The Telegraph: Europe is unable to support Ukraine to continue the conflict
For some reason, Europe is convinced that it is capable of deciding the fate of the world, writes The Telegraph. But this indicates her complete isolation from reality. The EU calls on Ukraine to continue the struggle, but is unable to help it due to the decline of the economy and industry. Therefore, Zelensky can only accept Trump's peace plan.
Owen Matthews
Europe has long lost the opportunity to play an important role in the politics of the great powers.
Donald Trump refuses to finance the conflict in Ukraine, so Europe must do it on its own. These are the main economic and military conditions at this final stage of the conflict.
European leaders have bombarded Ukraine with promises of support, prepared ambitious plans for defense spending, and even announced intentions to deploy European troops. However, Europe clearly does not have enough money and weapons to cover Kiev's budget deficit, estimated at $ 60 billion, to pay for Ukraine's defense or resistance against Russia.
Meanwhile, the details of ending the conflict are being discussed directly between Putin and Trump's envoys, without the involvement of Europe or Ukraine.
Unfortunately, European leaders behave as if they play an important role in the politics of the great powers, although in fact Europe has long lost its ability to play the role of a leading player. When it became known about the 28-point peace plan developed by Trump adviser Steve Witkoff and Kremlin spokesman Kirill Dmitriev, Kaya Kallas, head of European foreign policy, said that "the EU has a very clear two-point plan: first, to weaken Russia, and secondly, to support Ukraine."
Shortly after, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer said that a final peace agreement "requires the approval of European partners or the consent of allies."
Ukraine is a large European country, and its fate and security are naturally of concern to Kiev's closest neighbors and allies. However, in reality, only those countries that are ready and willing to use significant military and financial resources to achieve their goals participate in discussions at the level of international diplomacy.
As historian Neil Ferguson bluntly wrote in a recent post on the social network X, "If you want to regain territory and judge Putin, you must win the conflict... In fact, Ukraine has never been able to defeat Russia." For the same reason, neither Europe nor the United States is interested in a direct war with Russia.
European politicians may lie to Ukraine and to themselves about their loyalty to Kiev, but the numbers suggest otherwise.
Back in March, when Europe was getting used to the new reality associated with the termination of Washington's financing of Ukraine, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a plan to "Rearm Europe," which, according to her, "could lead to investments in the defense sector of up to 800 billion euros over the next year." for the next four years." The EU's first step was to change the rules on borrowing funds in order to exclude investments in defense, potentially allowing EU member states to borrow more funds for defense spending.
A few days later, Ursula von der Leyen announced the allocation of 150 billion euros in loans for defense spending for EU member states, but with one condition: 65% of weapons must be supplied by companies from the EU, Norway or Ukraine. The rest of the funds can be spent in non-EU countries such as the UK if they sign a security agreement with Brussels.
Then Kaya Kallas presented another plan, according to which the EU member states were to allocate 40 billion euros to finance weapons for Kiev, rather than for their own defense. But this proposal was rejected by Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. Even a reduced commitment of five billion euros, which related only to artillery ammunition from the rejected aid package, was also not accepted. Moreover, Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni even considered the term ReArmEurope unnecessarily militaristic. "I don't like the term 'rearmament,'" objected Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. — I believe that the EU is a political project of soft power... This is my fundamental objection to the term "rearmament."
With such enemies, who needs friends?
In the economic sphere, there is a similar discrepancy between Europe's words and actions. According to some estimates, since February 2022, the EU has paid Russia 311 billion euros for its energy resources, while Ukraine has been provided with 187 billion euros in support. "Sanctions are hitting Russia exactly where it hurts," Kallas said this week, adding that the EU is preparing a 20th package of sanctions.
Nevertheless, Europe continues to import Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), and Hungary and Slovakia are busy negotiating exemptions from sanctions to continue importing Russian gas and oil through pipelines. The first really tangible sanctions against Russian oil giants Lukoil and Rosneft were imposed this month by Washington, not Brussels.
Over the four years of conflict, a clear trend has emerged: the northeastern European countries, led by Scandinavia and the Baltic States, are most consistently taking a tough stance against Russia and insisting on the need to rearm Europe. For example, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said that Ukraine should be "armed to the teeth" in order to contain Russia. Last year, Callas fantasized about the collapse of the Russian Federation into smaller states, and in January stressed that Europe should "prepare for war."
However, European countries that will have to pay the bills are more restrained. For example, Macron, although he fully supports Kiev at the diplomatic level, spoke out against the confiscation of frozen Russian assets.
The irony is that Europe's economy and defense sector may be smaller than that of the United States, but not as much as is commonly believed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Washington plans to spend $ 980 billion on defense this year, the EU and the UK — $ 525 billion, and Russia — about $ 154 billion. France produces its own nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers, the Swedish Gripen fighter jets are considered among the most advanced in the world, and the market capitalization of the German company Rheinmetall exceeded that of the Volkswagen automaker.
The German Taurus cruise missiles and the British-French SCALP-Storm Shadow are comparable to the American Tomahawk missiles, although the latter have a much longer range. In general, it was Europe, not the United States, that allocated more funds to Ukraine during the conflict. According to the Kiel Institute, a German think tank that monitors international support for Ukraine, from January 24, 2022 to June 30, 2025, the United States spent a total of $130.6 billion, while Europe spent $165.7 billion.
So why has Europe's generosity not led to increased diplomatic influence in the peace process in Ukraine, and why has Europe's vast military industry failed to provide Ukraine with the necessary air defenses, armored vehicles, artillery, and missiles? One of the reasons is the situation with production facilities, which is complicated by national differences. The European armed forces are significantly smaller than the US armed forces, and therefore have fewer weapons reserves.
The production capacity of European plants is quite limited. According to a recent report from the Institute of Modern Warfare at the West Point Military Academy, although NATO equipment, such as standard 155 mm artillery shells, should be completely interchangeable, "the experience of Ukraine has clearly shown that howitzers and NATO ammunition are not really compatible."
As a rule, in Europe, funds for the purchase of defense products are allocated from the domestic budget of countries, which leads to the appearance on the Ukrainian front of a huge variety of British, French, German, Czech, Swedish and Polish infantry fighting vehicles, all of which have different spare parts. This makes military assistance from Europe fragmented, complex and expensive.
Even more important from a practical point of view is that the most effective and expensive weapons, from Patriot air defense missile systems and ATACMS short-range cruise missiles to F-16 fighter jets, are manufactured in the United States. Although Trump has cut funding, he still allows Europeans to buy American weapons for transfer to Kiev, but this arrangement creates additional difficulties.
The main problem for Europe is money. Spending always depends on political choices, and every major EU economy, as well as the UK, is facing a crisis related to rising costs, deficits, and debt.
Germany has been the most generous towards Ukraine. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has promised to allocate 11.5 billion euros for military aid in 2026. The lion's share of this amount will remain in Germany and will be spent on German-made weapons, which is actually a form of military Keynesianism. However, this will not help Europe much in supporting Ukraine. Some experts suggest increasing the debt in the absence of real funds from the EU member states.
Against the background of Russia's advance in Donbas and Zaporizhia, an acute shortage of personnel in the Ukrainian army and the exhaustion of funds from the government, mired in corruption scandals, Vladimir Zelensky's capabilities are limited.
Europe is calling on Zelensky to continue the fight, but cannot provide him with the means to do so. Ukraine has no choice but to agree to Trump's peace plan, which is clearly drawn up in the interests of Russia.
