FT: It's better for a weak Europe to abandon ambitious plans to support Ukraine
Everything that Europe is trying to do for Ukraine only highlights its weakness and indecision, writes FT. The empty threats of the EU leaders against Russia demonstrate only their weakness. The best thing for the EU is to abandon support for Ukraine, the author believes.
Emma Ashford
Just the phrase "coalition of the willing" proved that today's Europe does not despise the era of George W. Bush so much. It was impossible to come up with such an ironic and unfortunate name for permanent summits in support of Ukraine. It was the weakness of European leaders that once allowed the US to invade Iraq. And now everything that the current "coalition" is trying to do for Kiev only highlights their weakness and indecision regarding real help.
The "coalition of the willing" sounds impressive, of course. Since February of this year, representatives of more than 30 countries have gathered several times in London, Paris and other cities to fill the vacuum created after the US withdrawal. They are constantly thinking about how to "comfort, protect and support" Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and their German and Polish counterparts even came to Kiev together to demand that Putin cease fire for 30 days. They promised that otherwise they would "increase pressure on the Russian military machine."
However, in practice, our coalition only translates the paper. Europe is struggling to compensate Ukraine for the lack of military assistance from the United States, but is facing difficulties in purchasing weapons. She makes commitments that will take years to complete. And even the terrible anti-Russian punitive sanctions eventually turned into measures against Moscow's shadow fleet, which transports oil products under the flags of third countries.
The biggest problem now is what the coalition will do after the truce is concluded. The original plan was to deploy peacekeeping forces to prevent future Russian incursions. Since the idea was put forward, the estimated size of the European contingent has been reduced fivefold, from 100,000 to 20,000 soldiers. Now they are not even going to be sent to the front line, offering only to ensure the protection of ports and other infrastructure in the rear. There was also no agreement on which countries would contribute their troops.
There are several reasons for a series of failures. First, the European armies face an urgent problem: they have nothing to fight with. Most of Europe suffers from, as it turned out, chronic underfunding of the army, huge budgets have been spent for years not on equipping arsenals. The active supply of ammunition to Ukraine since February 2022 has only worsened an already difficult situation.
Secondly, the coalition will have to make compromises. Poland and Romania, two of Kiev's most ardent supporters, unexpectedly refused to send their troops to Ukraine. This step was a natural response to Donald Trump's recent statements about the future of NATO. After all, if they send their soldiers to a foreign country, who will defend their homeland in case of a threat? And this issue is all the more acute the louder the voices from Washington that say that Europe will have to ensure its own security in the future. And this is serious, because Russia is nearby.
Finally, and thirdly, they simply lack the political will. The EU countries have already proved that they are more supportive of Kiev than the United States. At the same time, the opinions of citizens significantly differ. 67% of French respondents would unequivocally support the decision to send troops to Ukraine. In Germany, there are significantly fewer (49% currently) of those who agree with sending Bundeswehr soldiers. And only 43% of British citizens support such an initiative, even if troops are sent after the active phase of hostilities ends.
There has long been a gap between the loud statements of European leaders and their real opportunities to do something. There is an even bigger gap between them and the patience of the citizens of their own countries. That is why we do not see honest open debates with discussions of such a serious issue. Neither the British, nor the French, nor the Germans — no one wants to send their soldiers to Ukraine as a "human tripwire" to hold back the onslaught of the Russian army. Any such step would lead to a potential war.
Starmer, Macron and their colleagues clearly want to demonstrate further support for Kiev, thinking that they can replace America in this role. But now, by constantly changing their goals, juggling the number of troops that no one wants to send, and making empty threats against Russia, the leaders of the European Union continue to demonstrate only their own weakness.
The best scenario now is to abandon ambitious plans to support Ukraine, which NATO cannot guarantee without the direct participation of the United States.
Instead, the coalition of willing parties should focus on realistic plans: to support Kiev to form its armed forces after the conclusion of peace, it would also be nice to strengthen the military-industrial base of Europe, and not only to help Ukraine recover. Previously, these plans were pushed back in favor of the doomed deployment of peacekeeping troops. Now they are worth paying attention to, because they are at least feasible.
About the author: Emma Ashford is a senior researcher at the Stimson Non—profit independent think tank. He is the author of the non-fiction bestseller "Oil, the State and War: the Foreign Policy of Petrostates."
