By clicking "Accept all cookies", you agree to the storage of cookies on your device to improve site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. Please review our Privacy Policy for more information.
How Much Did U.S. Aid to Ukraine Really Cost? A Study by Economists for Ukraine
"The main goal of this study is to prevent disinformation regarding the aid provided by the United States to Ukraine. It also aims to demonstrate that European countries and the United Kingdom have provided Ukraine with equipment, weapons, and other types of aid in proportions comparable to the U.S. contribution," says one of the lead authors of the study, Anastassia Fedyk, professor of finance at the University of California, Berkeley
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in the USA, September 2024. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine
No items found.
Support Sestry
Even a small contribution to real journalism helps strengthen democracy. Join us, and together we will tell the world the inspiring stories of people fighting for freedom!
Over the past week, former President Donald Trump has mentioned various figures regarding the military aid the United States has provided to Ukraine over three years of war. He has cited amounts such as $500 billion and $350 billion.
According to estimates by the "Economists for Ukraine" group, the military aid transferred by the U.S. to Ukraine amounts to $18.3 billion. An additional $32.6 billion represents direct budgetary support in the form of reimbursements, which was distributed, among other means, through the World Bank. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has assessed the total volume of its military aid to Ukraine at $65.9 billion.
— We analyzed a vast amount of publicly available data and identified the reasons for discrepancies in the reported figures, — explains Anastassia Fedyk. — When considering only military aid, our experts assessed all the equipment and technology Ukraine was set to receive, taking into account their condition, age, and usability. It makes a significant difference whether equipment was newly manufactured by American companies last year or if it had been out of use for over a decade and was marked for decommissioning. Evaluating all such equipment at the same value is incorrect.
"In 2024, the total amount of military aid to Ukraine constituted 0.25% of the U.S. annual federal budget" — Anastassia Fedyk
For instance, while the U.S. Department of Defense reports that it has transferred $31 billion worth of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine (under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to provide military aid from Pentagon stockpiles without congressional approval), the majority of this equipment was outdated and no longer in use by the U.S. Armed Forces. According to expert estimates, the actual value of this aid is around $12.5 billion.
Another crucial aspect to consider when calculating expenses is how much the United States has gained in profit or other benefits by providing aid to Ukraine.
— We plan to analyze this aspect in detail in our next study and evaluate the specific economic benefits the U.S. has gained from military and financial support to Ukraine. This includes increased profits for the defense industry and new contracts for American companies, — notes Anastassia Fedyk.
Scholars from the University of California, Berkeley, the Stockholm School of Economics, Minerva University, and the AI for Good Foundation worked on the report for approximately two months. "The main goal of this study is to prevent disinformation and the spread of false data regarding U.S. aid to Ukraine. It also aims to demonstrate, using concrete figures, that European countries and the United Kingdom have provided Ukraine with equipment, weapons, and other types of aid in proportions comparable to the U.S. contribution," Fedyk explains. Notably, the European Union estimates the total volume of its financial, military, and humanitarian assistance at $145 billion, while the United Kingdom has provided nearly $16 billion.
Why, then, does former U.S. President Donald Trump exaggerate the aid figures so drastically? According to Anastassia Fedyk, this may be an attempt to negotiate more favorable terms in upcoming resource agreements or a strategy to discredit the previous administration by portraying its policies as unprofessional and wasteful. Specifically, Trump may be trying to create the impression that his predecessors neglected American citizens while allegedly spending "enormous" amounts to support Ukraine, which is suffering from the war with Russia.
— That is why it was important for us to present accurate data — specific amounts, figures, and facts — to show the real state of affairs. We wanted to prove that American citizens were not deprived of access to social or government services due to aid to Ukraine, explains Anastassia Fedyk.
On the contrary, many people gained jobs, and companies involved in the production and supply of aid expanded their manufacturing capacities and contributed to budget revenues
In her opinion, the results of this analysis will also be useful for Ukraine, as they will allow for negotiations on equal terms, provide a better understanding of the real value of the aid received, and prevent manipulations regarding its scale.
The researchers from "Economists for Ukraine" also analyzed allegations of corruption and possible embezzlement of funds coming from the U.S.
They found that the level of corruption associated with the use of American aid is among the lowest compared to all other countries that have received support from the United States
— Accusations of corruption can harm Ukraine’s reputation as an aid recipient. However, thorough audits indicate that Ukraine has handled the provided funds responsibly. Moreover, budgetary assistance was granted in the form of expense reimbursements based on receipts. This should be emphasized to prevent the formation of a negative image, which some try to impose, notes Professor Fedyk.
In her view, American citizens' attitudes toward Ukraine have not deteriorated, but many still do not fully understand the actual scale of aid provided to Ukraine. Americans continue to support Ukraine and consider their assistance important and beneficial. Therefore, it is crucial to spread truthful information to avoid misunderstandings, even when high-ranking officials fuel such misunderstandings.
Economists for Ukraine is a non-partisan economic think-tank, part of the AI for Good Foundation, a US 501(c)(3) Public Charity whose mission is to promote economic and community resilience. The Economists for Ukraine network includes more than 400 economists representing the world’s leading academic, scientific, and economic institutions.
Journalist, editor. She has lived in Poland since 2015 and has worked for various Ukrainian publications: «Postup», «Livyi Bereg», «Profil» and «Realist.online». She is the author of publications on Ukrainian-Polish cooperation, covering topics such as economic and border issues, cultural heritage and commemoration. She is also a co-organiser of journalistic initiatives promoting Ukrainian-Polish friendship. She has worked as a trainer for the EU programme «Women’s and Children’s Rights in Ukraine: Communication Component». Her interests include personal development and neurolinguistic programming, among others.
R E K L A M A
Support Sestry
Nothing survives without words. Together, we carry voices that must be heard.
Українці сьогодні ставлять собі обґрунтоване запитання: хто відбудовуватиме Україну, якщо біженці не повернуться? В умовах драматичної демографічної ситуації це питання звучить особливо болісно. Проте останні дані з Польщі хоч і можуть на перший погляд занепокоїти, насправді розповідають іншу історію — не про втрату, а про неймовірну силу та потенціал, що гартується на чужині й чекає на свій час.
Звіт компанії Deloitte про становище українських біженців у Польщі змальовує картину надзвичайної стійкості й рішучості. Пам'ятаймо, про кого ми говоримо. Це не анонімна міграція. Це насамперед українські жінки й діти. Аж 67% домогосподарств утримують самотні жінки, які в чужій країні взяли на свої плечі долю всієї родини, борючись із травмою війни та щоденною непевністю щодо долі близьких. Їхня здатність стати на ноги та знайти роботу в таких складних умовах є першим потужним доказом сили українського духу.
Доказ цінності, а не аргумент залишатися
Внесок українців у польську економіку вражає. У 2024 році вони додали до польського ВВП аж 2,7%, що відповідає сумі майже 99 мільярдів злотих доданої вартості
Завдяки сплаченим українцями податкам і внескам доходи державного бюджету зросли на2,94%. Ці цифри не слід сприймати як втрату для України. Навпаки — це твердий доказ величезної цінності українського людського капіталу. Доказ того, що українці навіть у несприятливих умовах здатні творити, будувати й робити величезний внесок у розвиток. А отже, можна зробити висновок, що цей самий людський капітал може стати ключовим ресурсом у процесі відбудови вільної України.
Ба більше, аналіз спростовує міф про нібито конкуренцію. Дані показують, що в повітах, де частка біженців у зайнятості зросла на один відсотковий пункт, зайнятість громадян Польщі зросла на 0,5%, а безробіття знизилося на 0,3%. Виявилося, що присутність українських працівників стала для польської економіки стимулом до підвищення продуктивності й дала полякам можливість перейти на краще оплачувані та більш відповідальні посади.
Надзвичайно промовистим є також професійне зростання самих українців. Медіана їхньої заробітної плати протягом двох років зросла з 3100 злотих до 4000 злотих нетто, наблизившись до рівня 84% медіани по країні. Це доказ не лише рішучості, але й блискавичної адаптації. Не менш важливим є той факт, що біженці переважно утримують себе самі. Дослідження UNHCR за 2024 рік показують, що аж 80% доходів у їхніх домогосподарствах походять від праці. Соціальні виплати, переважно 800+ на дітей, становлять лише 14% їхніх доходів, і ця частка не зросла попри підвищення суми виплати.
Це один з найшвидших процесів економічної інтеграції в історії сучасних міграцій у Європі
Цю картину співпраці, яка приносить користь обом сторонам, підтверджують не лише аналітики. Її можна почути й у голосах польських підприємців, які щодня бачать, як нова енергія живить їхні компанії.
«Польща перебуває в комфортній ситуації, бо вона не лише допомагає людям у потребі, а й заробляє завдяки їхній праці. Рідко трапляється, щоб у такому масштабі етика йшла пліч-о-пліч з прагматизмом», — коментує власник польської фірми, яка працевлаштовує чимало працівників з України, переважно жінок. Він просить зберегти анонімність, бо «останні голоси від нового мешканця Бельведеру вказують на інший напрямок».
Слова підприємця чудово віддзеркалюють парадокс, у якому опинилася Польща. Його прохання про анонімність не є випадковим. У періоди виборчих кампаній побоювання, пов'язані з міграцією, стають легким політичним паливом для частини політичної сцени. Гасла про нібито «відбирання робочих місць» чи «надмірне навантаження на бюджет» хоч і суперечать реальним даним, часом свідомо використовуються для мобілізації електорату. Це створює атмосферу невизначеності, в якій навіть позитивні економічні факти відсуваються на другий план гучнішим, негативним наративом.
Скарб, що чекає на розкриття — в Україні
Однак найважливіший висновок зі звіту — це величезний, досі не використаний потенціал. Аж 40% біженців працездатного віку мають вищу освіту, але лише 12% з них працюють на посадах, що вимагають таких кваліфікацій (порівняно з 37% серед поляків). Основні бар'єри:
Мова: Лише 18% біженців заявляють про вільне володіння польською мовою.
Регуляції: У регульованих професіях, як-от лікар чи архітектор, працюють лише 3,6% біженців (серед поляків — 10,6%).
Громадянство: Багато професій у державному секторі (наприклад, вчитель, медсестра, медичний рятувальник) залишаються формально закритими для осіб без польського паспорта незалежно від їхньої фактичної кваліфікації.
Аналітики підрахували, що якби Польща розблокувала бодай половину цього потенціалу, її економіка отримала б щонайменше 6 мільярдів злотих на рік, з яких понад 2,5 мільярди надійшли б безпосередньо до держбюджету. Це сума, порівняна з великою податковою реформою.
Парадокс інтеграції
Сьогодні працевлаштовано 69% дорослих біженців працездатного віку, а серед жінок цей показник становить 70% — лише на 2 відсоткові пункти менше, ніж серед польок. Однак проблеми починаються у віковій групі 25-39 років, де українські матері працюють значно рідше через брак системної підтримки у догляді за малими дітьми.
Цікаво, що дані демонструють певний парадокс. З одного боку, професійна інтеграція та знаходження нормальної роботи призводять до того, що біженці рідше планують повернення в Україну. З іншого боку — доступ до освіти та державних послуг, тобто соціальна інтеграція, збільшує готовність до повернення, оскільки дає відчуття стабільності й здатність свідомо планувати майбутнє. Це означає, що, допомагаючи людям знайти себе в суспільстві, їх не обов’язково «відбирають» в України — радше дають їм сили для ухвалення свідомого рішення про повернення, коли це стане можливим.
Саме досвід, здобутий за кордоном, може стати безцінною інвестицією в майбутнє. Це знання стандартів ЄС, ділові контакти, нові навички. Це капітал, який повернеться в Україну разом з людьми — майбутніми підприємцями та лідерами відбудови.
Однак у всіх цих дебатах про відсотки ВВП та стратегії найрідше чути голос тих, кого це стосується найбільше. Їхнє почуття безпеки крихке, бо залежить не лише від економічної стабільності, а й від соціальної атмосфери. А вона в свою чергу буває отруєна політичною грою, в якій гасла на кшталт «час закінчити з преференціями» чи «захист кордонів від напливу чужинців» стають інструментом для здобуття підтримки. Це відчуття «небажаного гостя» найкраще передає допис з форуму української діаспори:
«Якщо ти біженка, яка втратила все, що нажила за життя, чоловік пішов на фронт, а ти з дітьми мусила панічно тікати за кордон і день у день живеш питанням, чи буде до чого і до кого повертатися, чи все ж залишитися в Польщі, бо тут поки що безпечно, хоча дедалі частіше відчуваєш, що ти тут небажана гостя (...) то чи почувалася б ти в безпеці?»
Ці слова нагадують, що ключем до всього є перемога та створення в Україні безпечного, справедливого і перспективного майбутнього. Це сила, яка може повернутися і в майбутньому живити Україну. Однак, ключовим буде створення умов, які дозволять цим людям безпечно жити й використовувати здобутий досвід у власній країні.
Joanna Mosiej: I would like to begin our conversation with your family history, because on many levels it serves as a metaphor for our Polish-Ukrainian relations. I am referring to your ancestors, the Szeptycki brothers. Roman (Andrey Sheptytsky - head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Metropolitan of Galicia, Archbishop of Lviv (1901–1944) - Edit.) converted to the Greek Catholic faith, entered a monastery, and later became Metropolitan. Another brother, Stanisław, first served in the Austrian army, and after the war became a general in the Polish army. Both were patriots, individuals deeply devoted to the countries they served. And they maintained a fraternal bond.
Professor Andrzej Szeptycki: Of the five Szeptycki brothers, two identified themselves as Ukrainians - Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky and Blessed Father Klymentiy - and three were Poles. I am referring to General Stanisław Szeptycki and also his brothers, Aleksander and my great-grandfather Leon. Metropolitan Andrey and Father Klymentiy regularly came on holiday to rest at the family home in Prylbichi in the Yavoriv district, where my great-grandfather Leon Szeptycki later lived. Despite their national differences, they maintained good relations with each other until the end of their lives.
Professor Andrzej Szeptycki. Photo: Michal Zebrowski / East News
They proved to us that different national identities can coexist without excluding one another.
I believe it was also very important that in the case of each of them, national identity was a significant element of life, but not the only one. In the case of Metropolitan Andrey and Father Klymentiy, their vocation and religious choices were primary as clergy. General Stanisław Szeptycki, as a soldier of that time, first served in the Austro-Hungarian and then in the Polish army and sought to serve his country well. They were certainly patriots - of each nation with which they identified. On the other hand, it is very important that they were certainly not nationalists. And this allowed them to respect different views while remaining close to one another.
Was such a legacy, a borderland identity, a value or a curse for your family? How does it define you?
During the communist period, it was somewhat of a challenge, a burden. The communist authorities viewed representatives of the former noble class negatively. In the case of the Szeptycki family, this was further combined with a very strong propaganda narrative directed against Ukrainians in Poland. And, of course, directed personally against Metropolitan Andrey, who was portrayed as a Ukrainian nationalist and spiritual father of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. During the communist period, and even in the 1990s, relatives quite regularly heard that Szeptycki is a Banderite». Nowadays, this has practically disappeared. I experienced this myself in 2023 when I was running an election campaign. The few voter reactions to my name were generally positive. In this sense, it is a significant change.
Apart from comments on social media, of course.
Yes, there I am often called Szeptycki - a Ukrainian, a Banderite. And surely there is a portion of society that will always react in this way. Returning to how it defines me, ever since our student years, my cousins and I have quite often travelled around Ukraine.
Some of us needed only one trip, while others stayed longer, for life. My cousin moved to Lviv a few years ago at the age of 50. Another cousin established the Szeptycki Family Foundation, which became actively involved in supporting Ukraine after February 24th 2022.
Photo: Karina Krystosiak/REPORTER
How do you explain this outburst of solidarity among us in 2022?
I believe there are three important factors. Firstly, the simple human need to help. Altruism which arises when we witness the suffering of others and react without much consideration.
Secondly, the shared experience of Russian imperialism. This has always resonated with Polish society. It is worth recalling the Polish response to the war in Chechnya - the reception of refugees, the clear sympathies. Or the year 2008 and the war in Georgia. Poland does not have strong cultural or geographical ties with Georgia, yet the reaction was vivid. We remember President Lech Kaczyński’s visit to Tbilisi and his prophetic words: today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, the day after, perhaps the Baltic states, and then Poland. But most importantly - and in my opinion decisively - is the fact that none of this arose in a vacuum. This solidarity did not suddenly sprout in a desert, but on rather fertile ground which Poles and Ukrainians had been cultivating together over the past three decades.
From the 1990s, both sides carried out considerable work to develop interpersonal contacts. In 2022, many Poles were not helping «refugees». We were, for the most part, simply helping friends
Keeping in mind the great importance of the prior presence of Ukrainian refugees who had arrived in Poland since 2014, economic migrants from Ukraine, and the Ukrainian minority, primarily descendants of the victims of Operation Vistula.
Of course. Since the beginning of the war, that is, since 2014, or even since 2004, the Ukrainian minority in Poland has played an important role in supporting Ukraine - collecting funds, purchasing equipment, sending that equipment to the frontline. And receiving Ukrainian military refugees after February 24th 2022. Undoubtedly, the role of this community cannot be overestimated.
Precisely. You have been researching Polish-Ukrainian relations for many years. How have they changed? How has the Poles’ perception of Ukrainians changed?
It has been a long process. From the establishment of mutual contacts in the 1990s, through the Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity - up to 2022. And, on the other hand, through the long-term presence in Poland of a significant group of economic migrants from Ukraine. Let us not forget that none of this would have been possible without the consistency of Poland’s Eastern policy and the legacy of the thought of the Paris-based «Kultura» and Jerzy Giedroyc personally. This belief in the importance of Ukraine, the importance of good relations, the necessity of support.
We were the first country to recognise Ukraine’s independence.
And it is worth mentioning a very important, albeit little-known, moment in Polish-Ukrainian relations on the eve of the USSR’s collapse, namely the participation of the Polish delegation of civic committees in the 1st Congress of the People’s Movement in Kyiv in 1989. The presence of representatives of the Polish civic committees, including Adam Michnik and Bogdan Borusewicz, was a symbolic gesture of support for Ukraine from Polish «Solidarity» at a time when Poland was still part of the Warsaw Pact and Ukraine still within the USSR.
Photo: Łukasz Gdak/East News
And what were the subsequent milestones of our cooperation?
First and foremost, the three key events of the past two decades, which I have already mentioned: the Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity, and the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. Each of these was met in Poland with clear public interest and a broad response of solidarity.
A sense of shared destiny, the legacy of Solidarity and the struggle for independence played an important role. At times, analogies were even drawn: it was said that Ukrainians in 2022 found themselves in a situation similar to that faced by Poles during the Second World War. The exhibition «Warsaw - Mariupol: cities of ruins, cities of struggle, cities of hope» was one such attempt to draw this symbolic parallel: cities levelled to the ground, the suffering of civilians, resistance. But it was also accompanied by another, no less important conviction: that Ukrainians today are facing something we, fortunately, are not experiencing - a classic violent conflict with Russian imperialism. And this solidarity manifested itself in Polish assistance.
What can we do to ensure this unprecedented solidarity seen in 2022 is not wasted? Today, in addition to the demons of the past, such as Volyn’ and the issue of exhumations, there are pressing social and economic problems.
Firstly, it is important to realise that no surge of solidarity lasts forever. The enthusiasm for Ukrainians that erupted after the beginning of the Russian invasion has gradually waned, and we are now in a phase where tension and fatigue are beginning to accumulate.
For most of its recent history, Poland has been a country of emigration - people left in search of work, bread, a better life. The issue of immigration was virtually absent from public debate. Today, the situation has changed. Around two million Ukrainians live in Poland - both economic migrants and people who fled the war. This is an entirely new social reality and a challenge to which we must respond consciously. Other challenges, including economic ones, must also be taken into account.
The pandemic, war and inflation - all of these influence the public sentiment. When people start running out of money, their willingness to show solidarity with «new neighbours» may weaken
Especially since they are constantly exposed to populist narratives claiming that immigrants take away our social benefits and our places in the queue for doctors. And that Ukraine does not agree to exhumations.
Yes, this is precisely why Polish-Ukrainian relations are no longer merely a matter of the past, but one of the key challenges for the future of Central and Eastern Europe. It is therefore important to defuse historical disputes, such as those concerning exhumations. It is very good that an agreement has recently been reached on this issue. Even if discussions on exhumations in the short term revive the Volyn’ issue, in the long term they will help resolve it. However, it is important to recognise - and I say this quite often to both Polish and Ukrainian partners - that at present, the key issue is not history. A major challenge lies in the broad economic matters related to Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
We must recognise that Ukraine is not a failed state from which only unskilled workers or refugees come to Poland.
Despite the war, Ukraine has advantages in many areas that will pose a challenge to Poland when it joins the EU single market
Of course, Ukraine's accession to the EU is in Poland’s strategic interest. However, these are developments that we must be aware of, which we must closely observe and take action to prevent conflicts in these areas.
Therefore, at present, the real challenge is not the issue of the Volyn’ massacre, but rather how to adapt the common agricultural policy to the potential of Ukrainian agriculture. Naturally, it is also essential to prevent the escalation of social antagonism.
Photo: Jakub Orzechowski / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
How does Polish-Ukrainian academic cooperation appear against this background?
Today, around 9% of students at Polish universities are international, almost half of whom are Ukrainian. The academic world, in line with its longstanding European tradition, is multinational. Universities have always been places of openness and tolerance; today, they develop programmes for support, equality and diversity. These are initiatives and responsibilities undertaken by the universities themselves.
Of course, there are always areas that can be improved. I am thinking, for example, of efforts to achieve better integration within the university. It often happens that we have two or three student communities living separately – students from Poland, English-speaking students and students from the East, mainly Ukrainians and Belarusians. We are working to ensure that these two or three communities come closer together.
You are responsible for international cooperation. In Ukraine, claims are heard that Poland is «draining» its intellectual capital. This is a well-known phenomenon here too - for years, it has been said that the best Polish academics leave for the West. What does this circulation between Poland and Ukraine look like?
Before February 24th 2022, around 500 Ukrainian academics worked in Polish universities. After the outbreak of war, this number doubled. Initially, there were special support measures - help with finding housing, work, a safe place - but quite quickly we realised that a change of perspective was needed.
Our goal is not a brain drain, but a brain circulation - a circulation of knowledge, ideas and experience
This is precisely why today, as a ministry, we support projects involving researchers and institutions from both countries. Those that build a joint research space.
A concrete example of such cooperation is the project of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University in Ivano-Frankivsk, which, together with the Centre for East European Studies, rebuilt the pre-war university observatory «White Elephant» on Mount Pip Ivan. A functioning research station was created from ruins. Now the two universities are seeking funding for a telescope, the third stage of the project. This is an example of concrete cooperation based on partnership, not asymmetry.
Another example is Mykulychyn, a village in the Ukrainian Carpathians, where a Polish-Ukrainian youth meeting centre is being built. During my recent visit there, the first meeting took place with the participation of students from several Ukrainian universities and the University of Warsaw. It is in such places - in conversations, debates, joint projects - that the next generation of mutual understanding is born.
There is a real chance that this generation will get to know each other not through stereotypes, but through experience and culture.
Yes, but much work still lies ahead. I remember a study conducted, I believe, in 2021. Poles were asked which Ukrainian authors they knew, and Ukrainians were asked which Polish authors they knew. It turned out that 95% of Poles had never read a book by a Ukrainian author - and vice versa. What followed was even more interesting. Ukrainians associated Polish authors with Sienkiewicz and Sapkowski, while Poles named Gogol and Oksana Zabuzhko among Ukrainian authors. In terms of getting to know one another, including through culture, we still have much work to do.
But it is also important not to reduce each other to a kind of ethno-folklore, because we have much more to offer one another. We are united by common aspirations and hopes. And commonality does not always arise from similarity. It also arises from the desire to coexist despite differences and wounds.
Коли ми, українці, говоримо про «зраду», ми рідко маємо на увазі Америку. Але, схоже, настав час подивитися уважніше — не на дрони чи бронетехніку, а на ідеї, які приходять разом з ними.
Сільві Коффманн, колишня головна редакторка Le Monde, пише у Financial Times про тривожний зсув: Америка перестає бути захисником демократії й намагається змінити її визначення — вдома й у світі. Найнебезпечніше не те, що США можуть покинути НАТО, а те, що вони хочуть втягнути Європу у власну ідеологічну трансформацію, в якій демократія — це не свобода, а послух.
«Справжній шок від Трампа — це не відмова. Це зрада». — Наталі Точчі, італійська політологиня
Ця зрада не вимагає армій чи вибухів. Вона відбувається через лексику
Через нові «цивілізаційні коаліції», які просуває віцепрезидент США Джей Ді Венс або Марко Рубіо у своїй доповіді про потребу «зберегти чесноти західної культури». Але яку культуру? Ту, яка ображає суддів, атакує іммігрантів, засуджує свободу слова й називає демократично обрані уряди «тиранами в масці».
США вже не просто змінюються. Вони втягують Європу в цей процес. Трамп особисто приймає ультраправого кандидата в президенти Польщі Кароля Навроцького в Овальному кабінеті. А за кілька днів до виборів міністерка безпеки США Крісті Ноєм прилітає до Варшави, щоб підтримати його публічно. Подібні втручання — і в Румунії.
Це вже не дипломатія. Це експорт системи.
Європа опинилась у новому геополітичному ландшафті: з одного боку — Росія, яка несе війну й диктатуру. З іншого — Америка, яка пропонує «новий порядок» у м’якій, релігійно-консервативній обгортці.
«Лідер цього руху зараз у Білому домі. Для нас це перелом», — каже іспанський урядовець у розмові з Коффманн.
Україна має бути пильною. Бо ця війна — не лише про території. Вона і про сенси. І якщо Захід більше не означає свободу, чесність і плюралізм, то за що ми насправді воюємо?
Нас вчать: Америку не критикують, якщо ти в її таборі. Але сьогодні, якщо ми дійсно в європейському таборі, ми повинні ставити питання. Бо те, що Трамп робить з Америкою, його соратники хочуть зробити з Польщею, Румунією — і, можливо, Україною.
Це не кінець партнерства. Це кінець ілюзій
І як каже Кофманн: «Америка в біді. Але перш ніж Європа зможе їй допомогти, вона має навести лад у себе».
Україна — частина цієї Європи. І, можливо, саме ми — з досвідом війни, диктатури, гібридної реальності — можемо першими побачити, коли союз перетворюється на пастку.
Based on: Сільві Коффманн у Financial Times (4 червня 2025)
On May 20th, the European Union adopted its largest and most ambitious package of sanctions against Russia - the seventeenth to date. It targets the deployment of the Russian Federation’s «shadow fleet», which helps circumvent the oil embargo, as well as strengthening restrictions on Russian energy companies and blocking the assets of Kremlin allies in various countries. At the same time, the eighteenth package is already being prepared, which may include a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium, and the use of frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
These sanctions are a key instrument of pressure on the Kremlin, yet their effectiveness, coordination with partners and consequences for European unity remain open questions. Ondřej Kolář, Member of the European Parliament from the Czech Republic, answered the most important of these in an exclusive interview with Sestry.
Sanctions against Russia: EU unity challenges and the position of the USA
Maryna Stepanenko: Mr Kolář, what do you believe is the main advantage of the seventeenth EU sanctions package in combating the circumvention of the Russian oil embargo? Can this package seriously complicate the activities of the so-called «shadow fleet»?
Ondřej Kolář: This is a complex issue. The fact that this is already the seventeenth sanctions package indicates that the policy is not working as effectively as it should. We allow too many exceptions, lack proper enforcement, and are unable to stop large-scale sanctions from being circumvented not only by individual companies but also by entire third countries. Sanctions do matter, but we must implement and enforce them much better.
With this seventeenth package, I hope we have finally recognised how serious the problem is, especially when it comes to the «shadow fleet», which Russia uses very effectively to bypass restrictions. I am glad that the EU is following the example of the United Kingdom on this issue, although it is disappointing that it took us about six months just to start discussing this step.
The EU is moving too slowly. Russia makes decisions quickly and decisively, while we lag behind. This must change - we must be the ones who set the agenda
I welcome this package and the fact that we have finally focused on what truly matters, such as the export of fossil fuels, on which Russia is heavily dependent. The more we block this flow, the better it is for us and for Ukraine. But we must act faster and more precisely. We cannot afford to continue playing catch-up.
You mentioned sanctions circumvention, and the seventeenth package targets not only Russian companies but also their partners in countries such as China and the UAE. You also said that the EU often reacts rather than sets the agenda. Do you see a realistic path for the EU to stay one step ahead of Russia? Is there a way to truly block all the loopholes it uses to bypass sanctions?
I am afraid not. In order to close all avenues of evasion, the EU would have to persuade the entire world to stop cooperating with Russia, and that is simply impossible. Countries such as North Korea, Iran and many from the BRICS group still maintain ties with Moscow, helping it to create the image of a nation merely defending itself and aspiring to a «normal life». This is dangerous, and we cannot accept it. Our only real instruments here are diplomacy and international trade.
The main mistake of the United States was the abandonment of USAID - this created gaps now being filled by other countries such as China and Russia
The EU lacks equivalent resources to intervene fully, but we cannot yield these spaces. We must compete, demonstrate that we are the better partner, and discard the notion that our colonial past makes us unwelcome. What China is doing in many places is simply a new form of colonialism.
We shall not defeat Russia on the battlefield as Nazi Germany was defeated in the Second World War. Therefore, we must use all the other tools at our disposal. Diplomacy and trade are areas where we can stay a step ahead.
Following the negotiations in Istanbul, the European Union is preparing its eighteenth package of sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, financial system and «shadow fleet». Do you believe the EU is ready to act independently of the United States' position, particularly given the calls by the newly appointed Chief of Staff to the German Chancellor, Thorsten Frei, for tougher measures, including a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium?
I would very much like greater independence from Russia because, if we do not achieve it fully, we shall only let ourselves down. Independence from the United States, however, is more complicated. We are still heavily dependent on Washington in matters of defence, security and trade. The United States has been our principal partner for eighty years. Nonetheless, everything changes.
Finnish border guards escort an oil tanker belonging to Russia’s «shadow fleet». Photo: AFP/East News
We cannot afford to react to everything Donald Trump says. The chaos following his inauguration is colossal. In the morning, he says one thing, by lunchtime another, and in the evening he denies both statements. European leaders have realised that it is better to be patient and not to chase after every change in his rhetoric.
The main thing now is to stand on our own feet. This means being proactive and projecting the EU on a global scale. For too long, the EU has been focused on internal development - enlargement and domestic matters, which was important, but we have neglected our global role. Europe has always been a global player, and it must remain one if it is to succeed.
Europe is highly attractive - people seek a better life here because of our unparalleled social security system and quality of life. However, we cannot take this for granted. We must defend it ourselves.
Dependence on the United States is no longer acceptable. They must remain our closest partner, not our guardian
President Trump, in a private conversation with European leaders, acknowledged that Putin was not ready to end the war, but simultaneously refused new sanctions, instead proposing peace talks at the Vatican. How do you assess such a stance by the United States?
Donald Trump is a naïve man who does not understand what is happening. He has been deceived many times by Putin, and he does not even realise it. He cannot evaluate his mistakes because he simply does not acknowledge them. One cannot play poker with one’s cards face up, yet that is exactly what he is doing - showing his hand to Russia, announcing his plans, sending to Moscow unqualified people with no experience.
When he tells European leaders that he forced Putin to join negotiations with Ukraine, a week after those negotiations already took place in Istanbul - it is the same as saying: «I have been asleep for three years».
It is madness. He does not know what he is doing, what he is saying to the world or to his allies
European leaders now realise that they have a clown for a partner. I hope they have enough patience and the necessary tools to calmly and clearly explain to Trump that he is wrong, that he is making matters worse, not better. And that the Russians are playing him. They must make him understand that Russia is not interested in compromise. Unfortunately, we must admit that the current President of the United States is utterly confused and of no help whatsoever.
The United States Congress has introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act, which provides for a 500% tariff on imports from countries that purchase Russian oil and for the expansion of sanctions against Russian sovereign debt. Can Congress, even without support from the Trump administration, independently advance this initiative?
I would be pleased if it were successfully implemented. However, observing how Donald Trump treats American democracy, I am very pessimistic. He does not care about Congress, the Senate or the courts - only about himself and his propaganda.
It does not matter what Congress decides. If Trump does not like it, he will boycott it just as he ignores court rulings and anything else with which he disagrees. This complicates everything greatly.
One day he says he will impose harsh sanctions against Russia, and the next day - the opposite. So where do we stand? What game are we even playing? Nothing is clear.
I am grateful to American legislators for this initiative, but I am cautious. If Trump dislikes it, he will block it without hesitation. I should like to be mistaken, but I do not believe he will support anything that does not serve him.
Challenges on Ukraine’s path to European integration
In March, Hungary threatened to veto the extension of EU sanctions against Russia, which could have led to the unfreezing of substantial assets. Although a compromise was reached, Budapest continues to express criticism not only regarding sanctions but also concerning EU enlargement. How serious a risk is Hungary’s stance for the unity of the European Union in the context of Ukraine’s European integration? What consequences could it have for the integration process itself?
Hungary plays the role of a useful idiot in the EU - Vladimir Putin’s «Trojan horse». They are bringing others over to their side, with a certain degree of success in Slovakia, whose government has become lost in Russian falsehoods. While Ukraine is in the spotlight, the situation in the Western Balkans is even more serious.
Hungary loudly spreads nonsense about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine but quietly undermines the EU elsewhere - especially in Georgia and the Western Balkans, where Hungarian diplomats actively export Russian lies
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary is part of EUFOR (European Union Force - a military mission led by the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina tasked with maintaining peace and stability in accordance with the Dayton Agreement - Edit.) and closely cooperates with leaders of Republika Srpska connected to Putin. They play a disgraceful role in blocking EU enlargement, parroting Russian propaganda.
The EU has realised that it must bypass Hungary, but this creates dangerous precedents. Forming a «coalition of the willing» simply to circumvent Hungary and Slovakia could undermine confidence in the rules and integrity of the EU.
Orbán blocks Ukraine’s accession to the EU, citing economic threats. Photo: LEON NEAL/AFP/East News
Ultimately, the Hungarian people must choose change. We can only hope that the next elections will bring a new government and with it a fundamentally different position on Ukraine and the region. Until then, we must wait and be patient.
The European Parliament actively supports Ukraine’s European integration, in particular by accelerating the accession process and opening negotiation clusters. How do you assess the role of the European Parliament in this process and its influence on the decisions of the EU Council?
Parliament is a legislative body, so almost everything in the EU passes through it. However, it does not play a decisive role in enlargement, although we do influence the process.
For example, I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we closely monitor every country seeking to join the EU. Parliament prepares, votes on and publishes reports on the progress of each country - assessing how well they meet the accession criteria and offering recommendations.
We can also send missions for direct engagement with national partners to discuss the reforms necessary for moving closer to EU membership. But the final decision on enlargement does not rest with us.
We only provide support and guidance. The majority of Parliament supports enlargement, recognising that a larger EU is a stronger EU. Our role is to cooperate with national parliaments, not to pressure them, but to assist in carrying out the required reforms.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted that Ukraine could join the EU by 2030 if reforms continue at the current pace. How realistic do you consider this timeframe for Ukraine's accession?
I would be pleased, but much depends on when the war ends. That does not mean Ukraine should not join the EU before the war concludes - in fact, I believe it deserves a special status.
I often use the example of Puerto Rico - not a full US state, but a special territory with certain rights and responsibilities. Ukraine's situation is unique. None of the other candidate countries - Moldova, Montenegro, Albania or Serbia - have been at war since 2014. Ukraine has been at war for eleven years. We cannot treat it like an ordinary country.
Ukraine could become an EU member before 2030 - President of the European Commission. Photo: NICOLAS TUCAT/AFP/East News
It is important to set ambitious goals - they give us energy. But is 2030 realistic? Frankly, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring. When will the war end? How will it end? Will Russia keep its word?
That is why I believe a special status could be more effective and might even accelerate the process. Ukraine is being treated as if nothing has happened, and that is wrong.
Hybrid warfare and EU information security
In May 2025, Poland faced an unprecedented wave of hybrid attacks from Russia on the eve of its presidential elections. Do you believe the EU is adequately prepared for complex Russian information operations? What steps must be taken to strengthen information security in Europe?
Europe is not ready, not at all. Still, some states are more prepared than others. If you look at the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, their approach is completely different from that of Central Europe. It is strange, given our shared history. The Baltic countries were part of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia was occupied, but not for as long. Yet Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are now very effective in countering hybrid threats. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Slovakia have completely lost their bearings.
Their minds have been washed by Russian propaganda
Poland, to its credit, speaks out loudly about the problem and wants to act. But in the Czech Republic, officials appear on television and say that disinformation does not exist - this is the worst possible approach.
We are lucky that bombs are not falling on our heads, but we are in a state of information warfare. And we are losing. In Brussels, no one even talks about Russian propaganda. It is not a topic. It seems that a country’s position depends on its historical experience with Russia.
We only began acknowledging the problem because Russia continues to escalate. They blew up an ammunition depot in the Czech Republic in 2014, and all we did was expel a few diplomats. Russian officials still move freely throughout the Schengen Area. No one can stop them.
Frankly, we lack courage. We have been unable to recognise Russia as an enemy for far too long. It does not want to be our friend - it wants to defeat us and reshape the world. Europe is unprepared, it is losing, and it has no coordinated response to hybrid threats. Each country acts on its own, and Russia exploits this chaos.
Russia influences EU countries not only through cyberattacks or disinformation, but also through so-called «soft power» - pro-Russian organisations, media outlets and even economic ties. How serious do you consider this threat to be? And what can the EU do to detect and stop such influence in time?
Yes, it is a serious threat - and Europe still cannot acknowledge it. We must stop convincing ourselves that Russia cannot be that bad. It is that bad. We must take Russian propaganda at face value - they broadcast exactly what the Kremlin thinks and wants.
We must respond to the warnings of our own security services. For example, in the Czech Republic, our intelligence has long stated that Russia’s ownership of numerous real estate properties poses a threat. Yet when it comes to confiscating them, the authorities suddenly claim that it is legally impossible. This fear of Russia must end. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but their economy is ruined. They are not capable of winning a global conflict.
Europe acts as if it has Stockholm syndrome. Russia cannot match us economically or strategically, and they are not suicidal enough to start a nuclear war
We must acknowledge that Russia is the enemy and stop legitimising people associated with it. There is no reason why, especially in Central Europe, communists and pro-Russian populists should continue to be given media platforms. This must stop.
Russian propaganda must be banned. We must be tough on everyone: individuals, companies and institutions that help Russia gain influence. Bribery, manipulation, espionage - all of this must be tracked and punished. And those who speak out against Russia must be louder, clearer and relentless in explaining the reality. Because we are still unable to tell people what is really happening - and there is no excuse for what Russia is doing. None whatsoever.
Cover photo: Associated Press/East News
This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation
The West had all the tools to foresee Russia's war against Ukraine - and chose to ignore them. Even before 2014, analysis reached NATO's highest offices: the annexation of Crimea, the threat to Mariupol, the Russian Federation's dominance in the Black Sea. The forecasts were accurate, but most member states opted for the illusion of partnership with the Kremlin.
Are changes still possible? What is required to achieve them? And can NATO remain an effective security alliance in a new era of threats? These and other questions were addressed in an interview with Sestry by Dr Stefanie Babst - one of the most influential security strategists in Europe, who worked at NATO for over 20 years, including as Head of the Strategic Foresight Team. Today, she is an independent analyst, the author of a book on the West's «blind spots» in its strategy toward Russia, and an active participant in international discussions on war, peace and security.
Ukraine, Russia and the strategic miscalculations of the West
Maryna Stepanenko: You led NATO's Strategic Foresight Team. How do you assess the West's ability to foresee Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine? Were there signals that were simply not heard, or perhaps deliberately ignored?
Stefanie Babst: There were many warnings that went unheeded. Allow me to explain. In international relations, it is crucial to accurately assess the mindset, capabilities and intentions of another actor. NATO failed to do this with Russia. As the Head of Strategic Foresight at the Alliance, I issued the first serious warning in 2013 - a few months before the annexation of Crimea. I presented an analysis outlining Russia's malicious intentions and its military preparations against Ukraine.
It was reviewed by the Secretary General and discussed with member states, but no action was taken
Some countries - the Baltic States and Poland - took the analysis seriously. Others - notably Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom - preferred to maintain the NATO-Russia partnership. From 2014 onwards, we intensified our analysis, forecasting actions such as the seizure of Mariupol, dominance in the Black Sea and the use of Donbas as a staging ground. These forecasts were presented at the highest levels, including the NATO Council, but were ultimately dismissed.
In 2015 and 2016, we broadened our focus to include China and its ties with Russia, offering future scenarios and forecasting so-called «black swans» - high-impact events that are hard to predict, seem unlikely but could have serious consequences if they occur. Again, many perceived this only as «intellectual exercises». Thus, NATO possessed the tools of foresight - and chose to ignore them. And that comes at a very high cost.
In your work, you call for a review of the West's strategy toward Russia. In your view, what «blind spots» remain in Western approaches - particularly regarding support for Ukraine?
Three years ago, I called for a powerful, multifaceted deterrence strategy to help Ukraine not just freeze the war but win it. I invoked George Kennan's Cold War approach, urging the use of all available instruments - economic, diplomatic and military - to push Russia out of Ukraine. But apart from some Baltic and Northern European countries, no one took this seriously.
NATO and the EU still lack a defined end goal. If Ukraine's victory were the objective, a corresponding strategy would have been developed
Instead, Western leaders underestimated Ukraine's resilience and failed to act decisively even after Russia crossed countless red lines. President Biden, despite his commitment to Ukraine, framed his approach around what the United States would not do: we will not provoke Russia, we will not give Ukrainians long-range weapons, we will not do this or that. This is not a strategy. Now, with Trump’s return, many European governments are passively hoping for a US-Russian agreement that merely freezes the war - something I believe is dangerous both for Ukraine and Europe.
My main criticism is the lack of political will in the West. Too many still see this as Russia's war against Ukrainians. But it is our war too
Stefanie, why do you think Europe failed to prepare effectively for Trump’s presidency?
Planning within NATO and European governments is often difficult, as politicians typically focus on short-term goals, usually only a month ahead. In times of emergency, particularly due to Washington's unpredictability, Europe must abandon crisis management mode and stop reacting to every event, such as a new tweet.
Europe must be firm with the United States, clearly communicating that their actions - including threats to countries like Canada and Denmark, withholding intelligence from Ukraine and halting cyber operations against Russia - are unacceptable. These decisions had deadly consequences, and member states should not be afraid to hold the United States accountable for violating the fundamental principles of the Washington Treaty.
Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, recently visited Florida to meet President Trump, hoping to impress him with defence spending figures. He praised Trump’s leadership and even claimed that Trump had «broken the deadlock» in relations with Russia. However, this is detached from the reality of ongoing Russian attacks.
If the NATO Secretary General lacks a clear message, the best approach is silence, focusing on supporting member states and protecting them from any threat. We do not have time for empty words and political games.
Europeans must remain immune to American political theatre, focusing on strengthening defence capability and supporting Ukraine’s defence industry so it can resist Russian aggression
Rutte: NATO wants to make Ukraine a strong state. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine
Migration and war
Germany is no longer the EU leader in asylum requests from South American and Middle Eastern refugees. At the same time, in the first quarter of 2025, applications from Ukrainians rose by 84 per cent. What does this indicate?
It is entirely understandable that many Ukrainians have chosen to leave their country for personal and professional reasons - this is natural, and no one should be blamed for it. But this migration has political consequences in Germany, particularly when far-right parties exploit it by portraying Ukrainian refugees as a burden on the social system, regardless of their skills or motivation. These sentiments are especially strong in eastern Germany, where parties like AfD and certain left-wing populist movements have gained support.
What concerns me is the lack of strong counteraction from the federal government in Berlin - clearer messaging and political leadership are needed
If more Ukrainians arrive, I hope the next government will take a positive stance, recognising that many of them can significantly contribute to the German workforce. This would mean reducing bureaucracy, accelerating integration and facilitating their employment. Whether this happens remains to be seen.
Continuing on this topic, in recent weeks, some districts in Germany have publicly declared that they can no longer accommodate Ukrainian refugees due to overburdened social systems. How do you assess these sentiments?
It is true that local communities across Germany still face difficulties in accommodating refugees - an issue that arose after Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open the borders, leading to a large influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. Many municipalities remain overwhelmed by demands for housing, language training and integration support. However, Ukrainian refugees do not pose the same challenges.
Ukrainians generally integrate well, bring strong skills and education and do not contribute to social tensions
In contrast, some refugees from the Middle East struggle to adapt to liberal democratic norms, which fuels far-right narratives, particularly in eastern Germany. Parties like AfD and figures such as Sahra Wagenknecht exploit this, promoting anti-Ukrainian, pro-concession rhetoric that ignores the reality of Russian occupation.
Unfortunately, mainstream democratic parties are not doing enough to push them back. With growing support from American right-wing populists, such as those connected to Trump or Musk, this polarisation may deepen further, posing a serious threat to democratic cohesion in Europe.
Europe on the brink of war
Amid full-scale war in Ukraine, initiatives have emerged in Poland and Germany to prepare schoolchildren for emergencies. Does this indicate a deeper shift in Europe's security culture, where defence is no longer solely the army's responsibility, but that of the entire society?
Although some defence-related courses have begun in Germany, they remain insufficient, and the wider public remains largely unprepared - both mentally and physically - to play a defensive role.
Serious debates are now underway about reinstating military conscription, but surveys show that two-thirds of people aged 20 to 30 would refuse to serve, with many saying they would rather emigrate than defend the country.
This reflects a deeper issue: decades of political messaging have conditioned Germans to believe they live in peace, surrounded by allies, and need not prepare for conflict
As a result, Germany also lacks bunkers for emergencies, civil defence training and basic resilience measures for the population. Changing this mindset will require strong political leadership. Without it, the Bundeswehr will remain under-equipped and unable to contribute significantly to efforts such as a potential coalition in Ukraine.
We see civil defence becoming part of public policy, from educating children to testing alarm systems. Is Europe beginning to think seriously about its own resilience in the face of potential escalation beyond Ukraine?
Undoubtedly. Some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Poland and the Baltic States, have prioritised both military capability and societal resilience in recent years. In cities such as Riga and Warsaw, the Russian threat is well understood. However, countries like Germany, Belgium, Portugal, France and others still view Russia’s war against Ukraine as a regional issue.
Fortunately, leaders such as Kaja Kallas are advocating for a long-term strategy against Russia. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, I have argued that we must prepare for a protracted conflict, as long as Putin’s regime remains in power, Russia will continue to pose a threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe.
Strategic vision
Given your views on NATO's evolution and the need for a new coalition, potentially the so-called «coalition of the willing», how do you envisage its structure? What strategic or institutional frameworks will be important to effectively counter Russian aggression, considering internal challenges within NATO, particularly due to the influence of populist leaders, including Trump?
During my time at NATO, I was proud of my team’s ability to anticipate challenges before they emerged, especially regarding NATO’s enlargement. I was actively involved in the admission of new members, including the Baltic States, Slovenia and Slovakia.
One of the moments I had hoped to witness was seeing Ukraine’s flag at NATO headquarters, but I no longer believe that is a realistic goal
Instead, I believe Ukraine should focus on building a new coalition with like-minded countries, rather than pursuing NATO membership. The Alliance, particularly under the influence of destructive politics, is becoming increasingly divided.
If I were advising President Zelensky, I would recommend not wasting energy on NATO accession but rather focusing on strengthening a broader, more flexible alliance to counter Russian aggression. This would allow us to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future.
Considering the current dynamics within NATO, how long do you think the Alliance can maintain its current structure before significant changes become inevitable? Do you have a timeframe in mind?
When President Trump was elected, I predicted he would undermine the rules-based order, and we are already seeing significant damage done to NATO, especially concerning the US commitments. European countries have started discussing enhancing the European pillar within NATO, planning to prepare for a potential US withdrawal within five to ten years. However, I believe that timeframe is overly optimistic - we may have only five to ten months before we witness new disruptions.
What lies ahead for NATO? Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI
Looking back, it is clear NATO missed the opportunity to prepare for these challenges. In 2016, I prepared a document for the Secretary General outlining potential harm Trump could cause, but it was dismissed at the time. The issues I raised remain relevant today, and NATO's bureaucracy is too risk-averse to plan for unforeseen scenarios.
If the Alliance fails to act, it risks becoming a reactive organisation that merely responds to Trump’s tweets instead of proactively working toward the future
I hope that countries such as France, the United Kingdom and Northern European states will cooperate with Ukraine to create a new joint alliance capable of better confronting future challenges.
Cover photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/East News
This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation
We are here to listen and collaborate with our community. Contact our editors if you have any questions, suggestions, or interesting ideas for articles.
