The EU’s U-turn: Eurosceptics defend the original peace project, pro-Europeans head to war

From the Strasbourg correspondent – The main political groups in the Parliament, traditionally the most pro-European, are pushing for a decisive and forceful confrontation with Russia, while the more Eurosceptic are calling for remaining anchored to the peace project of the founding fathers. The plenary debate on the NATO leaders’ summit produces a significant political reversal, with switching roles and positions becoming more blurred. The  EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, gives the cue when she states that “Russia is a direct threat to Europe;  it poses a 360-degree global threat” and that as a result of the Kremlin’s maneuvers, “we are at war.“

Inevitably, the Estonian sets the debate on fire. As always in such cases, the political stage is divided between those who believe it is necessary to arm themselves and pacifists: among the former are the Populars (EPP), Socialists (S&D), Liberals (Re), Conservatives (ECR), and the Greens; among the latter are the Radical Left (The Left), Sovereignists (PfE), Eurosceptics (ESN).

 https://www.eunews.it/2025/06/10/kubilius-difesa-mettere-da-parte-pace/

“We must share responsibilities and costs; the EU must contribute more,” emphasizes Michael Gahler (EPP), who embraces Kallas’s stance and vision. The Belgian Wouter Beke (EPP) goes even further: “The Hague NATO summit, where in 1948 Winston Churchill called for the creation of a common army. The best way to ensure our security is to listen to those words.” Sven Mikser (S&D) added: “I hope that the leaders will agree to increase defense spending.” At the same time, the conservative Adam Bielan said: “We support the debate on the increase in defense spending to 5 percent of GDP because we must do more for our defense. The Liberals, through Dan Barna, also push for a Europe of war: “We have to spend more. That is the price for our freedom.” Lucia Yar stated, “It is no longer a question of if; it is a question of how quickly we will be able to increase our military spending: our security is not free.” Re’s president, Valery Hayer, adds: “5 percent spending is not enough for our strategy: we need a single market, resources for Ukraine’s entry.” Even among the Greens, some agree with the High Representative: “Our threat is called Russia, and we must do as Ukraine did: have determination,” emphasizes Martins Stakis. The Dutch Green Reinier Van Lanschot relaunches: “We need a European nuclear deterrent and a European military command” within NATO.

Harald Vilimsky of the Patriots disagrees: “The EU is based on peace; it is not a military alliance. We must return the EU to its original version of peace.” And he attacked the entire Euro-Atlantic bloc: “Nato’s eastward expansion produced the Russian-Ukrainian war.” The Eurosceptic Milan Uhrik (ESN), on the other hand, directly attacks the High Representative: “Kallas, you are known for your fanaticism and anti-Russian spirit, and you come here asking to spend only on weapons. Who is paying? We cannot support this expenditure if it reduces the standard of living.” The MEP Petar Volgin reasons out loud: “After the end of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, like the Warsaw Pact. If we had done so and avoided expanding eastwards, we would not have the risk of a third world war today.”

From the benches of the Left comes criticism from Ozlem Demirel: “Von der Leyen wants trillions spent on defense in the coming years, as many as are needed to fight poverty. We want war and debt, which future generations will then pay. That is not fair.” Even tougher is her group colleague Marc Botenga: “Let’s be honest: arms spending is not for defense, but for attack. Iran today, China tomorrow. This is not our war!” Then, there was a warning to the staunch defenders of the “reasons” of the hard line: “NATO is led by a person who acts like a gangster,” Botenga said in a clear criticism of US President Donald Trump. Reinforcing the dose was Irene Montero (The Left): “Today, Israel and the United States are the real threat.”

Greens and Socialists, internal waverings

However, internal party divisions filter into the debate. The first to show political uncertainty and conscience is Bas Eickhout, co-chairman of the Greens: “We can spend as much as we want on weapons and tanks, but we will not have real security until we have the support of our citizens until they have a roof over their heads and can pay their bills.” There is an increasingly advancing reality, marked by spending cuts where ordinary people will tangibly touch Europe’s change of pace. Hence, the Greens’ idea is: “We must impose taxes on the extra profits of the defense industry” to not be a burden on citizens.

Irene Tinagli (S&D) has a similar thought. The president of the special committee on the Housing Crisis explains to Eunews that “security is important, but if it does not meet people’s needs, consensus is lost, and investing in the military becomes pointless.”