Ukraine urgently needs Europe’s diplomatic, economic, and material support. Discussions about European troops are not premature; instead, hesitation and reactivity must be replaced with decisive initiative.
Over the past week, developments in geopolitics have been grim. U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on Ukraine appears to confirm the worst fears. The U.S. is negotiating with Russia directly, bypassing Ukraine and its allies, and Trump is echoing Kremlin talking points in his speeches.
In Europe, there have been emergency meetings and expressions of concern, but the necessary decisions are still lacking. This cannot continue much longer. Ukrainians have defended both themselves and all of Europe and its values at an immeasurable cost. They must not be abandoned now.
One question that has quickly emerged in discussions is the commitment of European countries to securing Ukraine with their own troops in a scenario where some form of ceasefire or peace is achieved in Ukraine.
On Monday, I stated that Finland should signal its readiness to be part of a broader international force, while acknowledging that Finland is a small frontline country.
The entire discussion has been hastily labeled as ”premature.” This has been repeated by German Chancellor Scholz and many decision-makers in Finland.
The discussion is anything but premature. Throughout the war, Europe has been plagued by slowness and reactivity. The delivery of many critical weapon systems has been delayed, dependence on Russian energy has not yet been fully eliminated, and investments in defense capabilities and industry have been far too half-hearted and slow.
If anything, a serious discussion about European troops in Ukraine is overdue. Peace of course cannot be secured when it does not exist, and Europe must not simply nod along if Ukraine is forced into an unsustainable ”peace” on Russia’s terms.
However, at some point in the future, a ceasefire or peace will emerge, and it must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom. This requires security guarantees from the West, and those guarantees need military strength to back them up.
Therefore, this issue must be discussed now and preparations made swiftly, so that we are ready when needed.
The question of troops is just one part, and not even the most significant, of a much broader mobilization.
Europe must now urgently support Ukraine with materiel, money, and diplomacy more strongly than ever, and take a proactive role in shaping events. At the same time, Europe must finally mobilize its defense industry to the level required by the situation: pooling funding, streamlining procurement and production, and significantly increasing volume. The model for this thinking and action should be Roosevelt’s United States and the ”arsenal of democracy” of that time.
Rapidly boosting Europe’s defense and production capabilities would likely be technically easier than we think. So far, it has not even been properly attempted.
Technological and economic muscle exists if we choose to use it. And it must be used now.
It would be foolish and unforgivable to let Trump and Putin dictate Europe’s future when we have the means to take matters into our own hands.
Even from a realpolitik perspective, Europe must not yield to Russia as it did during the Cold War. While the Soviet Union was a military superpower and the world’s second-largest economy during the Cold War, today’s Russia is essentially a nuclear-armed, criminal-run gas station in comparison.
Europe must stand firm against this.
And what exactly is this Europe, and who leads it? That is still somewhat unclear. The EU is a natural and essential actor, but a handful of troublemakers can sabotage the union’s decision-making too effectively. Non-EU NATO countries like the UK, Norway, and Iceland, on the other hand, clearly belong to the front supporting Ukraine. Turkey is also a significant factor in the situation, and support for Ukraine must be sought from outside Europe as well.
In this serious situation, flexibility must be found to form new coalitions if necessary to act effectively.
Concessions to Russia would increase the risk of new wars.