The intensifying debate over Europe’s commitment to Ukraine has raised fundamental questions about the continent’s security architecture as American support wanes. Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian defense forces are struggling to maintain frontlines. At the same time, European leaders face an unprecedented strategic dilemma: how far to go in filling the void left by Washington’s wavering resolve.
In April, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi stated that his forces “face critical shortages in artillery shells and air defense systems,” underscoring the deteriorating situation on the ground. Russian forces now control approximately 22% of Ukrainian territory, up from 18% in 2023, as incremental advances in the east strain Kyiv’s increasingly limited resources.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has called the use of frozen Russian assets—amounting to some €260 billion—a “moral and strategic imperative” for Ukraine’s survival. Her stance reflects a growing recognition among European capitals that the continent faces an existential choice regarding its security future, particularly as the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House could reshape NATO dynamics.
“This is Europe’s moment of truth,” former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin declared in a recent Foreign Affairs essay. “The question is no longer whether Europe can afford to support Ukraine—it’s whether it can afford not to.”
The debate has split European nations along familiar lines. Eastern members, such as Poland, have dramatically increased defense spending to 4.1% of GDP, while Germany’s rise to 2.5% marks a historic shift in Berlin’s security posture. These increases reflect a continent-wide trend, with EU nations averaging 2.3% of GDP on defense in 2025, a significant rise from 1.5% in 2021.
The so-called Russian energy weapon has largely failed to materialize. According to the Bruegel Institute, the EU will reduce Russian gas imports from 40% to just 8% by 2025, pivoting to LNG terminals and accelerating the deployment of renewable energy. This energy independence has strengthened Europe’s hand, though military capability gaps remain acute.
A report published earlier this year by RAND Corporation warns that “Ukraine’s defense lines could collapse by late 2025 without Western artillery. ” The report highlights a critical artillery shell shortage that has hampered Ukrainian counter-offensives and allowed Russian forces to consolidate territorial gains.
Public opinion remains a crucial factor. Recent polling by Rating Group shows that 72% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, while Eurobarometer data indicates that 58% of Europeans support the seizure of Russian assets to aid Ukraine. These figures suggest a resilient determination on both sides, but questions persist about how long this resolve will endure.
Four scenarios are emerging for the conflict’s trajectory. The most likely outcome—estimated at a 40% probability—envisions a prolonged stalemate with sustained Western aid and continued Russian losses. A more disturbing possibility, at 30%, features a dictated peace driven by U.S. withdrawal and European fragmentation, resulting in significant territorial losses for Ukraine.
More optimistic projections include a Ukrainian resurgence, with a 20% chance fueled by European military support and Russian internal instability, or a dangerous regional escalation, at 10%, involving Russian attacks on Moldova or direct NATO territory—potentially triggering Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause that considers an attack on one member an attack on all, leading to a global energy shock.
Dr. Veronica Anghel of the European University Institute observes, “Every time European leaders seem ready to step back from Ukraine, they confront the reality that their security architecture depends on Russian containment. This recognition repeatedly drives them toward greater, if reluctant, commitment.”
The conflict’s consequences extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. For Europe, it represents the most serious test of its collective security vision since World War II. The continent’s response will determine Ukraine’s fate, Europe’s credibility as a geopolitical actor, and its future relationship with the United States and Russia.
Looking ahead, policy experts recommend a comprehensive approach: establishing a €100 billion European fund for Ukrainian defense capabilities, transferring frozen Russian reserves to a dedicated reconstruction bank, beginning formal EU membership talks by 2026, and creating a specialized task force to counter Russian hybrid warfare.
The coming months will prove decisive. As one Ukrainian official noted on condition of anonymity, “Winter was difficult, but autumn 2025 will determine whether Ukraine survives as a sovereign state.” For Europe, the stakes are equally existential, revealing whether the continent can function as a unified security actor in America’s absence.
This analysis of Three Years Later: What’s Next for Europe and Ukraine draws insights from Clara Beaumont, a European security correspondent from The Congress Post (CP) Vienna Bureau who closely tracks Eastern European battlefield developments and geopolitical risks, and Oksana Shevchenko, a Kyiv-based correspondent for The Congress Post (CP) Ukraine Bureau who monitors battlefield developments and diplomatic initiatives. Their reporting provides a multifaceted view of the evolving security crisis at Europe’s eastern frontier.