EU leaders have agreed on joint borrowing to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction and military support for 2026–27, sidelining plans to use Russia’s frozen assets. However, the move raises serious questions about whether a Europe grappling with high public debt, political gridlock, and budgetary strains can shoulder such a financial burden.
Borrowing to fund Ukraine: A risky bet
The EU plan would involve borrowing on capital markets with loans secured against the EU budget. While this approach allows immediate financing without waiting for member states’ contributions, it increases the bloc’s overall debt exposure. Analysts warn that leveraging the EU budget for external aid could limit flexibility in handling domestic fiscal pressures.
Countries across the continent are already struggling with elevated public debt levels, a legacy of post-pandemic stimulus measures, energy crises, and inflationary pressures. Adding billions in borrowing for Ukraine raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability, particularly as some member states face ballooning deficits and political scrutiny over public spending.
Political hurdles and budgetary gridlock
Europe’s difficulty in approving and managing budgets is well-documented. From repeated delays in finalising multiannual financial frameworks to domestic political crises in major economies like France and Italy, the bloc has often struggled to achieve consensus on funding priorities.
Political turmoil can stall or complicate collective initiatives, raising the risk that promises to Ukraine may not translate into timely funds. Moreover, EU leaders’ earlier reluctance to tap into Russia’s frozen assets to fund reconstruction highlights deep divisions within the bloc.
Some member states argue that relying on seized assets could violate legal norms or set dangerous precedents, while others question the feasibility of converting frozen reserves into usable aid quickly. These disagreements underscore the persistent challenge Europe faces in mobilising collective resources.
Balancing external support and domestic stability
The EU’s decision reflects both solidarity with Ukraine and a recognition of geopolitical stakes. Yet, financial analysts caution that funding foreign aid while domestic economies remain vulnerable could fuel public discontent and political backlash. Rising debt levels, combined with inflation and social pressures, could make citizens less tolerant of what may be perceived as overextension abroad.
Experts suggest that without careful management, Europe could face a delicate balancing act: honour commitments to Ukraine without undermining its own economic stability. Robust oversight, phased disbursement, and transparent borrowing mechanisms will be critical in ensuring that financial support does not exacerbate existing fiscal weaknesses.
Looking ahead
Europe’s plan to fund Ukraine via joint borrowing is ambitious but fraught with risks. While it signals the EU’s determination to support Kyiv, it also exposes the bloc’s ongoing vulnerabilities: political fragmentation, high public debt, and challenges in coordinating multi-country fiscal initiatives.
As Europe grapples with this complex situation, the broader question remains: can a union still struggling with internal budgetary discipline sustain long-term aid commitments to a war-torn neighbour?
