Facing potential Trump withdrawal, can West sustain support for Kyiv?

An article by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) delves into the challenges and opportunities Europe faces in supporting Ukraine amidst the war with Russia, particularly in light of a possible Trump presidency and his administration’s stance on the conflict. It explores the multifaceted issues tied to Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction, and the financial burden borne by the West, while proposing a creative solution that could satisfy both European and American interests.

The article begins by highlighting the surprise in Europe over Donald Trump's victory in the US elections, particularly in relation to his position on Ukraine. Trump has been clear about his reluctance to continue funding the Ukrainian war effort, which he believes could be stopped quickly with an undefined plan. This creates uncertainty for Europe, which has become increasingly reliant on US support for Ukraine. The piece raises two significant questions:

Will a Trump-led peace plan be acceptable to Kyiv or Europe? The suggestion here is that any peace plan proposed by Trump may involve imposing a settlement on Ukraine, which could be detrimental to Ukraine’s sovereignty and European security.

Can Europe fill the gap if US support diminishes? Europe would need to shoulder a much larger share of the financial burden if the US steps back, something that seems politically and economically difficult in the current European climate, where governments are already grappling with debt, inflation, and the cost-of-living crisis.

The article emphasizes the high cost of supporting Ukraine, both in terms of defence spending and the long-term recovery and reconstruction of the country. The figures presented are staggering:

The West has already spent around $250 billion supporting Ukraine between 2022 and 2024, with the US contributing a significant portion. The annual cost is approximately $100 billion.

Reconstruction costs are expected to total around $500 billion, which raises the question of how this will be funded, especially if the US reduces its financial support.

This situation is problematic for Europe, which may struggle to fill the funding gap. The political will to continue the blank checks for Ukraine may weaken, particularly in light of the internal challenges European governments are facing, such as the political instability in Germany and the broader economic crisis.

The article suggests that European leaders have failed to adequately communicate the national security narrative to their populations. If Europeans better understood that funding Ukraine is a cost-effective way of securing their own protection from Russian aggression, they might be more inclined to support continued aid. The argument is that the cost of supporting Ukraine is far less than the cost of boosting European defence budgets by 1 per cent of GDP (roughly $200 billion). Furthermore, the collapse of Ukraine would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences that would far outweigh these costs. However, the opinion piece criticizes European leaders for not effectively selling this argument to their citizens.

The article references the recent G7 agreement to create the $50 billion Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) facility for Ukraine, which would draw from Russian central bank assets frozen in Western jurisdictions. While this is seen as a potential source of funding for Ukraine, the author points out that these assets are sufficient only for six months of funding. This raises the key question of why Europe hasn’t already transferred more of these assets to Ukraine, which could have alleviated some of the financial strain and possibly strengthened Ukraine’s position in the war.

The most innovative and provocative proposal in the piece is the creation of a Trump Ukraine Victory Fund, a $150 billion fund for defence purchases from the US over the next decade. The proposal suggests that the US could help fund Ukraine’s defence through arms sales while also bolstering US defence industry jobs and creating political support for the US in Ukraine. Crucially, the proposal frames this as a way for Russia to pay for its aggression, since the $330 billion in frozen Russian assets could be used to finance this fund.

The idea is that Europe and Ukraine could leverage the immense Russian assets already seized to create a sustainable funding model for Ukraine's defence, while at the same time benefiting US defence contractors. This proposal would also help to ensure that US taxpayers do not bear the brunt of the cost. The implicit argument is that Europe and Ukraine should make a case to the US that funding Ukraine is not a purely altruistic effort, but a way for the US to financially benefit from the conflict and indirectly press Russia to pay for its aggression.

The opinion piece ends by criticizing Europe for not effectively communicating the broader strategic and financial benefits of supporting Ukraine. It points to the UK’s budget statement in October 2024, which focused more on tax rises and the NHS than on significant defence spending, despite the urgent need for stronger defence investments. The article suggests that European leaders need to do a better job of framing the Ukraine conflict as a front-line defense against Russian expansionism, thus justifying the necessary expenditures.

Overall, the article presents a thoughtful exploration of the challenges facing Europe in supporting Ukraine, particularly in the context of a potentially less supportive US administration under Trump. The proposed Trump Ukraine Victory Fund represents a creative solution that leverages US economic interests to help fund Ukraine’s defense, while also ensuring that Russia pays for its aggression. However, the piece also highlights Europe’s failure to communicate effectively with its citizens about the strategic importance of supporting Ukraine. Ultimately, it underscores the urgent need for a coordinated approach to sustain Ukraine’s defence and ensure long-term peace and stability in Europe.

By Vafa Guliyeva