Europe’s promises and actual aid to Ukraine differ - Bloomberg
Ukraine's allies continue to pursue a strategy of "as long as it takes" rather than a strategy of "what and when it takes".
According to Censor.NET, citing ZN.UA, Bloomberg observer Mark Champion writes about this.
"If Europe intends, as its leaders have repeatedly stated, to support Ukraine in reaching a settlement that will allow the country to embark on a stable, prosperous and independent future, why is there a delay in providing aid? Such a settlement cannot happen as long as Russia believes it can win on the ground," the article says.
The article notes that since 24 February 2022, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany has been implementing a project that tracks the humanitarian, financial and military assistance that Ukraine's allies have pledged and provided.
The latest update, published earlier this month, showed that as of the end of October, Europe had allocated €241 billion ($253 billion) in support of Ukraine, while the United States had pledged €119 billion in aid.
In a way, this is promising, given that Europe will soon have to fill a large gap if Trump fulfils his campaign promise to reduce US support for Ukraine.
"The most disappointing thing is the huge gap between what Europe has promised and the aid that has actually been delivered, which, according to the Kiel Institute, is only €125 billion. Part of this difference is explained by the fact that €52 billion of Europe's pledges were made only this autumn, when the mechanism for using frozen Russian assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine was finally approved. However, even under these circumstances, Europe still owes 64 billion euros," Champion writes.
According to the observer, it is difficult to determine whether Putin would have resorted to a nuclear strike in Ukraine if the United States and other NATO members had previously provided Ukraine with long-range artillery, tanks and F-16s when Russia had not yet had time to mobilise its forces or strengthen its positions.
However, one of the reasons why Ukraine is finding it difficult to recruit and retain troops is the perception that Western support - and thus the weapons and ammunition needed to survive on the frontline, let alone win - is becoming increasingly limited.
The point is not to provide Kyiv with potentially provocative new weapons. Some of what Ukraine needs will have to come from Western stockpiles and Western manufacturers, such as the air defence promised by Scholz. But the rest can be produced by the domestic arms industry.
"Ukraine can already produce most of what it needs to stabilise the front lines and equip new battalions - it just lacks the money," the observer concluded.
As a reminder, on 15 December, the Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund is planning to decide on the allocation of a tranche to Ukraine.
