The new U.S. administration is touring Europe this week, expressing how exhausted they are from supporting Ukraine alone and suggesting that the war should be ended on terms favorable to Vladimir Putin.

However, data from the Kiel Institute on aid to Ukraine shows that Europe has provided and pledged twice as much assistance as the United States. This is partly due to Europe's decision to utilize revenues from frozen Russian assets, but the gap remains significant nonetheless.

Europe may lack weaponry, but financially, we collectively have the capacity to offset the impact of any interruption in U.S. aid. Estonia's proposed strategy for financing Ukraine's victory, at 0.25 percent of GDP, was calculated under the assumption that the U.S. would also participate. If this percentage needs to double due to the U.S. withdrawing, it remains a fairly moderate additional effort — especially considering the vast sums spent on addressing the COVID-19 crisis. Supporting Ukraine further is more feasible for Europe than we might be willing to admit.

As Rainer Saks already pointed out in his analysis, there are now more options than a couple of years ago. Additional funds can be invested in Ukraine's and Europe's defense industries or used to purchase weapons from the U.S. and other suppliers until we can produce them ourselves.

If chef Putin is allowed to devour the colonialist omelet he has cooked up — and is even rewarded with fresh eggs — it will not only give the Kremlin an opportunity but also additional motivation to push forward with reestablishing its sphere of influence along its borders and in the Baltic region. Donald Trump's neo-colonialism actively encourages such developments.

Recent intelligence assessments from Denmark and Estonia indicate that Russia's plans for building a mass army are not just theoretical. In a few years, there will be more Russian troops stationed near our borders than before 2022. The difference is that this force will have fresh combat experience and one significant technological advantage — mass-scale drone warfare.

This does not mean that Russia will necessarily use these forces against NATO, but the potential military threat is increasing, as is the need for defense investments to maintain credible deterrence. Abandoning support for Ukraine might seem like an appealing short-term relief, but in the long run, it would be a bitter and costly mistake.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200) offered Trump Estonia's rare earth metals on "Aktuaalne kaamera" (though it was unclear what debt he intended to settle with that) and spoke with certainty about sending Estonian peacekeepers to Ukraine to help secure a peace agreement. However, based on currently available information, the conditions of such a deal are no better — and could potentially be even worse — than those proposed in China's 2023 Munich Security Conference peace plan.

It is cheaper for Europe to support Ukraine in achieving its goals than to go along with the world order that Trump and Putin have likely already agreed upon. Any deal with the Kremlin will have repercussions across Europe, but especially for the small countries that share a border with Russia. History has shown us that ugly agreements feed evil.

Looking at Europe's economic strength — regardless of crises — there is no reason for us to feel bound by any terms for ending the war that the U.S. and Russia jointly impose on Ukraine.

If we abandon Ukraine while a Trump administration simultaneously signals NATO's growing irrelevance, then, in a sense, Russia's neighboring countries will already have lost one of their "seat belts." Any vehicle has other safety measures, of course, but if the speed is high and you need to hit the brakes to avoid a crash, you might just go flying through the windshield.

If we rush to support a solution that Trump has negotiated under dubious circumstances and within a tight circle — so secretive that even his key negotiator, Keith Kellogg, is not fully informed — then that is our choice, not an inevitability. And it will be up to European leaders to explain that choice to their voters.

Trump's envoys likely arrived in Europe with terms already discussed with Putin. If it turns out that Trump's peace plan is no better than China's, why should we accept it?

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!