Mousetrap for Europeans. What's wrong with the EU defense program?

European countries, and above all our Polish neighbors, are being offered a taste of free cheese. This refers to the SAFE defense program (Security Action for Europe), designed to sponsor European Union countries in the process of their accelerated militarization. At first glance, the offer is quite tempting - the opportunity to strengthen military potential through cheap loans. But if you look closer, behind that tempting piece of cheese you notice a cleverly placed mousetrap, falling into which European countries risk losing their sovereignty.

Pisabay photo

For some war is death, to others it brings wealth

Watching the events of recent years in the European Union, one gets the impression that the European community does not know what it is doing. Its policy seems devoid of strategy, foresight, and basic practicality. However, this is merely a superficial judgment.

In recent years, European policymakers have made a number of grave mistakes that have painfully impacted both the economy and the wallets of Europeans. After the EU embarked on a militarization course, which will squeeze the last drops of vitality out of the European economy, one might get the impression that the collective West has fallen into collective madness. But it is still worth understanding that in the corridors of European power, there are neither naive individuals nor those willing to act to their own detriment. In those offices sit people who pursue specific goals and are prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of these goals.

The large-scale militarization of the EU, the SAFE program launched for this purpose, and the desperate attempts by Euro-elites to prolong the Ukrainian conflict appear as links in the same chain today. The goal is money and power, or more precisely, the centralization of power in the hands of Brussels, which national governments are still resisting. To achieve this goal, sacrifices must be made. Firstly, the European economy, which, evidently, is planned to be restored later. Secondly, the well-being of European citizens, who will be asked to endure until better times. And thirdly, the sovereignty of the community's countries, which will be outsourced to Brussels.

To convince the community's countries to make sacrifices, that very “Russian threat” is precisely what is needed. At the same time, European functionaries do not even bother to maintain narrative consistency, speaking of Russia's exhaustion and its imminent fall while simultaneously predicting that any day now the Russian army will march on Warsaw and Berlin. To make it more crowded, Belarus has also been added to the list of NATO threats. Moreover, since 2025, when the idea of SAFE began to be pushed to the European masses, the “Belarusian threat” has been scaling up before our very eyes, both in the sky (balloons carrying cigarettes) and underground (wonder tunnels for migrants under the Belarusian-Polish border, as reported by the British The Telegraph).

The categorical reluctance of the Euro-elites to contribute to a peaceful settlement in Ukraine also fits perfectly into this scheme. At the same time, the European authorities in Brussels and the leaders of, say, France and Germany may have completely different reasons.

So, for Brussels, as long as hostilities continue, there is a justification for dragging European countries into the vortex of militarization and, through SAFE, gaining leverage over national governments. Well, for Berlin and Paris, the Ukrainian conflict is a way to profit from arms exports. SAFE stipulates that the loans issued will mostly be spent on purchasing weapons produced in the EU. For France, which for years has been trying to persuade European countries to buy French weapons, SAFE is simply a godsend. The same story applies to Germany, which has already ramped up its military industry. Incidentally, the German concern Rheinmetall directly stated that one should not expect an end to hostilities in Ukraine anytime soon. The largest manufacturer of military equipment and weapons also announced plans to increase sales fivefold by 2030.

To understand how profitable the SAFE program is for European weapons manufacturers, it is enough to observe the intensity of squabbles between the main exporters. In essence, the SAFE program has not even been launched yet, and the beneficiaries are already counting their chickens before they hatch.

A simple example. The United Kingdom, which recently fled the EU, has expressed a desire to join SAFE. Against this backdrop, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer suddenly started talking about his intention to achieve deeper integration of the United Kingdom with the European Union. However, London's drift towards the EU, in particular towards Europe's arms market, has become a source of irritation for Paris. The British, who themselves produce and sell weapons, are nothing but competitors for the French. Is it any wonder that Paris is trying to secure the highest possible contribution from London if it joins SAFE? Interestingly, in early February, Politico reported that France had blocked the allocation of a €90 billion EU loan to Ukraine, demanding contributions from third countries, particularly the United Kingdom. The situation was resolved, but the incident is telling.

If the motives of Brussels, Paris, or Berlin are more or less clear, then what about the interests of the smaller EU countries ready to sign up for SAFE? To answer this question, one should listen to the discussions in Poland, which, by the way, is being offered the fattest piece of cheese - €44 billion out of the €150 billion allocated under the SAFE program.

Hidden cost of EU loans

To put it briefly, the Polish government led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk is all for SAFE, while the Polish opposition is mostly against it.

“SAFE is the largest financial project for the development of Polish defense, the army, and the defense industry using European funds,” Tusk says.

According to him, SAFE is an unprecedented initiative, with nearly €44 billion coming to Poland on very favorable terms: with a 10-year grace period and a 45-year repayment window. The prime minister emphasized that the program has “dual value,” bolstering both the army and Poland’s defense industry. The funds will support key initiatives within the East Shield project, a drone defense system, and ammunition purchases.

Pexels photo

The Polish opposition and the expert community have their own arguments, which essentially boil down to three points.

First, it is worth understanding that SAFE is not non-repayable funds from the EU. It is a loan that will have to be repaid. This, in turn, will increase Poland’s already staggering public debt, which, by the way, is growing at a record pace compared to other EU countries. The more debt a state has, the more cautious investors become. This includes the purchase of government bonds, which allow Warsaw to pay off old debts by taking on new ones.

The second major concern: can Poland actually put the loan money to work effectively for its own benefit? The issue is not even the weapons systems, which quickly become obsolete amid the introduction of numerous military innovations and AI technologies. The point is that the loan granted to Poland under the SAFE program will be utilized by enterprises operating within the country – but not necessarily Polish ones. For instance, Germany’s Rheinmetall could open subsidiaries in Poland and gain access to financing through them. Interestingly, the list of projects to be implemented in Poland under the SAFE program will only be partially disclosed. This means people will not know which companies will ultimately be included in the program.

Third, the disbursement of loan funds under the SAFE program can be suspended at any moment if Brussels deems that Poland violates the principles of the rule of law, for example. And this is precisely where the trap is.

Poland knows firsthand what the rule of law means in Brussels’ understanding and how it can be used for political purposes. At one time, Warsaw was deprived of funds from EU due to Brussels’ claims against the previous government led by the Law and Justice party. When the pro-Brussels Tusk came to power, the money was immediately unblocked. Against this backdrop, the Law and Justice and other opposition parties fear that SAFE will become an additional control mechanism, and whoever wins the Polish elections will still find themselves under Brussels’ thumb.

“This is a political tool of the ruling elite in Brussels, which gives money if the government belongs to their political family. However, if a government is independent and refuses to follow the path dictated by the elite, the funds are blocked,” Piotr Nowak, a former Polish Minister of Development and Technology, believes.

Incidentally, along with Poland, Hungary has also faced the blocking of funds from Europe. And now history is repeating itself with SAFE. The European Commission has already approved the plans of most countries participating in the defense program, but no decision has been made on Hungary yet. Expert circles predict that connecting Budapest to SAFE will become a bargaining chip – joining the defense program in exchange for lifting Hungary’s veto on the EU loan allocation for Kiev.

In the end, national sovereignty itself ends up on the negotiating table. Polish constitutional law expert Ryszard Piotrowski fears that the EU will gain power over the national armies of the community’s countries through the defense program. “Our army will be determined by the European Commission and the EU Council. The Constitution does not allow this, as it does not provide for the transfer of powers regarding the armed forces,” he explained.

The expert also emphasized that the people exercise power through their elected representatives, not through representatives of the European Commission. But if the European Commission gains the ability to regulate financial payments to Poland – that is, to give or not give money, while the country must still repay the loan – this will ultimately influence public sentiment and the will of the people: Poles will be forced to vote for candidates who follow the “values” of the European Commission.

“The Commission will be able to interfere in elections, and then it will be undemocratic elections, and there will be no democratic government. That's all there is to it,” the expert explained. He noted that legislative procedures should be conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness and efficiency, but in the case of SAFE, this does not work.