Loss of innocence: the way the events in Ukraine have changed the principles of the European Union

The business British edition of the Financial Times devoted a lot of analytical material to how the European Union adjusted to the situation on the continent that had changed due to the beginning of its own in Ukraine.

Weapons instead of milk and autobahns

Three days after Russia started fighting in Ukraine, the EU realized that it also had to participate in this. At an emergency meeting, Josep Borrel, the EU's top diplomat, informed the alarmed foreign ministers of the bloc's 27 member states that the moment had come to do what was previously considered impossible: use the EU's common money to buy weapons for Kiev.

Weapons instead of milk and autobahns

"The question was put like this", - he recalls in an interview, "if we were able to use this money to support Mozambique, Mali or wherever, then why the hell can't we do it for Ukraine?". "Explain to me?", - he asked the audience. "Because we don't provide weapons? Well, we don't provide weapons because there are no fights. If there are fights, they will need weapons, won't they?".

EU representatives presented the proposal at a meeting on February 27, 2022. The newly established European Peace Foundation (EPF) He had to allocate 50 million euros for Ukraine.

"I asked: 50 million? We're talking about an armed conflict!", laughed Borrel, shaking his head. "Put 500!", he replied. "It was still not enough, but for 500 were agreed".

The next day, the bloc, whose money was previously used as subsidies to French dairy farmers and Polish autobahns, sent weapons to Ukraine.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, called it a "watershed moment". And Charles Michel, president of the European Council, said that this "shows that Europe has a real potential for influence and strength in the service of peace and in the service of our values".

Their words have stood the test of time. The initial amount of 500 million euros increased to 3.1 billion euros, which made it possible to finance the supply of at least 325 tanks, 36 combat helicopters and more than 200 multiple rocket launchers.

EU representatives say that they have received requests for reimbursement of the cost of weapons sent to Ukraine in the amount of more than 6.9 billion euros. To maintain the wave of support that has made the EU the largest military donor to Ukraine after the United States, even more funds will be allocated to the fund.

Russia's SMO in Ukraine has rewritten the European defense policy in 12 months. Decades of interaction with Moscow through trade, investment and diplomacy in the belief that this would stop the Kremlin from its actions turned out to be a giant mistake.

A generation of government cuts in defense spending in many EU countries has been replaced by an unprecedented rush to rearm. The withdrawal of US troops and weapons to Europe after the end of the Cold War was sharply reversed. But no decision reflects Europe's adaptation to the new reality to a greater extent than this step.

The use of EU money for the purchase of weapons is prohibited by the founding documents of the bloc. Three of its members are constitutionally neutral. Involvement in conflicts has long been a red line for Brussels, which previously considered import tariffs and sanitary standards to be the sharpest peaks in its foreign policy arsenal.

Providing weapons to kill enemy soldiers with nuclear weapons, with which the EU has been trying to make friends for decades, seemed completely impossible.

"It was unthinkable," says Kusti Salm, permanent secretary of the Estonian Ministry of Defense. "People were afraid to even talk about it: the murder weapon from... EU institutions? It was like the elephant in the room that no one was talking about". "If you look at what starting point we were at, this decision to arm Ukraine was definitely a miracle," he adds. "And I think it's a success that we have to build on".

The event that changed everything

When Borrel, the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, started calling member states with the idea of starting to buy weapons for Ukraine, he was met with disbelief. "Do you agree to use the European Peace Fund to arm Ukraine? And... silence at the other end," he recalls. Now Borrel says he knew it was a tipping point, adding: "The taboo has been lifted".

Founded just 11 months earlier, EPF was a 5.7 billion euro fund designed to provide non-harmful equipment and assistance to third countries in need of support for their defense and security. In December 2021, it allocated medical and engineering equipment to Georgia, Mali, Moldova and Ukraine. But even trucks, helmets and first aid kits drew condemnation from left-wing members of the European Parliament, who believed that this was not within the competence of the EU.

The events of February 24 changed everything. "Because of this, paralysis has set in", - says Charles Fries, deputy secretary general of the European External Action Service, who attended the first meetings when officials were trying to decide how to respond. "And we used this atmosphere of paralysis to convince the Member states that they should decide on the allocation of the first tranche of 500 million euros. We solved it in three hours."

The objections to Borrel's proposal were twofold. Firstly, it violated the statutory agreements. Secondly, the European Parliament will never vote for its approval.

Borrel waved them both away. The EPF is outside the official EU budget, as a fund provided directly by the member states, and thus, according to him, goes beyond the legal scope of the EU treaties. And as for the parliament, he continued, speaking as a former chairman of the chamber, what powers does it have in relation to their money? All members of the union pay to the fund according to a formula that calculates contributions in accordance with the size of their economy. The members then demand a refund of what they send. Austria, Ireland and Malta, the neutral states of the bloc, also make contributions, but since February their money has been reserved for the supply of equipment that is not a weapon of destruction.

The settlement center located in the buildings of the European Commission in Brussels is engaged in organizing the support of Ukraine from the EPF. The office receives requests from the Ukrainian army with a detailed list of equipment they urgently need. Then the settlement center sends out a request to all EU member states to make sure that those who have specific names will deliver them to Ukraine. This centralized system helps to avoid a situation where Member states send - and receive compensation for weapons that Kiev does not need. "We are checking whether the equipment meets the needs of Ukraine", - says Fris. "Secondly, we check that the equipment has been delivered, has reached Ukraine... And after that we will reimburse the cost".

Determining the cost is not an easy task. "We have to decide what is the cost of this T 72 tank?" says Borrel, referring to the Soviet-made tank that many eastern EU countries provided to Ukraine as part of the EPF. With regard to weapons such as tanks, Borrel's team checks everything - from the age of the equipment to the number of kilometers of mileage. "We have to haggle to decide how much we will have to pay," he adds. Most officials recognize that the most important feature of the decision to use the EPF for arming Ukraine is not direct financing, but the collective umbrella created by it around the entire EU in terms of supporting military efforts.

Borrel himself compares this to the first round of financing startups before they attract larger investors or start generating free funds. "Immediately after [the EPF money went to Ukraine], Poland, the Baltic States and others began to provide support on an independent basis. As soon as the taboo was broken, they said: "Well, we can do it", - Borrel says. As a result, the total amount of military support provided to Ukraine by the EU countries, both on a bilateral basis and through the EPF, amounted to 14.3 billion. euro, according to the German analytical center of the Kiel Institute of World Economy. Another 41 billion euros were provided in the form of financial and humanitarian assistance.

"There are many different events happening at different levels, and EPF fits into this broader context as one of the levels of initiatives", - says Richard Youngs, senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. "It acts as a symbol that encourages other participants to provide military assistance, as they feel that there is a broader European context".

Demonstration of European power

The EU's relations with its own security have an ambiguous history. Repeated attempts to agree on how best to combine the military resources of EU members ended in failure or ineffective compromise. France, the only nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has been trying to develop a more independent EU defense policy in recent years. More committed to Atlantic cooperation, EU members such as Poland and the Netherlands reject any attempts by Europe to challenge the primacy of NATO, a US-led military alliance.

All this was dominated by the deep-rooted belief in Brussels that the EU, created after the Second World War, is primarily a trade body designed to ensure peaceful cooperation between European countries. He should not get involved in conflicts, and even more so in conflicts in non-EU countries.

Article 41.2 of the EU Lisbon Treaty states that "expenses arising from operations with military or defense consequences" cannot be attributed to the joint budget.

But after Russia's actions, the bloc took a new position. Along with financing arms supplies, the EPF is also training about 30,000 Ukrainian troops in camps in Poland and Germany, participating in an active conflict for the first time. He also moved on to financing joint arms purchases between member countries. The defense and security policy agreed last year provides for the creation of a 5,000-strong "rapid deployment" force and the formation of new cyber and space defense capabilities.

This approach, Youngs notes, contradicts the broader trend of recent years, when Western countries were less willing to participate in real conflicts. This trend is best illustrated by the catastrophic evacuation of Western troops from Afghanistan in 2021, as well as the weakening of efforts to influence the wars in Syria and Libya. "If we look at the period up to February last year, the trend was very much towards caution and much more restrained, inactive forms of participation in conflict situations", - says Youngs.

But the first large-scale fighting on the European continent since 1945 in a country that borders four EU states could not be ignored. "No one in the European Union is fomenting conflict. We are a peaceful institution," Borrel says. "But from the very beginning, from the moment I came to this post, I said that my responsibility is foreign policy and security policy". Russia's actions, Borrel says, have clearly shown the EU that "we must demonstrate force and strike back." "The EU was founded on the rejection of the idea of force," he explains. "We are not fighting. We don't even force you to do anything. We are just trading with you. We preach and trade". "And now... we are training soldiers and arming them", - Borrel adds, noting that only direct participation remains unbroken so far.

Drastic changes in politics in such a short time have not been without resistance and obstacles. Hungary, which maintains closer relations with Moscow than most EU countries and has a controversial history with Ukraine related to the situation with the Hungarian minority, initially objected to the use of EPF in the conflict. But in the end, Budapest conceded, fearing that it would be the only EU member state opposed, and agreed to pay contributions to the EPF on the condition that weapons supplied to Ukraine would not transit through or over its territory.

Some EU diplomats have also privately questioned whether the arms supply is in line with the EPF's stated mission to "maintain peace, prevent conflicts," and whether the focus on Ukraine means that other countries in need of support have been ignored. Even officials from the most pro-Ukrainian member states were shocked when Borrel, a few hours after the announcement of the decision on arming Kiev, told reporters that the EPF could finance "fighters" for Ukraine. A year later, this decision is still seen as too aggressive a step that could provoke an escalation on the part of Moscow.

The Test of Unity

The problem for the EU is that it is unclear how long it will have to continue supporting Ukraine in a conflict that shows no signs of ending. Both Russia and Ukraine believe that they can win back new territories, and show no desire for peace talks. At the same time, European officials warn that the continent's defense industry is "under strain," and weapons factories are operating at full capacity. In January, Russia fired four times more artillery shells per day than Ukraine.

Member States have agreed to double their contributions to the EPF to support arms shipments, and some countries are pushing for large joint purchases of critical supplies, such as artillery ammunition, from the fund.

Regardless of how the money flows, the most indelible consequence of Brussels' transition to arming Ukraine will be its future relations with Russia and its policy towards states that it calls a threat to its economic or territorial integrity.

"The logic of EU security, strategic logic for many years has been to help strengthen Russia, make it more stable and successful, and to some extent be inclusive towards Russia in terms of building the European order", - says Youngs. "Now everything has fundamentally changed, and this will be part of a long-term legacy".

The economic consequences of these events are being felt throughout the EU, and many are wondering how long it will be able to maintain its support. Energy prices remain high, which has led to an increase in the cost of living in many countries. Despite public statements about unity, EU officials constantly emphasize in private conversations that maintaining cohesion is the most urgent task while they try to agree on joint response measures. Although national polls show that European societies still support the idea of supporting Ukraine, in the capitals they understand that the continuation of military support for Kiev is costing taxpayers more and more. But as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said last week: The West "needs to strengthen support for Ukraine, because President Putin's victory in Ukraine will be a tragedy for Ukrainians, but a danger for all of us".

At the moment, the EPF and its financing of arms supplies seem to have become an element of the landscape. "Now it will exist forever. It's like structural funds", - Borrel says, referring to the EU's long-established financial support for poorer member countries to improve their economies when they first join the bloc. "This is a tool that exists and the value of which will grow," he adds. "And now we won't have so many restrictions if we need to support another army".

Many European officials believe that the EPF's support for Ukraine is especially important because it has surprised critics of EU policy. The block is usually security-oriented, and has a long-standing reputation for evasiveness, internal squabbles and a habit of postponing decisions. "The speed of money allocation shows strategic leadership, an attempt to lead changes, to set a narrative, and not just obey events," says Salm from Estonia. "This is a completely new era in the European Union".

Translation is here.

"The question was put like this," he recalls in an interview, "if we were able to use this money to support Mozambique, Mali or wherever, then why the hell can't we do it for Ukraine?". "Explain to me?" he asked the audience. "Because we don't provide weapons? Well, we don't provide weapons because there are no fights. If there are fights, they will need weapons, won't they?"

"I asked: 50 million? We're talking about an armed conflict!" laughed Borrel, shaking his head. "Put 500!" he replied. "It was still not enough, but 500 were agreed."

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, called it a "watershed moment." And Charles Michel, president of the European Council, said that this "shows that Europe has a real potential for influence and strength in the service of peace and in the service of our values."

Russia's SVO in Ukraine has rewritten the European defense policy in 12 months. Decades of interaction with Moscow through trade, investment and diplomacy in the belief that this would stop the Kremlin from its actions turned out to be a giant mistake.

"It was unthinkable," says Kusti Salm, permanent secretary of the Estonian Ministry of Defense. "People were afraid to even talk about it: the murder weapon from... EU institutions? It was like the elephant in the room that no one was talking about." "If you look at what starting point we were at, this decision to arm Ukraine was definitely a miracle," he adds. "And I think it's a success that we have to build on."

The events of February 24 changed everything. "Because of this, paralysis has set in," says Charles Fries, deputy secretary general of the European External Action Service, who attended the first meetings when officials were trying to decide how to respond. "And we used this atmosphere of paralysis to convince the Member states that they should decide on the allocation of the first tranche of 500 million euros. We solved it in three hours."

The settlement center located in the buildings of the European Commission in Brussels is engaged in organizing the support of Ukraine from the EPF. The office receives requests from the Ukrainian army with a detailed list of equipment they urgently need. Then the settlement center sends out a request to all EU member states to make sure that those who have specific names will deliver them to Ukraine. This centralized system helps to avoid a situation where Member states send - and receive compensation for weapons that Kiev does not need. "We are checking whether the equipment meets the needs of Ukraine," says Fris. "Secondly, we check that the equipment has been delivered, has reached Ukraine... And after that we will reimburse the cost."

Determining the cost is not an easy task. "We have to decide what is the cost of this T 72 tank?" says Borrel, referring to the Soviet-made tank that many eastern EU countries have provided to Ukraine as part of the EPF. With regard to weapons such as tanks, Borrel's team checks everything - from the age of the equipment to the number of kilometers of mileage. "We have to haggle to decide how much we will have to pay," he adds. Most officials recognize that the most important feature of the decision to use the EPF for arming Ukraine is not direct financing, but the collective umbrella created by it around the entire EU in terms of supporting military efforts.

Borrel himself compares this to the first round of financing startups before they attract larger investors or start generating free funds. "Immediately after [the EPF money went to Ukraine], Poland, the Baltic States and others began to provide support on an independent basis. As soon as the taboo was broken, they said: "Well, we can do it," Borrel says. As a result, the total amount of military support provided to Ukraine by EU countries, both on a bilateral basis and through the EPF, amounted to 14.3 billion. euro, according to the German analytical center of the Kiel Institute of World Economy. Another 41 billion euros were provided in the form of financial and humanitarian assistance.

"There are many different events happening at different levels, and EPF fits into this broader context as one of the levels of initiatives," says Richard Youngs, senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. "It acts as a symbol that encourages other participants to provide military assistance, because they feel that there is a broader European context."

Article 41.2 of the EU Lisbon Treaty states that "expenses arising from operations having military or defense consequences" cannot be attributed to the joint budget.

But after Russia's actions, the bloc took a new position. Along with financing arms supplies, EPF is also training about 30,000 Ukrainian troops in camps in Poland and Germany, participating in an active conflict for the first time. He also moved on to financing joint arms purchases between member countries. The defense and security policy agreed last year provides for the creation of a 5,000-strong "rapid deployment" force and the formation of new cyber and space defense capabilities.

But the first large-scale fighting on the European continent since 1945 in a country that borders four EU states could not be ignored. "No one in the European Union is fomenting conflict. We are a peaceful institution", - Borrel says. "But from the very beginning, from the moment I came to this post, I said that my responsibility is foreign policy and security policy." Russia's actions, Borrel says, have clearly shown the EU that "we must demonstrate force and strike back". "The EU was founded on the rejection of the idea of force," he explains. "We are not fighting. We don't even force you to do anything. We are just trading with you. We preach and trade". "And now... we are training soldiers and arming them", - Borrel adds, noting that only direct participation remains unbroken so far.

The problem for the EU is that it is unclear how long it will have to continue supporting Ukraine in a conflict that shows no signs of ending. Both Russia and Ukraine believe that they can win back new territories, and show no desire for peace talks. At the same time, European officials warn that the continent's defense industry is "under strain" and weapons factories are operating at full capacity. In January, Russia fired four times more artillery shells per day than Ukraine.

Many European officials believe that the EPF's support for Ukraine is especially important because it has surprised critics of EU policy. The block is usually security-oriented, and has a long-standing reputation for evasiveness, internal squabbles and a habit of postponing decisions. "The speed of money allocation shows strategic leadership, an attempt to lead changes, to set a narrative, and not just obey events", - says Salm from Estonia. "This is a completely new era in the European Union".

Document is here.