Everyone loves a group project—unless you’re the one doing most of the work. For a period of three years, the United States acted as a diligent, responsible student, providing Ukraine with over $66 billion in direct military and weaponry support. This support was devoid of any IOUs, convoluted loan structures, or assurances of “paying you back next term.” These genuine tanks, missiles, and projectiles were shipped by the American taxpayer.
What was the outcome for the European classmates? By mid-2025, the total direct military aid will reach a commendable $54 billion as a union, with the EU institutions and all 27 member states contributing. Not bad for a collective that boasts a surplus of well-heeled chancelleries, boasts twice the U.S. economy, and has more defense white papers than actual artillery projectiles.
But the real fun begins when you break open the group project binder:
The European Peace Facility and the Brussels-based offices of the EU institutions themselves administered roughly $12 billion in direct military aid over a three-year period. This includes grants for both lethal and non-lethal equipment intended to assist Ukraine’s armed forces, and it does not involve loans or future repayment. The remaining portion of the ultimate “EU” total? Those are the activities of the individual member nations. The contributions of France’s tanks, Germany’s financial contributions, Poland’s ammunition, Estonia’s intransigence, and so forth were all significant, albeit at varying degrees. However, Europe’s collective resources and capabilities were not enough to offset the significant, uninterrupted military support provided by the United States.
And speaking of Estonia, Kaja Kallas—the loquacious star of every summit—consistently reminds the United States to “do its bit” and “share the burden” as if America hadn’t been carrying the lion’s share since day one. One could argue that she has mastered the art of polite nagging, gently reprimanding Washington while Europe largely sat in the front row, passing around the popcorn and waiting for someone else to pay up the tab. The urgency of her voice is abruptly heightened as the U.S. expects that Europe will pay up, as there is no more effective way to convey that “we contributed” than by insisting that someone else hasn’t.
Let’s be honest, many member states behaved in a manner reminiscent of the kid who signs his name at the bottom of a paper, hoping that no one would notice that he neglected to complete the actual assignment. EU states were not subjected to considerable pressure to improve their performance when the United States was responsible for the burden. The news cycle was dominated by applause, promises, and “we stand with Ukraine” photo ops, while actual hard currency and hardware were transported westward at a continental pace.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the impressive support figures that are frequently reported from Europe appear to be somewhat exaggerated when one examines the actual contents. Macro-financial assistance, which is essentially financing that Ukraine will eventually have to repay, accounts for a significant portion of the headline figures. These are not lethal aid or financial gifts; rather, they temporarily support Ukraine’s government budget and economy, but they will ultimately contribute to its debt burden.
Furthermore, the EU offers financial guarantees, which are pledges to safeguard loans or investments. These guarantees are intended to mitigate risk and stimulate private investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction. Although these guarantees are significant and beneficial, they are not equivalent to direct financial transfers or weapons shipments. They are contingent commitments that may never be called, but they nonetheless inflate headline figures. In reality, the intricate network of guarantees and loan agreements can be so intricate that even Brussels accountants occasionally encounter difficulty in determining their true impact.
Secondly, the EU allocates substantial resources to humanitarian aid, which is used to address the crisis resulting from the conflict. This aid is provided to millions of Ukrainian refugees who are dispersed throughout the continent, and it includes food, shelter, healthcare, and education. This assistance is essential from a moral and social standpoint; however, it does not contribute to the development or preservation of Ukraine’s military capabilities—it is unable to stop the movement of a single tank or missile. Currently, Ukraine is forcibly recruiting a portion of this group, only to have them slain on the battlefield or even before if they resist.
These forms of assistance—loans, guarantees, and humanitarian aid—have a propensity to significantly increase the reported aid totals of Europe together. They give the impression of boundless generosity; however, only a small portion of their efforts actually involve direct military assistance or urgent battlefield support. The direct shipment of lethal military equipment, ammunition, and weapons continues to constitute a lower portion of the total pie.
In contrast, the United States chose not to participate in such convoluted accounting practices. Washington provided weapons, munitions, and funds through direct, non-repayable grants and donations. There was no intricate financial engineering or layered guarantees; rather, Ukraine received straightforward shipments of cash and materiel to maintain its frontline combat.
What is the punchline?
Many EU states are still “deliberating” and “coordinating” their next steps, as America’s generosity has temporarily paused under its new management. However, some have discovered a few additional billions in the back of their sofas. Consider the potential outcomes if each EU member state had contributed at least half of the U.S. effort, or equivalently, to Poland or the Nordic countries. On the contrary, the diplomatic equivalent of “I’ll get the next round” prevailed, with many hoping that Uncle Sam would continue to maintain a generous budget indefinitely.
Ultimately, EU member states could have been more effective in terms of direct, non-repayable military aid—the metric that truly matters. However, in this group endeavor, the majority appear to be content to allow the star student to endure the final exam, deliver some stirring speeches, and refer to the outcome as “unity.”