The last four years have tested Europe with a string of crises that began and ended with the coronavirus outbreak, followed by the war in Ukraine. The continent’s fiscal space has been stretched thin as budgets face competing needs: supporting Kyiv, managing migration, maintaining competitiveness, and servicing debt interest. In June, Brussels proposed a budget increase of 100 billion euros, with 66 billion in fresh money and the remainder in loans. The plan did not secure universal backing among the Twenty-Six, and time is scarce to reach a consensus before the December review. The aim is to secure an agreement that keeps the Union moving forward while acknowledging the new financial pressures across member states. EU heads of state and government have, at times, faced sharp criticisms from partners like Hungary and Slovakia, yet the push to support Ukraine continues.
“Ukraine remains a priority and will stay at the top of the agenda,” asserted the President of the European Council after the Brussels summit. Following discussions held this Thursday and Friday, the war against Ukraine has, for the moment, taken a back seat to the broader humanitarian concerns in the Middle East, where Europe is coordinating aid corridors to Gaza. Still, the commitment to Ukraine persisted: the European Commission leadership reaffirmed that weapons, ammunition, and financial aid will continue to flow if needed. To date, European governments have contributed around 83 billion euros in support for Kyiv. The Brussels proposal would use budgetary reserves within the 2024-2027 framework to fund more grants and investments over the next four years, including a substantial tranche of 50 billion euros.
From a diplomatic standpoint, the proposal has drawn broad support but also notable reservations. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo spoke of a strong sense of unity on Ukraine, noting that almost all countries agree on the need for continued backing. Yet questions about sustainability remain. Slovakia’s new prime minister warned that aid must be carefully managed to prevent potential misuse of European funds, a concern echoed by Hungary and its critics. The discussions reflect a broader worry about how long the aid should last and what form it should take, especially in the face of governance concerns and the risk of misallocation.
Leaders also considered what alternative tools might exist if rapid, ongoing support were to be scaled back. The Bulgarian prime minister emphasized the need to weigh outcomes carefully, while the Estonian prime minister underscored the importance of continuing the dialogue about Europe’s strategic choices. Beyond fixed priorities, the central question is where the money will come from. Brussels is pressing governments to strengthen the community reserve, while many member states argue for belt-tightening and tapping unused funds within existing budgets. The path chosen will shape Europe’s ability to sustain support for Ukraine amid other pressing security and economic challenges.
diamond sanctions
For the moment, leaders have backed Brussels’ plan to leverage frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine, a concept under consideration since last year. The proposal would channel the profits from these reserves into rebuilding efforts, depending on legislative steps from the European Commission. At present, the Central Bank of Russia holds assets estimated at about 211 billion euros that could potentially be redirected toward Kyiv’s needs. Baltic states, Poland, and several Northern European nations have urged that these funds be used for Ukraine, even as central banks and some capitals raise questions about the governance and long-term implications.
In parallel, Brussels continues to advance a twelfth round of sanctions on Russia, coordinated with the G7 partners. The aim is to keep pressure on Moscow while maintaining a cohesive European approach. The measures are all the more sensitive given Europe’s status as a major hub for the global trade in precious stones and other commodities, with Antwerp often cited as a focal point. As with prior rounds, the next set of restrictions will require broad consensus among the Twenty-Seven, including Slovakia and Hungary, who have repeatedly highlighted the need to align sanctions with a broader strategy toward Russia and its leadership. Russia’s actions in Beijing, where a recent meeting with European leaders drew attention, have added another layer of complexity to the diplomacy.
In the ongoing debate, Hungary’s leadership stressed the desire to keep channels of communication open with all parties, arguing for restraint and continued dialogue. Meanwhile, the French president reiterated a clear stance: Europe should not be drawn into internal conflicts under the guise of solidarity. The exchange underscored a fundamental difference in approach, with Brussels insisting that sovereignty and unity must be preserved even as member states reassess their own security and budgetary choices. The question remains, as ever: how to balance strategic resilience with prudent financial management while sustaining international trust?