28th May 2023


Europe is giving more aid to Ukraine than you think

  • EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Ukraine president Volodomyr Zelensky: the EuU and member states actually contributed slightly more to Ukraine than the US did last year (Photo: European Commission)
Listen to article

Europeans need to pull their weight in Ukraine. They should pony up more funds. And most definitely, they should not fall behind the United States. Such has been the chorus since the start of the war, primarily on the other side of the Atlantic.

The problem is: the argument isn't borne out by the facts, at least not anymore.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Between secrecy at the member state level, and incomprehensible acronyms from Brussels, it has been a challenge for Americans, US Congress first of all, to get a clear grasp of Europe's contributions (Photo: Wikipedia)

Let's look at the numbers: the European Union and its member states actually contributed slightly more to Ukraine than the US did last year.

US contributions approximated €48bn through 20 November, while commitments from the EU and its member states reached close to €52bn.

These included €34.7bn in financial support, which covered €17bn for Ukrainian refugees, €11.7bn in military assistance, and €5.4bn in humanitarian aid. These are numbers collected by Germany's Kiel Institute on the World Economy, which has tracked contributions to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion. It found that Europe surpassed the US relatively late in the year.

The economic fallout from the war also disproportionately impacted Europeans.

Sanctions imposed on Moscow severely hurt European businesses. The US is further away and less affected. Europeans also had to weather an energy crisis unseen in decades, forcing governments to pass massive relief packages.

Of course, the burden sharing debate is complicated and depends on what you include.

If you remove refugee costs from European contributions, suddenly, the balance tilts irredeemably towards the US. Of course, to a European, particularly one living in Poland or the Czech Republic, where Ukrainian refugees currently represent more than four percent of the national population, this omission would seem off-putting at best.

Europeans must recognize that the term "burden sharing" touches a raw nerve in Washington. Within Nato, it has been a longstanding issue. Europeans have been good at announcing defence commitments, less so on following through on them.

And on military aid, the discrepancy between Europe and the US is significant: Ukraine fires between 5,000 and 7,000 artillery rounds per day, an amount no European industry can match.

Washington plans to increase production from 14,000 rounds per month to 20,000 by the spring, which would still only cover less than a week of Ukraine's needs. That's what the entire French army ordered between 2015 and 2020 for its Caesar howitzers.

The US is the only country with the capability to lead here.

Europe's immediate strengths lie elsewhere.

The EU is endowed by its member states with the financial resources necessary to conduct continent-wide cohesion policies and promote regional development. Within weeks of Russia's invasion, the EU was able to identify €17bn from its cohesion fund which could quickly be allocated to help member states provide Ukrainian refugees with housing, education, and health care. Brussels also encouraged member state capitals to reallocate previously distributed cohesion funds by permitting the transfer of resources between approved programs.

American incomprehension

For Americans to recognise these contributions, Europeans need to be more transparent and find simple ways to communicate them. Between secrecy at the member state level, and incomprehensible acronyms from Brussels, it has been a challenge for Americans, US Congress first of all, to get a clear grasp of Europe's contributions.

More than anything, it is time to drop the 'tit-for-tat' mentality.

The transatlantic relationship has historically worked best when both sides of the Atlantic co-owned a project. Given relative strengths and weaknesses, joint ownership should not be mistaken for an equal one. Instead, asymmetries are unavoidable and even desirable.

The United States should drive the security assistance; Europe should lead the reconstruction. As time passes, Europe will be expected to take an ever-larger share of the burden given Ukraine's aspiration to become a member of the EU. Let's not forget: as a neighbour, EU countries will also reap most of the benefits from a thriving Ukraine.

The latest announcements seem to confirm this positive trend. Most (or even all) of Ukraine's immediate budgetary needs in 2023 will be covered. That includes an €18bn package by the EU, announced by in December.

Delivered in monthly instalments, these funds also include "initial support towards sustainable post-war reconstruction," suggesting more will follow.

Delivered in the form of heavily-subsidised loans with maturities going up to 35 years, these funds are a clear demonstration that Europeans are committed to Ukraine long-term. The US announced its own $45-billion package [€41.3bn], but in the context of a split Congress, its funds will be allocated on a need-basis.

While the EU Commission has successfully secured aid for 2023, it is still unclear how Europe will raise the required funds for Ukraine's longer-term reconstruction. The conversation about funding sources has not even started. It ought to. It would make future budget negotiations on Capitol Hill easier. If handled with care and foresight, burden sharing can end up in a virtuous cycle.

The upcoming EU-Ukraine summit in Kiev should be used to send such a signal.

Author bio

Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff is a distinguished scholar, James H. Sallembien a research assistant at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.


The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Why the new ECHR Ukraine-Russia ruling matters

The ECHR ruled that Russia was in "effective control" of separatist regions of Eastern Ukraine from 11 May 2014. In doing so, the court has formally acknowledged the inter-state character of the conflict and Russia's culpability for human rights abuses.

Ukraine — what's been destroyed so far, and who pays?

More than 50 percent of Ukraine's energy infrastructure, large parts of its transport network and industrial capacity, around 150,000 residential buildings damaged or destroyed. The bill is between €378bn to €919bn.

The EU needs to foster tech — not just regulate it

The EU's ambition to be a digital superpower stands in stark contrast to the US — but the bigger problem is that it remains far better at regulation than innovation, despite decades of hand-wringing over Europe's technology gap.

EU export credits insure decades of fossil-fuel in Mozambique

European governments are phasing out fossil fuels at home, but continuing their financial support for fossil mega-projects abroad. This is despite the EU agreeing last year to decarbonise export credits — insurance on risky non-EU projects provided with public money.

Latest News

  1. How the EU's money for waste went to waste in Lebanon
  2. EU criminal complicity in Libya needs recognition, says expert
  3. Europe's missing mails
  4. MEPs to urge block on Hungary taking EU presidency in 2024
  5. PFAS 'forever chemicals' cost society €16 trillion a year
  6. EU will 'react as appropriate' to Russian nukes in Belarus
  7. The EU needs to foster tech — not just regulate it
  8. EU: national energy price-spike measures should end this year

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. International Sustainable Finance CentreJoin CEE Sustainable Finance Summit, 15 – 19 May 2023, high-level event for finance & business
  2. ICLEISeven actionable measures to make food procurement in Europe more sustainable
  3. World BankWorld Bank Report Highlights Role of Human Development for a Successful Green Transition in Europe
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic summit to step up the fight against food loss and waste
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersThink-tank: Strengthen co-operation around tech giants’ influence in the Nordics
  6. EFBWWEFBWW calls for the EC to stop exploitation in subcontracting chains

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. InformaConnecting Expert Industry-Leaders, Top Suppliers, and Inquiring Buyers all in one space - visit Battery Show Europe.
  2. EFBWWEFBWW and FIEC do not agree to any exemptions to mandatory prior notifications in construction
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us