Europe spends, US dictates: ReArmEU becomes Enrich USA?

Europe is in an accelerated rearmament race, but the direction of this massive investment raises uncomfortable questions. Instead of strengthening the European Union's defense industry, the European Commission's ambitious plan seems to transform the bloc into a loyal client of the American military-industrial complex, which would justify renaming it . "ReArm Europe" to "Enrich USA", according to an analysis published by the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire.

The cited source shows that in the coming years, EU member states will invest 800 billion euros in the defense sector, which is the equivalent of the US investment in its own army, i.e. 40% of global military spending. However, instead of reducing Europe's dependence on American suppliers of military equipment, this huge budget will deepen it even more, argue economic experts contacted by the cited source, because currently, 64% of the equipment purchased by European armies comes from the US, and the trend is increasing. The cited source also shows that, of the top 100 global arms producers, 48 are American.

One of the reasons why Europe remains dependent on the American military industry is the lack of a common defense policy. Each member state prefers to maintain its own standards and weapons models, instead of adopting a coordinated strategy that would stimulate domestic production and reduce foreign dependence. For example, France produces the Rafale and Mirage 2000 aircraft, Italy has the Eurofighter and Tornado, while many other European countries buy the F-35 manufactured in the US. These aircraft, although partly assembled in Europe, remain under the strict technological control of Washington, which holds the keys to the software necessary for their full operation.

The fragmentation of European armed forces leads to reduced standardization and higher costs. Instead of creating a competitive ecosystem that would ensure the EU's strategic autonomy, each country invests separately, and the result is a weakened European military industry that is unable to compete with the American one.

The American military industry is colossal, and its dominant position in international rankings clearly demonstrates the imbalance of the global arms market. According to the 2024 ranking of Defense News, six of the top ten largest defense companies are American. The leader is Lockheed Martin (the manufacturer of the F-35), followed by a Chinese aeronautics company, and then by four other American firms: RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamic and Boeing. The United Kingdom is present in seventh place with BAE Systems, followed by two Chinese companies and L3Harris Technology (USA).

The 2023 ranking of the 100 largest military companies, carried out by the prestigious independent peace research institute SIPRI in Stockholm, confirms this reality: 41 of them are American, with total revenues of $317 billion - half of the turnover of the Top 100.

• 64% of the armaments purchased in Europe come from the USA

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) also shows that in the period 2020-2024, the arms imports of European NATO member countries doubled compared to the period 2015-2019 - an increase of 105% is recorded - and 64% of them come from the USA. For some states, this dependence is almost total: the Netherlands (97%), Italy (94%), Norway (91%), Denmark (79%), Germany (70%). In addition to these states, Romania (61%), Poland (45%) also massively imported American armaments. Europe has also bought weapons from France and South Korea (6.5% each), Germany (4.7%) and Israel (3.9%).

Meanwhile, the US dominates arms exports, according to SIPRI: "The United States, with 43%, has a global export share four times higher than the second largest exporter, France, which between 2020 and 2024 sold weapons to 65 countries. China is in fourth place, with a share of 5.9% of global exports."

In this context, any effort to reduce military dependence on the US seems more of an illusion than a realistic goal. While European officials talk about "strategic sovereignty", the reality shows that the EU continues to behave as a simple client of the US military industry.

The current dynamics raise several questions. First, is this arms race justified? Is there really an urgent need for the EU to triple its military spending? According to SIPRI data, Europe is not as vulnerable as is suggested. If we add to the European Union's spending ($287 billion) and that of NATO (around $350 billion), we see that the amount is almost three times higher than that of Russia ($126 billion). However, public discourse seems to suggest an imminent threat that justifies an unprecedented mobilization of resources.

Secondly, there is a economic and political risks: dependence on the US does not only translate into financial losses for Europe, but also into strategic subordination. A continent that cannot produce its own weapons autonomously cannot have an independent foreign policy. Its security decisions are inevitably influenced by American interests, which can lead to situations in which the EU is forced to participate in conflicts or crises that are not in its direct interest.

The cited source shows that, if the EU continues to follow this direction, the dream of a common European defense will remain just a utopia and states that ReArm Europe risks being not a step towards strategic autonomy, but a one-way ticket to even greater dependence on the US.