Why Europe alone is not enough to sustain Ukraine’s war efforts – Firstpost

The whole world watched in surprise, with an extra side of horror for the Europeans, as American President Donald Trump gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a resounding and no-holds-barred public dressing down at a very publicly broadcasted press conference in the Oval Office on February 28. From accusations of starting World War III to taking a dig at his choice of casual attire, Zelenskyy was almost “scolded” by Trump and his Vice President JD Vance.

Following this disastrous meeting at the White House, the Trump administration decided to pause military aid to Ukraine, which has been reinstated after Ukraine agreed to accept a 30-day ceasefire proposal following talks in Saudi Arabia.

Trump insists that mediation talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy are the way forward to end this war and for global peace—an idea that Zelenskyy has till now been resisting, insisting that Putin has not been ready to lend Ukraine a fair ear.

The US-Ukraine relationship has assumed a downward spiral since Trump made a triumphant return to the White House as President of the United States. His team immediately started pushing for bilateral talks with Russia, hoping to find a solution to end this war.

Of course, panicked European leaders are now scrambling to show a united front and support for Ukraine. In early March, European leaders met in London, and a new plan was introduced by the European Commission calling for 800 billion euros in defence spending and in Ukraine’s support.

This perceived “split” between the US and the EU has not gone unnoticed, leaving many now feeling that the fragmentation of the collective West has started.

Common Russians who are consumers of their state media have been left stunned by the policy U-turn by the United States but don’t necessarily view this as a warm gesture of friendship. It seems to be Trump’s agenda of wanting a quick fix to end the violence and bloodshed in Ukraine.

Trump has already said, “There will be no war with me. Just sign whatever deal to finish off the war quickly.” This seems to be his topmost priority at the moment, in the face of accusations that he is now batting for Putin.

Bruegel, a European think tank specialising in economics, says that to replace the US, the EU would have to spend a considerable amount of “extra” of its GDP. Researchers have also elaborated on what Europe would need to cover to avoid being defenceless if indeed the US does exit NATO.

Aside from compensating for US combat bridges, aircraft and ships, Europe would really need to pull up their socks when it comes to intelligence and command infrastructure that is a fundamental requirement when it comes to deploying large and complex military units, a wartime unnegotiable.

Germany’s military muscle remains well below required levels, and its pledge to supply NATO with 40,000 soldiers is facing extreme setbacks.

Even though military hardware can be qualified and quantified even as a numbers game, soft military capabilities such as operational structures, intelligence, communication and military experience will be almost impossible to replicate immediately. It would cost Europe hundreds of billions of euros and, more crucially, time.

We are looking at years and years when it comes to establishing the type of military posture requirement that is the need of the hour. There is no question that for decades now the US has been the centrepiece of Western military structure, and other Western nations have let their militaries deteriorate since the end of the Cold War and have also moved away from large-scale warfare.

So, even if the EU, Canada, South Korea, and Japan were to hypothetically throw all their money at the table, production capacity will not be able to compete with Russia, which is quite obviously on the clock.

Also, a scenario where support for Ukraine in Europe starts fading is not completely preposterous. For Europe to take on the responsibility for unified action over a lengthy period, which would include building defence industries and large standing armies, would have a high cost – both politically and financially. Their support for Ukraine over the past few years has already led to high energy costs and economic inflation throughout Europe.

It’s not entirely unfathomable that many European nations might choose to act selfishly when it comes to transactions that support Ukraine in this war.

Yes, Europe is producing military drones. Not cheap ones, but they have the skillets and resources to build more. They are also producing optical fibre and have satellites and a monopoly on the production of some of the key components of modern aerospatial technology. However, one can agree that their own aerospatial industry isn’t developed enough as yet. They do have incentives to keep collaboration on this subject alive for a while, though. France and the UK do have intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, it is universally agreed upon that quantity isn’t up to the challenge and time is against them.

All of these circumstances and information are not lost on Zelenskyy either. He is already calling for the ceasefire now, as he says he “regrets” the White House Row. This comes after reports from the highest power corridors in the world that Zelenskyy’s position as president may be untenable without access to US military support.

The bottom line is that a solution for ending the war should be the primary agenda for any government in the world at the moment. Let’s wait and watch and see if an unconventional president’s (Donald Trump’s) possibly unconventional strategy pays off and the world finally bids goodbye to a warfront that has been open for far too long.

The author is a freelance journalist and features writer based out of Delhi. Her main areas of focus are politics, social issues, climate change and lifestyle-related topics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.