EU's diplomatic flexibility. A lasting peace in Ukraine will require engagement with all parties, including Russia, something that current EU policy makes increasingly difficult.
4. Domestic political fragmentation
4.1. Rise of Populism and Political Backlash
Von der Leyen's budget and Ukraine policy are contributing to a growing backlash across Europe. The 2024 European Parliament elections saw significant gains for right-wing populist parties in countries such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands. These parties, some of which campaign on platforms of EU scepticism, economic nationalism, and foreign policy restraint, are capitalising on public dissatisfaction with Brussels' priorities. The more the EU presses ahead with expansive budgets and military adventurism, the more it risks fuelling the forces that threaten its own unity.
4.2. Erosion of public trust
Public confidence in EU institutions is eroding. According to Eurobarometer surveys, trust in the European Commission fell from 49% in 2021 to 38% in 2024, with disillusionment particularly high among younger and lower-income citizens. The perception that the EU serves elite interests, while ordinary people bear the brunt of economic sacrifice and geopolitical tension, has become widespread. Rather than fostering solidarity, Von der Leyen's plan deepens the gulf between citizens and the supranational bureaucracy that governs them.
5. Alternative visions for Europe
5.1. A return to subsidiarity and fiscal prudence
Europe must reclaim a model of subsidiarity, wherein fiscal and political decisions are made as close to the citizen as possible. This entails limiting the Commission's budgetary ambitions and returning key responsibilities to national governments. Instead of centralised mega-projects, EU funds should focus on decentralised initiatives that promote local resilience, SME growth, and democratic participation.
5.2. A peace-centric foreign policy
The EU should reposition itself as a global advocate for peace, dialogue, and non-alignment. Supporting negotiations in Ukraine, rather than escalating the conflict, would restore credibility to Europe's diplomatic tradition. The Union should actively engage with multipolar frameworks such as BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and UN-led peace initiatives to rebuild international trust.
5.3. Investment in social infrastructure
Instead of subsidising the military-industrial complex, the EU should invest in health systems, housing, education, and social safety nets. Addressing internal disparities and poverty would do more to strengthen the Union than any tank or drone. These investments are essential to creating a cohesive European identity and a socially just recovery.
Conclusion
Ursula von der Leyen's €2 trillion budget plan, coupled with Europe's military and economic support for Ukraine, reflects a misguided vision of the EU's future. It is fiscally reckless, strategically short-sighted, and politically divisive. By embracing militarisation and geopolitical confrontation, the EU risks abandoning its foundational commitment to peace, democracy, and solidarity. A different path is urgently needed, one rooted in fiscal responsibility, diplomatic balance, and social investment. Only by reversing course can Europe reclaim its legitimacy and chart a sustainable future for all its citizens.
Professor David Zammit serves as both a lecturer and the Rector of Pro Deo International University in Italy. He has been actively engaged in the field of education for the past 35 years. Throughout his career, he has delivered lectures in various countries and has participated as a speaker at numerous symposia.
References (Chicago Style)
- European Central Bank. ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 3/2024.
- European Court of Auditors. Annual Report on EU Spending 2023, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU, 2024.
- Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Ukraine Support Tracker, 2024. https://www.ifw-kiel.de.
- Eurostat. "Government Finance Statistics," 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
- European Commission. Strategic Foresight Report 2023, Brussels: European Commission, 2023.
- Eurobarometer. "Public Opinion in the European Union," Standard Eurobarometer 100, 2024.
- Eyal, Jonathan. "Why EU Militarisation Is a Risky Bet." The RUSI Journal, Vol. 169, No. 2 (2024): 10-18.
- Gowan, Richard. Europe's Lost Voice: Why the EU Is No Longer a Neutral Mediator. European Council on Foreign Relations, 2023.
- Hillebrand, Claudia. Security, Politics and the EU: Militarisation and its Discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
- Varoufakis, Yanis. Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. London: Bodley Head, 2023.