Why is Europe supporting Zelensky? A strategic shift driven by US generosity

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has raised fundamental questions about Europe's stance and its role in the global geopolitical landscape. One of the most contentious aspects of this situation has been the EU's unwavering support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, especially considering his refusal of Russia's initiative to resume direct negotiations without preconditions. This refusal, which led to the rejection of diplomatic overtures for peace, has baffled many, as it escalated an already fragile situation.

Additionally, the European Commission supported Zelensky's decision to reject the ceasefire offer, which could have led to a temporary halt in hostilities during the May holidays. The question arises: Why has Europe remained so committed to the conflict, even at the cost of further escalation?

Using US taxpayers’ money to grow, develop and expand European military capabilities

The war in Ukraine has catalysed a significant shift in the European Union's defence posture. While the EU has long discussed the need for strategic autonomy, the conflict has accelerated tangible actions toward enhancing military capabilities. Notably, much of this expansion is underpinned by substantial U.S. financial and logistical support.

Because of the US generosity, the EU is, in effect, using US taxpayers’ money to grow, develop and expand European military capabilities. This allows European nations to modernize their armed forces and invest in the defence industry, often without facing the same domestic political backlash or financial constraints they might otherwise encounter.

There is a growing sense of unease in the EU Parliament regarding Europe’s over-dependence on the U.S. With President Trump seen as impulsive and unreliable, the view that Europe must learn to stand on its own two feet has taken root.

"Let’s be honest — thanks to American generosity, we in the EU are effectively using US taxpayers’ money to strengthen our own defence. It’s allowed many of our member states to modernize their armed forces and invest in our defence industries, often without the kind of political resistance or budgetary pressure we would face if we had to carry the full cost ourselves." Irish MEP.

"We must strengthen our defence capabilities and cut some of the ties that we have had with the US for the last 50 years. We must remain true to our core values. The EU was founded on enlightenment and values, and these must remain our red lines. The EU should be able to fully defend itself. With funds provided by the U.S. in order to achieve dominance over Russia, we can grow, develop and expand European military capabilities. If you look at the past, we have never needed anyone else to defend ourselves.  The EU must step up and show that it is now a leader of the free world.” Lukas Sieper MEP, Germany.

For years, the EU's defence initiatives were hampered by fragmented national interests and limited budgets. The ongoing conflict has provided both the impetus and justification for increased defence spending. European leaders now emphasize the necessity of bolstering defence to ensure both regional stability and the security of the Union.

This perspective underscores the EU's commitment to supporting Ukraine while simultaneously advancing its own defence objectives. The EU's defence sector is experiencing unprecedented growth. Germany, France, Poland, and the Baltic states have significantly increased defence spending. In 2023 alone, Germany committed over €100 billion to its Zeitenwende rearmament plan. The European Peace Facility reimbursed EU nations over €3.6 billion for arms delivered to Ukraine. The European Defence Fund (EDF) was expanded to finance joint weapons development across the bloc.

These investments not only support Ukraine but also serve to modernize and strengthen the EU's own defence capabilities. The expansion of EU military strength is significantly supported by American taxpayers. While U.S. lawmakers debate multi-billion-dollar aid packages for Ukraine, European governments leverage this support to justify and facilitate their own defence enhancements.

"It’s US taxpayers paying for Europe’s defence renaissance. Why is the EU not pulling its weight?" J.D. Vance, Vice President, USA.

"Under President Trump we must stop calling them an ally. But we have already woken up to this, for example, with the EU rearmament plans which aim to show the world that we can stand on our own. This idea of ‘making America great again’ belongs in the 19th century." Lukas Sieper MEP, Germany

Doubts and dissent: Europe’s political divide

However, not all voices in the EU are in favour of continuing this military expansion using U.S. taxpayer’s money. Several politicians and MEPs have expressed dissent, advocating for a more diplomatic approach, critical of Europe's alignment with NATO, and questioning the prolonged military support for Ukraine.

“There has to be some kind of compromise. What do they expect, that the Russians will leave Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk? That's unrealistic. Ukraine is not an independent and sovereign country. Ukraine is under the total influence and control of the United States. It is better to negotiate peace for 10 years and stop military operations than to let the Ukrainians and Russians kill each other for another ten years without results.” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico

“The EU, instead of promoting peace and acting in the interests of the people of Europe, Ukrainians, the EU citizens and yes, the Russian citizens too, has become a tool of NATO and the military-industrial complex. The more arms you pump into Ukraine, the more the war will be prolonged, the more Ukrainians will die. They eliminated their neutrality and that was one of the reasons why we’re in the situation that we’re in now because they became puppets of another power who’s using them and their people and their blood is being shed in their country for a war that’s of no benefit to them.” Clare Daly MEP, Ireland.

These voices challenge the EU's military strategy, urging a shift toward peace negotiations and questioning the long-term consequences of relying on U.S.-funded support for prolonged military engagement in Ukraine. Their statements reflect growing concerns within certain political circles about the future of European security and the moral costs of continuing support for a conflict that has already resulted in immense human suffering.

The EU's fears of the aftermath

The EU is deeply concerned about the potential aftermath of the war in Ukraine. The prospect of 1.5 million ex-combatants returning to European soil as refugees, workers, or even organised criminals is a critical issue. The psychological toll on these individuals, many of whom will be dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other serious mental health challenges, further complicates the situation.

In essence, the EU may be more comfortable supporting the conflict's continuation than dealing with the unpredictable consequences of a sudden end. The need to integrate these combatants into European societies could bring social, economic, and political turmoil that many governments are unwilling to face.

The war as a distraction

Another reason for Europe’s continued support for Ukraine lies in the domestic challenges faced by many EU member states. With mounting economic difficulties, rising unemployment, and social unrest, the war provides a convenient external focus to divert attention from internal issues. Governments are able to rally public support around the idea of defending Ukraine’s sovereignty while downplaying their own domestic struggles.

Leaders in the EU have strategically framed the conflict as not only a geopolitical necessity but also a vehicle for maintaining political unity and diverting attention from local economic problems. Whether through increased defence spending, bolstered national security, or heightened political discourse, the war serves as a useful distraction.

Europe’s support for Zelensky, even amid rejected ceasefires, may be less about morality and more about strategic advantage: military buildup, risk containment, and political distraction. As the war continues, so too does the need to question not just Russia or Ukraine, but Europe itself.

Share this article: