Europe Can Protect Ukraine Without the US—Here’s How
The EU, along with the UK and Norway, has the resources and capabilities to sustain Ukraine’s fight and provide security guarantees if Putin agrees to a ceasefire. A commentary by Daniel Gros
Vladimir Putin’s dream has come true. The Transatlantic alliance is fracturing, and NATO no longer constitutes a monolithic block that could stop Russia’s march westward to reclaim the territory and sphere of influence that a revisionist interpretation of Russia’s history takes as the natural right of a superpower.
The US, under Donald Trump, apparently considers that Ukraine, as the smaller and weaker country, should submit to Russia, much as Canada should do towards the US. It is now up to Europe to defend Ukraine and, thus, e-democracy and the rule of law in Europe.
Can Europe rise to this challenge? European leaders again expressed their support for Ukraine at a recent gathering in London. A European peace plan is now being proposed, but it has any chances only if Putin finds it in his interest to stop the war.
The first step must thus be to provide Ukraine with the means to defend it itself better, ensuring that for Russia the cost of continuing attacking increases. This would require doing more than only substituting the military and financial aid, which has been ‘paused’ by the US. The support Ukraine has received so far has been barely enough to slow the Russian advance to a crawl but not to reverse the odds on the battlefield.
The raw numbers are encouraging. Western support to Ukraine has been running at around 80-90 billion USD per annum since 2022 (close to 240 billion over 3 years). The share of the US was about 30-40 billion USD per annum, about equal to that of Europe (counting the EU and its two main European Partners, Norway and the UK). From a financial point of view, Europe should have little problem in financing such a sum, which amounts to less than 0.3 % of its GDP.
Normally it would not be possible to finance such a sum out of the regular EU budget, which is very small (only about 1 % of GDP) and runs over several years, with available revenues earmarked years in advance, mainly to EU farmers and poorer regions.
But given the large COVID-related special fund (NGEU) set up in 2020, there are considerable unspent sums that could be re-purposed. And there are other ways to finance the required increased support for Ukraine.
A group of nations, probably representing all the large EU member states plus the UK and Norway, could create a new financing vehicle that would issue debt to cover aid for Ukraine.
This approach would have the advantage of avoiding the requirement to find unanimity among the EU and thus sideline the potential opposition of Viktor Orban’s Hungary and maybe even those EU members that are formally neutral, as Austria and Ireland. Finding the money should thus not be an insurmountable problem.
Putting Ukraine in the position of strength, even without the US, is of course not only a question of money. Fortunately, Europe can provide most of the essential capabilities Ukraine needs on the battlefield, like tanks, guns, and the ammunition. On air defence, a little more time might be needed as Ukraine relies a present on the globally known Patriot system. But there are several alternatives like the Franco-Italian SAMP/T and shorter-range air defence systems from Norway and Germany. These systems have now been battle-tested and seem to be somewhat less expensive than the Patriot.
Europe does not dispose of the same satellite and intelligence gathering capabilities as the US. Ukraine would be significantly disadvantaged if the US were to stop intelligence sharing. It remains to be seen whether the US will stop this form of support, which costs nothing. The key fact that remains is that Europe should be able to provide Ukraine with the material support needed to stabilize the battlefield even if US support completely stops.
Moreover, Ukrainian ingenuity in developing new drones has given it an edge in some situations. Another low-cost way to bolster Ukraine’s defences would be to vastly increase support for the development of this sector in Ukraine, rapidly scaling up the production of new drones as they are being developed by small, innovative teams that work closely with the fighters on the ground. Here, again, the absence of US military aid would not be decisive.
How to Find the Money
A more difficult question is whether Europe could provide a credible security guarantee for Ukraine in the (unlikely) event that Putin were to agree to a ceasefire. In the absence of any US support, hundreds of thousands of troops would be necessary to defend not only Ukraine but all NATO territory. It has been estimated that this could require an increase in expenditure of at least 250 billion euro annually, about 1.5 % of GDP; and it would take years, if not decades, to build up the required structures and combat units.
But while a rearmament of this scale would certainly transform the EU into a major power, it is not needed because these calculations neglect the extraordinary strength of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Ukraine will want to keep a large part of its army mobilised for its own security. The cost for this would be a fraction of the 250 billion for a European force of similar strength. Moreover, Ukraine has been able to deny Russia air superiority with only a few dozen older Western combat aircraft.
European air forces with hundreds of more modern fighters would be vastly superior to those of Russia, even without US support, and would certainly dominate the skies if they intervened.
A combination of financial support to Ukraine to finance a large standing army with the automatic declaration of a no-fly zone over Ukraine should Russia resume hostilities would provide a strong deterrent at a much lower cost. Moreover, this approach could be put together within a very short time, not the years required to put hundreds of thousands of European boots on the ground.
Europe has the resources to keep Ukraine in the fight and provide security guarantees should Putin agree to halt his aggression. It now needs to back up its rhetorical support with money and military aid.
This article was originally published by Project Syndicate
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
