The short-sightedness of the European security narrative and the ''gravist'' rhetoric

In recent months, the debate on European rearmament has taken on increasingly emphatic tones, sometimes markedly "gravist", as if Europe were suddenly on the brink of an epochal conflict and had to, by necessity, run for cover by militarizing its economies. The idea of a new season of military spending has become a leitmotif in European institutional forums, supported by a narrative that, on closer inspection, appears more ideological than rational.

The issue is delicate, without a doubt, but it is also evident how it is dealt with a disarming superficiality. The most critical newspapers – Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Freitag, El Salto and part of the Italian progressive press – have raised strong doubts about the need and opportunity for European rearmament. The focal point of criticism is as simple as it is overlooked: the Member States of the European Union already have well-established defence structures, in which they have been investing for decades. Talking about a new military effort only makes sense if it is part of a truly integrated common defence project, culminating in a single European army. But even this prospect today appears more rhetorical than strategic, given that military cooperation already exists – albeit in different forms – and redundancies between national armed forces would be difficult to eliminate without questioning the sovereignty of each country.

The widespread fear that drives many governments to support this arms race is linked to the idea that Europe must prepare for an alleged external "threat", often unspecified, but which alludes to Russia, China, or a progressive disengagement of the United States of America. However, believing that the continent is now militarily defenseless is a vulgar position, fueled by a narrative that privileges fear over analysis. It would be enough to consider the overall resources – human, technological, strategic – of all the member states united to understand that Europe, if it really coordinated, would not have major weaknesses.

Moreover, NATO membership already provides a solid defensive umbrella, and while American isolationism is something to be taken into account, it cannot credibly justify an escalation of war spending at the expense of civilian priorities. In this sense, the arms race is not only inopportune, but counterproductive: instead of investing increasing percentages of GDP in armaments, European states should focus their efforts on vital sectors such as education, technological innovation, modern infrastructure and the fight against poverty.

The impression is that this acceleration towards a continental rearmament is above all the product of an ideological drift promoted by conservative, sovereignist and right-wing governments, which see militarization as an element of identity, rather than a concrete need. In the name of "security", astronomical expenses are legitimized that subtract resources from much more urgent and structural public policies. All with the risk of fueling a new arms race in Europe, this time not imposed by real conflicts, but built around artificially inflated fears.

The project of a strong, cohesive and autonomous Europe is desirable. But such force cannot and must not coincide with militarism. Instead, the European Union should reaffirm its civil, democratic and social vocation, investing in what it builds, not in what it destroys. True European sovereignty is exercised with knowledge, with inclusion, with the ability to innovate – not with weapons.