Wider Europe

“This is Europe’s moment,” diplomats in Brussels are saying after U.S. President Donald Trump’s March 3 decision to temporarily pause military funding for Ukraine.

Whether that proves true remains to be seen. Beyond the rhetoric, the key question is whether Europe has the political will to fully compensate for a prolonged US spending freeze on Ukraine.

So far, that remains unanswered.

NATO is awaiting further details from Washington before making any official announcement. Diplomats from the alliance told RFE/RL that the thing to look out for is whether European allies can still purchase US weapons and transfer them to Ukraine. As one diplomat noted: “Europe simply doesn’t have enough of its own supplies right now, but if it still can tap into American arms and ammunition, it can be OK.”

When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addressed the media early on March 4 to present her proposals for increasing both European defense spending and military aid to Ukraine, she avoided making any reference to the US decision.

'Europe Faces A Clear And Present Danger'

Ahead of a crucial European Union summit in Brussels on March 6 about how to deal with the new security environment, von der Leyen sent a letter to EU member states, seen by RFE/RL, in which she said that “a new era is upon us. Europe faces a clear and present danger on a scale that none of us have seen in our adult lifetime. Some of our fundamental assumptions are being undermined to their very core.”

She also took a subtle swipe at Washington, writing that, as European Commission president, “strong relations with the United States are one of my major goals, both bilaterally and through the G7. But the context in which we operate is changing drastically and dramatically.”

So, is it time for the EU to step up and fill the funding gap left by the United States? Maybe not so fast.

SEE ALSO:

Can The EU Stay Relevant In Ukraine Talks?

Both von der Leyen’s proposals and draft EU summit conclusions obtained by RFE/RL lack any concrete proposals on how to boost Ukraine directly, including a total lack of funding details apart from 30 billion euros ($31.6 billion) that have already been pledged as budgetary support for Kyiv in 2025.

The problem is that an additional 30 billion euros will be needed this year if the United States pulls out entirely. European leaders had contingency plans for this long before Trump’s announcement, particularly after the US Congress delayed an aid package for Kyiv in 2024.

Embed share

Analysts React To US Brake On Military Aid For Ukraine

Embed share

The code has been copied to your clipboard.

---

width px height px

---

The URL has been copied to your clipboard

No media source currently available

0:00 0:01:36 0:00

Making The EU Safer Vs. Helping Ukraine

Von der Leyen’s "ReArm Europe" initiative now appears solely focused on ramping up EU defense spending rather than directly aiding Ukraine. It includes a loan of 150 billion euros ($158 billion) for member states to strengthen air defenses and drone arsenals, greater leeway on EU spending rules for countries that boost defense budgets, and an option to redirect EU funds originally earmarked for poorer regions toward military projects -- if member states choose to do so.

According to von der Leyen, these measures could generate up to 800 billion euros ($844 billion) in defense spending. But the key question remains: Is this about making EU citizens feel safer, or about ensuring Ukraine can withstand Russia’s onslaught? The idea that increased European defense investment will eventually allow greater support for Ukraine sounds logical -- but will it work in practice?

SEE ALSO:

Europe Pushes For Lasting Peace, But Can Russia's Battlefield Momentum Be Halted?

The answer to this may lie in another Brussels development this week. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas had proposed a plan to raise the 30 billion euros Ukraine needs, using both proceeds from frozen Russian assets held by the bloc and voluntary contributions from EU member states based on their Gross National Income (GNI).

However, that plan has now been put on hold.

EU diplomats say some member states were not ready to commit such a large sum at this time, while others pointed to Hungary, which has long opposed military aid to Ukraine. According to EU diplomats, Budapest has even threatened to veto any summit text that challenges US efforts to negotiate a peace deal with Moscow.

Europe’s “moment” may not include Ukraine at all.

We’ve been here before -- declaring NATO dead or dying. Recently, US Republican Senator Mike Lee posted on X, saying: “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.” Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close ally of US President Donald Trump, responded simply: “I agree.”

While officials in Brussels and elsewhere note that Musk often shares political opinions on his platform, X, without necessarily shaping US policy, some observers acknowledge his access to Trump and his informal influence in certain conservative circles in Washington, D.C.

Still, NATO officials at their Brussels headquarters have remained surprisingly calm so far. Their answer to whether the alliance’s demise is imminent is still a resounding “No” for two reasons: the gap between rhetoric and action; and the difference between NATO allies and NATO aspirants – notably Ukraine.

US Wants Greater Defense Spending

Take the first reason. As recently as last week, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause, Article 5, in remarks alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

That stance was reiterated multiple times -- both publicly and privately -- by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels in February.

SEE ALSO:

Can The EU Stay Relevant In Ukraine Talks?

While he firmly insisted that European allies must significantly increase their defense spending, everyone I spoke to described the discussions as constructive.

“He never left the room, listened, asked questions, and took notes -- not the behavior of an ally about to quit,” one NATO ambassador told me.

And in that vein, NATO diplomats continue to navigate the constant speculation. “We need to decipher what it all means, said one senior official. “But we’ve also learned that we should ignore the noise and look at actions. It’s a sort of ‘strategic patience’ we must practice.”

Ukraine's Uncertain NATO Path

Ukraine, however, is a different matter. “The Ukraine track has changed, but not the NATO track. They’ve been pretty tough on Ukraine but remain committed to NATO,” one alliance ambassador observed. The shift in tone toward Volodymyr Zelenskyy is one clear example, but Britain’s new role in coordinating arms deliveries to Ukraine is another indicator.

It’s also evident that Ukraine won’t be joining NATO anytime soon -- though, in truth, it was the Biden administration that blocked Kyiv’s membership at recent NATO summits, much to the quiet relief of some Western European countries. The new US administration is just more blunt about it.

SEE ALSO:

Ukraine Live Briefing: Starmer Says European Allies Preparing Peace Plan

What countries on NATO’s eastern flank are now asking is whether American troops will remain stationed there. For now, the answer is yes, though many acknowledge concerns about an impending review of US troop levels in Europe.

But if these countries are attacked by Russia, will US forces come to their aid? The prevailing belief is that they will. but Article 5 of the NATO treaty depends on both allies and adversaries believing it will hold.

As one Eastern European official put it: “It’s like Schroedinger’s cat -- it exists in both states, alive and dead, until the box is opened. In NATO’s case, until Article 5 is actually tested, we won’t really know.”