Hugo Dionísio
Perhaps it is time that "we must" question the role of the EU and our future without it.
Very few have spoken about the most serious instrument that Ursula von der Leyen announced in her State of the Union speech. I am well aware that it is difficult to choose from among a myriad of projects and pretensions, most of which are discussed only by those who have access, even if only as spectators, to the monolithic bureaucratic machine based in Brussels.
The number of programs, projects, reports, taxonomies, itineraries, and so many other instruments is enormous. In their maturity, they inevitably have important repercussions on our lives. Still, their technocratic complexity and detailed projection only hide an intricate top-down decision-making machine, largely responsive only to external impulses from organisations like NATO, the World Economic Forum, and the Think Tanks that proliferate like thirsty mushrooms on the edge of these neocolonial constructions.
Any "moderate" European citizen, who, being "moderate," stays away from matters of political participation, would feel lost, submerged, drowned, faced with such a profusion of groups, institutes, directorates, commissions, advisory councils, technical consortia, and lobbyists. Diving into this reality would only confirm what they deep down know but like to hide from themselves: that this bureaucratic machine has a life of its own and navigates completely outside the real aspirations of citizens. Their lives are as distant as its actions are far-reaching - on a European and international scale.
And it is protected by this orchestra, as monumental as it is, tuned by inscrutable tuners, which produces thousands of pages of information daily that very few read, that the President of the European Commission announced that the EU will institute a European Semester for Defence. Just like that. Without any discussion, reflection, or public consultation, nothing. A scrutiny of the main instruments embodying the EU's recent "defence" strategy, from the White Paper on European Defence - Defence 2030, to the Reflection paper on the future of European defence - European Commission, reveals that none of them, in any paragraph, mentions anything about the need for a "European Semester for Defence".
Which makes me raise the question: what is the basis for this decision; who made it; who conceived it; where did the idea come from? Is the bureaucratic machine at von der Leyen's service a kind of "World of Warcraft" game, but one where our lives are the real avatars?
Evoking parallels with the already established European Semester for economic and social issues, which aims to coordinate and recommend economic and budgetary policies for meeting the targets of the Stability and Growth Pact, its defensive version raises crucial questions about the future sovereignty of Member States and the concentration of even more power in Brussels, knowing that Brussels is far from being the receptacle of that power, which is stored in more uncertain, but no less unknown, places from which the duplicate beings that make up the European bureaucratic machine draw their legitimacy.
Let us take comfort in the truth that the idea of a defence coordination mechanism within the European Union is not entirely new. There are many expressions in the speeches of unelected Brussels officials about the need to coordinate this "defensive" effort. What is surprising is not exactly the existence of this coordination effort, since the 3rd pillar of European construction, the Common Security and Defence Policy, features in the Union's founding documents. We also know that one reason this 3rd pillar never advanced was due to the presence of NATO and the superior interests the USA had in prioritising the expansion of this bloc, which brought us, as many said and few wanted to hear or believe, to war in Europe and militarism. What is happening now was predicted decades ago, but the blame lies with the Russian Federation! There must always be a target to project, build, and shoot the arrow at.
What should make us apprehensive about the strategy announced by Ursula von der Leyen has to do with the type of instrument chosen, namely one of the most intrusive into the sovereignty of member states, which determines, under the guise of simple "specific recommendations" on macroeconomic policy, which economic policy each member state should pursue. Instruments like the structural and cohesion funds help transform these "recommendations" into de facto obligations, which will condition the extent to which a member state invests more or less in public services, deregulates labor laws, privatizes or promotes the famous "Public-Private Partnerships," which, disguised as "risk-sharing with the private sector" and "reforms for competition and efficiency," are nothing but the opposite, namely the sharing of resources, even through how they are regulated, to guarantee eternal profitability for the "investor" consortia.
Nor should we be reassured by the fact that the chosen moment coincides with one of total confusion and transposition of the roles of NATO and the European Union. In fact, see the case of Ukraine and Moldova: lacking the conditions to force these nations' accession into NATO by force, this accession is masked as accession to the European Union, a structure that, through defence "coordination" policies, imposes the NATO project, even on those who did not join that politico-military bloc.
After Mark Rutte secured the alignment of all NATO countries towards increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP, after the President of the European Commission, so effusively and vehemently, defended this understanding, and right the day after its announcement by Donald Trump and his economically more profitable "son" - the NATO Secretary General - she comes to bless us with a "boost" (as she loves these "Americanoid" slogans) in European defence funding. Now, not content, she waves the instrument that will ensure European countries are forced to fulfil this goal.
Now let's ask ourselves: when did anyone vote to elect rulers who, honestly, promised their people they would spend money from their pensions, education, health, and housing on American, German, French, or Spanish weapons? Only those who do not know what the European Semester is, as an annual instrument for coordinating the EU's economic and social policies (European Semester), should not be fooled by the "social", can rest easy.
Von der Leyen's pretension is simple: to use a European Semester for Defence as a framework to align Member States' defence objectives with the imperial ambitions of the EU and, by extension, with NATO commitments, promoting a coordinated increase in defence spending and the development of joint capabilities. And how does the EU ensure that member states comply? In the same way it does in the European Semester for economic policies. Using the European Defence Fund and all available funds for the "Rearm Europe Plan / Readiness 2030" or the SAFE (European Defence Industrial Strategy). Those who apply the recommendations receive funds; those who don't, don't. Note that this is so well thought out that in the 2025 State of the Union speech, the Commission President even announced a premium to be paid to all who buy weapons to deliver to Ukraine. That is, continuing the war with the Russian Federation even gives bonuses! What must Trump have said to the lady to make her feel compelled to do such a thing?
If increasing teachers' and doctors' salaries, building houses for workers who end up on the street, driven by the accumulation of real estate property in speculative funds, building hospitals or schools, all must be done within the rules of the Stability Pact, then, for defence, an activation of national escape clauses for budgetary spending is foreseen. Saying that this will brutally increase the debt of member states, which will inevitably negatively impact the guarantee of public services for citizens, would be superfluous. Once again, the question assaults me: when did anyone vote to swap investment in better living conditions for investment in war?
The introduction of a European Semester for Defence, if realized, will bring with it a complex web of interactions between NATO, the EU, and Member States, which, given the aggressive nature of the Atlantic alliance, will only perpetuate the purchase of weapons, their permanent increase, the guarantee that wars start but never end, for lack of will to even dialogue - see now the Polish refusal regarding drones -, the submission of member states to the dictates of a greedy military-industrial complex, all under a reinforced web of European politico-economic policing. This is how Ursula guarantees Trump the purchase of the promised weaponry. Perhaps it's not entirely wrong to predict a "European Semester for North American LNG". The fact is, knowing how militaristic states function, it's not even worth asking what will happen to the freedom that is already fading...
Let us have no doubt, therefore, that the introduction of this "European Semester for Defence" will entail:
An increasing promotion of the transposition and confusion of NATO's pretensions with those of the EU: The line between NATO and EU responsibilities in defence has historically been blurred. A European Semester for Defence could solidify this intersection, potentially leading to greater harmonisation of capability and investment demands, institutionalising the umbilical NATO/EU relationship, instrumentalising all European policy according to the military interests of those who control the alliance - the USA.
Weakening of Member State sovereignty: This is perhaps the most sensitive point. By granting the European Commission power of recommendation and coordination in defence matters, Member States risk ceding a significant portion of their sovereignty. Defence policy has traditionally been one of the pillars of national sovereignty. A European Semester for Defence could impose investment criteria and capability development priorities that Member States would be pressured to meet, limiting their ability to autonomously define their defence strategy based on their own threat perceptions and national priorities.
How decisions linked to Defence would influence other areas, without the decision belonging to member states, moving strategic decisions away from democratic scrutiny: The economic European Semester already imposes restrictions on public investment based on deficit, public debt, and growth criteria. The introduction of a European Semester for Defence, which would import the need to meet military investment targets defined by NATO and the European Commission, could worsen this dilemma. Member States could find themselves forced to divert resources from crucial areas like infrastructure, health, education, and energy transition to satisfy defence demands. This prioritisation of military spending to the detriment of social and economic investment could have profound consequences on citizen well-being and sustainable development.
Centralization of Power in Brussels and the Dangers to Democracy and Peace: A European Semester for Defence, by concentrating decision-making and coordination power in Brussels, risks reinforcing what is already a "top-down" system, where Member States become mere executors of policies decided by a European bureaucracy. This excessive centralisation raises serious democratic concerns. Decisions on military spending and defence priorities have a direct impact on the lives of people and on national security. If these decisions are made at a considerable distance from voters and without significant involvement of national governments and parliaments, there is a risk of undermining democratic legitimacy and accountability. The absence of a robust and inclusive public debate on these policies can lead to crucial decisions being made by an elite, with little consideration for the peace aspirations of the majority of the population.
The proposal for a European Semester for Defence, although presented as a tool to strengthen European security and coordination, raises serious democratic and sovereignty questions, beyond the security, independence, and autonomy criteria that should govern decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
Its conception and implementation, from a distant summit, without the genuine involvement of the people and even national governments, reinforces and institutionalises an extremely dangerous precedent. History has shown that important decisions about war and peace, when made without broad democratic debate, can have disastrous consequences. Any initiative for defence coordination in Europe must be preceded by rigorous public scrutiny and an open and inclusive debate, ensuring that decisions reflect not only security concerns but also the peace and prosperity aspirations of all European peoples. The risk that these policies, conceived only by a minority of the powerful and worked on by a minority of unelected bureaucrats, lead us towards a future of conflict, disregarding the will of the majority, is a reality that cannot be ignored.
Contrary to what is often stated, those who want peace should not bet on armament; those who want peace should bet on knowledge, social and economic development, friendship, love, understanding, tolerance, cooperation, and diplomacy. Those are the weapons of peace and prosperity, and the only ones that can lead us to a bright future.
Instead, the path proposed by Brussels, under the strong influence of groups defeated in the Second World War, is a path of submission, annihilation, and destruction. Nothing good can come from the hatred, fanaticism, and intolerance of those who are not even capable of listening to, facing, and dialoguing with their adversary.
The term most used by von der Leyen throughout her years as President of the European Commission is "we must".
Perhaps it is time that "we must" question the role of the EU and our future without it.