When Yugoslavia threatened to sink into a bloodbath in 1991, neighboring countries offered their help. “This is Europe's time,” said Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos, who was sent to Belgrade by the European institutions in Brussels to prevent the outbreak of war. That didn't happen. Fierce fighting broke out, which in the end was ended mainly by the Americans. Poos was wrong.
Three decades later, Europe's time has come again. On February 1, politicians at the summit of 27 EU heads of state and government in Brussels will negotiate late into the night and, if all goes well, announce a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine .
Amid the complacency and pompous press conference about joining forces with the embattled neighbor, it will be considered impolite to point out that the package will be spread over four years and will account for approximately 0.08 percent of the bloc's GDP over that period. .
50 billion euros for Ukraine: isn't the prospect of a revanchist Russia worse than a pandemic?
As in the days of the hapless Mr. Poos, there is a gap between Europe's description of the situation and the means Europe is using to address it. If you believe the politicians, the situation is bad. French officials say Europe must move to a fully mobilized “war economy” to thwart the Kremlin's imperial ambitions. Central Europeans say a Russian victory in Ukraine would lead to more wars of conquest, and they rightly fear they could be next.
These fears are familiar to veterans of other crises that have hit the continent, whether Covid-19, the implosion of the euro or the prospect of climate change. Overcoming these challenges wasn't about money. To combat the pandemic, taboos were broken and a joint rescue fund worth 750 billion euros was created. The green transition will cost more than one trillion euros a year. And ten years ago, the European Central Bank promised to do everything possible to save the common currency.
When it comes to Ukraine, Europeans are content with a sum that represents only a rounding error in their national accounts.
Isn't the prospect of a revanchist Russia worse than a pandemic? It is not that the EU has done nothing for Ukraine: refugees have been admitted, sanctions have been imposed and Ukraine has been promised membership in the club. By contrast, the United States initially delivered a large amount of military equipment but paused deliveries for now because its own $61 billion aid package became bogged down in partisan bickering.
Ukraine will have to be content with this for now, say diplomats from EU countries
The 50 billion euros that are now to be decided are not the only aid from EU members. Some countries, most notably Germany, continue to provide extensive military and financial aid bilaterally. Non-EU countries such as Britain and Norway have also pledged large amounts of weapons and cash.
But the multi-year package has all but eliminated new offers of short-term aid: Ukraine will have to be content with that for now, diplomats from EU countries say. Three factors have put European donors in trouble.
On the one hand, some politicians, especially in Western Europe, were happy for Ukraine to receive just a little money: enough to not lose, but not too much to not humiliate Russia. That may have been true at the beginning of the war, but it is no longer appropriate today. However, keeping the Kiev authorities in check has its advantages, for example if it is one day to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table.
Not much left in national arsenals to send east
Secondly, aid to Ukraine often comes not in the form of money, but in the form of military equipment. There is not much left in national arsenals to send east, so shells and cannons need to be manufactured. Some countries, notably France, want these weapons to be manufactured in Europe (i.e. often in France). The point is not that local companies benefit, although that does no harm, but rather that weapons production capabilities are developed as part of plans to strengthen Europe's “strategic autonomy.”
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to combine the objective of helping Ukraine with the objective of industrial policy. Last spring, the EU promised to deliver one million projectiles to Ukraine within a year, but by the end of December only 300,000 had been delivered and few believe that goal is realistic.
Meanwhile, North Korea alone (GDP: 1/500 of the EU) has managed to send more than a million projectiles to Russia, according to South Korean spies. Russia is moving toward a “war economy” with defense spending exceeding 6 percent of GDP.
Europe would be in a much worse situation if Ukraine lost the war.
The third reason for European stinginess is that Ukraine is being dragged into the internal dispute of the EU. The promised €50 billion was made available through the Brussels institutions, whose annual budget is itself very small, around one percent of the GDP of the 27 member states. As aid to Ukraine is linked to a review of overall EU spending, it took seven months for the amount to be released.
Changes to the EU budget must be decided unanimously, giving Hungarian Prime Minister and Kremlin confidant Viktor Orban undue influence. The veteran blackmailer blocked the €50 billion deal at a summit in December, forcing his colleagues to return to Brussels. He could do it again, although now he has a new source of blackmail: after the Turkish parliament approved Sweden's membership in NATO on January 23, Hungary is the only holdout.
In the midst of negotiations and promises, some simple facts seem to have been forgotten. Europe is rich. Things would be much worse if Ukraine lost the war. Adequate financing would help Ukraine, which is struggling with a budget deficit of more than $40 billion this year alone.
Europeans do not follow their words with actions
A much more generous offer would be in Europe's interest. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has suggested that Ukraine's allies should contribute 0.25 percent of their GDP a year. That's about a third of what countries are supposed to spend on development aid and an eighth of NATO's defense spending target.
Such a subsidy, roughly three times the current offer, would allow the kyiv government to ensure victory and defeat for Russia. Either the Europeans are talking nonsense about how closely their destiny is linked to that of Ukraine, or they are short-sighted. In any case, they do not follow their words with actions.