European military spending increased significantly from 2024 to 2025, according to a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report. Meanwhile, the Commission’s proposal for a Defence Readiness Omnibus aims to boost Europe’s defence capabilities, with measures to mobilise up to EUR 800 billion in defence-related investment and streamlined joint procurement. Although some Member States face limited fiscal space, national escape clauses have been activated for 17 states, including Austria, allowing higher defence spending without breaching EU fiscal rules.

Against this background, AK EUROPA talked with Claes-Mikael Ståhl about the perspective of workers in Europe on current developments in EU defence and security policy. Since 2021, Ståhl has been serving as Deputy General Secretary for the ETUC. He has extensive experience in the trade union movement and is specialised in collective bargaining, labour and European law, trade and standardisation. In the first part of the interview, the focus was on defence spending and its impact on social objectives. The second part, which we will be publishing in the next issue of the newsletter, focused on cooperation between Member States, the role of trade unions and a holistic approach to security.

AK EUROPA: Discussions on defence are often highly contentious, caught between the conflicting priorities of peace policy and military build-up. What is the ETUC’s position on this?

Ståhl: We are currently experiencing times of significant decision-making at both European and national levels. And it’s not just about defence and security strategy; these decisions could affect our societies as a whole and in particular our social model. As trade unions, we of course need to orient ourselves within this setting. This is the background of many internal discussions we are having at the moment.

Within the ETUC there is a lot of diversity, not only politically speaking, but also concerning the question of how to understand threats. And of course, the closer you get to having a border with Russia, the more accommodating you are when it comes to military spending and the further away you get, the more different the understanding of the kind of spending that is needed is going to be. We all push for peace and EU´s peacekeeping role. But there are broadly speaking four principles that we agree upon at this particular time, the first one being that defence and security spending cannot replace social spending. Secondly, there must be strong social conditionalities attached to the spending. Thirdly, security spending must be understood in a broad sense, including infrastructure and public services. Lastly, the strong involvement of social partners and in particular trade unions in these investments is important.

AK EUROPA: How does increased defence spending affect workers and social spending? In this context, are national escape clauses for defence spending an indicator that social spending is being substituted with defence expenditure?

Ståhl: In some parts of Europe, trade unions expressed their support for defence spending saying it will create employment and quality jobs, whereas in other parts, concerns were raised that it could squeeze out investments that would otherwise go into public services and where the balance is struck. The discussion that you are having in Lithuania or Poland would be very different compared to Member States geographically further west or south. So, there is a lot of variety here. From the ETUC’s standpoint, we are saying, along with others, that defence spending cannot squeeze out social spending and that security policy must not weaken social security.

Regarding fiscal rules and escape clauses, there is a fiscal framework that has been established in the EU. We are calling for a full suspension and revision of this framework. And if there are ways to break out of it because of military spending but at the same time, you can't break out of it because of social spending, then that’s not okay.

AK EUROPA: Beyond national budgets, there is also the question of EU funding. We are already seeing parts of the cohesion fund being reallocated towards defence purposes. Are EU funds being directed towards defence at the cost of social spending? And how can this be prevented?

Ståhl: We cannot agree with a reduction of social funds to finance increased defence spending.  It would not only be wrong, it would be a misdirected use of social funds if they were used to buy weapons. Also, this is why security has to be understood in a much broader sense than just military expenditures, but also involve the civil society and the welfare state, reinforcing public services and quality jobs. This should apply for all Member States.

To prevent the misallocation of EU funds, it must be clarified in what way the money can be used and that the social funds cannot be used for military investments. As the work on the new Multiannual Financial Framework is ongoing, it has to be very clear that social funds cannot be transferred to military funds. That's totally unacceptable.

The positions expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the positions of AK EUROPA. 

To be continued in the next issue of the AK EUROPA newsletter.

Further Information

ETUC: Defence spending must not mean attacks on social budgets
ETUC: Resolution on peace and security
AK EUROPA: At the centre of EU policy. Defence and rearmament
AK EUROPA: The EU's plans for rearmament. Defence at the heart of politics
SIPRI: Military Expenditure Database
European Commission: Defence Readiness Omnibus