By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO allies are actively engaged in discussions regarding a significant €70 billion military aid package for Ukraine, with a formal announcement anticipated at the July summit in Ankara. This German-initiated proposal aims for transparent burden-sharing among member states and includes a mechanism to track individual contributions, addressing concerns about disproportionate financial responsibility. The funding framework will be structured with approximately €30 billion from an EU loan facility and the remaining €40 billion directly from member states, though some express caution about potential reductions in bilateral aid. Ukraine’s ambassador to NATO emphasizes that any new financial commitments must prioritize critical battlefield needs like air defense and long-range ammunition, aligning with a broader European push for greater defense responsibility amidst transatlantic tensions.
Read the original article here
NATO is currently contemplating a significant new military aid package for Ukraine, reportedly in the region of €70 billion, as leaders prepare for an upcoming summit in Ankara. This substantial financial commitment underscores the alliance’s ongoing efforts to bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities amidst the protracted conflict. The urgency behind such a package is palpable, especially considering Ukraine’s demonstrated resilience and strategic gains on the battlefield. Many observers believe that now is the opportune moment to intensify support and capitalize on Russia’s perceived vulnerabilities, particularly its struggling economy. The idea is that by providing substantial military aid, NATO can help Ukraine effectively “annihilate that weak spot” and maintain the pressure on Russia.
The proposed €70 billion investment is seen by many as a sound strategic move, especially given what Ukraine has already managed to achieve with existing support. It’s argued that this commitment is not just about helping Ukraine, but also about serving NATO’s long-term interests. The prospect of Ukraine eventually joining NATO is also being discussed, with the assertion that such an integration would benefit both entities. The argument is that Ukraine is already doing a vital job for NATO by effectively engaging and weakening Russia, and further support will only solidify these gains. It’s viewed as a chance to push back hard against an aggressive Russia, especially when President Putin’s initial ambitions, like a swift capture of Kyiv, have clearly failed and his forces are suffering daily losses due to strategic miscalculations.
The economic strain on Russia is a significant factor being considered. Reports suggest that over half of its oil refineries are now offline, and its national treasury is depleted. This presents a critical window of opportunity to press an advantage. The hope is that this continued pressure will not only weaken Russia’s war-making capacity but also potentially lead to accountability for those responsible within Russia for the ongoing conflict. The potential for Ukraine to develop its own advanced defense systems, such as a “Patriot alternative,” is also seen as a way for Europe to eventually reduce its reliance on the United States for security.
However, the scale of such a commitment also necessitates careful consideration. While the prevailing sentiment is to move forward decisively, there’s also a recognition that if this aid doesn’t yield significant shifts in the conflict’s trajectory, a reassessment of future funding and support might be necessary. The economic challenges currently facing the European Union are also a point of discussion. The argument is that resources might be needed domestically to address growing internal problems before they escalate and become even more costly to resolve in the long run.
Ukraine’s ambassador to NATO, Alona Getmanchuk, has been vocal in emphasizing that any new financial commitments must be directly tied to Ukraine’s most pressing battlefield needs. Her priorities clearly lie in enhancing air defense systems, bolstering domestic production of drones and missiles, and ensuring a consistent supply of long-range ammunition. This focus on specific, critical requirements highlights the operational realities on the ground and the strategic importance of certain types of military hardware.
There’s also a perspective that this substantial aid package can serve as a boon for NATO’s domestic military industries, essentially allowing for corporations to profit from arming Ukraine. This angle suggests a symbiotic relationship where military aid benefits both the recipient and the defense sector of the donating nations. For Russia, the sentiment is that internal pressure from its own citizens to halt the conflict and remove Putin is crucial, as Russia’s future rests with its people, not its current leader who is seen as actively collapsing the nation.
The moral and strategic imperative to support Ukraine is a recurring theme. Many believe that it is the “logic, moral and just thing to do.” For Europe, the financial sacrifice, while substantial, is considered a relatively small price to pay compared to the immense sacrifices Ukraine has already endured. The notion that supporting Ukraine now is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to decisively counter an expansionist Russia, whether Soviet or Putin’s, is a powerful motivator. It’s seen as the final push needed to ensure a Ukrainian victory and a Russian defeat, thereby deterring future aggression.
The presence of countries like Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán, who may be counting on Western unity to fracture, adds a layer of complexity. Orbán’s perceived reliance on a breakdown in Western resolve highlights the importance of maintaining a united front. The argument that “no economy means no war” underscores the belief that crippling Russia’s financial capacity is a key objective, though some note that the Russian ruble has shown some recent strength against the USD, indicating that economic collapse might not be as immediate as some had hoped. Nonetheless, the overall consensus seems to be that Putin’s initial decision to invade was a catastrophic error and that he is now a “failure.”
The potential consequences of Ukraine falling are starkly portrayed: a future where NATO or its member states might have to confront a vastly more powerful Russia, one that has absorbed Ukraine’s industrial and military might. This fuels the argument for an “all in” approach now, supporting Russia’s complete collapse, regardless of the immediate cost. The idea that failing to act decisively now could lead to far greater loss of life in the EU and beyond in the future is a grim but potent warning.
The conflict is framed by some as an expensive battle against “evil fascists,” and a necessary, albeit costly, measure to deter aggression. Russia is described as an “infestation” that must be “eradicated” to reestablish the precedent that “aggression will result in annihilation.” Despite recent diplomatic strains, particularly between the US and Europe, it’s noted that Putin may have misjudged the depth of European integration. The shared threat posed by Russia has, surprisingly, served to unite Europe against a common enemy, even where pre-war relationships were less robust.
The strength of the ruble is questioned as an isolated economic indicator, with suggestions that it might be artificially propped up by oil prices, while the broader value of Russian economic assets continues to decline. A USSR-style economic catastrophe is seen as a likely outcome, which would be particularly damaging for an economy heavily reliant on oil sales priced in dollars. Ultimately, the overarching sentiment is a strong desire to support Ukraine, with the understanding that this involves significant financial commitments. The idea of separating the US from Europe is seen as a win for Putin, but his expectation that the rest of the West would crumble without US leadership has not materialized. This situation is prompting discussions about a more unified EU with its own independent military, intelligence, and foreign policy capabilities, which is perceived as a significant fear for Putin.