Suzan Şönger
The competitive rivalry between the major powers, which was thought to have been shelved following the Cold War, has given rise to a multipolar yet equally fragile world.
The security crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine war has, over the past four years, been reshaping not only Eastern Europe but the entire global system.
Increasing armament on both sides of the Atlantic, the European Union’s massive defence budget of 800 billion euros, and the reignited debate over compulsory military service all lay bare just how fragile peace is.
Is the EU seeking to gain strategic autonomy from the US, or is a new form of dependency being created under the NATO umbrella? Alongside the critical NATO summit held in Turkey, the question of how the burden of increasing militarisation will fall on working people – and why peace movements have fallen silent – is just as contentious as the issue of arms spending.
Whilst the Italian Communist Refoundation Party (Partito della Rifondazione Comunista, PRC) answered our questions, we also discussed the issue with the Austrian Communist Party (Kommunistische Partei Österreichs, KPÖ).
***
WORKERS ARE THE LOSERS IN AN ARMING EUROPE
Europe has deepened its economic and military dependence on the US. The cost of these rearmament programmes, however, has been passed on to workers through austerity measures
Anna CamposampIero – Italian Communist Reconstruction Party:
Camposampiero explained how wages, social rights and peace have been eroded whilst resources are being channelled into armaments.
How do you assess the EU’s relations with the US? Do you think complete independence from the US is possible? If not, how can this independence be achieved?
Ursula von der Leyen’s European Union is completely subservient to the United States. We have seen this in the support it has provided for nearly five years now to the proxy war in Ukraine, where the European Union could have played a diplomatic and mediating role. This war has led to a shift in the sourcing of energy resources—particularly natural gas, which now comes from the United States—along with the need to build regasification terminals, which have a high environmental impact. But we have also seen this with the “Rearm Europe” plan, later renamed “Readiness 2030” (readiness instead of rearmament, because words matter), which calls for an investment of 800 billion euros in weapons purchases, a significant portion of which will come from the United States.
But we saw this even more clearly with the signing of the trade agreement—a true triumph for Trump’s high-handedness, as he secured a substantial green light for his goods, even in defiance of European regulations. The European Union’s massive purchase of energy from the United States, and even a green light for U.S. lobsters: these are some of the points of the agreement.
The agreement will last until 2029, extending beyond Trump’s term with the sword of Damocles of 15% tariffs hanging over it. So much for the European Union’s independence: here, with a majority that includes the ECR (The Left voted against it), a vote was cast in favor of submission to those who use force and control capitalism.
The European Union should maintain an autonomous role, starting with its relations with other world powers. It should break free from its subservience to the United States, which would also allow for a cultural shift away from the West’s neocolonial worldview. A European Union at the center of multipolar relations should look not only to the West, especially when it comes to trade relations.
What can the peoples of the world expect from the NATO summit planned for July in Turkey? How do you assess NATO’s trajectory at this historic turning point?
Nothing good can be expected. The last summit, held in The Hague in June 2025, resulted in the member states (with the exception of Spain) agreeing to increase military spending to 5% of GDP. One year later, Italy has already exceeded the 3% debt-to-GDP ratio and has tried to classify civilian infrastructure as military spending by inventing a non-existent strategic and national security role for it. The case in point is the bridge across the Strait of Messina. We now expect further cuts to welfare and austerity measures, while the Meloni government has already spent more than €45 billion on weapons in 2025 alone.
At this point in history, NATO has radically changed its nature, seeking to become—sometimes successfully—a supranational political actor with increasing influence over international politics, taking on a role that is no longer defensive, if it ever truly was, but increasingly aggressive.
To what extent will the consequences of increasing armament affect workers? In which areas are you able to observe these effects?
The world of work will be severely affected by rearmament policies, partly, like all of us, through the austerity constraints required and the massive shift of resources from welfare to warfare. In Italy there is no minimum wage, wages have been stagnant for at least twenty years, and everything that is cut, privatized, or outsourced will further reduce workers' income and purchasing power.
This is true in Italy, where 11% of workers are considered working poor, and it is also true across the European Union, with its 26 million people living below the poverty line and where one in twelve workers is classified as working poor.
The other aspect is the so-called war Keynesianism, which has been widely discussed. Having abandoned the ecological transition, thanks to the climate change-denying right, the narrative is that war will save industry, particularly the automotive sector, claiming that military conversion will save jobs.
Finally, workers will go to war or see their children go to war, because historically it is the working class that is sent to die, certainly not those who profit from war.
Proof of this is the discussion about reinstating compulsory military service, which is already well advanced in many EU countries, such as Germany, or still being pursued more discreetly and quietly, as in Italy.
We have witnessed a decline in the power of the peace movements in recent years. In your perspective, what are the main reasons for this? How can a more effective and organised struggle against war and armament be conducted? How do you evaluate the influence of the Left?
In recent years, we have witnessed a decline in the strength of peace movements. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for this phenomenon? How can a more effective and organized struggle against war and rearmament be waged? How do you assess the influence of the left?
In 2003, the peace movement was described as the world's second superpower. 110 million people took to the streets on the same day to demand that Iraq not be invaded. We were defeated. The entire alter-globalization movement was defeated, and capitalism became the norm.
Those were the years when we were told that wars were humanitarian, bombs were smart, that there were women to be liberated and children to be saved (unless they were Palestinian). Little by little, war was normalized, while the world became increasingly polarized, and we witnessed the European Union's double standard toward Russia and Israel, absolute impunity for every action—from the genocide in Gaza to the kidnapping of Maduro, through to the strangulation of Cuba. In between came the failure of the United Nations and the dismantling of international law that characterize these dark times.
We must be able to understand the real economic reasons behind conflicts and have the tools, as the left, to propose a model different from predatory, warmongering capitalism.
Opposition to rearmament and to the diversion of resources that results in cuts to welfare is a first step. We need the world of work, and the recent ITUC summit in Madrid tells us that the direction has been set.
We need a united and determined left whose foremost objective is to stop the Trumpian, warmongering right in all its forms.
***
We need a common practice of Peace and Solidarity
Max Zirngast, KPÖ
The world is burning. Rather, it has been set ablaze by imperialist powers and warmongers. While Europe and the US are suffering under an unprecedented heat wave and the planet is getting constantly hotter, NATO will meet in Ankara for this year’s summit. Nothing good is to be expected from any NATO summit and this one will certainly be no different. The military is one of the main sources of emissions worldwide and thus contributes significantly to climate catastrophe alongside the death and destruction it causes.
ENCIRCLING CHINA AND RUSSIA
Yet, the world is changing. US hegemony is in relative decline for some time. Economically, China has raced past the US and its allies. Militarily, however, the US is still by far the most powerful country. Throughout the last years the US has increased its effort to slow down the hegemonic shift by means of war. The attack on Iran carried out by the US and Israel has shown us, however, that there are limits to US military power. Donald Trump’s attempts to sell defeat as success are not going to cover up what happened.
The current strategy of the US is quite clear: Encircle China and Russia in order to weaken them and keep them contained, consolidate Latin America as the back yard of the US and force the EU and Britain into a more active role in terms of military spending. Last years summit saw the decision for NATO member states to increase the military spending to 5% of the GDP.
This tendency of the US to demand more of the European member states has increased the desire for more autonomy among EU countries. Ideas of an EU army are floating around for some time, yet the voices are getting increasingly louder.
WELFARE, NOT WARFARE
Regardless of being NATO members or not, European countries are increasing their military budgets, while cutting social spending. This is true even for supposedly neutral countries like Austria. The largest military rearmament programs in decades are channeling trillions of dollars into the coffers of the arms industry. The return of nuclear rearmament demonstrates the ruthlessness with which those in power are willing to accept the risk of wars that threaten humanity itself. Those who speak out against rearmament and in favor of peace are often portrayed as aiding the enemy.
This is what the rulers of today’s capitalism propose to the people: Investment in armament, which eventually brings death and destruction – and mainly to the working class of all countries. At the same time health, care, education and social budgets are cut or not subject to necessary investments. This shows us quite clearly that the powers that be choose death over life. Yet, it is not their death, but ours.
Against this predicament our rallying cry has to be “Welfare, not Warfare”. On June 14th a large demonstration took place in Brussels with that slogan, bringing together left-wing parties, trade unions and the peace movement. On June 20,2026 a large peace conference called by the Stop the War Coalition also brought together more than 2500 activists from trade unions and left-wing organisations.
We are in dire need to have budget that invest in life and social systems, the welfare of the people, but what we get is quite the opposite. The rise of the far right across the globe is just the accompanying tendency of austerity and war.
PEACE AND SOLIDARITY
The peace movement has been in a dire situation for some time. In reality, it has been in decline since the 1980s. The big mobilizations along the way were situational and predominantly oriented towards opposition towards this or that war and cruelty (Yugoslavia, Iraq, the genocide in Gaza, etc.). It has not managed to put forward a comprehensive platform that is actually rooted in a broad and sustainable social movement for peace, solidarity and welfare. This is obviously also related to the dire situation of left and progressive forces in general.
There are signs of hope, however. The June 14th meeting in Brussels and a broad coalition against the rearmament of Europe, or the school strikes against compulsory military service in Germany. We have to build on those experience and attempts of developing a practice with actual relevance in society.
The only way to do this is common practice. We need to work together and implement the idea of peace and solidarity again in societies riddled with neoliberal despair and hopelessness. The left has a tendency to pick battles above its weight class in spheres, where our influence is weak. In the international arena today the left is irrelevant. That is not to say that we should not promote the idea of diplomacy and peace over war and destruction. This we should certainly do.
We must, however, find ways to make the people believe again. In themselves just as in those ideas of peace and solidarity, of a society where a good life for everyone is actually possible. We have to be patient and pick battles that we can actually win or are at least able to compete. And we need to find ways of developing common practice which actually serves the people - across borders.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Avusturya ve İtalyan sol-sosyalist partileri BirGün’e konuştu: Namlunun ucunda işçi var, published in BirGün newspaper on July 20, 2026.
Yorumlar