Is Europe the biggest loser in the Russia-Ukraine War?

The United States and Russia held crucial talks in Saudi Arabia on February 18 —without representatives from either Europe or Ukraine—agreeing to set up high-level teams to work on ending the Russia-Ukraine war. This exclusion has deepened European anxieties about being sidelined in shaping Ukraine’s future.

A meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin is also expected in the coming days. Trump, known for his transactional approach to alliances, has pushed ahead with negotiations without involving Washington’s European allies, straining trans-Atlantic relations.

In response, EU lawmakers urged Europe to "double down" on strengthening its defences and supporting Ukraine. At the same time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insisted that any negotiations to end the war must be "fair" and include European countries.

The recent developments raise an uncomfortable question: Is Europe the biggest loser in this prolonged conflict?

Jeffrey Sachs, an American political analyst and professor at Columbia University, has long emphasised that Europe and Ukraine have lost the most in this war.

“There are no winners in this war. Everybody is losing. Ukraine is the biggest loser, of course, because this is devastating for the country. Europe is the next biggest loser because the economic and social consequences are enormous,” he says.

According to Sachs, Europe has been an economic casualty of a war largely dictated by Washington. “The energy crisis, deindustrialisation, and inflation in Europe are all consequences of the decisions made by Washington, not Brussels."

Gas prices have risen in recent weeks climbing to a two-year high, driven by colder temperatures and dwindling storage levels.

Samantha de Bendern, associate fellow at Chatham House, echoes the sentiment, pointing out that the same occurred in Riyadh. “Decisions about Ukraine’s future and European security were made elsewhere, without the EU at the table. This sends a troubling message,” she tells TRT World, highlighting Europe's growing concerns.

The perils of commitment

Since Russia launched its military offensive against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the EU has positioned itself as Ukraine’s foremost supporter. Member states have sent tens of billions of euros in military, financial, and humanitarian aid, imposed extensive sanctions on Russia, and chose to drastically reduce Russian energy supplies.

As of January 2025, around 6.3 million Ukrainian refugees are living in EU member countries.

These moves, intended to weaken Russia and support Ukraine, have instead deeply harmed Europe’s own economic stability, analysts say.

One of the most significant blows came from the disruption of energy ties with Russia. Before the war, Russia was Europe’s primary supplier of natural gas, with countries like Germany heavily dependent on Russian pipelines.

Despite the EU's strict sanctions and efforts to cut dependence on Moscow, Russian gas exports—both direct and indirect—continued until last year. With Ukraine refusing to renew a key pipeline contract, supplies have now halted, deepening Europe's energy crisis.

Skyrocketing electricity and heating costs sent inflation soaring, causing widespread economic pain for industries and households alike.

The bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines—which Germany accuses a team of Ukrainian divers of carrying out—further exacerbated Europe’s energy woes, forcing the continent to seek expensive alternatives.

Meanwhile, Europe's generous military and financial aid to Ukraine has drained national budgets, stretching resources at a time when European economies are already struggling with inflation, debt, and slow growth.

Furthermore, the influx of Ukrainian refugees—combined with pre-existing migration challenges—has placed immense pressure on European social systems and fueled political tensions within EU member states.

Some analysts argue that Europe could have avoided its current predicament had it prioritised its own interests over aligning with the US in the Biden administration’s “proxy war” against Russia in Ukraine.

However, de Bendern asserts that the EU had little choice once Russia launched its military offensive. “When the war began, Europe found itself backed into a corner, with limited options beyond supporting Ukraine,” she says.

Geopolitical marginalisation

Three years since the conflict began, it has become increasingly clear that, despite its vast political, military, and economic support for Ukraine, Europe has borne the heaviest burden of this prolonged war.

US President Donald Trump’s push for the latest talks between US and Russian officials in Riyadh marked a pivotal shift in diplomatic efforts. However, what has alarmed European leaders the most is their exclusion from these critical discussions.

This diplomatic snub was made evident at the recent Munich Security Conference and the emergency meeting in Paris, where European leaders gathered to discuss Ukraine’s future. Yet, despite their concerns, their voices remain secondary to Trump’s unilateral push for a deal.

The US President’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, bluntly stated that including too many parties would only complicate the process, further underscoring Washington’s disregard for its European allies.

Some analysts, however, suggest that Europe can’t be ignored in the long run. "I don’t believe the EU can be entirely excluded from negotiations on Ukraine,” Istanbul-based foreign policy and security analyst Elnur Ismayil tells TRT World.

He notes that even after the Riyadh meeting, Washington attempted to allay concerns by stating that European nations would have a seat at the negotiating table "at some point."

Military shortfalls

Yet, such reassurances have done little to convince European leaders, who are acutely aware that their security and economic stability hang in the balance and remain deeply sceptical of any arrangement that sidelines them in decisions shaping the continent’s future.

For years, European leaders have debated decreasing their reliance on an unpredictable United States. On Monday, at an urgently convened meeting in Paris, their concerns shifted to uneasy acceptance of a new reality—one in which Europe’s strongest ally is increasingly behaving like a rival, say analysts.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasised that any resolution must involve Ukraine and Europe.

"Europe can no longer fully rely on the United States to defend our shared values and interests, including continued support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said a statement from the European People's Party, Socialists and Democrats, Renew and Greens.

"We must face this new reality and double down on our joint European effort in defence of Ukraine and European security as a whole by establishing a credible and strong deterrence against any aggression."

Samantha de Bendern of Chatham House argues that Europe’s struggles to replace US military aid to Ukraine expose profound political and industrial weaknesses that leave the continent vulnerable.

"Since the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, the question on everyone's mind is whether Europe, including the UK, can replace the military assistance the US is giving Ukraine. The short answer is no. The reasons for this are a mix of politics and capabilities.”

While the EU and the US have been contributing roughly equal amounts of military aid to Ukraine—each around 43 percent—European nations would need to double their contributions to offset a potential American withdrawal.

However, de Bendern highlights that "the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, means Europe will not be able to step up in the short term. This is bad for Ukraine and bad news for Europe."

The fundamental issue, she explains, lies in Europe’s decades-long neglect of its military-industrial base. "After the end of the Cold War, most European countries reduced their military production and/or shifted their military industrial models, focusing on export markets and just-in-time production."

Even Germany, now Ukraine’s largest European donor, would need decades to replenish its stockpiles to Cold War-era levels despite ramping up military spending.

Unpredictable ally

Another major setback for Europe has been the internal divisions that have surfaced within both the EU and NATO. While countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and the Nordics have pushed for a more aggressive stance against Russia, other nations—particularly Germany and France—have been more cautious, favouring a diplomatic resolution.

Even before Trump’s victory, a US disengagement from Europe appeared likely due to growing strains within its defence sector and the military’s strategic pivot toward Asia and the Middle East—a shift that had been on the horizon since the Obama administration in 2013, notes de Bendern.

Europe had long anticipated the implications of Trump’s arrival, particularly for Ukraine, yet the continent remains divided in its approach. “This lack of unity has weakened Europe’s ability to act decisively,” she says.

De Bendern emphasises that while NATO remains the backbone of European security, the Russia-Ukraine war has only deepened divisions within the alliance, raising questions about whether Europe can ever develop a coherent and independent defence strategy.

“NATO certainly seems to be weakened, I would say, maybe even suffering from an autoimmune disease,” de Bendern says. “The link that appears to be weakening NATO is coming from within—its strongest ally, the most powerful military country in the alliance, which is the United States,” she explains, alluding to US Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich security conference, which was seen by some as an “attack on Europe.”

However, Ismayil offers a more optimistic perspective for the EU. “The growing tensions with the US could present an opportunity for the EU to step up and solidify its role as a genuine political and military union,” he suggests.

“As the US focuses more on unilateral actions and sidelines European allies, the EU has a unique chance to assert its strategic autonomy and take the lead in shaping both the resolution of the Ukraine conflict and the broader security architecture of Europe,” he explains.

“This shift could help the EU not only enhance its global influence but also create a more unified and resilient defence framework capable of addressing future challenges.”