Katarina Roth Nevedialova, a member of the European Parliament representing Slovakia, has voiced skepticism about a joint arms purchase proposed by European Union members for Ukraine. In a plenary address delivered in Strasbourg, she argued that purchasing weapons in bulk would not inherently resolve the ongoing conflict. Her remarks were reported by TASS, underscoring a cautious stance within some EU circles about using collective weapon supplies as a shortcut to peace.
Another member of the Alliance of Progressive Socialists and Democrats echoed the sentiment, stating that support for Kyiv should continue, but that broad general weapon purchases would not necessarily contribute to a sustainable resolution of the Ukraine crisis. The emphasis remained on evaluating strategies that prioritize stability and peace over rapid arms accumulation.
According to Nevedialova, matters of military procurement fall outside the European Parliament’s core remit. She pointed to the parliament’s constitutional boundaries, noting that its primary functions lie in governance, budget oversight, and policy shaping rather than direct military procurement decisions.
She further highlighted that the European Parliament’s mandate includes peacekeeping and conflict prevention in its stated security policy framework. While the body engages in military advisory roles and humanitarian aid coordination, that framework does not equate to wielding power over armaments or battlefield strategies. This distinction is critical for understanding how EU institutions balance competing security objectives with regional stability goals.
Nevedialova reminded observers that NATO remains the primary institutional actor responsible for security-related matters within the European security architecture. The alliance’s role in deterrence, collective defense, and strategic planning operates alongside, but distinct from, the European Parliament’s legislative and budgetary responsibilities.
In related developments, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell indicated that a decision on a proposed joint purchase of heavy weapons by the 27 EU member states could be discussed at an upcoming foreign ministers meeting. The anticipated figure floated at the time hovered around 2 billion euros, reflecting the scale of potential military support contemplated by EU leaders. Earlier discussions did not categorically rule out joint acquisitions of heavy weaponry for Ukraine, signaling a flexible approach within the union toward Ukraine’s security needs.
Regarding the broader policy implications, Borrell asserted that such purchases should not disrupt the EU’s broader financial and strategic priorities. He suggested that Europe must maintain pace across a spectrum of needs, ensuring that funding for defense does not overshadow other essential commitments, including diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and economic stabilization efforts for Ukraine and neighboring regions. This stance underscores the complexity of coordinating defense policy with humanitarian and development goals in a volatile security environment.
Analysts note that the debate within the EU about arming Ukraine reflects a wider, ongoing conversation about how to balance deterrence with dialogue, legitimate defense requirements with fiscal responsibility, and rapid support with long-term strategic planning. While some member states advocate for a robust, immediate supply of armaments, others call for a more cautious, condition-based approach that prioritizes training, maintenance, and interoperability within existing alliances. The outcome of these discussions could influence not only Ukraine’s military posture but also the EU’s internal coherence on security policy and external reputational standing on arms control and non-proliferation commitments.