Europe has missed a trick. Ukraine was primarily a European problem. Russia was threatening European security, and by extension, the NATO alliance as a whole. But to most Americans the war in Ukraine, as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia—“is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
But America coughed up billions. That is not to say that European countries—including the UK—have not dug deep. Since 2022 Europe has given slightly more than the US – $65.9 billion compared to $65 billion from Washington. Another $8.59 billion has come from non-European countries Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
But the Biden Administration was far and away the single biggest contributor propping up Ukraine. With Trump in the White House that prop is likely to be kicked away—possibly as soon as this weekend’s Munich Security Conference.
Europeans admit that their over-reliance on the American military umbrella has made them complacent about their security. Since the end of the Cold War defense budgets have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. Germany, for instance was in 1985 spending 2.87 percent of its GDP on defense. When Russia invaded Ukraine the figure had been cut by more than half to 1.33 percent.
Budget cuts meant cuts in troop numbers. 478,000 (1985 figure) in Germany to 183,000 in 2022. Britain went from 334,000 to 153,000 over the same period.
But more importantly was a drop in investment in defense industries. Troop levels can be boosted relatively easily. But researching the latest weapons, building a factory and assembly line and starting production takes time. 1985 figures for European investment in defense industries are difficult to find, but since the invasion of Ukraine there is a clear recognition that it was not enough. In 2021 the figure was $222 billion and in 2024 it had jumped to $330 billion.
Defense investment, however, is still inadequate. Planners reckon that Europeans need to invest an additional $550 billion over the next decade to replace American weapons in Europe. But even worse, it would take 5-10 years before the tanks, drones and howitzer shells start rolling off the assembly line in anything approaching sufficient numbers.
There is a solution: Buy American. At least until Europeans have rebuilt their defense industries and boosted troop levels.
One must report, however, that American defense industries are also struggling to meet Ukraine’s needs. But—a technological lead, larger industrial base and market and excellent collaboration between government and private industry—means that the US is much better placed to ramp up production.
On top of that, the current transactionally-minded US president thinks almost exclusively in dollars and cents. It should be possible to persuade Donald Trump to look upon Ukraine and Europe as a cash cow rather than a money pit. He has, for instance, already sounded out President Volodomyr Zelensky on exchanging Ukraine’s $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals for American weaponry.
If Europe—which includes the UK—is to act it must do so immediately. This weekend 60 world leaders are meeting at the Bayerische Hof Hotel for the annual Munich Security Conference. Ukraine is top of the agenda. The American delegation is led by US Vice President JD Vance. He is scheduled to meet President Zelensky.
Meanwhile, Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg, will be chairing fringe meetings at which he will privately suggest peace proposals before travelling to Kyiv for more talks with Zelensky. Trump has said he will meet Vladimir Putin in Saudi Arabia “in the near future.”
The run-up to the Munich Conference has involved a 90-minute telephone conversation between Trump and Putin. Trump and Zelensky have had a 60-minute phone chat, although diplomatic sources fear that there is a real danger of the Ukrainians—and Europeans—being side-lined.
On Wednesday possible peace parameters emerged when Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth told reporters that Ukraine’s hopes of a return to pre-2014 borders was “unrealistic” and that the US would oppose Ukrainian membership of NATO.
As for the rest of Europe, Hegseth was quite clear: “Europe must take over assistance to Ukraine as the US focuses on its own borders… I want to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”
The Europeans, meanwhile, have started drawing red lines for any negotiations on Ukraine. A joint statement by the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Poland, and Italy vowed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and made it clear that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”
The problem is that the European red line could be dismissed by Putin and Trump as no more than pale pink because of Europe’s inability to back words with deeds.
At the moment Putin appears to have won. His clearly stated aims were to stop the eastward expansion of NATO; weaken the Transatlantic link; reduce Ukraine to a vassal state and position Russia for expansion elsewhere in the Black Sea region, Eastern Europe and the Baltics. He has shown that Pax Americana has been replaced with Might is Right.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1339
Kemi Badenoch vs the Conservative Party: how the polling compares - The Week in Polls
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Zachary Adam Barker
tom arms
Neil Hickman
Joe Bourke
41 Comments
Hesgeth, at last , a politician giving the EU a large dose of reality.
‘We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering’
“Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering’”
This is made redundant by this approach guaranteeing that there will be a next war.
You are literally advocating rewarding imperialism.
Zach. Then tell us how we get to that position of the pre 2014 borders ?
Statements like ‘whatever it takes’ or 100 year packs ! Have no reality of what’s happening on the ground. Discussions around European troops on the ground in a zone awash with sophisticated weaponry & without US logistical back up and Air cover make such a decisions unpalatable.
@Zach, that’s easy enough for you to say. But you know who the only people with the right to make that decision are? Ukrainians who have had their homes invaded, pillaged, their citizens bombed and slaughtered, because Putin has decided he wants to return to Imperial boundaries. And as Craig points out, when Ukraine surrender some of their land for peace and then we get to 2034 and Putin invades agaon for more land, will you again advocate that they give up some of their country because you can’t see a way to return to old borders that isn’t quick and convenient? An abhorrent position to take unworthy even of the Tories, let alone the Lib Dems. I can guarantee it wouldn’t be advocated if it was the UK under attack.
Sorry, got the namers of the poster and responded the wrong way around in my response.
Daniel , then how do you get to the Ukrainian position of pre 2014 ? It’s a legitimate question that slogans just deal with the reality . £390 Billion and rising in aid so far, & three years on from the much talked about spring offensive , the Ukrainian army is just about holding a line at huge cost.
I entirely agree with Craig Levene: what a waste of money and life defending a country against an aggressor.
How unrealistic and silly to want one’s country back!
Let us go into negotiation giving up everything to Russia. Give him the whole of Ukraine, then he won’t be obliged to attack anymore. Peace for our time.
Btw: UK government figure of 12.8bn for total UK aid to Ukraine since the start of the war.
What a shame Putin’s surprise attack didn’t take Kyiv on the first day. Zelensky executed. 12.8 bn saved. So much better.
And how dare those awful Ukrainians invade Kursk, part of Mother Russia? How much is that costing the British taxpayer? Disgraceful behaviour.
Only a small point, but it is defence not defense in British English, or has Donald Trump banned that too and I just didn’t hear about it?
Chris , 380 billion relates to the Wests aid.
There is nothing wrong in asking how you get to a position that would be acceptable to Ukraine. It’s position is that a return to pre 2014 borders . How would that be achieved ?
As for the outrage, Western liberal governments let the slaughter in Gaza go on unabated.
Come on, guys, with Trump and co it’s always transactional (in other words; “What’s in it for ME?”). Whether it’s minerals in Ukraine, real estate in Gaza or poll ratings back home, forget about boundaries or aid relief. In Europe it looks increasingly like 1938 all over again. Mind you, hasn’t the USA always put its own interests first? While those ‘interests’ were largely our own and beneficial towards us on this side of the Atlantic, we were prepared to go along. Now, I’m not so sure.
Trump is not interested in Russia (population 140 millions) and the West (population 550 millions) but is concerned about the threat of China (population 140 billions) to the US. He wants Russia as an ally in his struggle with China. He does not care about Western Europe with its wish to preserve democracy but we will have to bring the AFD and similar parties into the fold and stop ignoring the wishes of those who believe themselves dispossessed. Not an easy thing to do, I agree.
@nvelope2003: No, we have to see the likes of AfD defeated at the ballot box. Not an easy thing to do either. Adopting policies that imitate the far right is not the way to do it — those minded to vote far-right will always prefer the real deal to a poundshop imitation.
@ Craig the question of how we get back there is one for Ukrainians, not you. It’s totally inappropriate for anyone other than Ukrainians to be making decisions about their country. If you want to suggest just not supporting them financially anymore then fine. That’s your right to suggest. But we have no right to suggest they just give in and accept losing part of their home now.
Why don’t you answer this question: what’s to stop Russia coming back in a few years time and invading to take yet more land? Maybe you think Ukraine should just give it all over now – because one day your question will be “how do they realistically plan to get back to 2024 borders”?
And as I pointed out, you would undoubtedly not be taking the same stance if someone were forcibly taking chunks of UK land away each decade. Neimoller’s quote comes to mind.
Tom writes “…to most Americans the war in Ukraine, as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia—“is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
But Russia is not a country far away between people of whom Americans know nothing. As VP candidate, Sarah Palin said in an interview “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”:
Representatives of Czechoslovakia were not part of the negotiations that led to the 1938 Munich agreement and ceding of the Sudetenland to the German Reich (While the deal is called the Munich Agreement in English, the Czech name for it is more blunt: the Munich Betrayal). Churchills assessment at the time proved apposite “We seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on even more adverse terms than at present.”
In hindsight, difficult as it was, the Czechs and Slovaks, may have done better to reject Chamberlain’s peace in our time and resist Nazi aggression in 1938 despite the inevitable heavy cost in lives lost and destruction of Cities.
Ukraine is faced with a similar dilemma today. No easy choices, but the UK should not repeat the errors of appeasement to which we were a party in 1938.
@ Craig Levene: “Western liberal governments let the slaughter in Gaza go on unabated.”
Ukrainians, what are you thinking about, defending your country. Do you not realise Western governments have failed the Palestinians in Gaza? Therefore you must give up your country to Putin.
Brilliant reasoning, Craig. I’m entirely in agreement.
@ Daniel,
“It’s totally inappropriate for anyone other than Ukrainians to be making decisions about their country. ”
Of course this is a fine ideal but it’s not the way the world works in practice. Substitute the words Palestinians, Serbians, the Irish, Cypriots for ‘Ukrainians’ and you’ll see the problem.
Different groups have different ideas on where the borders of “their country” lie. The residents of Crimea and the Eastern provinces of pre-2014 Ukraine don’t agree that they should be a part of it.
The reason that Putin thought that his invasion of Ukraine would be a pushover was because there was no international outcry over his annexation of Crimea in 2014. I agree it is probably unrealistic to go back to pre-2014 boundaries in the negotiations, but the possible compromise might be to ratify Russia’s ‘ownership’ of Crimea, in exchange for withdrawing all their troops from Donetsk and the other eastern provinces. That could be a win-win situation, with Putin gaining some recognition on a physically separated Crimea from the main land mass of Ukraine’s sovereign territory.
Chris , I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of Western liberal governments.
The Ukrainian position is admirable , but is increasingly looking a futile one. Of course it’s upto the Ukrainian government when and if to stop fighting, having faced an insurgency since 2014 in its eastern provinces, prior to the Russian invasion. Not sure there is that much appetite from EU/UK governments in regards to boots on the ground in any peacekeeping role. The UK will struggle to muster up such a force. & in the backs of minds is was the humiliating retreat from Basra.
You may remember that 80 years ago this month, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta in Crimea when the future of Poland was discussed without any representation. It is important that Zelenski should be involved in current negotiations about Ukraine’s future, and not be decided by a stitch-up between Trump and Putin which will solve nothing for the future security of Europe.
nvelope “the threat of China (population 140 billions) ”
The population of China is 1.4 billion. Your figure is wrong by 2 orders of magnitude.
@Jenny Barnes
Poor old ‘nvelope2003’. He/she/it appears to be taking a leaf out of Trump’s book of hyperbole. Mind you, don’t some people reckon that 1billion is one hundred millions and some reckon it’s actually one thousand millions? However you work it, it’s still pretty big. When very little, my younger son’s counting went; “one, two, three, lots”.
The USA tends to forget that the Ukraine situation is of it’s own making…The leaked Nuland-Pyatt call of 2014 exposed the USA’s meddling and utter distain for the concerns of the cooler heads of the EU….
Jenny Barnes: Yes of course you are absolutely right about the population of China. I was in a hurry and as I had a long journey to get home I was unable to correct my error until now. I hope no one was confused.
Alex Macfie: I was not suggesting that we should imitate the policies of the far right but they we should try to deal with the reasons why people support them. Sometimes when I have heard people explaining their reasons they sound rational but of course we need to make the effort to explain why they are wrong. Many people no longer just believe what they are told. I suspect Trump sees Putin as an ally in his opposition to China while the leader of Ukraine is to him a tiresome nuisance who might stop him achieving his goal. I think we shall soon find out. We must just hope for the best until we have built the means to defend ourselves without depending on the whims of unreliable “allies”
Is/was the “Pax Americana” ever anything but “Might is Right”?
Might its now being made obvious that the U S A is not a genuine peace seeking, reliable ally, possibly bring longer term benefits?
Alex Macfie: Re My post, for the avoidance of doubt, in line 2 replace the third word with the word “that”. I hope this makes the matter clear. Time to get some well earned rest.
Steve Trevethan. The Americans are like other colonialists. They established their enormously wealthy Republic by stealing other people’s land and property and killing off as many native people as possible in the cruellest manner possible as a warning. The sheer nerve of their position on how to distribute the fruits of the earth is breath taking though of course they have helped many people when it suited them. We should just make sure we are not conned in future.
@Steve Trevethan: Might you possibly be confusing ‘Donald Trump’ with ‘The USA’? 🙂 What Trump says, believes, and does is in many respects not like what many past US Governments have said, believed, and done; I’m pretty sure most of the US presidents since WWII would (if they were still alive) be horrified by Trump’s actions over Ukraine, over trade, etc. and I think it’s wrong of you to tar most of US history with Trump’s actions in the way you seem to be doing.
And yes, ‘Pax Americana’ was a lot more than that. Remember, until relatively recently, the US was one of very few democracies in a World where most countries were ruled by despotic regimes, and the desire to spread democracy was a huge motivating factor (although often distorted by the desire to fight communism leading to ill-judged and immoral support for right-wing despotic regimes)
‘Pax Americana’ superceded Pax Britannica (the relative peace between the great powers in the time period roughly bounded by the Napoleonic Wars and World War I).
Wilsonianism derived from the liberal internationalism that had captured large segments of the Anglo-American intellectual elite before and during the war. It interpreted war as essentially an atavism associated with authoritarian monarchy, aristocracy, imperialism, and economic nationalism. In his 1994 book Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger wrote about the two dominant strains of American foreign policy: realism as practiced by President Theodore Roosevelt and crusading democratism as practiced by President Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt, Kissinger noted, “defined America’s world role … completely in terms of national interest [and] identified the national interest … with the balance of power.”
Wilsonian self-determination plays no part in Trump’s worldview. The sovereign rights of others take a backseat to advancing U.S. interests.
The USA today is divided roughly equally between democrat and republican supporters with increasing levels of hostility between the contending sides, just as the UK was over the Brexit dabate.
We will see how well US governmental institutions are able to mitigate the excesses of presidential authority in Trumps second term and whether there will be swing back towards the democrats in the mid-term elections or a consolidation of authortarianism.
The success or otherwise of Trumps policy on Ukraine may well be a deciding factor in that outome.
@John Marriott. Not many people think a billion is a hundred million. There are still plenty who think it’s a million million (the original meaning). The population of China is 1.4 milliard.
Interesting how the oh so clever like to boost their image by making patronising comments. At least I had the grace to make a full apology as soon as I was able to do so.
Britain and the rest of Europe need to spend more money on defence – and fast. The USA seem ready to walk away from the post 1945 security settlement (lets not forget they only came i to WW2 after being attacked, and Hitler decalred war on the US) The folly of Brexit is being brutally exposed, and it must be helpful politically that one big argument of the Brexiteers was that the UK had a special relationship with the US when Trump seems determined to humiliate us along with the rest of Europe.
Farage’s determination to lick Trump’s backside must be exposed for what it is, and the Conservative’s neglect of the military can be used against them too.
Our enemies will try to paint Liberals as “soft” – Ed Davey’s recent stance demonstrates the opposite. It harks bank to Archie Sinclair’s public opposition to appeasement in the 1930s.
The Tories have run down the nation’ defences, and
@ Simon R,
“…… the desire to spread democracy was a huge motivating factor (although often distorted by the desire to fight communism leading to ill-judged and immoral support for right-wing despotic regimes)”
It’s good you’ve included an “although” but the US record on destabilising and removing democratic regimes of which it disapproved suggest that this is, by a long way, inadequate.
Since WW2 we’ve had Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Vietnam (1963), Chile (1973), Greece (1967), Nicaragua (1981).
Plus, there has been US support for existing right wing anti democratic governments in many countries throughout the world: Such as in Argentina, El Salvador, South Korea, Indonesia , Spain, Portugal, Philippines etc etc
Even South Africa, in the apartheid era, could rely on considerable US support. Despite rhetorical opposition to apartheid, the United States continued to block sanctions against South Africa at the United Nations in the 1960s and the 1970s.
The UK strategic defence review appears to be being rapidly overtaken by events. The review was ordered to deliver answers for a defence budget that will increase to 2.5% during the course of the parliament – even though the government has yet to commit to a timeline. With UK defence chiefs and the Trump administration calling for a return to 1980s level of spending (at circa 5% of UK GDP) the review has been upended.
Keir Startmer is due to fly to Paris Monday to attend urgent talks in Paris convended by Emmanuel Macron amid fears the US leader is sidelining allies Starmer to join Macron-led European crisis summit on Trump’s Ukraine plan
Liberal Democrat Defence policy (that includes seeking a defence and security agreement with the EU and its member states) was laid out in last years manifesto Liberal Democrats’ election manifesto on defence:
The Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen, has argued “The cheapest, easiest way to protect transatlantic security is Ukraine in NATO, but some allies oppose it,”
I am delighted that my article spawned all the comments that it has. In fact I’m a bit chuffed. But none of you have addressed my central proposal which is that we help Ukraine (by we I mean the Euro group of NATO ) buy buying more American defence products until such time as Europe has rebuilt its defence industries. So, what do you think? Is it worth a proposal at conference?
@Tom: The proposal seems plausible – and personally I’m open to anything that might help Ukraine on the battlefield. The idea has the advantage that Trump would like the idea of us buying American things, so it could give Europe some bargaining power with the US. But I would expect there would be a diplomatic issue that as I understand it, countries normally sell defence equipment with strict contractual controls about passing it on to any 3rd parties. Would America under Trump agree to having its equipment passed on to Ukraine?
@ Tom,
I would expect the major problem would be the fiscal rules, rather than any shortage in the production capacity of the EU which will prevent the amount of spending that will be needed. It has been reported that Ursula von der Leyen has already suggested “tweaking” the rules. They’ll probably need more than a tweak!
Whether she will get her way remains to be seen.
So if they can be tweaked to increase arms production, why couldn’t they have been previously tweaked to reduce unemployment?
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/european-commission-to-tweak-fiscal-rules-to-boost-eu-defense-spending-14566fb5
At present, the USA is likely the only country with sufficient stocks to quickly supply Ukraine’s needs. Buying American defence products does. however, come with restrictions as seen recently with the delays in being able to give permission for the firing of UK Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory.
Mike Martin, the Libdem spokesman on defence brought a motion to parliament last year which calls on the Government to investigate the possibility of seizing $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine’s war effort. “There is a clear legal pathway for doing this as set out in the international law doctrine of state countermeasures: seizing frozen Russian Central Bank Reserves serves as a legitimate state countermeasure to Putin’s war crimes.”Defence and Foreign Affairs
Martin has also said that the UK needs to boost the army troop size to over 100,000 to be able to deploy an armoured division to the European continent.
The UK strategic defence review will likely need to focus attention on key military capabilities like air-to-air refuelling, intelligence, and logistics. There needs to be closer collaboration between the UK and the EU, particularly in defence industrial development. A UK-EU security pact should prioritise industrial cooperation over other areas.
The UK could concentrate its operational efforts on Arctic and High North operations, where it could provide significant value, given its leadership role in the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a key complement to NATO operations.
@Peter Martin – “ The residents of Crimea and the Eastern provinces of pre-2014 Ukraine don’t agree that they should be a part of it.”
That’s a very bizarre claim given that the residents of both were perfectly happy to be part of Ukraine until they were invaded by Russia.
Indeed, in the case of Crimea, in the last free elections, a party advocating joining Russia did stand – and they won exactly one out of a hundred seats in the regional parliament there (and then only via a “top up” list system), so it is clear there was basically no popular support for leaving Ukraine and joining Russia.
When considering these huge increases in defence spending it is important to also increase the much smaller amount invested in political propoganda that might shorten the war, improve any treaty that ends it and cement the peace.