Although the Ankara Summit Declaration of NATO presents the alliance as a community of free and democratic nations, it essentially serves as a manifesto for a class struggle that will shake Europe over the coming decade. At the heart of this struggle, it appears, will be welfare budgets to be seized in the name of militarism.

One of the most destructive commitments of the ‘NATO 3.0’ vision—presented as an attempt to repair the US’s wavering hegemony in the global system through military coercion—was the reaffirmation of the target to increase military spending to 5% of national income by 2035. The European bureaucracy has thus clearly cemented its choice to act as a loyal financier of American war strategy and the arms monopolies. It is evident that the industrial forums, astronomical procurement figures and colossal spending commitments imposed at the summit will not remain mere paper commitments. All of this is constructing a regime of war and plunder that institutionalises the hand-over of social wealth to global war barons.

However, it does not appear to be at easy for governments to convince their citizens to accept this new war economy. As the heavy cost of this imperialist restructuring—to be financed directly from public services and social rights—is felt in workers’ kitchens, hospitals, schools and the right to housing, the historic struggle for a fair distribution of resources against militarism will inevitably intensify.

THE LIQUIDATION OF WELFARE AS AN ALLIANCE OBLIGATION

The escalation of military budgets to unheard-of levels, the restructuring of industrial capacity into a continuous ‘war economy’ model, the removal of supply rules between allies and ‘defence trade barriers’, funds allocated to artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, the securing of critical raw materials, and the design of transport and energy infrastructure to meet military logistical needs… When we consider these factors together, we realise that the structure before us is being prepared to function not so much as a military defence alliance in the classical sense, but rather as a global investment mechanism channelling public resources into the military-industrial complex. From this perspective, the declaration and the commitments surrounding it signal the end of the historical compromise between the welfare state and militarisation in the core capitalist countries. The current order is giving way to a harsh and uncompromising ‘warfare versus welfare’ conflict. Moreover, this radical transfer of resources is not left to the short-term preferences of whichever government emerges from the ballot box; it is made binding by being transformed into an ‘alliance obligation’.

THE STREETS HAD ALREADY SEEN THIS

This transfer of resources is, in fact, nothing new for the peoples of Europe. In recent years, protests against austerity policies and the dismantling of public services have been growing across the continent. During this period, hundreds of thousands of people were also filling the streets in opposition to the escalating imperialist aggression led by the US-Israel axis, particularly the genocide taking place in Palestine.

These two strands of protest—the labour movement and peace activists—which initially progressed along separate paths, had begun to converge on common ground as the process unfolded. For the link between militarist foreign policy and the impoverishment of daily life has now become so direct that it can no longer be concealed. Whilst governments cited national security and the threat of war as a source of fear, the people themselves were drawing the causal link between the billions channelled into tanks and fighter jets and the realities of unemployment, malnutrition and unpaid rent.

The slogan ‘Not war, but prosperity’, which gave the streets life, had emerged precisely from this insight. This slogan expressed a political protest—one that recognised militarism as a direct threat to the workers’ own social and economic security—and a direct struggle over the distribution of resources. The Ankara Declaration transformed this tension, which had long since been laid bare on the streets, into the programme of the imperialist alliance.

A glance at this picture is enough to understand the process ahead. The issue that will shape European politics in the coming years will not be confined to debates about security gaps. The real struggle will centre on the question of who will bear the social cost of the war economy, and what future the welfare state will have in the face of militarisation.

THE LEFT'S CHALLENGE

However, both anti-war movements and ruling parties face serious challenges. Take the United Kingdom, for example. Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation last month, is leaving behind a militarist budget in which military spending has reached colossal proportions. Yet this legacy has not been fully accepted domestically. Public opinion polls further complicate the picture. According to a YouGov survey, 56% of respondents want defence expenditure to increase, whilst opposition to military spending is confined to the left and the younger generation. However, when asked where this money should come from, the response clearly shows that cuts to healthcare, education and pensions are rejected. The only option leading by a clear margin is a tax increase on the highest income bracket.

On the other hand, it is also important to recognise that the fact opposition to increased military spending remains a minority view in public opinion constitutes a handicap for the left. Grassroots movements such as the Stop the War Coalition therefore frequently emphasise that campaigns against cuts to public services must necessarily place anti-war arguments at their core. For the separation of the demand for welfare from anti-war sentiment creates a dangerous ground that feeds the far right; it carries the risk of producing a majority willing to accept that the burden is placed on migrants and vulnerable groups. The real test facing the European left in the coming period will lie precisely here: in its capacity to mainstream a political discourse that links these two demands.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Avrupa’da yaklaşan bölüşüm kavgası, published in BirGün newspaper on July 12, 2026.