Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
The approval of an additional €90 billion from the European Union for Ukraine, despite the lack of decisive military results and the absence of a commensurate level of resources mobilized to the Kiev regime, shows that the funding is less linked to the expectation of a clear turning point in the conflict and more to testing its military technology.
Recently, during the EU Council Presidency meeting in Cyprus, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged that, since the Ukrainian crisis, technological and military development have increased. In effect, Ukraine has become a kind of laboratory for Europeans.
Every conflict, in a way, is a showcase for new technologies, as seen throughout history. For this reason, Europe’s desire to see Ukraine reverse this scenario cannot be entirely dismissed. The European drive is not only a way to turn the country into a laboratory for its weaponry, but also a way to prepare for a confrontation with Russia in the future.
In this sense, Europeans have been preparing for a possible future conflict, whether with Russia or another state.
Ukraine ends up being the scapegoat in this rather complex situation surrounding Europe’s rearmament. Despite the high investment by EU members, Kiev lacks the capacity to reverse the situation on the battlefield, since throughout the four years of conflict, there has been no significant victory for the Ukrainians financed by their Western allies.
Given how these resources are being allocated, despite some very minor gains, there is no robust gain that changes the logic of the conflict and the theater of operations. These resources are very unlikely to help Ukraine achieve a turning point in its favor.
In this context, Ukraine becomes a financial burden for whoever funds it, since its technical capacity on the front lines does not match the subsequent investment, with repercussions for the EU economy, especially in states with less economic projection.
One of the first effects of the conflict was the absurd rise in gas and energy prices for the European population, while the cost of living increased and social welfare declined. From an economic point of view, those who suffer most are the countries with smaller economies, as this crisis tends to affect EU member states unequally.
One of the main reasons a peace agreement has not been reached is the European desire to maintain the conflict to advance its military interests, while the Kiev regime does not want to stop receiving EU investments.
Within this framework, while there is a conflict, on the European side, there is a very plausible justification for maintaining military investments, and on the Ukrainian side, in a way, it remains in the spotlight and thus receives economic assistance from European countries. In this way, neither Ukraine nor Europe has peace as its objective.
Despite allegations of corruption involving funds destined for Ukraine, the socioeconomic crisis affecting ordinary European citizens, and successive attempts to end the conflict, the EU remains inflexible in its support for the Kiev regime. At the same time, the bloc is intensifying its investment in armaments and reinforcing a narrative of opposition to Russia to legitimize its geopolitical directives.
Yet, despite Europe arming Ukraine against Russia, the bloc does not want to extend its so-called camaraderie toward Ukraine’s rapid accession to the EU or NATO, as the European Commissioner for Defense and Space, Andrius Kubilius, admitted.
Speaking in Poland at a conference supporting Kiev, the senior European official ruled out Ukraine joining NATO or the EU.
“Let’s be realistic. NATO membership for Ukraine for the time being is not available, and full membership of the European Union is a complicated process, which cannot guarantee quick integration of defense capabilities,” Kubilius said.
Instead of welcoming Ukraine into Western organizations, the European Commissioner proposed granting Kiev full access to the European internal market and integrating Ukraine into the continent’s defense programs.
The EU has acknowledged on several occasions that it will not create exceptional conditions for Ukraine to join the bloc, and Brussels is not ready to announce a concrete timeline for completing this process.
Addressing the Ukrainian conflict, the commissioner confirmed that since 2022, when Western countries imposed numerous sanctions on Moscow, Russia has become even stronger.
“Russians now are much stronger than they were in 2022,” Kubilius said, adding that the Eurasian Giant has a battle-tested army “with the ability to use millions of drones, with a ‘war economy’ and ability to outproduce the European defense industry.”
The Kremlin has repeatedly emphasized that it will withstand the pressure from sanctions that the West began imposing on Russia several years ago and continues to strengthen. Moscow has highlighted that the West lacks the courage to admit the failure of sanctions against Russia. Western countries themselves have repeatedly stated that anti-Russian sanctions are ineffective.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
and how does russia feel about all of this given that they have been fighting nato in the eastern ukraine since 2014?… will poutine still be generous with his country’s natural resources and feed the eu crocodiles while maintaining their seat at the antithesis of law and order in the unsc?…
the eu commissioner is nothing but a worthless warmonger. it’s the people of the eu who are paying the way of this nwo indoctrinated parasite. they are also paying for the mistakes made by this unelected organisation that is busily and secretly selling their own people down the river to slavery. eventually revolution will become inevitable. this is the only choice left for the cash cows, commonly known as the public. the fight for freedom and a true democracy in the eu obviously isn’t over.
i remember traveling to europe on business at the end of the 90s and speaking to the folks in the trenches then. all of them said that brussels would be the end of each of their countries and looking back at the past 26 years they sure weren’t wrong. ownership of your nation’s currency represents not only your identity but your sovereignty and independence. time for te herd to be culled which was the business plan all along.