Ukraine Aid: Europe Could Replace most of US Support

The FINANCIAL — Should the US permanently end its financial and military support for Ukraine, European states could fill the gap in many areas or even overcompensate. A new analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy shows that this would be possible with relatively little additional effort, particularly in the financial sector. Replacing American weapons and ammunition assistance is more difficult, but here, too, Europe could deliver in important areas. There is currently no substitute for US military intelligence.

“Our data show that Europe would be able to compensate for much of the US aid—but only if policymakers act decisively. So far, Europe has been moving too slowly in this area,” says Christoph Trebesch, research director at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

European governments currently spend an average of just 0.1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) per year on bilateral aid to Ukraine. To compensate for the US support, the contribution for all states and EU institutions would have to rise to 0.21 percent of GDP—a level that Baltic and Scandinavian states already significantly exceed.

DHS Publishes Federal Register Notice Extending Temporary Protected Status for Ukraine

Lukashenko apologized to Zelensky for Belarus’ role, denied responsibility early in Russia’s invasion, Zelensky says

Ukrainians Grow More Skeptical of West

Ukrainian Oligarch Firtash Among 8 Hit By Latest U.K. Sanctions

In absolute figures, this means an increase in European aid from the currently 44 billion euros per year to 82 billion euros. The EU institutions (increase from 16 to 36 billion euros), Germany (from 6 to at least 9 billion euros), the United Kingdom (from 5 to 6.5 billion euros), France (from 1.5 to 6 billion euros), Italy (from 0.8 to 4.5 billion euros) and Spain (from 0.5 to 3 billion euros) would be particularly in demand.

“For individual states, this means a very significant increase in their aid to Ukraine, so the EU should provide incentives, for example, through prioritized access to new EU defense funds. If all of Europe followed Denmark’s example and mobilized 0.4 percent of GDP annually, we could even significantly overcompensate for US aid,” says Trebesch.

Military challenge: expand production and use alternatives

Taking the previous aid as a yardstick, the greatest dependence on US weapons currently lies in rocket artillery (e.g. HIMARS, 86% of which came from US production), ammunition for howitzer artillery (over 80% US production), and long-range air defense systems (e.g. Patriot, 70% US production). In other areas, including howitzers and main battle tanks, most of the weapon systems supplied already come from European production.

Replacing US military aid is a major challenge. To do so, European industry would have to ramp up its production quickly and significantly. “Europe has long since stopped just supplying from existing stocks; it now orders most of the weapons for Ukraine directly from industry. This process must be significantly accelerated through firm procurement commitments, particularly to produce ammunition for howitzers,” says Trebesch.

To replace critical US systems and their ammunition (notably HIMARS and Patriots), Europe could turn to the international market. It could also purchase comparable systems such as the South Korean K239 Chunmoo or the Israeli PULS system. At the same time, Europe should invest significantly more in the production and further development of European alternatives such as the SAMP/T system.

Furthermore, European governments could order weapons directly in Ukraine according to the “Danish model”. This applies particularly to drones, for which the country has built an extraordinarily innovative and productive industry.

“If we in Europe are too slow to move forward with arms production, we could alternatively invest in Ukraine itself. In the process, important know-how can flow back to Europe.”

Below is an analysis of Ukraine’s military support based on official data from the United States and the European Union, followed by a comparison of their contributions. The data is drawn from official sources such as the U.S. Department of State, the European External Action Service (EEAS), and the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker, with figures reflecting commitments and allocations up to early 2025 where available. Note that exact numbers can vary slightly due to differences in reporting periods, valuation methods, and the distinction between pledged, allocated, and delivered aid.

U.S. Military Support to Ukraine

The United States has been a major provider of military assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Official data from the U.S. Department of State and related sources indicate:

Total Military Assistance Committed: As of March 2025, the U.S. has committed approximately $86 billion in military aid through congressional appropriations, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This figure includes funding from five supplemental bills passed since 2022, with the most recent in April 2024.
Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA): Under this authority, the U.S. has drawn down defense articles and services from Department of Defense (DoD) stocks valued at up to $5.55 billion as of September 26, 2024, with additional drawdowns possible into early 2025 if not halted by policy shifts.
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI): The DoD has provided $12.1 billion in FY 2023 alone for long-term weapons contracts and equipment, with earlier years adding $6.3 billion (FY 2022) and $275 million (FY 2021).
Foreign Military Financing (FMF): Congress appropriated $4.65 billion in FMF, of which $4 billion has been notified as of March 2025, supporting Ukraine and regional allies.
Types of Aid: The U.S. has supplied critical lethal aid, including HIMARS rocket systems, Javelin anti-tank missiles, Patriot air defense systems, Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighter jets (via allied transfers). Much of this aid has been drawn from existing stocks, though new production has increased over time.
Delivery Status: While all $86 billion has been committed, delivery lags persist. The CFR notes that the “vast majority” of committed aid has been allocated, but much remains undelivered as of March 11, 2025, due to logistical and production constraints.

Recent policy shifts under the Trump administration, including a temporary halt to military aid and intelligence sharing in early March 2025, have introduced uncertainty. However, prior commitments ensure a continued flow of equipment from earlier appropriations, pending any further executive decisions.

EU Military Support to Ukraine

The European Union, including its institutions and member states, has also provided substantial military support to Ukraine. Data from the EEAS and the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker offer the following insights:

Total Military Assistance Committed: As of February 25, 2025, the EU and its 27 member states have committed approximately $52.417 billion (€49 billion) in direct military aid, per the EEAS and posts on X. The Kiel Institute estimates a higher figure of €60 billion ($64 billion) when including bilateral commitments from non-EU European countries like the UK and Norway as of mid-2024, though this analysis focuses strictly on EU figures.
European Peace Facility (EPF): The EU has allocated €11.1 billion through the EPF for military support, including €5 billion for the Ukraine Assistance Fund agreed in March 2024. An additional $1.5 billion from immobilized Russian assets was made available in July 2024 for military purposes.
Bilateral Contributions: Key EU contributors include Germany (€17.7 billion committed, €9.4 billion allocated), Denmark (€8.4 billion committed), and Sweden (€0.7 billion in its largest package). These figures reflect a mix of in-kind donations (e.g., Leopard tanks, artillery) and financial support for arms procurement.
Types of Aid: EU support includes air defense systems (e.g., IRIS-T from Germany), howitzers, combat vehicles, and ammunition. Unlike the U.S., early EU aid relied heavily on existing stockpiles, but by 2025, newly produced weaponry dominates due to depleted reserves.
Delivery Status: The Kiel Institute highlights a significant gap between commitments and allocations: of €144 billion total EU aid (military, financial, and humanitarian) committed by January 2024, only €77 billion was allocated, with €35.2 billion specifically for military aid. Delivery rates for heavy weaponry (e.g., tanks, artillery shells) remain below 70% of pledges, per earlier 2023 data.

The EU’s military support has grown steadily, with a shift toward centralized coordination via the EPF and multi-year commitments like the €50 billion Ukraine Facility (2024–2027), though only a fraction is military-specific

Comparison of U.S. and EU Military Support

To compare U.S. and EU military support to Ukraine, we can examine total commitments, focus areas, delivery efficiency, and strategic impact:

Total Commitments:
- U.S.: $86 billion in direct military aid, making it the largest single-country donor.
- EU: $52.417 billion from EU institutions and member states, roughly 61% of the U.S. total. Including non-EU European allies (e.g., UK, Norway) pushes the broader European figure closer to $64 billion, but this still trails the U.S.
- Verdict: The U.S. outpaces the EU in absolute military aid, though Europe’s total support (including financial and humanitarian aid) exceeds the U.S. when non-military categories are considered ($145 billion vs. $118–$175 billion).
Focus Areas:
- U.S.: Emphasizes advanced, lethal systems (e.g., HIMARS, Patriots, F-16s) critical to Ukraine’s battlefield success. The U.S. has also provided 20% of Ukraine’s military equipment, per the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), often the “most lethal and important” assets.
- EU: Focuses on a mix of air defense, artillery, and vehicles, with a growing emphasis on new production. Financial support via the EPF enables Ukraine to procure arms, but lacks the U.S.’s scale of cutting-edge technology.
- Verdict: The U.S. provides more decisive military capabilities, while the EU’s aid is broader but less concentrated on high-end systems.
Delivery Efficiency:
- U.S.: Rapid initial deliveries from stocks (sometimes within days) have slowed due to reliance on new production and recent policy pauses. GAO reports highlight inconsistent tracking, suggesting some data inaccuracies.
- EU: Slower delivery rates persist, with only 69% of pledged heavy weaponry delivered by mid-2023 (Kiel Institute). The gap between commitments (€144 billion) and allocations (€77 billion) indicates bureaucratic delays.
- Verdict: The U.S. has been more agile in early deliveries, but both face challenges scaling up production and logistics.
Strategic Impact:
- U.S.: Analysts (e.g., CSIS, CFR) credit U.S. aid with enabling Ukraine’s defense and counteroffensives, particularly in 2022–2023. A halt in U.S. aid could collapse Ukraine’s frontlines, per expert consensus, given its unique capabilities.
- EU: Europe’s sustained support has closed the gap since mid-2023, averaging $1.8 billion monthly (CSIS). However, replacing U.S. aid fully would require doubling current efforts, a feat deemed challenging given industrial constraints.
- Verdict: The U.S. remains Ukraine’s linchpin for military survival, while the EU’s growing role is vital but insufficient alone.

Official data shows the U.S. has provided more military support to Ukraine than the EU in absolute terms ($86 billion vs. $52.417 billion), excelling in delivering high-impact, lethal aid and maintaining a slight edge in delivery speed. The EU, however, has overtaken the U.S. in total aid when financial and humanitarian categories are included, reflecting its focus on broader stabilization. As of March 13, 2025, the U.S.’s strategic importance to Ukraine’s war effort remains unmatched, though Europe’s rising commitments signal a shift in burden-sharing. Uncertainties from U.S. policy changes and EU delivery lags suggest Ukraine’s military resilience hinges on both continuing their support in tandem.