A new front of confrontation opens in the European Union following the demand of Volodymyr Zelensky for an additional 70 billion euros in 2027, in order to cover the military and economic needs of Ukraine.
The demand from Kyiv comes while a European loan of 90 billion euros has already been agreed for the period 2026-2027, reigniting the debate over the endurance of European budgets and who will bear the cost.
The reactions are no longer confined behind closed doors.
From Prague to Stockholm, European governments are setting limits on new financial commitments, questioning either the method of financing or the burden entailed for national budgets as pushback grows among European societies confronting a cost-of-living crisis driven by energy and inflationary pressures.
The message emerging from their statements is clear: support for Ukraine does not automatically imply an unlimited financial contribution from every member state.
Andrej Babiš: Czechia will not guarantee the money
At the forefront of the backlash stands the Prime Minister of Czechia, Andrej Babiš.
On October 16, at the summit in Brussels, he came out against including new funding for Ukraine in the multiannual EU budget, arguing that the issue must be addressed separately.
Babiš made it clear that Czechia is not going to guarantee the relevant funds nor assume responsibility for this specific financing.
His stance is linked to his broader goal of curbing his country’s new financial commitments to Kyiv.
This position is not merely a theoretical disagreement over the European budget.
It concerns who assumes the financial risk when the EU chooses to borrow from the markets to fund Ukraine.
Furthermore, in July 2026, Babiš had stated that Czechia would not participate in the commitment by NATO allies for military aid amounting to 70 billion euros to Ukraine.
He had argued that Europe must focus more on reinforcing its own air defense, particularly against ballistic missiles.
These statements demonstrate that Prague seeks to separate support for European security from assuming new financial commitments for the war.
Ulf Kristersson: «Sweden pays enough»
The intervention by the Swedish Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, is also characteristic, having used the metaphor of an ATM when referring to his country’s contribution to the European budget.
According to reports by Euronews, Kristersson rejected the prospect of increasing Sweden’s net contribution to the European budget by nearly 60%, describing such a development as «completely unacceptable».
At the same time, he argued that a limited group of countries, which contribute a significant share of both European funding and aid to Ukraine, cannot be asked to constantly shoulder an ever-larger burden.
His intervention concerns primarily the negotiations for the long-term EU budget for the period 2028-2034 and not exclusively the new request by Zelensky.
It reflects, however, the same fundamental disagreement: how far can the financial contribution reach from states that fund a large share of common European policies?
The Swedish position highlights a critical parameter. The debate on Ukraine does not unfold in a fiscal vacuum, but alongside negotiations for the new European budget, European defense needs, and pressures on the competitiveness of economies.
The 70 billion euros requested by Zelensky
On October 16, the Ukrainian President presented European leaders with his estimates for the cost of the war in 2027.
Zelensky stated that the war will cost 155 billion euros next year and requested at least 70 billion euros additionally from European partners to finance defense, equipment, and the country’s resilience.
He argued that the funds would enable Ukraine to increase the production of unmanned aerial vehicles and intensify pressure on Russian military operations.
The request comes on top of the already agreed 90 billion euro loan for the period 2026-2027. According to estimates presented at the summit, the EU has planned to allocate approximately 45 billion euros for 2027, an amount that does not cover the totality of needs cited by Kyiv.
The European Commission acknowledged the existence of a funding gap and pledged to present options to bridge it.
No definitive decision has been taken, however, regarding how the additional funds will be raised.
New loan, common debt, or Russian assets?
Different options are on the table: a new European loan, raising funds from the markets backed by guarantees from the common budget, utilizing frozen Russian assets, or larger contributions from third countries.
None of these solutions is free of problems.
Issuing new debt provokes resistance in countries seeking to limit their fiscal liabilities.
Utilizing Russian assets encounters legal and political difficulties, while bilateral contributions could leave a disproportionate burden on a small group of states.
The disagreement therefore concerns not only the scale of aid, but also the mechanism that will finance it.
A European loan might not require an immediate disbursement of the entire amount from national budgets, but it still generates liabilities and financial risks that must be addressed.
Valdis Dombrovskis: Commitments to Ukraine have not been fulfilled
European Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis also intervened in the debate, pointing out on October 14 that a disparity exists between the military aid promised by several NATO member states and what has actually been delivered.
Dombrovskis also referred positively to Norway, which has committed an additional 9 billion euros for 2027, following a corresponding contribution in 2026.
This observation adds a different dimension to the issue: before deciding who will cover a new funding gap, it must be clarified what has already been committed, what has been delivered, and which sums remain outstanding.
Kristen Michal: The EU will likely need a new loan
On the opposite side stands the Prime Minister of Estonia, Kristen Michal, who told Reuters that the EU will likely need to grant a new loan to Ukraine, maintaining that European financial assistance must continue.
This position reflects the assessment of several European governments that the economic and military endurance of Ukraine is directly linked to the security of Europe. From this perspective, halting funding could create greater costs and risks in the future.
Consequently, there is no uniform European rejection of the 70 billion euro request.
There is, however, clear disagreement regarding how the funds will be assembled, who will guarantee them, and how the cost will be distributed.
The limits of European support
The new request from Zelensky brings to the surface a question that European governments cannot avoid indefinitely: what are the financial limits of common European support, and under what terms will it continue?
Assistance to Ukraine is presented by its supporters as an investment in European security.
Critics of new funding commitments, on the other hand, ask that increasing aid not be treated as a self-evident obligation without a clear distribution of costs and adequate disclosure to citizens, who generally do not accept the anti-Russian narrative and the immense cost it has inflicted on economies, most characteristically seen in the case of the Germans.
The essence is that every new loan, every guarantee, and every fiscal commitment requires transparency, oversight, and clear political justification.
European solidarity does not eliminate the need for accountability, nor does it exempt governments from the obligation to explain to taxpayers how public resources are utilized.
The European Union is not an... ATM. The question is not merely whether the additional 70 billion euros will be found, but who will pay for them, under what terms, and for how much longer funding will continue without a clear, transparent, and sustainable plan.
And that is where the difficulties begin for the deep state of Brussels...
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών