Analysis of: Rearming to reduce dependence on US should be Europe’s top priority, says Danish prime minister – Europe live
The Guardian | January 28, 2026
TL;DR
European leaders declare the US-led world order 'over' and call for urgent militarization to reduce dependence on Washington. Behind the rhetoric of 'sovereignty' lies a scramble among capitalist powers to reorganize imperial spheres of influence at workers' expense.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The Danish Prime Minister's declaration that 'the world order as we know it is over' signals a significant rupture in transatlantic capitalist relations. This live coverage captures European leaders scrambling to reposition themselves amid what they perceive as a structural shift in US priorities away from Europe. The calls for rapid militarization—with 2035 deemed 'too late'—reveal the urgency with which European capital seeks to establish independent imperial capacity. What emerges from this analysis is not a simple story of European 'defense' against external threats, but rather a complex realignment of inter-imperialist relations. The simultaneous invocation of Russia as an existential threat and the US (under Trump) as an unreliable partner exposes a fundamental contradiction: European capitals must justify massive military spending increases while their traditional security guarantor becomes a source of instability. The Greenland situation—where US territorial ambitions threaten a NATO ally—crystallizes this contradiction perfectly. The framing throughout naturalizes militarization as the only possible response to geopolitical uncertainty. Absent from this discourse is any consideration of working-class interests, despite the fact that rearmament will require either massive public debt, austerity in social spending, or both. The Daft Punk reference ('work it harder, make it better') inadvertently captures the ideology at work: European workers are being told to labor more intensively to fund a military buildup that serves capital's need to secure resources, trade routes, and spheres of influence in an increasingly multipolar world.
Class Dynamics
Actors: European political elites (Frederiksen, Macron, Kallas), European defense industry capital, US political leadership (Trump administration), Russian state, European working classes (largely absent from discourse), Greenlandic population (mentioned as 'afraid and scared')
Beneficiaries: European defense contractors and military-industrial complex, Political leaders seeking to consolidate power through security discourse, Finance capital positioned to profit from defense bonds and spending
Harmed Parties: European working classes who will bear costs through taxes or austerity, Greenlandic people caught between imperial powers, Ukrainian civilians (drone strike victims mentioned), Social programs that will compete with military budgets
The discourse is entirely dominated by state leaders and EU bureaucrats speaking to and for capital's interests. Working-class voices are completely absent despite workers being the ones who will fund rearmament through labor and bear its consequences. The Greenlandic PM's mention of a frightened population is the only acknowledgment that ordinary people exist in this geopolitical chess game. The power dynamic reveals a classic pattern: interstate competition is presented as requiring national unity, suppressing class antagonisms in favor of 'European' identity.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: European defense spending increases (currently below NATO targets), Competition for Arctic resources as climate change opens new extraction possibilities, Military-industrial production capacity gaps relative to US, Potential shift of capital from social reproduction to military production
The push for 'pan-European capabilities, not only national ones' signals an effort to rationalize European military production, concentrating it in larger firms capable of competing globally. This would accelerate the centralization of capital in the defense sector while creating dependent supply chains across member states. The call for a 'European Security Council' represents an attempt to create supranational coordination mechanisms that would further distance military policy from democratic accountability.
Resources at Stake: Arctic resources (oil, gas, minerals) accessible through Greenland, European public budgets (defense vs. social spending), Nuclear capabilities and intelligence infrastructure currently dependent on US, Trade routes and geopolitical positioning in multipolar order
Historical Context
Precedents: Pre-WWI inter-imperialist rivalry and arms races, Post-WWII US hegemony over Western Europe through NATO, 1990s-2000s European attempts at independent military capacity (failed), Historical pattern of militarization preceding major conflicts
This moment represents a potential transition from the unipolar US hegemony that characterized the post-Cold War era toward a multipolar configuration of competing imperial blocs. Such transitions have historically been periods of intense instability and conflict. The specific invocation of 'the world order as we know it is over' echoes similar pronouncements before major systemic reorganizations. The call for rapid rearmament mirrors the arms buildups that preceded both World Wars, when inter-imperialist contradictions could no longer be managed through existing institutional arrangements.
Contradictions
Primary: European capitals simultaneously depend on the US security umbrella (nuclear weapons, intelligence) while recognizing the US as an increasingly unreliable or even hostile actor. They cannot quickly replace US capabilities but cannot afford to remain dependent on a power that may abandon or coerce them.
Secondary: Democracy vs. militarization: massive defense spending requires either cutting social programs or increasing debt, both politically difficult without suppressing democratic input, Unity vs. national interests: calls for 'pan-European' defense conflict with national defense industries and sovereignty concerns, Russia as threat vs. potential negotiation partner: the Ukraine situation requires both confrontation and eventual settlement, Values rhetoric vs. imperial practice: invoking 'democracy' and 'international law' while preparing for great power competition based on military might
The most likely near-term trajectory involves significant increases in European military spending, accelerating the centralization of defense capital, and intensifying pressure on social budgets. The deeper contradictions—particularly between democratic legitimacy and militarization—will likely be managed through nationalist and security discourse that frames sacrifice as necessary for survival. However, economic pressures (inflation, debt, industrial decline) may limit Europe's ability to achieve genuine military autonomy, potentially forcing either renewed accommodation with the US or more dramatic institutional transformation.
Global Interconnections
This European realignment must be understood within the broader crisis of US hegemony and the emergence of a multipolar imperial order. China's rise, Russia's challenge to NATO expansion, and US domestic political instability have undermined the post-1945 arrangement where European capitals could focus on economic competition while outsourcing security to Washington. The scramble for Greenland—with its Arctic resources and strategic position—illustrates how climate change is creating new sites of inter-imperialist competition. The Ukraine war serves multiple functions in this realignment: it justifies militarization, weakens Russia, tests European resolve, and exposes the limits of US commitment. The mention of 1.2 million Russian casualties alongside the drone strike on civilians reveals the human cost of this great power competition, borne primarily by working-class soldiers and civilians while leaders quote pop songs at press conferences. The parallel stories from Hungary (prosecution of opposition figures) and France (elite sexual violence) remind us that 'European values' remain contested terrain where class and gender oppression continue regardless of geopolitical rhetoric.
Conclusion
For the European and global working class, this moment of inter-imperialist realignment presents both dangers and potential openings. The danger is clear: militarization historically serves to discipline labor, justify austerity, and channel class antagonisms into nationalist competition. The billions directed toward weapons will not build housing, healthcare, or address climate catastrophe. However, the very instability of the current moment—the admission that 'the world order is over'—also reveals the contingency of arrangements that have been presented as natural and eternal. As European workers are asked to sacrifice for 'defense,' the question of whose interests this defense serves becomes increasingly difficult to obscure. The task is to articulate a working-class internationalism that refuses the false choice between competing imperial blocs and instead demands that resources serve human needs rather than great power competition.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the division of the world among great powers directly illuminates the current European-US tensions and the scramble for Arctic resources.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Essential for understanding how the capitalist state mobilizes for war and how 'national defense' discourse serves ruling class interests while suppressing class consciousness.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's analysis of how crises are exploited to push through unpopular policies helps explain how the current 'emergency' framing enables rapid militarization that would otherwise face democratic resistance.