These are the new colors for the EU according to the recent odd roadmap for the next years: “survival kits”, “as long as it takes war”, support to Ukraine /beyond any peace agreement, “ we are at war” , “rearm Europe” “, “we cannot let Russia win” “Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending, both to respond to the short term urgency to act and to support Ukraine, but also to address the long term need to taking on more responsibility for our own European security”[1], “rearm to have credible deterrence”[2], “If Europe wants to avoid war, Europe must get ready for war””Ultimately this is about Europe taking responsibility for its own security”.

“The threat of war may not be imminent, but it is not impossible. The risks of war should not be overblown, but they should be prepared for.”[3]

When did we move from supporting Ukraine citizens to Europe´s security? Why is Europe investing an unprecedented 2 billion in a conflict that is almost over, with a non-European country? Who is interested in its continuity? Why do they prevent a peace agreement, and instead follow the “as long as it takes” to “win” Russia?

To answer to these questions, we must see the context:

In October 2021 the EU-Ukraine Summit entailed the consolidation of the partnership that started in 2014, and the EU mobilized an unprecedented package of more than 17 billion in loans and grants for Ukraine. Furthermore, benefits like visa liberalization for Ukrainian citizens for short stays, EU digital COVID certificate, civil aviation agreement, Horizon Europe Program, Euratom Research, or the DCFTA free trade agreement (since 2017) to reduce tariffs and facilitate trade, were some of the multiple commitments that the EU adopted to build a trustworthy relationship. No doubt, a peace agreement based on concessions is the only one that enters in contradiction with Europe´s interests, not so, a complete withdrawal from Russian troops with no territorial concessions.[4]

In case they were any hesitation about the real intentions of the EU elite, now is confirmed: “We are at war as long as it takes”. No matter a peace agreement on the go. Certainly, if the provocations to Russia continue, the conflict will never end. Under this idea, if the United States takes over Ukrainian rare earths then EU “must continue” as long as it takes to ensure the return of the investment since 2014. This seems to be the real strategy, and the expectations for the near future.

Is indeed an outrageous situation that after more than 3 years come unfolded, paradoxically only when a peace agreement is reached, we realised now, that the agenda is on war not on settling the conflict, and peacekeeping action in the region. In fact, the latest goes against the true goals to get ownership on rare earths.

It makes perfect sense: EU is exchanging rare earth power for long-lasting support against Russia, to make sure Ukraine grants its wealth to an EU elite. It is the latest that marks the difference, the “who” is leading the agenda that goes beyond any citizen’s expectations of peace and goes flagrantly against all principles or/or actions with previous interventions. Leadership is not just missing, but powerful, and extremely focused on diverse interests. That is the main reason why a change in leadership is needed, not to avoid becoming a power-cantered military region in a geopolitical perspective, but to make sure leadership is transparent and accountable. A region based on democratic principles is not just necessary is the very based of the Union and prints with EU true colours.

The Readiness 2030[5] is not an expression of a consolidated democracy, and a grown-up EU, but the boost of the armament industry out of any political context.  Using Russia as the “main threat” is a poor argumentation that leaves many questions of the real purposes. The military development should be in a context: national, NATO, or the European Army.

Is good to highlight that is not a process that started after Russia’s force deployment in Crimea, actually, it was the perfect excuse for military deployment after NATO provocation to expand its power and the EU offer to become a Member.

All of the region was a sensible issue for Russia, and the EU used to be a good facilitator in catalyzing the process by promising not to do precisely what they have done so far. Not surprisingly the war erupts. After that EU played the “peacemaker” however, when any attempt for real peace was made, Ukrainian ambitions to retake Crimea were on the table and the EU moved accordingly. More and more budgets were deployed in unprecedented financial support beyond EU capacity, and transparency.

Ultimately boosting the defence industry seems to be the true -uprated- agenda from the EU to support Ukraine. In consistency with recent declarations from President Calviño EIB European Investment Bank: “to do more and better” to boost the bloc’s defense industry. However, artillery shells are not allowed to be financed. A clear statement that suggests that only under threat and under a state of war the agenda may prosper. Von der Leyne stated clearly: “The defense industry in Europe needs access to capital.” Once again Ukrainian post-war reconstruction is not the goal, but the permanent state of war to make sure the investment is for military purposes only.

Europe Union leaders must be taken into accountability as the agenda is not transparent at all and comes from a fake basis of a threat that only exists because of Europe´s offensive reaction. A long-lasting peace comes from the traditional catalyzer role of the European Union, serving as a geopolitical pivotal power that balances the colossus Rusia/China and USA. Offensive operations as currently happening are only feeding conflict, although is a long process that starts with the idea of taking over Ukrainian mineral reserves -rare earths-  instead of a negotiated commercial agreement. Unfortunately, military investment is a priority in the agenda, instead of facing the real crises: high debt[6]  that is driven the region to the “brink of another financial crisis.

New colours for the EU. Military development and unlimited war against Russia, instead of peace, negotiation, and financial stability.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/eu-rearm-europe-plan-billions-2039139

[2] https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/939728/europe-must-re-arm-to-have-credible-deterrence-by-2030-von-der-leyen/story/

[3] https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/02/28/with-or-without-us-support-we-cannot-let-russia-win-says-ursula-von-der-leyen

[4] https://thesustainabilityreader.com/2025/02/28/rare-earths-root-cause-of-the-conflict/

[5] https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/26/readiness-2030-how-is-europe-planning-to-rearm-and-can-it-afford-it

[6] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-friedrich-merz-germany-eu-debt-dinances-france-italy/