The Russia-Ukraine war is drawing to a close after three years—but not without inflicting heavy collateral damage. The Eurozone, European Union and NATO have been hit, along with the camaraderie between the United States and Europe. This is one of the rare post-World War II conflicts where all involved parties have claimed a pyrrhic victory.
The phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is paving the way for a ceasefire. Talks for “lasting peace” will begin soon, including technical negotiations on the implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea. Moreover, both sides have agreed not to hit energy and infrastructure targets as of now. Russia was apprehensive of Trump’s 30-day ceasefire proposal as armies use such pauses to regroup instead of ending conflicts.
Despite botched-up talks with US Vice-President JD Vance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy returned to the negotiating table like a prodigal son, agreeing to all of Trump’s conditions. With the conflict coming to an end, the US gets a big chunk of Ukraine’s critical mineral wealth and a bigger say in rebuilding the war-ravaged infrastructure. The issue of NATO membership for Ukraine – a bone of contention between Russia and the US – has been resolved, with NATO officially slamming the door on Ukraine. In fact, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had clarified in February itself that the “US does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement”. With this, the much touted ‘Eastward expansion’ of NATO also appears to be aborted.
Europe, which stood with the US in backing Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s onslaught, has been given a short shrift and cold shoulder by Trump. In a stunning policy shift, Washington was at odds with its longtime European and NATO allies, joining Moscow to vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning “Russia’s war against Ukraine”. Now, with the US security cover gone, European leaders are having to prepare for a changed security situation. Though it’s very unlikely that Russia would mount a Ukraine-like military offensive on European countries.
Europe must be brave
Europe needs to put on a brave face on the Ukrainian front. Great Britain has already signed a 100-year defence agreement with Ukraine, while some individual EU members and EU NATO members are reportedly funding the country to increase its defence production under the ‘Danish model’. But this will have to stop soon. Putin is strongly opposed to arming Ukraine, and set it as a pre-requisite for ceasefire. According to a White House statement, the Russian side has outlined several pre-conditions including the “need to halt both forced mobilisation in Ukraine and the rearmament of the Ukrainian armed forces”.
To fill the financial void created by the Trump administration withdrawing from funding Ukraine, Europe would “only need an increase in spending equal to 0.12 per cent of the EU GDP”. According to Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, “Since February 2022, U.S. military support to Ukraine has amounted to €64 billion, while Europe, including the United Kingdom, has sent €62 billion. In 2024, U.S. military support amounted to €20 billion out of €42 billion. To replace the U.S., the EU would thus only have to spend another 0.12 per cent of its GDP—an affordable figure.”
In order to deter Russia from undertaking any misadventure in the future, Europe will have to strengthen its defence preparedness, shore up defence production, and above all, scale up defence spending. The Euro Area’s deficit-to-GDP ratio increased from 3.5 per cent in 2022 to 3.6 per cent in 2023 and in EU from 3.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
European NATO members have an additional burden of increasing defence spending, which could end up doubling the current deficit. Besides financial challenges, the European NATO members also face significant technical and capability constraints, particularly on new and modern military hardware and software such as drones and sky-roof technologies. The Eurozone may also struggle to balance rising defence costs against factors such as ageing population, social spending on unemployed citizens, immigration, and fresh investments in a military industrial complex.
Also read: US-Russia talks on Ukraine vindicate India’s stance on conflict—‘Today’s time not of war’
A window for India
Can India take advantage of this situation and become a net exporter of military equipment to Europe instead of being one of the largest importers of military equipment? Five countries – the US, Russia, France, China and Germany, accounted for 77 per cent of all arms exports in the world from 2017 to 2021. Notwithstanding Make in India and indigenisation of defence production, India is 23rd among 25 defence exporters.
It takes more than slogans and pious intentions to become a sophisticated weapon-exporting country. High-end modernisation and automation, coupled with intense research through state-of-the-art laboratories and incubation centres at higher education institutions, are some ideas that need serious planning and speedy implementation.
We will have no one but ourselves to blame if we fail to grab this opportunity. Global markets are ready, but none of them have time till eternity.
Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Only poor and backward countries may buy our arms. Our military tech is 30 years behind Western tech.
My God, the land of Mahatma Gandhi becoming an arms exporter. The more cynical nations sell them to both sides.