The Ukraine Bill Is Big. The Opportunity Is Bigger.

In an analysis published in The Economist, the case for European funding for Ukraine is recast as a historic opportunity rather than a budgetary burden.

Wars are fought with artillery, but they are ultimately contests of economic stamina. The side that can keep paying its soldiers, repairing its infrastructure and raising new capital tends to prevail. Europe is about to collide with this reality. Ukraine is heading toward a severe liquidity crunch and, without fresh support, risks running out of cash by the end of February. President Donald Trump’s termination of American financial assistance has tightened the squeeze; hopes of a ceasefire have receded; and Russian drone strikes continue to batter Ukraine’s energy grid.

The Economist’s analysis argues that Europe, however indebted and politically irritable, must fill the gap. To treat this as an annual squabble over public spending would be to misunderstand the stakes. Funding Ukraine is framed not as an act of charity but as a strategic opening — a chance to expose the Kremlin’s financial fragility, to shift Vladimir Putin’s calculus on war and peace, and to accelerate Europe’s long-postponed march toward military and financial autonomy from the United States.

The costs will be substantial. Most Europeans underestimate just how much will be required to keep Ukraine in the fight and sustain its economy. Yet The Economist contends that the bill, however large, is a bargain compared with the alternative. Allowing Ukraine to fail would embolden Russia, destabilise Europe’s neighbourhood for a generation, inflate defence costs and erode confidence in Europe as a geopolitical actor.

The argument is blunt: Europe is being presented with a strategic moment it did not seek but cannot avoid. Paying Ukraine’s bills is not only the price of continental security — it is an investment in Europe’s own relevance in a world where American guarantees can no longer be assumed. READ MORE HERE.