The EU and NATO have failed Ukraine
To achieve full independence, Ukraine must guarantee its own security.
What if I told you that last year the European Union sent more money to Russia than it did to Ukraine? You might say that I’m nuts. After all, EU President Von der Leyen has presented the EU as a firm ally of Ukraine. On the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, she said in a speech: “…we believe in a free and sovereign Ukraine on its path towards the European Union.”
Yet these are only words. According to estimates from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), EU member states bought €21.9bn of Russian oil and gas in 2024; an amount greater than the €18.7bn the EU allocated to Ukraine in financial aid in the same year.
Much of this Russian energy is exported via “shadow fleets” of tankers which transport liquefied natural gas to European states, including the United Kingdom.
Revenues from Russian fuel are without a doubt being used to fund Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, meaning that Europeans have been sending financial aid to the Kremlin.
This is just the latest betrayal of Ukraine by both the EU and NATO, which have time and again promised support to Kyiv and yet failed to deliver.
Supporters of the EU will argue that it has sent the most aid to Ukraine. This is true, though this varies between the member states. But if the EU is sending more money to Moscow than it is to Kyiv then net financial support from the EU is actually below zero.
The United States, which leads NATO, has similarly let Ukraine down. Though the biggest sponsor of military aid, the US has often dragged its feet at critical moments, such as during the Battle of Bakmut and the Battle of Avdiivka. Earlier deliveries of HIMARs, air defence systems, longer-range munitions (ATACMS), and tanks would have allowed Ukraine to cut off Russian supply lines, defend against Russian air superiority, and launch counterattacks before the Russian invaders became entrenched.
From the beginning, the EU and NATO strategy was clear: give Ukraine enough aid to survive but not enough to win. Now, however, with President Trump cutting aid for Ukraine altogether, the US has ditched Ukraine and is now forcing it to sue for peace.
The first thing to say regarding a negotiated ceasefire is that Russia must be forced to the table. If Putin doesn’t want peace then the whole thing is pointless. As far as Ukraine is concerned, however, rather than depending on shaky assurances from Western states, it must guarantee its own defence against Russia. This is not to say that the West should stop supporting Ukraine with aid, but it does mean that Western states should drop all disingenuous pretenses of granting Ukraine membership to both the EU and NATO.
This may be hard for many Ukrainians to accept. After all, how can they have security without protection from the US and its allies? The answer is that, as Trump has outlined, Ukraine cannot join NATO and US security guarantees are off the table. This is the reality we are now in. Even if Ukraine was granted security guarantees from NATO, these would likely be worth as much as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which offered Ukraine assurances about its security in exchange for relinquishing any claim to retaining Soviet-era nuclear weapons.
So, if Ukraine cannot rely on the EU and cannot rely on NATO then where does that leave it? As I realised back in 2022 following Russia’s full-scale invasion, one of the main threats to Ukrainian sovereignty was not only the threat from Russia but the threat from dependence on the US. Ukraine’s reliance on US military aid always meant that the US President would have extreme leverage over Ukraine.
We can see this today in how Trump is using the leverage of US aid to force Ukraine not only to surrender territory to Russia but also to accept the extraction of its mineral wealth by American companies.
Rather than seeking security guarantees from the unreliable US, which has refused to commit anyway, Ukraine should seek to build up its own domestic defensive capability to guarantee its own security. In the event of a ceasefire, the UK, EU, and other allies should all aim to bolster Ukrainian deterrence against Russian attack.
Until now Ukraine has shown that it is more than capable of forestalling Russian advances, in part through its embrace of new warfighting methods such as the use of FPV drones. Manpower is an issue for Ukraine, but enhanced support from European allies would allow Ukraine to shift to more technology-driven operations.
Like with the French Indochina War and other independence struggles, the Ukrainian people will win first by surviving and second by making the war as costly as possible for the invaders. Massive sustained Russian casualties are the only way to get Russia to agree to a ceasefire.
A just ceasefire on Ukraine’s terms would bring great benefit because it would give the country time to build fortifications, lay minefields, replenish its arsenal, and rebuild its army into an even more formidable force. A better-armed and trained Ukrainian army would be a far more effective security guarantee for Ukraine than paper promises from NATO or insufficient troop deployments.
Of course, if there were a ceasefire, Russia would also be able to re-arm in anticipation of further fighting. Yet given time to fortify itself and re-arm with more advanced NATO equipment, Ukraine would be able to impose far higher costs on any future Russian aggression, deterring Russia from restarting the war. This enhanced capability should include increased domestic arms production, long-range strike capabilities, layered air defence, and asymmetric and unconventional warfare based on Israel’s model of deterrence.
A rearmed and better-fortified Ukraine post-ceasefire would also be in a stronger position to negotiate the return of its territories currently under Russian occupation. But this won't happen until Ukraine gives up its aspiration of NATO membership and NATO formally refuses its entry. Putin has been very clear that he will never accept Ukrainian membership in NATO, and he is sure to oppose NATO troops being deployed in Ukraine.
As far back as 2008 Putin objected to NATO expansion, stating: “We view the appearance of a powerful military bloc on our borders … as a direct threat to the security of our country.”
Ukraine therefore cannot restore its territory without giving up its NATO aspirations. The maximalist vision of a restored Ukraine within both the EU and NATO is both unrealistic and dangerous because it does not look at the root causes of the war or consider how to prevent further conflict.
Looking towards the future, Western leaders must learn not to overreach and should acknowledge that their power has limits. If Ukraine is to survive, the West must stop making promises it cannot keep and instead help Ukraine build an independent defence capability.
To both the West and Russia I say hands off Ukraine! Ukraine for the Ukrainians!