OPEN LETTER: To Those Still Hesitating — Europe Must Keep Its €90 Billion Promise

Gdańsk, June 25, 2026

I am writing to you from a moment that will be remembered. On June 25, 2026, in the city of Gdańsk — where Solidarność began dismantling an empire, where European history first bent toward freedom — the European Union paid out the first disbursement of its €90 billion loan to Ukraine. €3.2 billion in direct budgetary support. Not a promise. Not a commitment awaiting ratification. A real wire transfer, made in a city that understands viscerally what it means to resist an imperial power.

I am writing to you — heads of state and government, finance ministers, parliamentarians who are still hesitating, still temporizing, still searching regulations and procedures for a reason to slow down what must move fast. I am writing because behind those €90 billion, behind the €3.2 billion already paid, behind the €5.9 billion for drones still held back for lack of finalized oversight mechanisms — there are lives, cities, an entire country defending your civilization with its blood.

What the numbers actually represent

The total loan program breaks down as follows, according to United24 Media: €30 billion in macro-financial assistance and €60 billion for defence — over 2026 and 2027. In parallel, Zelensky signed Law No. 4908-IX, increasing Ukrainian defence spending by 1.56 trillion hryvnias, bringing total security and defence expenditure to 4.4 trillion hryvnias in 2026 — an absolute record — of which 2.3 trillion is dedicated to weapons procurement.

Ukraine is not asking you for charity. It is doing its part — a disproportionate part relative to its resources. It is asking you to honour your commitment. The €90 billion is not a gift — it is an investment in collective European security, in the preservation of an international order founded on the rule of law. To refuse or delay this commitment is to choose desolation over promise.

There is something moving and symbolically fitting about this first payment having been made in Gdańsk. In Lech Wałęsa's city, the city where Solidarność showed that an empire can be challenged by workers armed with courage. Europe is writing its own history of resistance — or refusing to. That choice belongs to each of you.

The administrative blockage as a political act

I must address the €5.9 billion initially earmarked for drones and temporarily withdrawn, according to UA.News of June 24, "for lack of finalized oversight mechanisms." I understand the administrative logic. I understand that managing €90 billion in European public funds requires rigorous oversight mechanisms — and that these mechanisms protect European taxpayers against potential misappropriation. I understand all of that.

But I want you to understand what this delay means from the other side. While you finalize your oversight mechanisms, Russia launches daily waves of Shahed drones at Ukrainian cities. Drones that Ukraine could neutralize with its own — if it had them. An unfinished oversight mechanism against a Ukrainian life ended: what is the acceptable price of administrative perfection?

Bureaucracy as Putin's unwitting weapon

I am not accusing you of bad faith. But the objective result of an administrative blockage, when lives depend on speed of action, is indistinguishable from complaisance. Putin doesn't need double agents in your ministries — he only needs your procedures to take longer than the timelines Ukraine can absorb.

Oversight mechanisms matter. Finalize them. But finalize them in weeks, not months. The urgency of the situation demands that administrative timelines be treated with the same intensity as military ones. That means dedicated teams, daily meetings, real-time decisions. The €5.9 billion for drones must be unblocked without further delay.

I choose my words carefully: European bureaucracy is not Ukraine's enemy. But it can be its unwitting tomb, if procedures are allowed to dictate the pace of an existential emergency. There comes a point where administrative rigour must yield to moral imperative. We are there.

What your signature binds you to

You signed. You committed. The €90 billion became an official promise from the European Union to Ukraine. This promise has a moral dimension that transcends budget calculations. When Europe commits, the whole world watches. When Europe keeps its commitments, it affirms that liberal democracies are capable of acting up to their declared values. When it prevaricates, it gives ammunition to all who present the West as a collection of hollow speeches.

The Ukraine Reconstruction Conference in Gdańsk was not just a diplomatic event — it was a public demonstration of European resolve. The first disbursement of €3.2 billion was the concrete signal that resolve is holding. The following disbursements must arrive with the same punctuality, the same determination, the same clarity.

Reconstruction as an act of faith in victory

There is something profoundly symbolic about planning the reconstruction of a country that is still at war. Some may reproach you for this premature gesture. I say the opposite: planning Ukraine's reconstruction while it fights is an act of faith in its ultimate victory. It says to Moscow, to Beijing, to Tehran: we are not betting on your success. We are betting on Ukrainian resilience.

This symbolic dimension is inseparable from the practical one. A country that knows European billions are waiting for its reconstruction fights with a different conviction. A people that sees reconstruction conferences organized in Gdańsk understands that Europe believes in its future. The financial investment is also a psychological investment — and in this conflict, morale is a strategic variable.

I sometimes struggle to imagine what Ukrainians feel when they watch their cities burn while learning that reconstruction conferences are being organized in Poland. It is both painful and full of hope. I choose to see the hope — because that is what Ukrainians themselves choose, every day, despite everything.

Ukraine is not an argument in your internal debate

I must address those among you who use the Ukrainian question as leverage in your domestic political struggles. Those who condition their support for votes on Ukraine to concessions on immigration, agricultural policy, or relations with Washington. Those who brandish taxpayer fatigue as an alibi for failing to honour commitments solemnly made.

Ukraine is not an argument in your debate on the limits of European integration. It is not a testing ground for your vision of European governance. It is a sovereign country whose citizens are dying right now to defend the same right to self-determination that your constitutions proclaim. The death of the Sumy family — a 13-year-old boy, his father, his grandmother — should not be a data point in your electoral calculus.

The veto as betrayal

The extension of economic sanctions against Russia for a full year for the first time, according to UA.News of June 24, is a positive signal. But the threat of a veto by certain member states on the next sanctions packages remains real. Anyone who threatens to block sanctions against Russia objectively sides with Putin, whatever their domestic political justifications.

This is not an ideological accusation — it is a logical consequence. Economic sanctions are part of the pressure constraining the Russian war economy. Weakening that pressure prolongs Moscow's capacity to finance waves of ballistic missiles and glide bombs against Ukrainian cities. Domestic politics has its rights. It does not have rights over Ukrainian lives.

I find it difficult to stay calm when I read that some European government is considering blocking Russian sanctions in exchange for concessions on something else. Instrumentalizing Ukrainian death for domestic electoral purposes is a form of political baseness I refuse to treat with euphemisms.

What €90 billion actually represents

I hear you. €90 billion is a considerable sum in a context of budgetary pressures, contained but persistent inflation, and pressure on public services. I do not minimize the legitimate concern of European taxpayers facing commitments of this scale. But allow me to contextualize this figure.

The European Union's GDP exceeds €15 trillion annually. The €90 billion over two years represents approximately 0.3% of annual European GDP. That is the price of insurance — insurance guaranteeing that Putin's war does not stop at the Ukrainian border before continuing toward the Baltic States, Poland, Romania. Collective security has a cost. That cost is infinitely lower than that of a direct European defensive war.

The return on the security investment

Economists have calculated the cost of a direct war on European soil. Trade disruptions, infrastructure destruction, population displacement, emergency military spending — the figures are staggering, several orders of magnitude above the €90 billion promised to Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine now is the best security investment Europe can make.

Add to that the fact that the loan to Ukraine — unlike outright aid — will be repaid, at least partially, by a rebuilt and economically dynamic Ukraine that will be destined to join the European Union. A reconstructed Ukraine will be a market of tens of millions of educated consumers, a skilled workforce, a continental agricultural breadbasket. This loan is not expenditure — it is a down payment on Europe's future.

I am not an economist. But it seems obvious to me that €90 billion to maintain peace in Europe is incomparably cheaper than what a direct European war would cost — humanly, financially, civilizationally. The calculation is not difficult. It just requires doing it honestly.

What you represent to us

Mr. President, I do not know you personally. I do not pretend to advise you on the conduct of your war. But I want to tell you, on behalf of those who have been following this conflict from the West with admiration and anguish: you are a symbol of something that was missing from our democracies. This courage to stay. This moral clarity in the horror. This capacity to embody your people.

Your decision to sign Law No. 4908-IX — to increase defence spending by 1.56 trillion hryvnias in a country already bearing an impossible burden — says everything about your commitment. Ukraine dedicates an absolute record of 4.4 trillion hryvnias to its security in 2026. No one can accuse you of not doing your part.

What the international community owes you

What the international community owes you is to honour its promises with the same punctuality and determination you show in defending your country. The €3.2 billion paid at Gdańsk is a beginning — but a beginning only. The remaining €86.8 billion must arrive according to the announced schedules, without additional delays, without new conditionalities invented along the way.

You showed at the Gdańsk Conference, and before that at the G7 in France, that you understand international diplomacy as well as military strategy. Continuing to remind the world what is at stake — as you did by showing the images of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra in flames directly to Trump — may be just as important as holding the front lines. This war is won as much in the meeting rooms of chancelleries as at Konstantynivka.

I linger on that image: Zelensky showing the flames of the Lavra to Trump. A wartime head of state carrying the images of the destruction of his millennial heritage to convince the American president. There is in that gesture a humility and a determination that says more about Zelensky's character than any official speech.

The "necessary evil" that can do good

Mr. President Trump, your declaration of June 24 that Zelensky is "doing pretty well" against Russia was greeted with relief in Ukrainian-speaking chancelleries. That is little — and at the same time it reveals how much your ambiguous Ukraine policy has caused anxiety since your return to the White House.

I will not put you on trial politically — that is neither my role nor the purpose of this letter. But I will say this: the pressure you exert on European allies to increase their defence spending is producing concrete results. NATO countries meeting the 2% of GDP in military spending — your pressure has partly driven them there. That is useful. Keep it up.

What Ukraine expects from Washington

But Ukraine expects from Washington more than a summit declaration. It expects the consistency of a foreign policy that clearly affirms that the United States will not let Putin win his imperial gamble. Your mention of oil as a pressure lever — "I'll be able to increase pressure on Russia because oil is flowing now" — is either a promise or an admission. If it is a promise, keep it. If it is an admission that you have other priorities, say so clearly.

Unpredictability can be a negotiating tactic. It is also a strategic uncertainty that Moscow exploits. A clear, consistent American policy toward Ukraine would, in itself, be a strategic weapon. European allies plan long-term. Ukraine too. That long term needs reliable American anchors.

I am not American, and I do not claim to fully understand American domestic politics in all its complexity. But I know that Washington's allies need certainty. And that Ukraine, in particular, cannot afford to navigate blind on the support of its most powerful partner.

The mechanics of the €30 billion macro-financial assistance

The €30 billion in macro-financial assistance provided for in the programme must support the Ukrainian state budget — paying the salaries of civil servants, teachers, doctors, firefighters; maintaining public services in a country at war; stabilizing the hryvnia against inflationary pressures. This is an essential component, often less visible than weapons deliveries, but just as critical.

A Ukrainian state that cannot pay its civil servants is a state that collapses institutionally — and institutional collapse would be more devastating for Ukraine in the long term than territorial losses. Preserving Ukraine's administrative capacity is a strategic priority on par with weapons systems. The €30 billion in macro-financial support is no less important than the €60 billion for defence.

The €60 billion for defence: a new approach

The €60 billion for defence represents something new in the history of the European Union: massive direct funding for the defence of a third country. This is an institutional Rubicon — the EU now explicitly assumes a security role, not just a humanitarian or economic aid role.

This paradigm shift deserves to be celebrated — and protected. Political forces within the EU seek to limit this evolution, to frame it as a drift from the European mandate. They are wrong. A Europe that cannot defend its democratic values through concrete support for those who defend them in its place is not a credible Europe. The €60 billion for defence is the investment most consistent with the Union's founding values.

The EU directly funding Ukraine's defence — this is a historic change in the very nature of the European project. Some see it as a threat to Europe's civic identity. I see it as its most mature expression: a Europe that finally assumes responsibility for defending through deeds what it proclaims through texts.

The extension of sanctions: a signal that matters

The extension of economic sanctions against Russia for a full year — for the first time in the history of this mechanism, according to UA.News of June 24 — is a significant decision. It sends a signal of duration and determination that Moscow had learned to anticipate on six-month cycles. Year-long sanctions are harder to circumvent, more damaging to Russian economic planning, and more credible as a strategic pressure tool.

But this decision almost failed to pass. The threat of a veto from a pro-Russian leader in Southern Europe loomed until the last moment. This fragility is itself a problem: the EU's adversaries know that a single veto suffices, and they exploit this vulnerability repeatedly. The unanimity rule for sanctions must be reformed. This is not a question of European constitutional doctrine — it is a question of life and death for countries that depend on European solidarity.

What Bloomberg confirms from Gdańsk

Bloomberg, in its June 25 article titled "Europe Lauds Ukraine's Newfound Strength as Aid Payouts Begin," notes the change in tone of European capitals toward Ukraine: from the defensive compassion of the early years to something that more closely resembles respect and recognition of Ukrainian strength. This is an important shift in perspective. Ukraine is no longer just a victim to be supported — it is a strategic partner to be accompanied toward victory.

This shift in perspective must translate into concrete policies. Supporting a strong strategic partner means providing it with the means of its strength — not just the means to survive. That means offensive weapons systems, budgetary aid without delay, effective but rapid oversight mechanisms, and a long-term European strategy that integrates the prospect of Ukraine as an EU member.

This shift in perspective noted by Bloomberg — from compassion to respect — strikes me as fundamental. You do not treat a victim and a strong partner the same way. Ukraine deserved this change long ago. It has finally arrived. I hope it will translate into policies commensurate with the moment.

Ukraine as an investment landscape

I address you too — private investors, investment banks, reconstruction funds that look at Ukraine with interest but caution. The Gdańsk Conference was not just a political event — it was also an invitation to private investment in Ukrainian reconstruction. And that investment will be crucial.

Public aid — however important — will not be enough to rebuild Ukraine. Reconstruction needs are estimated at several hundred billion euros over the coming decades. Private investment — in infrastructure, energy, industry, agriculture, technology — will be indispensable. Ukraine has all the assets to be an attractive investment landscape: an educated workforce, considerable natural resources, a strategic geographic position, a resilient and entrepreneurial population.

Political risk as a decreasing variable

I understand private investors' reluctance in the face of war risk. But allow me to offer a different perspective: every euro invested in Ukraine today is also an investment in the end of the war. Because every billion committed to reconstruction sends a signal to Moscow that the West will not abandon Ukraine, that Russian destruction will be repaired, and that Putin's gamble on exhausting Western resistance is a failure.

The political risk in Ukraine will diminish over time — if the West maintains its support. The potential return of a reconstructed Ukraine is considerable. Private investors' hesitation is understandable. It is also temporary, as long as public political will remains firm.

I am not an economist, and I would not want to oversimplify a calculation that is complex. But it seems to me that investors who wait for the end of the war to invest in Ukraine will miss the greatest European reconstruction opportunity since 1945. The risks are real. The opportunities are just as real.

Fatigue is human — capitulation is not

You are tired. I understand. Four and a half years of war — since that night of February 24, 2022, which no one will forget — of daily tallies, images of destruction, casualty figures. Fatigue is a normal human response to prolonged exposure to horror. It does not make you complicit in Putin's agenda — it makes you human.

But allow me to ask you something. The next time you read an article about the €90 billion for Ukraine, about the €3.2 billion already paid at Gdańsk, about the administrative delays on the €5.9 billion for drones — try not to see abstract numbers. Try to see what they represent: the difference between a Ukrainian drone that intercepts a Shahed before it hits a residential building, or not.

History remembers those who acted

The history of European resistance to the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s remembered the names of those who acted, who resisted, who refused moral capitulation. It also remembered the names — or the shameful anonymity — of those who looked away, who preferred peace with the devil to difficult resistance. We are in one of those moments when history is taking notes.

The EU's €90 billion for Ukraine is your chance to be on the right side of those historical notes. Not as a compelled taxpayer, but as a citizen who understands what is at stake. Ukraine is defending, with its blood, the values we have inscribed in our constitutions since 1945. The least we can do is honour the financial promise we made at Gdańsk.

War fatigue — I feel it too. But fatigue is not a policy. Fatigue is not a response to aggression. Fatigue, if allowed to dictate political decisions, becomes capitulation dressed up as pragmatism. I refuse that disguise. And I hope you do too.

Keeping the promise

My request, at the end of this letter, is simple. It does not call for heroism, extraordinary sacrifice, or political revolution. It simply asks you to keep the promise made at Gdańsk on June 25, 2026. Pay the €90 billion according to the announced schedule. Unblock the €5.9 billion for drones as soon as the oversight mechanisms are finalized — and finalize them quickly. Maintain the sanctions against Russia for a sufficient duration. Deliver the promised weapons on the announced timelines.

This is not an idealistic demand. It is a demand for consistency between words and actions. Between the rhetoric of summits and the reality of budgets. Between speeches about "European values" and bank transfers. Ukraine is not asking Europe to die for it. It is asking Europe to keep its promises.

What Gdańsk must remain in history

In a few years, when this war is over — it will be, one way or another — people will remember this June 25, 2026 in Gdańsk. Either as the moment Europe kept its promise, inaugurating a new era of democratic solidarity and collective security. Or as yet another moment where impressive figures masked promises partially kept, accumulated delays, a resolve that withered under domestic political pressures.

The choice belongs to each of you — leaders, parliamentarians, budget officials, citizens. History is being written. Gdańsk can be your Solidarność moment — the moment you refused capitulation and chose resistance. Or it may be just another conference on a long list. The difference between those two futures is yours to make.

I wrote this letter with everything I have. I am not certain it will change anything in the budget deliberations of European capitals. But I believe in the power of words to name what is at stake — and naming is already refusing oblivion. Ukraine deserves that we refuse oblivion.

Administrative complexity is not a sufficient argument

I understand the complexity of managing €90 billion in European public funds in a wartime context, with different accounting systems, varying audit procedures, and legal requirements that differ between member states. I understand that European Commission officials are doing their best in an institutional framework not designed for emergencies of this nature.

But I also want you to understand something: administrative complexity, when it becomes an obstacle to humanitarian and strategic urgency, ceases to be an acceptable argument. It becomes a political decision disguised as a technical constraint. And political decisions have authors — who can be questioned, challenged, forced to explain the delays they generate.

Concrete proposals for well-meaning technocrats

For those among you who are genuinely seeking to accelerate the unblocking of the €5.9 billion for drones — here is what I would suggest: create a team dedicated solely to finalizing these oversight mechanisms, with a mandate and a non-negotiable political deadline. Obtain a ministerial commitment in each member state on the finalization schedule. And produce a weekly public report on progress — so that transparency also serves as pressure toward acceleration.

These suggestions may seem simplistic to those who know the reality of European institutional processes. I stand by them nonetheless. Because deliberate simplification of a complex problem is sometimes what is needed to break out of institutional paralysis. A clear mandate, a firm deadline, total transparency — that is the recipe for transforming a hesitant bureaucracy into an execution machine.

I do not envy the work of Commission technocrats who must navigate between contradictory requirements under extreme political pressure. But I also have no obligation to spare them criticism when the result of their delays is drones that don't fly while civilians die. Complexity does not justify the inexcusable.

The real calculation: €90 billion against an endless conflict

There is a fundamental framing error in the European debate on the €90 billion loan to Ukraine. Some voices present this amount as a financial abyss, irresponsible spending in a context of austerity. Yet economists specializing in armed conflicts recall that the cost of a Russian victory for Europe would be incomparably heavier: reconstruction of collective defences, collapse of NATO's credibility, migratory pressure, destabilization of energy markets.

The first disbursement of €3.2 billion at Gdańsk represents less than 4% of the total committed. Every euro spent today is a euro of deterrence paid in advance. Future generations who would inherit a continent reshaped by Russian force would not forgive us for hesitating before a figure on a budget screen.

Transparency as a condition of popular support

What makes this loan legitimate is precisely its structure of accountability and traceability. The funds are conditional, disbursed in tranches, tied to verifiable reforms. The Ukrainian law providing 1,560 billion hryvnias for defence spending in 2026 reflects a national commitment, not passive dependence on external aid. Ukraine is not asking for charity. It is asking to borrow to defend itself.

European public opinion deserves to be correctly informed about these mechanisms. Not to swallow a bitter pill, but to understand that this loan is an investment in collective security, structured with the safeguards the EU applies to any major financial instrument. Transparency is not a political luxury — it is the minimum condition of democratic consent to aid of this scale.

There is something strange about having to justify aid to a country fighting for its survival before taxpayers who live in peace thanks to decades of collective deterrence. The real luxury is not the €90 billion — it is the security we take for granted.

What we see in that mirror

The Ukraine Reconstruction Conference in Gdańsk was a mirror. It showed us what Europe can do when it lives up to its values: disbursing €3.2 billion in direct support, gathering dozens of heads of state and government, sending a signal of duration with year-long sanctions. That is real. That matters. That deserves to be acknowledged.

But the mirror also shows imperfections: the €5.9 billion blocked, the administrative mechanisms that are slow, the political ambiguities that persist. The mirror is honest. And it is precisely because it is honest that it can push us to do better. To rise to the occasion not only of what we have already accomplished, but of what the situation still demands.

The promise must be kept

At its core, this letter comes down to one sentence. No rhetoric, no figures of speech, no diplomatic circumlocutions. Here it is: you promised Ukraine €90 billion. Keep that promise. In full. On schedule. Without new conditions. Because while you deliberate, Ukrainians are dying for the values you have tattooed on your constitutions and carved into your war memorials. Their resistance deserves your rigour in execution. And nothing less.

Gdańsk can be a turning point. Seize it.

Gdańsk, June 25, 2026. A letter sent in the hope that it will be read with the same urgency that dictated it. The €90 billion promise deserves better than bureaucratic delays. Ukraine deserves better. And we deserve to mean what we say.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

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.