By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent study by Corisk and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs has revealed that a Russian military victory in Ukraine would be significantly more costly for Europe compared to a Ukrainian victory. The researchers outlined two scenarios: a Russian partial victory, which could lead to long-term political instability and a surge of refugees, resulting in costs ranging from €1.2 to €1.6 trillion due to defense spending and refugee-related expenses. Conversely, a Ukrainian victory, facilitated by substantial military aid, would cost Europe approximately €522–838 billion. The study highlights the urgency for Europe to support Ukraine as the United States’ support may wane, and the European Commission is exploring a reparations loan scheme to finance Ukraine’s needs.
Read the original article here
Russian victory would cost Europe twice as much as supporting Ukraine, a study finds, and that’s likely a significant understatement, considering the potential ramifications. The study’s conclusions, suggesting that the economic and social repercussions of a Russian victory in Ukraine would dwarf the costs of continued support, may appear shocking, but they underscore a harsh reality. The reluctance of some European nations to fully commit to supporting Ukraine stems from a complex web of factors. These include risk aversion, the cumbersome nature of consensus-building within the EU, and, perhaps most crucially, a lack of long-term strategic foresight. The Russian Federation is, without a doubt, a threat, and the longer the war lasts, the more devastating it will be.
Ultimately, we are discussing the very survival of Europe. The potential consequences of a Russian victory extend far beyond mere financial calculations. A defeated Ukraine could lead to further Russian aggression and destabilization, reshaping the geopolitical landscape in ways that are difficult to predict, but almost certainly detrimental to Europe’s security and prosperity. The so called “study” may not even begin to scratch the surface of all the possible consequences. The loss of human life and the displacement of millions are already staggering, and the escalation of conflict could lead to even greater humanitarian crises.
The EU’s inherent structure contributes to the challenges of responding to the crisis. As an economic union of 27 sovereign nations, each with its own national priorities and veto power, achieving a unified foreign policy and defense strategy is inherently difficult. This heterogeneity is Russia’s exploitation point. Individual nations often have divergent interests and priorities, slowing down any unified action. Some member states may be more concerned with their economic ties with Russia, while others may prioritize their own domestic political considerations, making it difficult to find a common ground.
The economic and political dynamics within Europe also contribute to the hesitations. Governments are often hesitant to make the kind of sacrifices necessary for supporting a war effort, knowing that such decisions may be unpopular with their electorates. The fear of electoral repercussions can lead to a reluctance to fully embrace the type of measures that would be required to support Ukraine effectively. It is much easier to blame others instead of making difficult decisions. This can take many forms like hesitance to provide arms, and even in some cases, providing the bare minimum financial support.
This is not a matter of simply providing financial aid. The long-term implications are far more complex. A Russian victory could embolden other authoritarian regimes, leading to further instability and conflict. It could also lead to a decline in European influence on the world stage, with potentially devastating effects for its economy and international relations. In the long run, the real price will be far higher than what some studies have calculated. The potential destruction of Europe could be more than just twice the price.
Moreover, the credibility of the EU and of the liberal democratic system itself hangs in the balance. A failure to adequately support Ukraine could be seen as a sign of weakness and indecision, potentially undermining the very values that the EU is supposed to represent. Even the long-term political impact of a Russian victory is incalculable.
Despite all these challenges, it is crucial to recognize that supporting Ukraine is a strategic necessity for Europe. The cost of not acting decisively is simply too high. Whether it’s through providing military aid, financial assistance, or diplomatic support, Europe must stay the course.
That being said, the EU needs to take certain actions to improve its current situation. The EU must continue to send money, arms and intelligence to Ukraine. But to be effective, European nations must move toward closer cooperation in defense and foreign policy. This does not mean it must become a federalized entity with a single, unitary structure, but that it must take the actions necessary to protect its interests. The EU must be able to kick out or at least ignore rogue members that are not playing along (no veto powers) and they need to join military forces and make geopolitical decisions together. It’s a complicated situation, but the potential consequences of inaction are simply too great.