Europe’s scramble to support Ukraine after Zelensky’s disastrous visit to the White House carries little more than symbolic significance, given the absence of any European security system that could fill the vacuum created by Washington’s exit. Unable to offer meaningful military support, Europe is relying on symbolic diplomacy to stay relevant.
The European Scramble
Because Europe is under immense geopolitical pressure due to Trump’s policies – which appear to be massively diverging from European priorities vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia – it is now moving to look inward to find sources to support Ukraine. The question, however, is this: can Europe put together enough sources to offer any meaningful military support to Ukraine? Can European countries even collectively match the support the US provided to Ukraine in the past three years?
The London Summit held in the UK on the 2nd of February showed continental limitations much more than its ability to offer extensive support. As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer revealed, the UK and France are trying to put together, from within Europe, a “coalition of the willing”. But what can this coalition really accomplish? A recent BBC report published in the wake of ongoing talks about Europe taking on the responsibility to ‘protect’ Ukraine showed the extent of difference that now exists between European and Russian military spending. According to the report, Russia’s military expenditure is now higher than Europe’s total defence spending, in terms of purchasing parity power. It’s increased by 41% and is now the equivalent of 6.7% of GDP. In contrast, the UK will be spending just 2.5% by 2027. The report’s overall conclusion vis-à-vis whether Europe has the power to take on Russia is that it does not. Therefore, even though the UK has announced to militarily support Ukraine, the £2.26 billion is merely a loan rather than aid.
This is especially so given that Europe does not have any internal collective security system where European states can pool their resources together and use them against their rivals. Therefore, as the BBC report mentions further, European leaders continue to hope for a “backup” from the US to ensure guarantees from and against Russia. This support, at least in ways that Europeans imagine, seems unlikely to become available, for Washington’s policy is to redefine its ties with Russia so that it can more clearly focus on China. (Some political pundits have even gone to the extent of saying that Washington’s bid to normalise ties with Russia is partly motivated by the former’s desire to ultimately wean Russia away from China. But Russia is unlikely to go in this direction given the strength of Moscow’s ties with Beijing).
Given the difficulties associated with Europe’s (in)ability to offer any meaningful support to Ukraine, the question is: why is Europe even trying to offer support?
Symbolic Geopolitics
The world is more explicitly moving towards multipolarity at this stage than probably was ever the case in the last one hundred years or so. European political leaders and policymakers understand that. Therefore, they understand the value of staying relevant in these rapidly – but decisively – changing times. If the continent fails to project itself capable of rising to the occasion and pushing itself into the negotiations vis-à-vis ending the conflict in and around Ukraine, its significance as one of the global power centres will receive a major hit.
The London Summit, in this sense, carries little significance for the future of Ukraine but more for the future of Europe itself in today’s context. Ultimately, Europe will need to scramble sources to defend itself (not protect Ukraine), just as it is scrambling to keep its relevance alive today. By doing this, it is mainly sending a message to the US and the rest of the world that it cannot be pushed aside because the US wants to.
But, if it carries any weight, it is diplomatic rather than military. There is little denying that Europe simply does not have much to offer any meaningful military support. According to the Germany-based Kiel Institute, Europe would need an additional 300,000 troops and an increase of about $250 billion in defence spending to even begin to redress the current state of military affairs. For Germany specifically, the institute notes, it will need several decades to acquire military strength of a level where it can claim to be an actual military power. Until that can happen, the maximum Europe can do is use diplomatic means to keep its relevance alive and not fall into geopolitical oblivion immediately. Therefore, despite its efforts, its ability to actually influence the Ukraine end-game remains minimal.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
