In recent weeks, a wave of uncertainty has swept through Europe as the European Union (EU) appears increasingly divided over its position on Russia, Ukraine, and the broader implications of the war that has reshaped the continent’s geopolitical architecture. From troop deployment hesitations to disputes over seizing Russian assets, the cracks in EU unity are growing more visible—and consequential.
Why Divided?
The European Union has long struggled to maintain a cohesive foreign policy, especially in response to major security threats. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered an initially strong show of unity: sanctions, weapons transfers, and unwavering rhetorical support for Kyiv. But as the war drags into its third year, internal fractures are surfacing.
Some EU countries, such as the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Poland, have taken an assertive stance against Russia. These countries perceive a direct threat from Moscow and are pushing for aggressive support of Ukraine, including potential troop deployments post-conflict.
In contrast, Western European powerhouses like Germany, France, and Italy have adopted a more cautious approach. Their reluctance stems from economic exposure to Russian energy, domestic political pressures, and concerns over escalation. The division is not ideological alone—legal and financial implications also complicate collective action, particularly regarding the use of frozen Russian assets.
This split is further complicated by differing historical experiences with Russia. Eastern European states, once under Soviet influence, harbor deep skepticism of Moscow. Western states, while critical, often favor diplomatic caution and economic stability.
Why Is There Reluctance to Send Troops?
Despite the formation of a “coalition of the willing” among NATO and EU nations, only six countries—including the UK, France, and the Baltic trio—have pledged to send troops to Ukraine after hostilities cease. The rest remain hesitant. According to an AFP report, even among this coalition of roughly 30 nations, questions linger over the mission’s scope, legality, and strategic endgame.
Countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden have raised critical questions:
-
Will the mission be peacekeeping, deterrence, or reassurance?
-
What happens if Russia views the presence of NATO troops as provocation?
These concerns are not theoretical. Moscow has warned that any NATO deployment to Ukraine—under any pretext—would be viewed as an act of war. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian President and a senior official in Russia’s Security Council, bluntly stated that “peacekeepers” from NATO would trigger direct conflict between Russia and the West.
This possibility chills the enthusiasm of several EU nations already struggling with inflation, energy crises, and domestic unrest.
Deploying Troops
While Washington has repeatedly said it has “no plans” to send troops to Ukraine, its strategic influence cannot be dismissed. The U.S. remains NATO’s de facto leader, and its policies often shape the decisions of allies. Britain’s Defense Minister, John Healey, noted that troop plans are “real and substantial,” suggesting a push for a credible post-war security arrangement to ensure Ukraine’s stability—perhaps in alignment with U.S. preferences.
The Netherlands has emphasized the need for U.S. support before making commitments, reinforcing suspicions that American backing (or lack thereof) is shaping European decisions. This has raised concerns that some European countries might be acting less out of strategic conviction and more from alliance pressure.
Yet, it is also possible that the six nations’ troop pledges reflect a genuine desire to deter future aggression and avoid another drawn-out war on the continent. In this reading, U.S. “pressure” may align with mutual strategic interests.
Is It in the EU’s Interest to Be Divided?
The simple answer is no. But the reality is more complex.
Disunity weakens the EU’s negotiating power, both with Russia and within global institutions. A fragmented stance erodes credibility, emboldens Moscow, and could undermine efforts to present a united front in future conflicts. Moreover, public trust in EU governance suffers when internal contradictions go unresolved.
Yet, paradoxically, this disunity also offers individual nations flexibility to protect their national interests. For instance, countries with substantial frozen Russian assets—like Belgium—are wary of losing financial leverage or facing legal consequences. In this sense, division can be a survival mechanism.
Hungary and Slovakia, meanwhile, argue that escalating the conflict by seizing Russian assets could destabilize the region. These dissenting voices play a role in tempering what might otherwise be rash or dangerous policy moves. So while division weakens collective action, it may also serve as a check on geopolitical overreach.
Trade War Effects
Yes—economic warfare and the Ukraine conflict are increasingly intertwined.
The EU, alongside the U.S., has imposed sweeping sanctions and tariffs on Russian goods. But this has not occurred in a vacuum. Broader global trade tensions—especially between China and the U.S.—have created ripple effects that complicate the EU’s strategic choices.
For example, EU inflation rates have been pushed higher due to energy disruptions and supply chain complications. At the same time, Europe faces pressure to decouple from Russian gas while sourcing alternatives from unstable or distant markets. These trade disruptions strain domestic budgets, making expensive military commitments—like troop deployments or further arms transfers—less politically feasible.
Furthermore, debates about using frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine’s war effort reveal the tension between economic pragmatism and geopolitical idealism. While the EU explores mechanisms to channel interest from these assets to Ukraine, major economies like Germany and France fear legal backlash and loss of financial credibility.
A Fractured Front or Flexible Strategy?
It’s too early to say whether the EU is definitively backing down on its stance on Russia. What is clearer is that Europe is recalibrating its strategy in the face of prolonged conflict, economic strain, and shifting political winds.
In the short term, we’re likely to see continued disagreements over troop deployments, asset seizures, and post-war guarantees. Some countries may push for a tougher line, while others prioritize diplomatic solutions or domestic stability.
In the long term, the EU’s success will depend on its ability to strike a delicate balance between unity and sovereignty, security and restraint, justice and prudence. The war in Ukraine may yet be a crucible through which a more coherent European foreign policy emerges—but only if the bloc can navigate its internal divisions and global pressures wisely.
References
-
AFP, “Only Six Nations Have Pledged Troops for Ukraine,” via defense ministers’ meeting coverage in Brussels.
-
ERR (Estonian Public Broadcasting), Interview with EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas, April 2025.
-
CBS News, “Western Nations Divided Over Russian Asset Seizure,” March 2025.
-
Columbia Business School, “Economic Risks of EU Tariff Strategy,” March 2025.
-
The New York Times, “NATO’s Strategic Dilemma in Post-War Ukraine,” April 2025.
-
Kremlin Statements via Tass News Agency, April 2025.
-
Reuters, “EU Leaders Warn of Legal Risks in Confiscating Russian Funds,” April 2025.
-
NATO Official Statements, Brussels Meeting, April 2025.
-
Financial Times, “Belgium’s Risk Exposure in Frozen Russian Assets,” March 2025.
-
Eurostat, “EU Inflation and Energy Imports Report,” Q1 2025.
