Securing Long-Term Support for Ukraine: Effective Strategies Revealed

Don’t miss out on The FT View updates delivered straight to your inbox!

Sign up for the myFT Daily Digest email and stay informed about the latest The FT View news every morning.

These are challenging times for Ukraine. Despite four months of counteroffensive against Russia’s invasion, the desired breakthroughs have not been achieved. Additionally, support for Kyiv has become a political issue in some Western countries. The US Congress recently removed $6 billion in aid to Kyiv to prevent a government shutdown. In Slovakia, populist Robert Fico’s party won a significant vote with an anti-Ukraine stance, and Poland’s premier hinted at halting weapons donations to Kyiv amid a dispute over grain exports. Clearly, Ukraine’s Western allies must expedite support and secure it for the long-term, as this seems to be a protracted war of attrition.

While anti-Ukraine sentiments in Western politics should not be exaggerated, the few hard-right Republicans in Congress are outliers. Fico’s Smer party only won 23% of Slovakia’s vote, and Poland’s nationalist Law and Justice party is striving to maintain its parliamentary majority in upcoming elections. However, extreme electoral rhetoric can influence parties in power, and minority hardliners can hold others hostage. A Slovakia led by Fico would potentially align with Hungary, creating an “awkward squad” in Central Europe.

US President Joe Biden assures that an agreement will be reached on the additional $24 billion of aid for Ukraine sought by the White House, but navigating the politics is challenging. This situation serves as a reminder that Donald Trump could potentially return as president in 16 months.

To ensure support for Kyiv is long-lasting, the EU is pursuing a €50 billion “Ukraine Facility” over four years, although the deal is not yet finalized. This year, cumulative EU budgetary support for wartime Ukraine is set to surpass that from the US. If the US political situation deteriorates, Europe, including the UK, may need to assume more financial and military responsibility. The biggest EU countries, France, Germany, and Italy, face the difficult task of holding the line, especially when opposition parties display pro-Russian sympathies.

Efforts must also intensify to enable Ukraine to achieve economic self-reliance. The provision of war risk insurance to cover losses for domestic and foreign investors would create confidence and incentivize investment in urgent rebuilding projects and the expansion of Ukraine’s defense production capacity. Supplying additional air defense systems to cities beyond Kyiv would not only enhance security but also potentially encourage the return of refugees. Equipping Ukraine with more anti-ship missiles would help secure vital Black Sea export routes for its grain and steel.

To break through heavily fortified Russian lines and reclaim territory, Ukraine needs essential tools, such as F16 fighter jets and long-range missiles. Its military should be modernized and equipped with NATO-standard weaponry. Western training of Ukrainian troops should be rigorous and comprehensive, tailored to their preferred way of fighting.

Ukrainians also require reassurance that their country has a secure future within Euro-Atlantic institutions. While Nato’s July summit ended ambiguously, the upcoming EU summit in December should commit to initiating accession talks with Kyiv, provided Ukraine fulfills agreed-upon targets for reforms and anti-corruption efforts.

During times of economic strain, populist parties often demand prioritization of domestic spending. However, supporters of Kyiv must emphasize the substantial costs of supporting Ukraine’s fight are minimal compared to the consequences of allowing Putin’s Russia to prevail.