IN RECENT DAYS, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, multiple EU taboos have been completely shattered, with the bloc now moving to supply over €500 million worth of military supplies to the Ukrainian government.

This was an unprecedented move by the EU, which had not made the move towards supplying weapons to a country in the past.

The decision to send weapons to Ukraine was announced on Sunday, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen saying that it was a “watershed moment”.

“For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack. This is a watershed moment,” von der Leyen said in a statement.

Yesterday, the new European Parliament President, Maltese MEP Roberta Metsola, said that there was an “unprecedented threat” to Europe following the invasion of Ukraine and that there needed to be steps towards investment in European defence.

“We have gone further and provided much-needed weapons to Ukraine,” Metsola said.

“Investment in defence must match our rhetoric. Europe must move to have a real security and defence union.

“We have shown last week that it is possible and desirable and more than anything it is necessary.”

Dr Ken McDonagh, head of DCU’s School of Law and Government, told The Journal that moves by the EU to supply weapons to Ukraine was a step-change in their typical policies on defence.

“The EU’s response to the Russian invasion in Ukraine marks a rapid transformation of the EU’s approach to external conflict,” said McDonagh.

“Providing lethal aid to a party in an interstate conflict is a step-change from previous EU engagement external to its borders.”

McDonagh said that the method under which the weapons are being supplied, the European Peace Facility, was designed to be used in a crisis.

“This move coupled with the ratcheting up of sanctions demonstrates the seriousness the EU takes the conflict and its determination to assert its own position.”

‘Horrified’

There has been political opposition to the move in Ireland, with People Before Profit TD, Paul Murphy telling The Journal that it is “very worrying” for the EU to be taking these steps and that he was horrified when he first heard about the move.

“I was horrified because I thought that this was a big jump in the militarisation of the EU,” Murphy said.

“This is the first time that the EU as the EU is going to give weapons to another state. It’s a state that is involved in a conflict against a nuclear power and Ireland is part of that fund.”

“The government has an extremely Jesuitical distinction between the lethal and nonlethal components of the fund,” he said. “The reality is that Ireland is providing the same amount of money, relative to its size to this militarisation fund as any other country.”

Murphy said that despite the government saying that the money is going towards non-lethal measures, it remains part of the fund.

“They always needed to deliver fuel as well as tanks, to go into tanks.”

Murphy called the move by the EU towards further militarisation during the Ukraine crisis ‘cynical’.

He said that while it had always been in the background, there has been a rapid increase in calls for further militarisation of Europe due to the invasion of Ukraine.

“I think there is a shock and awe now, that they try and use what’s happening in Ukraine in order to drive this stuff through.”

Why now?

When asked about what had changed between Europe making these decisions and previous conflicts in eastern Europe – like the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s – McDonagh said that “everything” had changed.

“In a word? Everything. The scale and scope of Russia’s invasion took European capitals by surprise.

“Yes, the Americans were warning of a full-scale invasion, but then they also warned that Saddam had a stockpile of WMD.

As the war broke out, several European countries seemed as concerned with carving out loopholes in any sanctions regime to protect pet interests as they were in deterring Russia. But that has changed utterly, so the transformation is not one of slow incremental change but a sudden and dramatic shift.

He said that the EU’s previous relationship with Russia was one of “cautious engagement”, due to the bloc’s dependency on Russian gas.

However, he says that the Russian invasion has now changed things dramatically.

“This conflict has flipped that calculus, and the risks of dependency on an unpredictable partner like Russia now for all member states far outweigh the risk of energy shortages in the short and medium-term.”

McDonagh added that the wars that took place in the former Yugoslavia were a catalyst for the development of EU defence policies, but that it took Russia invading Ukraine for political divisions to be “swept aside” to ensure decisive actions.

Future impacts

On potential McDonagh said that the EU was initially expected to deliver an updated defence and security strategy later this month and that he expects this document to now undergo significant changes.

“This document will be undergoing serious redrafting to reflect the rapidly changing threat environment but also because we have now learned that when faced with a serious threat on our doorstep, the EU is capable of taking decisive collective action,” McDonagh said.

However, he did have a caveat:

Much will depend on the outcome of the conflict, if the EU’s actions are successful in supporting Ukraine then it will be a powerful precedent for collective action. On the other hand, if the conflict escalates or if EU solidarity starts to wobble in the face of economic costs, energy shortages or internal dissent then it may set back cooperation for decades.

Murphy said that he believed that the future impacts of this will be seen in several ways, including a ramping up of military spending across Europe.

“There will be a significant ramp-up in military spending in all European states. I mean Germany is now going to go for the 2% of GDP [in military spending] that NATO has been pressurising for.

“I think it’s very clear the same pressure is on here.”

He added that it was likely that the EU would move further on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), where member state countries pursue structural integration of their militaries.

Ireland officially agreed to join PESCO in 2017, when Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil voted in the Dáil to join the defence agreement.

There were concerns raised by this in 2017, with TDs from multiple political parties raising issue with PESCO, saying that it could undermine Ireland’s neutrality.

McDonagh says that the current actions are “carefully calibrated” to support Ukraine but not risk a war with Russia.

“This is a difficult line to walk… It will be challenging to continue to calibrate the EU response in the face of continued Russian aggression particularly if the conflict moves further West.”

Murphy has argued that rather than supplying weapons, there needs to be moves to de-escalate the war in Ukraine and that Ireland should be playing a role as a peacemaker through its place on the UN Security Council.

“Ireland should be a voice for peace and de-escalation on the UN Security Council.”

He does say that he remains fully behind Ukraine, but that a further escalation between two world powers – the US and Russia – should be avoided.