As new leadership beds in across the transatlantic alliance, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to send shock waves through Brussels and Washington. Decisions made in both capitals in the coming months are likely to dramatically shape the outcome of the conflict.
Three members of the European Union’s new cabinet now have the word security in their job title and, taken alongside the strategic use of its European Peace Facility (EPF), the signing of a security agreement with Ukraine, and its strategy for a defense industrial base, the bloc has shown it is ready to have a reckoning with its defensive posture.
There is much for Kyiv, NATO, Europe, and the US to do to build Ukraine’s defenses, and there are underappreciated ways the EU can contribute to that task, according to CEPA’s report.
While the bloc and its member states have given an impressive amount in “hard” defense and security aid, and have led in humanitarian and economic support, they have yet to dedicate a sustained fund to providing Ukraine with effective security assistance. Doing so would not only signal to Kyiv and Washington that the EU is a serious defense partner, but it could complement similar efforts in the US, the report says.
Dedicated resources would enable Europe’s military planners to structure the future of military assistance and procurement over several years, providing a clear signal to industry to produce the munitions and materiel vital to Ukraine’s defense and the West’s deterrence of further Russian aggression.
This fund could be an outgrowth of the European Peace Facility (EPF), and the European Parliament, with the assistance of the bloc’s new defense commissioner, should strongly consider institutionalizing the EPF within its budget, which could fulfill the report’s recommendation that the EU have a funded, multiyear agreement with Ukraine on security assistance. This would be a move away from the facility’s current “off-budget” status and decouple strategic planning from the political whims of European leaders.
Additional funds for higher and more coordinated defense spending could come from frozen Russian assets held by the EU, alleviating the burden on member states and further penalizing Moscow for its aggression.
The bloc should also intensify its sanctions on President Vladimir Putin’s cronies. Too many of the current sanctions have leaned towards the symbolic and have not been targeted effectively enough on the regime’s ability to conduct business.
The EU’s economic power is one of its greatest tools, and it should use it. The bloc has significantly contributed to Ukraine’s security, recovery, and refugee aid (there are 6.3 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe), but its capabilities extend far beyond alleviating the crisis caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion and could help solve it.
Focusing on sanctions that will impact Russia’s capabilities, and continuing to go after the illicit trade networks which have enabled Moscow to sell gas and oil to fund its expansionist wars, will degrade the Kremlin’s ability to fight.
Making many of these recommendations a reality will require the EU to wean itself from dependence on Russian energy sources and reinforce its energy security, according to the report. The most efficient way to do so, and one that also would also undermine Russia’s Arctic ambitions, would be to invest heavily in European green energy infrastructure.
Not only would this help slow global climate change, which Russia exploits for its own gain, but it would give the EU the ability to sustainably move away from Russian oil and gas supplies, freeing it from Moscow’s influence in the future.
While these recommendations could reinforce the EU’s emerging role as a security bloc, it could also make a positive impact on Ukraine’s security by moving the EU Military Assistance Mission to Ukraine in-country. The report notes the positive impact that a robust presence in-country can have. The mission could be delegated from the EU Military Staff to their representatives in the EU Mission to Ukraine and encompass more personnel from the military staffs of EU member states.
This would give greater opportunities for the EU to show leadership on Ukrainian, and therefore global, security while enabling Brussels to capitalize on its successful training mission.
Delegating the mission to an in-country team would also give next generation officers the opportunity to hold command, observe combat zones and bring those lessons back to their own militaries, bolstering the transatlantic alliance’s ability to deter Russia. Having militaries across Europe with first-hand experience of the way the Ukrainians have countered Moscow will make the Kremlin think twice about expanding its ambitions.
Russia’s continued aggression poses a grave threat to the whole of the transatlantic alliance. The EU has the means to help secure the long-term security of Ukraine and bolster the strategic deterrence of Russia. It should do so.
Peter Victor Roberto is the Program Assistant with the Transatlantic Defense and Security Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA.) His research interests include gray-zone tactics, Russian information warfare, NATO, and conventional military posture. He received a B.A. in Criminology, Law and Society from George Mason University and a M.A. in Diplomacy and International Relations from Seton Hall University.
Between Now and NATO: A Security Strategy for Ukraine
While NATO membership is the strongest guarantee for Ukraine’s security, opportunities remain for the West and Ukraine to build a reliable defense.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
