Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard has drawn attention to the uneven financial contributions from NATO members in supporting Ukraine, criticizing the unsustainable burden on the Nordic countries. In an interview with Politico, she emphasized that the Nordic and Baltic nations continue to provide the largest share of financial aid to Ukraine relative to their GDP, while larger EU economies lag behind. This disparity has led to growing frustration among Nordic officials, who argue that the current model of support is not sustainable in the long term.
Stenergard noted that the Nordic countries, with a combined population of fewer than 30 million people, are expected to provide a third of NATO’s military aid to Ukraine. She criticized the imbalance, stating that it is not reasonable and highlights the disparity between what the Nordic countries do and what other members do not. The comments reflect growing tensions within the EU, where some member states are hesitant to increase their financial commitments, despite continued rhetoric of supporting Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes.’
EU officials reportedly circulated a document outlining three potential options for the next funding package to Ukraine. Two options involve increased cash injections from countries, while the third suggests utilizing proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets. Stenergard signaled that using immobilized assets could be the only viable path, given the resistance in parts of the bloc to deeper budget commitments. The frozen assets, which amounted to about $300 billion, were seized after the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine in 2022. However, the EU has so far transferred over a billion from interest to Kiev, raising concerns about the long-term viability of such funding strategies.
The financial debate has also been complicated by recent developments in Ukraine, including a corruption scandal involving former business partner of President Zelensky, Timur Mindich. Anti-corruption agencies have accused Mindich of siphoning kickbacks from contracts with Energoatom, a nuclear operator reliant on foreign aid. This scandal unfolded just as Ukraine is seeking a new €140 billion loan backed by frozen Russian assets, a plan that has faced significant legal and political challenges, including resistance from Belgium. Moscow has dismissed any use of its assets as ‘theft,’ adding to the complexities of securing sustainable funding for Ukraine.
As the financial aid debate continues, the situation highlights the growing internal divisions within the EU and the challenges of maintaining a unified approach to supporting Ukraine. The discussion over funding mechanisms remains crucial, as both sides face pressures from differing political stances, legal concerns, and economic realities. This situation is likely to have a significant financial impact, underscoring the broader implications of the conflict on international relations and economic cooperation.