Europe Needs Ukraine to Fight Russia With Reduced US Help: Think Tank
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Russia is looking to take its aggression beyond Ukraine, and reduced U.S. support will force European countries to work together to confront this threat, a Kyiv think tank said.
A report released Wednesday by the KSE Institute, an analytical center at the Kyiv School of Economics, outlined how Russia's long-range, strategic, and hypersonic weapons program showed Moscow's intentions beyond its full-scale invasion.
As the Trump administration previously said that the United States should no longer be Europe's primary security guarantor, Europe requires substantial and sustained defense investments to address the threat posed by Russia, the KSE said.
"Russia is preparing capabilities that are clearly not tied to war in Ukraine, including naval forces for a possible confrontation in the Arctic," report co-author Pavlo Shkurenko told Newsweek.
Why It Matters
The two-day NATO summit started on Tuesday, and on the agenda was the alliance's support for Ukraine in the face of Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression.
However, looming over the summit is U.S. President Donald Trump's insistence that members commit to spending at least 5 percent of their GDP on defense, with the president casting doubt on Washington's security commitment to countries that do not meet this level.
The KSE report states that tackling Russia's threat requires not only larger defense budgets but also spending wisely on low-cost and scalable technologies, as well as integrating Ukraine's technical and military capabilities into those of Europe.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks at a press conference in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks at a press conference in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025.What To Know
In 2018, Putin touted long-range, strategic, and hypersonic weapons, such as the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, the Avangard glide vehicle, the Zirkon cruise missile, and the Poseidon nuclear torpedo, as examples of Russia's growing military prowess.
But these weapons have little tactical relevance to the war in Ukraine and instead challenge Western deterrence and defense in the future when the U.S. no longer wants to be Europe's main security guarantor, the KSE report said.
Despite economic turbulence in Russia caused by sanctions, Putin continues to drive ever-increasing military expenditure, which is expected to reach 13.5 trillion rubles ($145 billion) in 2025, nearly a third (32 percent) of total budget expenditure.
"That much spending in the military sector is creating circumstances for them to then threaten Europe and beyond, " Shkurenko told Newsweek.
"We have to understand it's very unlikely that Russia will be interested in any kind of peace as of this moment."
Ukraine's experience since the start of the full-scale invasion can be a strategic asset for Europe, offering a blueprint for rapid innovation and defense technologies in a war being fought as much through data and artificial intelligence as it is through munitions, the KSE said.
A Ukrainian soldier prepares to launch a reconnaissance drone on March 10, 2025, near Pokrovsk, Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier prepares to launch a reconnaissance drone on March 10, 2025, near Pokrovsk, Ukraine.Ukraine's Drones
Russia's regular barrage of Shahed and reconnaissance drones renders traditional surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) an inefficient defense, the report said, but technology, including interceptor drones—a domain in which Ukraine has expertise—can offer a more cost-effective solution when used in conjunction with air defense.
Low-cost attack drones can destroy high-value assets, and as such, Europe can build deterrence against Russia in an agile and cost-effective way, it added.
Addressing the NATO conference on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine can produce over 8 million drones of various types annually, but currently lacks the necessary financial backing.
Zelensky called for allies to scale up investments in joint weapons production, including drone technologies, artillery, and interceptors and said that Ukraine's defense capabilities are essential to protecting NATO in the long term.
The KSE report said Ukraine should be incorporated into European defense and granted partner or observer status in European security committees.
Europe also should have "a balanced system of military production," KSE report co-author Olena Bilousova told Newsweek, as the continent can benefit from Ukraine's expertise in, for example, drones, while other countries play to their strengths in air defense or missiles.
"We should consider specializations in our common production," she added.
What People Are Saying
Pavlo Shkurenko, compliance and international sanctions adviser, KSE Institute: "Despite Russia experiencing economic problems, a lot of resources poured into its military industry. That much spending in the military sector is creating circumstances for them to threaten Europe and beyond."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the NATO summit on Tuesday: "We must lead in the drone race, both in strike drones and interceptors...All the weapons we produce become part of a new, stronger European defense and security system."
What Happens Next
The KSE report's conclusion aligns with Zelensky's message that the cost of supporting Ukraine's defense is minimal compared to what Europe would face if Ukraine were to fall.
Zelensky also called on Tuesday for NATO members to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and for 0.25 percent of GDP to support Ukraine's military needs directly, as he warned Russia is planning new operations on alliance territory.
The second day of the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday will likely see wrangling over whether members can agree on the hefty new defense spending target, as well as whether Trump will attend.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
43 minutes ago
- Axios
The tariff clock is ticking with just two weeks left
When the Trump administration paused sweeping tariffs in early April, it promised 90 trade deals in 90 days that would fundamentally reshape the global economic order. Why it matters: With two weeks to go, there's one deal, one shaky detente and maximum uncertainty about the rest. Driving the news: The "Liberation Day" tariff pause ends on July 8. President Trump threatened that 50% tariffs on European goods would come a day later, assuming no deal, as well as the restart of substantial tariffs against dozens of other countries. The big picture: Financial markets aren't as panicky now as they were three months ago. The "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO) trade has shown that. Stocks are up about 20% since the pause went in place, shrugging off the trade war, actual war in the Middle East, and lingering doubts about the place of the U.S. economy in the world. But even if markets aren't nervous, and even if consumers are now more upbeat than they were in the spring, businesses are getting more anxious than ever about what comes next. Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok, in a new paper this week, predicts tariffs mean a 25% chance of recession in the next 12 months, and even if that doesn't happen, they'll still mean higher-for-longer interest rates. Catch up quick: The U.S. has a deal in hand with the U.K. and a truce of sorts through part of August with China. Nothing else is done, and it remains unclear how close anything else is. On May 16, Trump said the administration would start unilaterally setting tariff rates in two or three weeks. That never happened. On June 11, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it was " highly likely" deadlines would slide for countries that were negotiating in good faith. Hours later Trump said extensions weren't necessary. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Tuesday that "a sequence" of trade deals was coming around the July 4, though he didn't say how many or with whom. "The time horizons set on the current negotiations are unrealistic, to say the least," economists at Morgan Stanley wrote on Monday. "Which is why we expect framework agreements at best and at worst, delayed deadlines." Where it stands: Trump last Friday said the U.S. was going to sign a trade deal with India, but administration officials have been saying the same thing consistently for two months now, virtually from the outset of the tariff pause, with no sign of an actual agreement. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported over the weekend that European Union officials see U.S. trade demands as so "far-fetched" that it's not clear any deal can be made. At the same time, Canada last week threatened new countermeasures, Japanese officials are wary and Mexico remains resolutely mum. What they're saying: " Trade and fiscal policies are unknowns and that is one of the biggest factors hanging over U.S. stocks now," Michael Landsberg, the chief investment officer, Landsberg Bennett Private Wealth Management in Florida, wrote on Monday. "We have not heard much progress being made lately with China on the tariff issue and that pause is set to expire in just a few weeks. We think investors need to brace for additional volatility within the next few weeks," he added. What to watch: It's entirely possible a raft of deals is imminent, given the active negotiations with so many countries. The July 8 deadline could also come and go with no action. There's precedent from past tariff deadlines on Mexico and Canada. For the record: " Negotiations with our trading partners are ongoing, and meaningful progress continues to be made towards more deals," a senior administration official told Axios, noting a "flood of countries" that have approached the U.S. with "good faith offers" on trade.
an hour ago
Beijing, a longtime friend of Tehran, turns to cautious diplomacy in Iran's war with Israel
When Israel attacked Iran nearly two weeks ago, the Chinese government, a longtime friend of Iran, jumped into action — at least, when it came to words. It condemned the attacks. Its leader, Xi Jinping, got on the phone with the Russian leader and urged a ceasefire. Its foreign minister spoke with his counterpart in Iran. But that's where China stopped. The usual rhetoric was delivered. De-escalation and dialogue were trumpeted. Yet China offered no material support. Despite Beijing's clout as a near-peer rival to the United States and its ambition to play a bigger role on the world stage, Beijing refrained from offering military support to Iran, let alone getting directly involved in the conflict. The decision underscored the limitations it faces in the Middle East. 'Beijing lacks both the diplomatic capabilities and the risk appetite to quickly intervene in, and to think it can successfully navigate, this fast-moving and volatile situation," said Jude Blanchette, director of the China Research Center at RAND. Given the tangled politics of the Middle East, where China holds substantial economic and energy stakes yet wields minimal military influence, Beijing 'isn't inclined to stick its neck out,' Blanchette added. Instead, the Chinese government opts to remain 'a measured, risk‑averse actor.' Zhu Feng, dean of the School of International Relations at Nanjing University in eastern China, said volatility in the Middle East is not in China's interests. 'From China's point of view, the Israel-Iran conflicts challenge and impact China's business interests and economic security,' Zhu said. 'This is something China absolutely does not want to see." After the Iranian parliament floated a plan to shut down the strategically located Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, China spoke against it. 'China calls on the international community to step up efforts to de-escalate conflicts and prevent regional turmoil from having a greater impact on global economic development,' said Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry. On Tuesday, following the ceasefire announcement, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post: 'China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran,' suggesting the ceasefire would prevent the disruption of Iranian oil production. A 2024 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration contained estimates suggesting that roughly 80% to 90% of the oil exported by Iran went to China. The Chinese economy could struggle to preserve its industrial production without the roughly 1.2 million barrels of oil and other fossil fuels provided by Iran. Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, summed up Beijing's responses as 'steady oil buys and ritual calls for 'dialogue'.' 'That's about it," Singleton said. 'No drones or missile parts, no emergency credit line. Just words calibrated to placate Tehran without rattling Riyadh or inviting U.S. sanctions.' Beijing's muted responses also expose the gap between China's great-power rhetoric and its real reach in the region. Said Singleton: 'China's Gulf footprint is commercial, not combat-ready. When missiles fly, its much-touted strategic partnership with Iran shrinks to statements. Beijing wants discounted Iranian oil and a 'peace-broker' headline, while letting Washington shoulder the hard-power risks.' Since the onset of the war, Beijing — which brokered a diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023 — stood by Iran's side and urged talks. At the United Nations, China, a permanent member of the Security Council, teamed up with Russia and Pakistan in putting forward a draft resolution condemning 'in the strongest terms' the attacks against peaceful nuclear sites and facilities in Iran. They called for 'an immediate and unconditional ceasefire" even though the United States, another permanent member on the council, is almost certain to veto the proposal. Shortly after Israel attacked Iran, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, and told him that 'China explicitly condemned Israel's violation of Iran's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.' Wang, using common diplomatic language, said China was 'ready to maintain communication with Iran and other relevant parties to continue playing a constructive role in de-escalating the situation." Wang later spoke with foreign ministers of Oman and Egypt; both nations are key mediators in the region. And late last week, before the U.S. got involved militarily, Xi spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin; the two agreed to stay in closer contact over Iran and work toward de-escalation. But China stayed away from any direct involvement, and Russia also had muted responses to the Israel-Iran conflict. Iran is an important link in Xi's ambitious global project Belt and Road Initiative, and in 2023 joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security group by Russia and China to counter the U.S.-led NATO. It has conducted joint exercises with China, including this year's 'Maritime Security Belt 2025' in the Gulf of Oman, in which Russia also took part. On Wednesday, Beijing will convene a meeting of defense ministers of SCO member nations. As important as Iran is to China, it is only part of Beijing's calculus, according to an analysis by the Soufan Center, a New York-based organization that focuses on global security challenges. In an intel brief, the center said the conflict has revealed that Beijing's support for its partners, especially those in confrontation with the United States, 'is limited by a complex matrix of interests, including its desire to avoid alienating major economic partners and escalating tensions with the West."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Did Donald Trump's Bombing of Iran Fail? What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has hit back at reports that the strikes he ordered on Iranian nuclear sites were not as effective as he had claimed as questions grow over the success of the attacks. Trump had said that the U.S. strikes had destroyed Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb—the stated aim by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he launched Operation Rising Lion on June 13. But CNN reported it had seen an assessment by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that key parts of the nuclear program, including centrifuges, could be restarted. President Donald Trump arrives at Huis ten Bosch Palace during the NATO Summit 2025 in The Hague, the Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. President Donald Trump arrives at Huis ten Bosch Palace during the NATO Summit 2025 in The Hague, the Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. PatrickYossi Alpher, a former official with Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, told Newsweek Wednesday Netanyahu "can dodge the controversy" over disputes about the damaged Iranian sites and that "everyone is used to Trump's hyperbole." Meanwhile Trump and the White House have rejected the CNN report and Newsweek has contacted the White House for further comment. Why It Matters Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian sites at Natanz, Isfahan and the underground facility at Fordow. The president said Saturday's attacks had "completely and totally obliterated" the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. But the sentiment from analysts and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, who helped oversee the operation, was more measured. CNN's report and Trump's rejection of it add to uncertainty about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities. What To Know The CNN report said early DIA intelligence showed the U.S. strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program and probably only delayed it. Analysis of the damage is ongoing but this assessment is at odds with statements by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that the program had been "obliterated." Unnamed sources told CNN that centrifuges were mostly intact and enriched uranium vital for making bombs had been shifted from the sites before the strikes, meaning that the operation set Iran's program back "a few months tops." CNN said it was too early for a complete understanding of the effect of the strikes and as yet, it is not clear if the report chimes with other intelligence agencies' assessments. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) said in a statement to Newsweek that the U.S. strikes "may temporarily set back Iran's nuclear program" but long-term would be likely to push Tehran to view nuclear weapons as necessary for deterrence. He also said military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's nuclear knowledge and would strengthen its resolve to reconstitute sensitive nuclear activities, possibly withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and then proceeding to weaponization. Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, told Newsweek that it was hard to see how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear sites although U.S. and Israeli strikes were likely to have set back the Iranian program. However, Iran still has hundreds of scientists who can reconstitute the program, Israeli assassinations aside, she said. U.S. intelligence before the strikes had suggested that Iran was far from having a weaponized nuclear capability and was not racing for a bomb, although whether that calculation changes afterward is hard to say, added Kavanagh. President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance, left, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, second, right, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, right, from the White House in Washington, D.C., on June... President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance, left, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, second, right, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, right, from the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 21, 2025. MoreThe Response From Trump and the White House The White House has acknowledged the existence of the assessment released by CNN but disagreed with it. Trump posted on the Truth Social platform: "THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!" and in a follow up post lambasted "fake news CNN." The president also told reporters that "the press is very disrespectful to those great geniuses and patriots that flew those planes." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that reports questioning the effectiveness of the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were an attempt "to demean" Trump, and discredit the mission's pilots. Israel's assessment of the strikes also found less damage on Fordow than expected, according to CNN, which reported that Israeli officials believe the combination of U.S. and Israeli military action set back the Iranian nuclear program by two years. What People Are Saying White House statement: "The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program." President Donald Trump: "FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY. "THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!" Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow & director of military analysis, Defense Priorities: "From the point of the Iranian regime, it would be reasonable to think that having a usable nuclear capability is the only safeguard for their security after twice having the rug being pulled out from under them on negotiations." Yossi Alpher, Israeli analyst and ex-Mossad official to Newsweek: "So far the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) takes a cautious position and Bibi [Netanyahu] can dodge the controversy. Besides, everyone is used to Trump's hyperbole." What Happens Next As of Wednesday morning, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that Trump has boasted about brokering was holding as the assessments into the effectiveness of his strikes on Iran continue. Meanwhile, Kimball said it is too soon to say how much damage the combined Israeli and U.S. strikes have caused to Iran's nuclear program and the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to Iran was necessary.
