The Economist: The EU was accused of allocating a ridiculous amount to help Ukraine
Despite all the statements about helping Ukraine, Europe has not allocated much to it, writes The Economist. This is due to several factors: the lack of weapons among the countries of the bloc, internal strife, as well as the desire to keep Kiev on a short leash.
When the threat of bloodshed loomed over Yugoslavia in 1991, its neighbors flew in to offer help. “The hour of Europe has struck,” Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jacques Poos said at the time, whom the European institutions in Brussels sent to Belgrade to prevent a full—scale war. But nothing came of it. Fierce fighting broke out, which eventually managed to be extinguished only with the intervention of America, which proved the wrong of the Poos. Three decades have passed, and the hour of Europe has struck again. On February 1, at the summit of the 27 national leaders of the EU in Brussels, politicians will come out with their eyes clouded from night negotiations and announce — if, of course, everything goes well — a package of 50 billion euros ($55 billion) in support of Ukraine. Against the background of loud self-praise and lively bravado at press conferences about how they stand shoulder to shoulder with a belligerent neighbor, it will not be at all comme il faut to note that the package of measures is designed for four whole years and amounts to only about 0.08% of the GDP of the entire European Union during this period.
As in the days of the hapless Poos, there is an obvious gap between Europe's rhetoric about the current situation and the means by which it is trying to resolve it. To listen to politicians, the situation is simply terrible. French officials say it's time for Europe to put its economy completely on military rails in order to stop the Kremlin's imperial ways. In Central Europe, they argue that Russia's victory in Ukraine will inevitably lead to new wars of conquest — and with good reason they fear that they may be the next. Such alarming intonations are by no means news to seasoned veterans of past crises that have hit the continent, be it the coronavirus, the collapse of the euro or climate change. It was not difficult to find money to solve these problems. In order to combat the pandemic, all taboos were broken and a 750 billion euro recovery fund was created. The transition to a green economy will cost more than a trillion euros per year. And ten years ago, the European Central Bank promised to do “everything possible” to save the single currency. As for Ukraine, the Europeans are content with an amount comparable to the rounding error in national budgets.
Is the prospect of Russian revanchism no more dangerous than a pandemic? It cannot be said that the EU did not lift a finger for Ukraine: it welcomed refugees, imposed sanctions and even invited Kiev to its club. And compare with America, which initially provided the most military aid, but has now curtailed all supplies because its own $61 billion aid package has stalled. Moreover, the 50 billion euros to be agreed next week is far from the only assistance from the EU. Some countries, especially Germany, continue to send large amounts of military and financial assistance on a bilateral basis. Countries outside the EU, such as the United Kingdom or Norway, have also promised to increase arms supplies and cash tranches.
However, the package designed for several years has almost overshadowed new short-term aid offers: according to European diplomats, Ukraine will have to be content with just that. Europe's financial capabilities are constrained by three factors. First, some politicians, especially from Western Europe, seem quite satisfied that the inflow of funds to Ukraine has dried up to a trickle — enough not to lose, but at the same time not to win a resounding victory that would humiliate Russia. Perhaps this logic was justified in the early stages of the conflict, but now this approach is outdated. However, there are advantages to keeping the Kiev authorities on a short leash: for example, if sooner or later Ukraine has to be pushed to the negotiating table.
Secondly, assistance to Ukraine often comes not in the form of money, but in the form of military equipment. And there are not many weapons left in the national arsenals that can be sent to the east, so it's time to produce new shells and guns. Some, especially Paris, want weapons to be produced in Europe (including France itself). The main goal is not so much to allow local firms to earn money (although this, of course, also does not hurt), as to increase the capacity to produce weapons to strengthen the “strategic autonomy” of Europe. Alas, it was not possible to combine assistance to Ukraine with far-reaching goals of industrial policy. Last spring, the EU promised Ukraine a million shells within a year. However, by the end of December, only 300,000 pieces had been delivered, and few people consider this goal feasible. Meanwhile, North Korea alone (whose GDP is 1/500 of the European one) managed to send more than a million shells to Russia, according to South Korean special services (these allegations have not been clearly confirmed. – Approx. InoSMI). Russia itself is close to becoming a “war economy” — defense spending will exceed 6% of GDP.
The third reason for Europe's stinginess is that Ukraine has stood across the EU's internal disputes. The 50 billion euros currently at stake are received through institutions in Brussels, whose annual budget is tiny in itself and amounts to only about 1% of the GDP of the 27 member countries. Since Ukraine's aid is tied to the EU's total spending, it took seven months to release this amount. Changes to the union budget are subject to unanimous agreement, which Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister and a longtime friend of the Kremlin, did not fail to take advantage of. This experienced blackmailer blocked a tranche of 50 billion euros at the December summit, forcing colleagues to return to Brussels. Not only can he repeat this maneuver, but now he has a new reason for blackmail: after the Turkish parliament signed a decision on Sweden's accession to NATO on January 23, Hungary is the only one who still resists.
Where's the money?
However, during the bidding and gatherings at the highest level, elementary facts fell out of sight. Europe is very rich. And it will be much worse if Ukraine loses on the battlefield. Only proper financing will help Kiev, whose budget deficit this year alone is more than $40 billion. Generosity will serve the interests of Europe. Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas suggested that the allies allocate 0.25% of their GDP per year to the needs of Ukraine. This is about a third of what countries should spend on aid to developing countries, and one-eighth of NATO's targets for defense. Such an allowance, about three times more than the current one, will allow the government in Kiev to plan for victory and prepare for Russia's defeat. So either the Europeans are hypocritical about how much their destinies are connected with the fate of Ukraine, or they are simply short-sighted. Be that as it may, they clearly do not back up their words with deeds.
