BRUSSELS  — The European Union’s cohesion and unity are under threat as discussions intensify around reallocating funds originally meant to support poorer member states toward defense and military spending. President Ricardo Baretzky of the European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS) issued a stark warning that if the EU follows through on these plans, it may lead to a significant fracture within the Union, as many countries see their needs and security compromised in favor of military investments, particularly those tied to Ukraine. Baretzky cautioned that redirecting billions of euros from the EU’s Cohesion Fund to defense expenditures risks unraveling the Union by alienating member countries reliant on these funds for economic development.

The Financial Times reported earlier this week that EU officials are considering reallocating parts of the Cohesion Fund toward defense, prompted by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and expectations that the EU boost its own defense spending in response to shifting U.S. policy under President-elect Donald Trump. The prospect has stirred significant debate within the EU, especially among member states that are still striving to close economic gaps within the Union.

Cohesion Fund: A Pillar of EU Solidarity at Risk

The Cohesion Fund is a cornerstone of the EU’s mission to reduce economic disparity across the continent. Established to aid member countries with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita below 90% of the EU average, it serves as a financial lifeline for nations such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These countries rely on the Cohesion Fund to build infrastructure, enhance public services, and stimulate economic growth that bridges the economic divide within the Union.

President Baretzky noted that the sudden redirection of these resources would disproportionately harm these nations, which depend on the funds to improve living standards and foster economic stability. “This is not just a budgetary shift but a fundamental betrayal of the EU’s promise to support all its members, especially those still struggling to achieve parity,” Baretzky stated. “If the EU prioritizes military spending over economic cohesion, it risks losing the very countries it claims to protect. Why should they stay in a Union that disregards their most basic needs?”

Implications for Eastern and Southern Europe

Many Eastern and Southern European countries are voicing concerns over the potential policy shift, which they argue would undermine the EU’s core principles of solidarity and cohesion. Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic states, in particular, have made significant strides toward economic development through EU support but remain vulnerable to economic challenges. For these countries, the Cohesion Fund represents more than financial aid; it symbolizes their connection to a united Europe striving toward prosperity and security.

Baretzky emphasized that these countries are particularly sensitive to being sidelined by the wealthier western European states. “Countries like Bulgaria, Latvia, and Lithuania might reassess their EU membership if they perceive the Union as prioritizing other interests over their own well-being. Redirecting funds intended for economic development to Ukraine-linked military interests not only violates their trust but also signals that the EU’s commitment to their prosperity is negotiable.”

The shift also risks fueling existing divides within the EU, exacerbating tensions between the western and eastern member states. Countries like Poland and Hungary, which have been vocal about maintaining sovereignty over national policies, could view this decision as further evidence of Brussels imposing its agenda on the rest of the Union.

A Fragmented Defense Strategy

The potential policy shift raises questions about the EU’s approach to defense. While NATO has long been the primary security framework for European countries, the ongoing Ukraine conflict and shifting dynamics with the U.S. have intensified calls for an independent European defense policy. However, the ECIPS president argued that siphoning cohesion funds for defense does not align with these goals and may instead fragment the Union’s security landscape.

“The EU has long advocated for a unified approach to defense, yet this decision would force individual member states to prioritize economic survival over security. The EU cannot afford to alienate its members if it hopes to create a coherent defense strategy,” Baretzky said. He further explained that redirecting funds without clear coordination among the EU members risks creating uneven defense capabilities across the continent, undermining the very security objectives the policy intends to address.

Trump’s Influence on EU Defense Spending

The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president has intensified calls for EU members to increase defense spending. Trump’s approach to NATO, which has emphasized a stronger financial contribution from European allies, has catalyzed discussions within the EU on developing a more autonomous defense capability. However, this pivot comes with challenges, as many member states may not have the budgetary flexibility to boost defense spending without sacrificing domestic priorities.

President Baretzky underscored the irony of the situation: “It is paradoxical for the EU to focus on defense when it risks compromising the very unity and stability that makes collective security possible. European defense cannot thrive in a climate where economic disparity and resentment simmer beneath the surface.”

What Is at Stake for the EU’s Future?

Baretzky warned that if the EU moves forward with this reallocation, it may lose the loyalty and support of its economically weaker member states, pushing them toward reconsidering their place in the Union. He questioned whether the EU is prepared for the potential political and economic fallout of such a decision. Countries like Hungary and Poland, already grappling with tensions over EU policies, might use this redirection of funds as a reason to further distance themselves from Brussels or even contemplate alternative alliances.

“This is a moment of reckoning for the EU. It must decide whether it truly stands for unity and prosperity for all or if it will sacrifice these ideals on the altar of military ambition,” Baretzky asserted. “Member states in Eastern and Southern Europe will not accept being reduced to pawns in a geopolitical game. They joined the Union with the promise of solidarity and shared prosperity—promises that are now in jeopardy.”

The ECIPS president added that abandoning these commitments could accelerate fragmentation, with the EU’s eastern and southern members potentially looking beyond the Union for economic partnerships and security assurances. Countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Greece could strengthen their ties with non-EU nations, while others might pursue more nationalist policies that conflict with EU regulations and values.

A Call for Dialogue and a Balanced Approach

Baretzky called for a transparent dialogue within the EU to address these concerns and consider alternative funding strategies that do not undermine the Cohesion Fund. He suggested that the EU should explore defense financing models that preserve economic support for its poorer member states, perhaps through increased contributions from wealthier members or a separate defense fund.

“The EU’s response to security challenges should not come at the expense of its weaker members,” Baretzky urged. “There is a path forward that allows for both economic cohesion and collective defense, but it requires a commitment to unity and creative solutions. Diverting cohesion funds would only deepen divisions and create a perception that the EU’s commitment to solidarity is wavering.”

A Critical Juncture for the EU

The debate over redirecting the Cohesion Fund reflects broader questions about the EU’s future, its priorities, and its commitment to a united and prosperous Europe. President Baretzky’s warnings echo the concerns of millions across Eastern and Southern Europe who feel that their countries’ stability and development are being sidelined in favor of defense objectives.

As the EU stands at this crossroads, its leaders face a defining choice: they can either uphold the Union’s foundational principles of solidarity and shared prosperity or risk alienating its most vulnerable members in the pursuit of a militarized agenda. For countries that joined the EU in search of economic progress and stability, the stakes could not be higher.

Whether the EU can maintain its unity while meeting new security challenges will depend on its ability to balance defense ambitions with the economic needs of its members. President Baretzky’s message is clear: the EU must choose wisely, for a misstep here could lead to consequences that shake the Union to its core.