# EDITORIAL: Europe Is Funding Ukraine at €45 Billion — and Should Be Proud, Not Ashamed

> On June 22, 2026, at a joint meeting of the European Parliament's committees on international trade, security and defense, and the budget, the representative of the European Commission uttered a sentence worth remembering: the Ukraine Support Loan (USL) is not "a financial instru

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Editorial
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-europe-finance-l-ukraine-a-hauteur-de-45-milliards-et-elle-devrait-en-etre-fie

## Introduction: Aid Fatigue Is a Luxury We Cannot Afford

### Funding as a weapon — not as charity

On **June 22, 2026**, at a joint meeting of the **European Parliament**'s committees on international trade, security and defense, and the budget, the representative of the **European Commission** uttered a sentence worth remembering: the **Ukraine Support Loan (USL)** is not "**a financial instrument**." It is "**a weapon**." This formulation, direct to the point of discomfort, tells the truth in a way that conventional diplomacy strives to avoid. European financing of **Ukraine** — **45 billion euros** for **2026** alone, **60 billion** over two years — is not international philanthropy. It is an investment in Europe's collective security.

And yet, in certain European capitals, this funding is the subject of stormy debates tinged with "**aid fatigue**." Voices are heard asking how much longer **Europe** will have to pay. Politicians brandishing the raw figure — **200 euros per European citizen** — as though it were a scandal. Narratives presenting support for **Ukraine** as a burden for European taxpayers rather than an insurance premium for their own security. This editorial takes the opposite view. It argues that **Europe** should embrace its financing of **Ukraine** with pride — because this funding is the most important and most justified strategic decision the **European Union** has ever made.

### The cost of not helping — a question no one asks

The debate over the "**cost of supporting Ukraine**" suffers from a fundamental analytical bias: it focuses on the cost of aid, but never on the cost of not aiding. What would have happened if **Europe** had abandoned **Ukraine** in **2022**? A victorious **Russia** at the gates of the Baltic states. A **Moldova** under existential pressure. A devastating signal to every democracy that resisting aggression does not pay. A **Putin** emboldened with no reason to stop at the Ukrainian border. The cost of that scenario — in terms of additional European military deployments, regional instability, and mass migration — would have been far greater than the **200 euros per citizen** that some find excessive.

*You cannot calculate the cost of the peace you have preserved. But you can observe what a war costs when you let it be won. Europe made the right choice in helping Ukraine — and must have the courage to say so without apologizing.*

## The Ukraine Support Loan's Architecture: A Financial Mechanism at the Service of Defense

### €45 billion in 2026: the breakdown

The financial architecture of the **USL** for **2026** is precisely articulated. Of the total **45 billion euros** for this year, **28.3 billion** are dedicated to the **defense pillar** — direct financing of drones, counter-drones, missiles, air defense systems, long-range munitions, and long-range strikes, as expressed by **Ukraine** and documented at the **June 22** meeting. The remaining **16.7 billion** constitutes budget support: **8.75 billion** in **Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA)** and **8.75 billion** complementing the **Ukraine Plan**.

The first tranche of **3.2 billion** under the **MFA** was agreed for disbursement at the **Ukraine Reconstruction Conference** on **June 25–26, 2026**. Additional tranches of **3.7 billion** are planned for September and **1.45 billion** at year's end, for a total **2026 MFA** of **8.35 billion**. On the **60-billion-over-two-years** track, the first product schedule — covering drones — was received in March and the reimbursement for **255 contracts** was submitted on **June 18**. Payment is expected before month's end. It is a precision bureaucratic machinery in the service of an existential emergency.

### Who really pays? The double lock of frozen Russian assets

One of the most important innovations in this financial mechanism is its repayment structure. As declared by the **European Council decision of December**, **Ukraine** will only repay the loan after receiving reparations from **Russia**. Russian assets — approximately **300 billion dollars** in **Russian Central Bank** assets are immobilized in **G7** countries — will remain frozen until full repayment. The **EU** reserves the right to use these assets to repay the loan. The regulation adopted under **Article 122.1** of the **EU Treaty** anchors this immobilization in damages caused to the **EU** itself — creating what legal scholars call a "**double lock**."

This architecture means, in plain terms, that it is the **aggressor who pays** — not the European taxpayer. Frozen Russian assets already generate income through interest, already being used under the **G7 ERA initiative**. This mechanism is elegant legally and just morally. It is also robust: it was designed to be difficult to dismantle unilaterally. **MEP Jörgen Warborn** summarized the position clearly: "**It is the aggressor who must pay.**"

*Europe invented a mechanism that makes the one who started the war pay for it. That is a remarkable legal and financial innovation. That European politicians continue to complain about the cost to taxpayers, while the repayment mechanism points toward Moscow, reveals either ignorance or bad faith that is difficult to excuse.*

## Aid Fatigue: A Narrative Forged in Russian Disinformation Studios

### Where does this narrative really come from?

Things must be called by their name: the narrative of "**aid fatigue for Ukraine**" is, in large part, a product of the Russian disinformation machine. Studies by the **Ukrainian Institute**, the **Digital Forensic Research Lab** of the **Atlantic Council**, and the **European Information Agency** systematically document how media linked to **Moscow** amplify every poll showing a drop in European public support for **Ukraine**, every statement by a Eurosceptic politician, every economic argument against the funding. The goal is transparent: to weaken the coalition of support for **Ukraine** from within.

This narrative is facilitated by European political actors — some in good faith but poorly informed, others deliberately aligned with Russian interests or simply opportunistic. It thrives in contexts of inflation and economic hardship, where voters search for scapegoats for their everyday difficulties. Presenting the financing of **Ukraine** as the cause of European difficulties — when those difficulties have multiple origins and aid to **Kyiv** represents less than **1% of EU GDP** — is a deception that deserves to be firmly combated.

### The "fatigue" polls and their manipulation

Opinion polls on support for **Ukraine** do show variability across countries and periods. In **Hungary**, **Slovakia**, and some **Southern European** countries, popular support is more fragile. These realities must be taken seriously in their context — they reflect different national histories, different media exposure, different geopolitical sensitivities. But they do not justify a strategic change of course. Democracies sometimes have a responsibility to make difficult choices that transcend the opinion of the moment — particularly when the stakes are as fundamental as European collective security.

**MEP Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann**, chair of the **European Parliament**'s security and defense committee, asked the right question at the **June 22** meeting: "**What counts is that capabilities reach Ukraine when they are needed.**" Not opinion polls. Not short-term electoral calculations. The concrete effectiveness of delivering armaments to an army fighting for its survival — and, in doing so, protecting **Europe**.

*Aid fatigue is a legitimate human feeling. But the great historical choices are not made on the basis of fatigue. Churchill did not abandon the resistance because the British population had enough of the Blitz. He held because he understood what was at stake. Europe today must rediscover that same clarity.*

## What Ukraine Does With the Money — and How It Is Verified

### A rigorous and transparent oversight system

One of the recurrent arguments of those opposing the funding is the risk of corruption and misappropriation. It is a legitimate question — especially in the context of a country at war with weakened institutions. The **European Commission**'s response is systematic and documented. Representative **Harald Ruijters**, Deputy Director-General of **DG DEFIS**, described at the **June 22** meeting a verification process "**as serious and as strict as is humanly possible**": checks before, during, and after each product schedule; a specialized audit team within **DG DEFIS** for ex-post verification; partnerships with **EU** bodies and Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies.

**Ukraine**, for its part, has undertaken substantial reforms conditioning disbursements: it has extended its military levy, adopted legislation on digital platform revenues, and launched the elimination of **VAT** exemptions on low-value imports. These **32 reform measures** condition the **MFA** tranches — a conditionality mechanism that ties disbursement to verifiable progress on the rule of law, energy, state-owned enterprise governance, and social aspects of reconstruction.

### Accession negotiations: an investment in transformation

One often overlooked aspect of the European commitment to **Ukraine** is the opening of the **first accession negotiations** on **June 15, 2026**. The first cluster — the "**Fundamentals**" — covers the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, internal markets, and institutions. This is the heart of the transformation **Ukraine** must accomplish to join the **EU**. **Ukraine** submitted a revised plan adopted by the **Commission**. This accession process is not only a political horizon. It is a lever of institutional transformation that will benefit **Ukrainians** and **Europe** in the long run.

When one hears that aid to **Ukraine** is money wasted in a corrupt country, one must respond: the **EU** is simultaneously financing the conditions for that country's transformation. It is tying its euros to concrete and verifiable reforms. It is creating the conditions for **Ukraine** to become a solid partner within the European order. That is the very definition of a strategic investment — and it is fundamentally different from unconditional humanitarian aid.

*Those who invoke corruption to oppose Ukraine's funding are not wrong in their historical diagnosis. But they are wrong about the remedy. The answer to Ukrainian corruption is more engagement and more conditionality — not abandonment. Abandoning a country that fights because its institutions are not perfect is to condemn to death the very idea of democratic transformation.*

## What Ukraine Defends — and Why It Is Europe's Fight

### Ukraine is not a foreign country with a problem

**MEP Pekka Toveri**, former commander of the Finnish army, said it with a soldier's clarity: "**This is not a question of European defense industry. It is a question of Ukraine's survival.**" This direct formulation cuts through the usual diplomatic euphemisms. **Ukraine** is fighting for its survival — and its survival is directly linked to **Europe**'s security. This is not an abstract theorem. It is the geographical, historical, and strategic reality of Eastern **Europe**.

The Ukrainian border is less than **500 kilometers** from **Warsaw**. It is less than **700 kilometers** from **Berlin**. A **Ukraine** defeated and subjugated by **Putin**'s **Russia** would push the Russian military threat immediately to the borders of **NATO** member states. What **Putin** would do next — if he had the capacity and the temptation — is not a certainty, but it is a possibility that **Europe** cannot afford to ignore. The Baltic states are not paranoid when they say that their security depends on **Ukraine**'s. They are drawing the most direct lesson from recent history.

### The values at stake go beyond geopolitics

Beyond the strategic calculation, there is a dimension of values that some consider naive but that is real: **Ukraine** is fighting for its democracy, its freedom, its right to choose its own future without submitting to the diktat of an authoritarian neighbor. These values are not foreign to **Europe**. They are constitutive of the European project itself. And supporting **Ukraine** in this fight is affirming that these values have real worth — not merely declaratory worth.

**Volodymyr Zelensky** is an imperfect leader like all human leaders. But he is the head of a country that refused to bend before a massive military aggression. That mobilized its society to defend its freedom. That is asking its allies for the military and financial support it desperately needs. To respond to this request with debates about "**aid fatigue**" and calculations of euros per citizen is a response at the level of cowardice — not of greatness.

*Ukrainians are dying for values that Europe proclaims to defend. The least we can do, from our comfortable capitals, is to fund them properly. 200 euros per European citizen to preserve the freedom of a people of 44 million — that is the lowest price I have ever seen for something so precious.*

## The Reforms Ukraine Has Accepted — Proof of a Transformation Underway

### Thirty-two verifiable reform measures

The **32 reform measures** conditioning the **MFA** tranches are not statements of intent. They are verifiable contractual commitments, whose execution is audited by the **European Commission** before each disbursement. These measures cover four key areas: the rule of law, energy, state-owned enterprise governance, and the social aspects of reconstruction. For each, precise indicators make it possible to measure progress.

**Ukraine** has already demonstrated a capacity to reform under pressure. Despite the war, it has maintained its democratic institutions, conducted verification processes for its magistrates, and adopted anti-corruption measures. Its tax system has been reformed in the middle of a war. The prospect of accession to the **EU** is the most powerful driver of institutional transformation a country can have — far more effective than any purely financial conditionality. The **history of Central and Eastern European countries** demonstrates this: **Poland**, **Hungary**, **Romania**, **Bulgaria** all profoundly transformed their institutions to join the **EU**.

### The Reconstruction Conference and its commitments

The **Ukraine Reconstruction Conference** of **June 25–26, 2026** marked an important moment in international mobilization. The disbursement of the first **MFA** tranche (**3.2 billion euros**) coinciding with this conference was no accident: it was a strong political signal addressed to **Ukraine**'s international partners. **Ukraine**'s reconstruction — its destroyed infrastructure, devastated cities, fractured economy — will require hundreds of billions of euros over several decades. The current European commitment is only the beginning of a massive investment that will transform **Ukraine** into a European economic power if it wins this conflict.

This is not philanthropy. It is long-term economic development. A reconstructed **Ukraine**, a member of the **EU**, with its fertile agricultural lands, educated workforce, natural resources, and defense and technology industries, would be a considerable net addition to the European economic bloc. To present the financing of **Ukraine** solely as a cost, without speaking to the economic potential of this relationship in the long run, is partial and misleading accounting.

*When Ukraine joins the European Union — and I deeply believe it will — the euros invested today in its survival will be one of the best economic and strategic decisions Europe will ever have made. Investing in Kyiv's resistance is investing in our own shared future.*

## The Arguments Against Funding — and Why They Are Weak

### "Europe cannot afford it" — the false arithmetic

The economic argument against funding **Ukraine** deserves rigorous examination. The **200 euros per European citizen** — over how long? Over several years. And in exchange for what? For de facto participation in a proxy war that is protecting the eastern borders of **NATO**. The same European citizen pays per year — depending on their country — between **200 and 600 euros** for their car insurance. They are prepared to pay to insure their car, but not to insure the collective security of their continent?

The **EU** represents an economy of **17 trillion euros**. Support for **Ukraine** represents less than **0.4%** of annual European **GDP**. For that price, **Europe** is keeping more than **600,000 Ukrainian soldiers** in the field, preventing **Russia** from approaching its borders, and preserving the credibility of the rules-based international order. It is the best value-for-money in the recent history of European defense.

### "The funds should go to our problems" — the false alternative

The argument that the **45 billion** should be devoted to internal problems — health, education, the energy transition — rests on a false dichotomy. The **EU** budget can simultaneously finance internal policies and support for **Ukraine**. **MEP Janusz Lewandowski** criticized the decision to finance **1.15 billion** in **2027** from the general **EU** budget rather than from the **USL** itself — out of concern for budgetary flexibility, not because the two are in direct competition.

What is real is that some politicians prefer to point at **Ukraine** to explain economic difficulties rather than confronting the true causes: post-Covid inflation, the costly energy transition, the structural insufficiencies of certain European economies. Support for **Ukraine** is a convenient scapegoat. But it is an intellectual deception that disserves European voters as much as **Ukraine**.

*When a politician tells you that Europe cannot both fund Ukraine and improve your public services, ask them why Germany, Sweden, and Finland manage to do both. The truth is that it is a question of political priorities — not budgetary arithmetic. And their priorities are not yours.*

## What a Ukrainian Victory Would Mean for Europe

### A safer continent, a credible deterrence architecture

A **Ukraine** that successfully holds out and obtains a peace agreement preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty would send a fundamental strategic message: aggression does not pay. That democracies supported by their allies can resist an authoritarian major power. That international law can have credible defenders even without its own army. This message would reinforce deterrence across the entire European security system.

Conversely, a Ukrainian defeat or an agreement that would sacrifice significant Ukrainian territories would send the opposite message: that aggression is rewarded, that Western security guarantees are not worth the paper they are printed on, and that small countries must either submit to major powers or live in permanent insecurity. It is this message that would encourage other aggressions — in **Europe**, in **Asia**, in **Africa**. The outcome of this war is not local. It is global.

### The European defense industry: a necessary renaissance

A frequently underestimated benefit of funding **Ukraine** is its impact on the European defense industry. Ukrainian demand has accelerated the scaling-up of European defense producers that had stagnated for decades under the post-**Cold War** "**peace dividend**." Contracts to supply drones, munitions, and air defense systems have stimulated investments in industrial capacity that will benefit European defense as a whole in the long run.

**Harald Ruijters** acknowledged at the **June 22** meeting that there is "**a significant gap between what Ukraine needs and what industry can deliver in the short term**." This gap is itself a diagnosis of the state of the European defense industry after thirty years of disinvestment. Supporting **Ukraine** has provided the alarm signal that **Europe** needed to reinvest in its industrial defense capabilities. That is a direct strategic benefit for European security in the long run.

*The renaissance of the European defense industry, accelerated by the war in Ukraine, is a strategic victory that few have highlighted. We discovered that our production capacities for munitions and weapons systems were dramatically insufficient. The awakening has a cost — but it is infinitely better than discovering this reality at the moment we would need it for ourselves.*

## Trump, the Unpredictable Variable — and Why Europe Must Hold Without Him

### American aid in suspense

The **Trump** administration has maintained an ambiguous position on support for **Ukraine**. After initially suspending certain weapons deliveries, it partially resumed support — but in a less predictable and less systematic way than the **Biden** administration. This unpredictability makes the European commitment all the more crucial. If the **United States** disengages or conditions its aid on unacceptable Ukrainian territorial concessions, **Europe** must be capable of filling the gap.

The **European Commission** anticipated this eventuality in the design of the **USL**. The regulation adopted under **Article 122.1** provides flexibility to adapt the volumes and compositions of aid according to the evolving Ukrainian needs and the geopolitical situation. Non-**EU** sources — notably through **NATO** and like-minded partners — are integrated into the Commission's thinking. **Europe** cannot depend solely on **Washington**'s goodwill to protect its security.

### The hour of European strategic autonomy

The war in **Ukraine** has accelerated an awareness that some theorists of **European strategic autonomy** had been calling for over decades: **Europe** must be capable of defending its interests without depending exclusively on the American guarantee. This is not anti-Americanism. It is mature realism. **Trump**'s **America** is different from **Biden**'s **America**. And tomorrow's **America** will be different still. European security cannot rest forever on the goodwill of an ally whose domestic political priorities fluctuate.

Funding **Ukraine** to the tune of **45 billion euros** in **2026** is also, for **Europe**, learning to assume its collective security responsibilities. It is painful. It is costly. It is politically difficult in certain member states. But it is the path toward a grown-up **Europe** in the field of defense — a **Europe** that does not weep when **Washington** turns its back, because it has developed its own capabilities and its own solidarity mechanisms.

*A Europe that funds Ukraine at 45 billion euros is a Europe that is growing up. That finally accepts that freedom has a cost. That refuses to let others pay on its behalf. This strategic maturity, wrested from the pain of a war at its borders, is perhaps the most enduring legacy of this terrible conflict for the European project.*

## Shame as a Response — and Pride as an Alternative

### Why some politicians prefer shame to pride

It is striking that some European politicians speak about support for **Ukraine** with palpable discomfort — as though funding the resistance of a free country against a military aggression were something embarrassing. This discomfort has political roots: they fear the opinion of their constituents, amplified by Russian social media and their domestic relays. They prefer to minimize their commitment rather than publicly defending a potentially costly position.

It is a political mistake as much as a moral one. European voters — in their great majority — understand and support **Ukraine**'s right to defend itself. Polls show that a clear majority of European citizens support support for **Kyiv**. It is not by apologizing for funding freedom that European politicians will earn the trust of their constituents. It is by clearly explaining the stakes and assuming their decisions with justified pride.

### Pride as a political and moral message

I am arguing that European leaders should adopt a language of pride, not shame or apology, when they speak of support for **Ukraine**. Pride in having responded to an unjust aggression with concrete and massive aid. Pride in having invented innovative legal and financial mechanisms that make the aggressor pay. Pride in having maintained solidarity in the face of domestic political pressures and Russian disinformation campaigns. Pride in having placed **values** — freedom, sovereignty, international law — above short-term political convenience.

This pride is not arrogance. It is the recognition of a historically correct decision. And in fifty years, when historians evaluate the European response to the Russian aggression against **Ukraine**, the leaders who will have defended this support with conviction will be those that history judges favorably. Those who yielded to the pressure of "**aid fatigue**" will be on the other side of that judgment.

*I am not asking European leaders to be heroes. I am asking them to be equal to the historical moment. This moment calls for clarity, courage, and pride — not half-measures, apologies, and compromises with narratives manufactured by the Kremlin's disinformation services.*

## What Is Still Missing: Delivery on Time

### The gap between commitment and field reality

**MEP Strack-Zimmermann** asked a crucial question at the **June 22** meeting: were waivers required in air and missile defense? Did the cascade mechanism cause delays? These questions point to a real problem: it is not enough to decide on funding. Capabilities must reach **Ukraine** when they are needed. And on this point, European performance has sometimes been disappointing.

The promises of **munitions** — notably the decision to provide one million artillery shells — were executed with considerable delays. Supply chains showed their limits. Bureaucratic procedures sometimes slowed urgent deliveries. **MEP Toveri** called for pragmatic application of waivers and additional flexibility to respond to **Ukraine**'s evolving needs. This is an imperative that the **Commission** must take seriously — euros are worthless if the equipment does not arrive on time.

### Strengthening delivery capacity: the next frontier

The next step in support for **Ukraine** is not only financial. It is operational and logistical. **Europe** must invest in rapid production capacity, resilient supply chains, and coordination mechanisms between member states to avoid duplications and gaps. It must create strategic stockpiles of munitions and equipment rapidly accessible. And it must simplify the bureaucratic procedures that slow arms transfers between allies.

These improvements are not solely in **Ukraine**'s interest. They reinforce European defense capabilities as a whole. The industry that produces drones for **Ukraine** today will develop the European defense technologies of tomorrow. Increased interoperability between European forces in the support of **Kyiv** will improve the military coherence of **Europe** in its future operations. Once again the same logic: what we invest in Ukrainian resistance, we recover in European collective capabilities.

*Promises without delivery are worse than no promises at all — they create a hope that shatters against reality. Europe must not only commit financially to supporting Ukraine, but ensure that this commitment translates into real capabilities at the right time. That is the ultimate measure of the seriousness of our solidarity.*

## European Unity as a Strategic Variable

### When internal fracture is a victory for Moscow

Every internal European disagreement on support for **Ukraine** — whether Hungarian obstruction, Slovak hesitation, or budgetary debates in the **European Parliament** — is a victory for **Moscow**. Russian strategy rests precisely on the capacity to divide **Europeans**, to exploit national differences, and to amplify dissident voices. Every time a European leader uses the language of "**fatigue**" or doubt, they hand **Putin** the argument he needs to justify his strategy of attrition.

European unity is not a slogan. It is a military strategic variable. A united **Europe** sends **Moscow** the signal that it cannot wait for support to collapse. That it cannot wear down support through duration. That there is no reward for the persistence of aggression. This credibility is essential for deterrence — and it is built through the consistency of messages and actions, not through hesitations and doubts expressed in public.

### The role of European institutions in cohesion

The **European Commission**, the **European Parliament**, and the **EU Council** have broadly maintained remarkable consistency on support for **Ukraine** since **February 2022**. The near-unanimous vote of the **European Parliament** on the **USL** reflects this consensus. The legal and financial structure of the **USL** was designed to resist individual blocking attempts — notably through the use of **Article 122.1**, which allows action without unanimity in certain cases. These institutional safeguards are essential to maintaining consistency of support over time.

But institutions cannot replace national political will. That is why the public discourse on support for **Ukraine** — in every member state, in every political party, in every televised debate — is itself a strategic battlefield. The narratives of "**fatigue**" must be combated by narratives of pride and clear-sightedness. And this communications battle is as important as the delivery of weapons.

*European unity on Ukraine is a remarkable historical achievement. Twenty-seven nations with different histories, interests, and political cultures have maintained for four years a collective support for a democracy attacked by a neighboring empire. Let us not allow this achievement to be destroyed by the merchants of fatigue and the agents of Kremlin disinformation.*

## The Conditionality of Aid: The Debate Europeans Avoid

### Funds without conditions: a repeated historical error

The history of development aid — and emergency aid to conflict zones — is strewn with examples where funds without strict conditionality ended up feeding corruption, poor governance, or even belligerents. **Ukraine** is a different case: it is a democracy under attack by an external aggressor. But even in this context, the question of conditionality deserves to be asked honestly.

The **45 billion euros** of the **Ukraine Facility** come with reform conditions — notably in the areas of **anti-corruption efforts**, **strengthening the rule of law**, and **structural economic reforms**. These conditions are tied to **Ukraine**'s European integration ambitions. This is not paternalism — it is an acknowledgment that sustainable reconstruction requires solid institutions. And that solid institutions cannot be built without external pressure in a context of war.

### Zelensky and the question of governance in wartime

Zelensky has responded to conditionality requirements with remarkable pragmatism. His government has adopted several of the reforms demanded by the **EU** — judicial reform, anti-corruption laws, restructuring of the energy sector — within timelines that would have seemed impossible in peacetime. This reforming capacity in wartime testifies to an **institutional determination** that goes beyond mere political survival.

One must be honest: Ukrainian governance in wartime is not without problems. Questions of **defense procurement**, **political appointments** in regulatory institutions, and **press freedom** have been raised by international observers. These problems do not justify withholding aid — they justify maintaining a robust oversight mechanism to ensure that funds reach their destination.

*Conditionality is not punishment. It is an investment in durability. A Ukraine rebuilt with poorly spent money and corroded institutions would be a fragile Ukraine — one that will be asking for new aid in ten years. True generosity means building solid institutions, not merely disbursing funds.*

## The Marshall Plan Model: Lessons for Ukrainian Reconstruction

### 1947–1952: what the Marshall Plan really accomplished

The **Marshall Plan** — officially the **European Recovery Program** — injected approximately **13 billion dollars** (the equivalent of more than **150 billion today**) into postwar **Europe** between **1948** and **1952**. It did not merely finance reconstruction — it laid the institutional foundations of the European mixed economy, fostered commercial cooperation between formerly enemy states, and anchored the democracies of Western Europe within the American liberal order. It was not simply aid — it was an architecture.

The comparison with **Ukraine** is imperfect but instructive. Like the **Europe** of 1947, the **Ukraine** of 2026 faces **massive infrastructure destruction**, **deep economic instability**, and an urgent need for reintegration within a regional economic framework. Like the **Marshall Plan**, the **Ukraine Facility** aims to anchor the country within a system of economic and political alliances — the **European Union** — that will be its best guarantor of long-term stability.

### What the Marshall Plan did not do — and what the EU must avoid

The **Marshall Plan** had its limits. It excluded **Eastern Europe**, contributing to the polarization of the **Cold War**. It sometimes supported governments that were not exemplary in democratic terms, in the name of anti-Communist stability. It favored American imports at the expense of local industry in certain sectors. These historical errors must not be repeated in Ukrainian reconstruction.

The **EU** has an advantage the **United States** did not have in **1947**: it can offer **Ukraine** not only money, but also full **institutional integration** — single market, common rules, dispute-resolution mechanisms. This integration is the real value of the **Ukraine Facility**. Not the **45 billion** themselves — but membership in a space of rules that these 45 billion condition and reinforce.

*The Marshall Plan transformed Europe because it was both generous and structuring. The aid was real — but it was also an invitation to join a system. The Ukraine Facility can be the same thing: not a handout, not a cold bank loan — but an invitation to Europe, conditioned on building institutions worthy of that honor.*

## Conclusion: Assuming Our Role in History

### What future generations expect of us

In fifty years, our children and grandchildren will read the history of the Russo-Ukrainian war and the European response. They will judge our choices with the hindsight of the final outcome. If **Ukraine** held and **Europe** preserved its security, they will read that their ancestors had the courage of their convictions. If, on the contrary, "**aid fatigue**" prevailed and **Ukraine** was abandoned, they will read that **Europe** preferred short-term political convenience to long-term collective security. This choice is in our hands today.

### The €45 billion as an investment in our own dignity

The **45 billion euros** that **Europe** commits in **2026** for **Ukraine** are an investment in security, in values, in the credibility of the **European Union** as an actor on the international stage — and in our own collective dignity. This funding deserves to be assumed with pride, explained with clarity, and defended with conviction against all those who prefer convenient cowardice to costly but righteous solidarity. **Ukraine** deserves these **45 billion**. And **Europe** deserves to be the continent that gives them without apology.

*This deal — imperfect, fragile, riddled with contradictions — may be the only path forward in a region where the actors cannot afford an endless war. Hope lies less in the text that was signed than in the shared exhaustion of all those who have everything to lose in a new escalation.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [EU Perspectives — Brussels steadfast on Ukraine commitment, MEPs hear — June 23, 2026](https://euperspectives.eu/2026/06/brussels-steadfast-on-ukraine-commitment-meps-hear/)

- [Kyiv Independent — Ukraine's military launches drones towards Moscow — June 26, 2026](https://kyivindependent.com/moscow-june-26/)

- [Euromaidan Press — Russo-Ukrainian war, day 1580: Ukraine's drone fleet strikes — June 22, 2026](https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/06/22/russo-ukrainian-war-day-1580-ukraines-drone-fleet-strikes-back-at-moscow-shutting-airports-for-hours/)

- [19FortyFive — Target Moscow: The Ukraine War Has Come Right to Putin's Doorstep — June 22, 2026](https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/06/target-moscow-the-ukraine-war-has-come-right-to-putins-doorstep/)

### Secondary sources

- [CNBC — Ukraine is raising the cost of war for Russia — June 24, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/24/ukraine-russia-drone-strikes-moscow-escalation.html)

- [ISW — Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 22, 2026 — June 22, 2026](https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-22-2026/)

- [US News — Zelenskyy Says Russia Is Shifting Air Defenses to Moscow — June 25, 2026](https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2026-06-25/zelenskyy-says-russia-is-shifting-air-defenses-to-moscow-and-other-key-sites-after-drone-strikes)

- [Moscow Times — Israel's EL AL Suspends Moscow Flights — June 25, 2026](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/06/25/israels-el-al-suspends-moscow-flights-as-drone-attacks-disrupt-air-traffic-a93095)

-

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-europe-finance-l-ukraine-a-hauteur-de-45-milliards-et-elle-devrait-en-etre-fie