Ursula von der Leyen recently announced, following the London summit, that the European Union would unveil a “comprehensive rearmament plan for Europe on March 6.” She emphasized the urgency of increasing military investments in order to “prepare for the worst.” However, this announcement has sparked significant skepticism and criticism. Many Europeans question the source of the funding for such a militarization effort, wondering if their remaining resources will be stripped away. For years, the European Union has been portrayed as a beacon of prosperity and peace. Yet, critics argue that fear has consistently been used as a tool to push citizens into supporting harmful policies. Increasingly, Europeans perceive that the real threat does not come from Moscow, Ukraine, the USA, or China, but as the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, recently echoed the true threat comes from within Western institutions, not from external adversaries, specifically from Brussels, where leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Olaf Scholz are accused of manipulating narratives to sustain the war in Ukraine. European project, originally built on the promise of peace, now seems to be leading the continent toward war. The European Union, rather than securing the future, seems to be digging the grave of Europe itself. Klaus Schwab’s infamous quote, “You will own nothing and be happy,” is now being interpreted as a grim prophecy rather than a utopian vision. The push for increased military spending diverts crucial funds away from essential public services, environmental sustainability, and social welfare programs. The skepticism extends to concerns about political rhetoric. Many see the discourse surrounding figures like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as exaggerated, questioning the credibility of those who label him a “hero.” Detractors argue that European leaders could have just as easily fabricated a threat from extraterrestrials, highlighting what they see as the absurdity of the current narrative. The focus, they claim, should not be on an external aggressor but rather on the internal decisions that have led to economic hardship and political instability across the continent. A significant segment of European public opinion believes that Russia has not provoked the EU, NATO, or France, but rather that European leaders are pushing for a prolonged confrontation with a nuclear power that possesses 5,000 warheads. Critics warn that such reckless policies could lead Europe into another catastrophic conflict-just as the continent was at the center of two world wars in the past century. Calls for rearmament are met with sarcasm, as some Europeans express mock enthusiasm about facing Russia alongside Sweden, questioning the feasibility and necessity of such a move. Public concern is growing over Ursula von der Leyen’s authority and the legitimacy of the decisions she is making on behalf of European nations. Detractors argue that these actions undermine national sovereignty and democracy, concentrating power in Brussels while stripping individual nations of their ability to determine their own paths. The criticism does not stop at von der Leyen; Macron, Scholz, and other European leaders are also being accused of leading the continent down a destructive path. The argument is that the push for increased military spending diverts crucial funds away from essential public services, environmental sustainability, and social welfare programs. Instead, these resources are being funneled into a “cannon fodder project” that benefits the wealthy elite at the expense of the general population. The war means, according to them, raising taxes, which could lead to public outrage, cutting social benefits, further impoverishing struggling families and printing more money, causing hyperinflation and economic collapse. Analysts who have studied European opinion trends note a significant shift in public sentiment. Many now believe that the war is unwinnable and that Russia holds the key to both prolonging and ending the conflict at its discretion. There is a growing recognition that continuing down the current path will only lead to further instability, economic hardship, and a potential escalation that could have devastating consequences for Europe. With Europe already facing challenges from extremist threats and economic struggles, adding a military confrontation with Russia and increasing dependence on U.S. foreign policy could spell disaster for the continent. Critics argue that unless European citizens wake up and demand accountability from their leaders, they will be dragged into a war with catastrophic consequences. Ultimately, the core of the argument is that European leaders are not safeguarding the interests of their people. Instead, they are prioritizing a militaristic agenda that serves political and financial elites. As tensions continue to rise, the question remains: Will European citizens take control of their future, or will they allow themselves to be led into another devastating conflict? There is growing resentment toward European leadership, with some comparing the current EU to a “Fourth Reich” that seeks to impose its will on member nations. Rather than serving the interests of its people, the EU’s current trajectory appears to be one of decay, defeat, and disintegration. Instead of focusing on the prosperity and well-being of its citizens, the Union is investing in military escalation. But this time, the people will not be deceived. The resistance against this war is growing. After nine years, European public, analysts and thinkers seem to have reached the same conclusion that former U.S. President Donald Trump did regarding military preparedness. However, financing a military expansion while already supporting a costly war is problematic. Money does not fall from the sky, and diverting funds means making painful cuts elsewhere. The challenge now is whether European leaders will dare to increase taxes without triggering a backlash from an already frustrated population. This growing frustration among European citizens mirrors sentiments expressed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized NATO and questioned its role in global conflicts. Many Europeans now share Trump’s perspective that NATO initiated the war under false pretenses, framing it as an act of aggression. As public discourse shifts, more people in Europe are aligning with the idea that the conflict is not in their best interests but rather serves as a means to further impoverish ordinary citizens while enriching the powerful. The writer is a former press secretary to the president; former press minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France and former MD (SRBC).