Germany is demanding that all 27 EU member states contribute fairly towards Ukraine’s financing requirements, rejecting arrangements under which certain governments have previously secured exemptions from jointly funded assistance.
The immediate concern is Ukraine’s projected €70 billion financing shortfall for 2027. Brussels is expected to cover approximately €45 billion, but agreement on the mechanism has yet to be reached.
According to reports on Merz’s letter to European Council President António Costa, the German Chancellor regards a sustainable financial arrangement for Ukraine as a prerequisite for concluding negotiations on the EU’s 2028–2034 budget.
His intervention brings together two difficult questions: how Europe should finance Ukraine while Russia continues its war, and how the Union should allocate resources among its growing responsibilities.
The disagreement concerns not simply the amount of assistance but the principle of shared responsibility.
Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic previously secured exemptions from participation in a €90 billion EU support loan for Ukraine. Bulgaria has also indicated reluctance to assume additional commitments.
Merz’s position would make further exemptions more difficult to negotiate, particularly where governments seek substantial EU funding for their own national priorities.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has accused the German Chancellor of blackmail, arguing that linking Ukraine’s financing to the wider European budget would undermine legitimate negotiations between sovereign member states.
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has also questioned the strategy, warning that obstructing the EU budget could ultimately jeopardise funding intended for Ukraine itself.
The dispute illustrates how political disagreements over Russia’s war increasingly affect the functioning of European institutions.
The European Commission’s proposed financial framework for 2028–2034 amounts to almost €2 trillion.
It is designed to finance agriculture, regional development, research, industrial competitiveness, defence, migration and external partnerships.
The proposed settlement must reconcile traditional beneficiaries of EU spending with governments demanding more investment in emerging security and technological priorities.
That challenge was already evident in the disagreement over the EU’s 2027 annual budget, where competing expenditure priorities exposed the growing pressure on European finances.
Merz is now adding Ukraine’s longer-term requirements to an already complex negotiation.
The distinction between annual spending and the multiannual financial framework is important. An agreement on the 2027 budget would not resolve the political question of who pays for Ukraine after existing assistance expires.
Nor would it determine how the EU should finance debt-servicing obligations associated with previous borrowing.
For Ukraine, uncertainty over European assistance has consequences beyond government accounting.
The Ukrainian state must finance public administration, essential services, infrastructure repair and other civilian expenditure while directing substantial domestic resources towards defence.
Prolonged uncertainty over external assistance complicates financial planning and could increase pressure on Ukraine’s currency, borrowing requirements and economic stability.
For the EU, the problem is equally strategic.
European governments have repeatedly argued that…
