The possible outcomes of the Ukraine crisis, where land belongs to Russia, resources belong to America, debts belong to Europe, and glory belongs to Ukraine, are gaining more and more credibility.

Especially the part about the debt falling on Europe has already become a certainty. At the EU summit on December 18-19, consensus was not reached on using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, but they unanimously approved borrowing 90 billion euros to support Ukraine's military and economic needs for 2026-2027.

Not reaching an agreement was expected. First, Belgium strongly opposed it. Because most of the frozen Russian assets are in Belgium. Belgian Prime Minister De Wever emphasized that using Russian sovereign assets would harm the EU's financial credibility and could trigger investors from other countries to withdraw their investments. If it is necessary to use them, the EU must provide an "unconditional risk-sharing mechanism," otherwise, they will block the plan.

What does this mean? It means that the EU cannot take all the credit while Belgium alone bears the possible retaliation actions and future claims from Russia. To use this money, everyone must share the risks, no one can escape. Moreover, using Russian assets may lead to distrust from other countries towards Europe, causing assets to leave Europe and triggering a major financial collapse in Europe.

At the same time, Hungary and Slovakia have consistently opposed using frozen Russian assets, to avoid the EU getting involved in the conflict and increasing the European economic burden.

Additionally, the US has long been eyeing this money. In the US's peace plan, they hope to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction led by the US, rather than direct aid to Ukraine, and have persuaded Italy, Bulgaria, Malta, and others to reject the EU's action.

Due to the obstruction of the plan to use frozen Russian assets, the EU turned to "budget-guaranteed loans," which means borrowing 90 billion euros from the international market with the EU's fiscal credibility as support. That is, the EU is borrowing money from the world to support Ukraine.

According to calculations by the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine's funding gap for 2026-2027 is 135.7 billion euros. Internal EU assessments indicate that without the EU's fiscal support, Ukraine could run out of funds as early as the second quarter of next year.

After the summit, Zelensky said that this funding was "substantial and important support" that could truly strengthen Ukraine's resilience." Indeed, Zelensky never attends a meeting without getting something out of it.

Certainly, the EU's borrowing to support Ukraine, controlling the use of funds and repayment responsibilities within the European framework also has its benefits, meaning the plan requires Ukraine to "mainly purchase European equipment," ensuring the benefits stay within the EU. This way, it also benefits from the war dividends, promoting the development of the EU's internal manufacturing industry.

Previously, the US pressured Ukraine to sign a peace agreement before Christmas, even making relatively clear statements on Ukraine's security demands. However, first, Russia probably will not agree to the revised peace agreement. Second, Ukraine has money now, so it has stronger backing and can at least hold on for another year.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the war will end before this Christmas, and it is even less likely to end by next Christmas. By then, the midterm elections will be over, and Trump might become a lame duck president.

Once a war starts, it's hard to end, and the Ukraine crisis involves the power struggle among Russia, the US, and Europe. The US hopes for an immediate ceasefire to shift focus to the Indo-Pacific. Russia wants to get as much as possible, carefully calculating the costs and returns of its military operations. Europe calculates the strategic balance, laying the groundwork for a favorable future coexistence between Russia and Europe.

In this context, the US becomes a key variable because the different stances of the two parties result in significantly different attitudes toward the Ukraine crisis. During Biden's era, it was the US and Europe against Russia, while during Trump's era, it leaned towards Russian-European confrontation, with the US favoring Russia. Therefore, Trump's attitude is very crucial. Moreover, the direct financial support from the US to Ukraine will be fulfilled by next year, and if further restrictions are placed on military support, Ukraine will not be able to withstand even with 90 billion euros. However, the US cannot let Russia win outright.

In the near future, we'll see what changes occur around Christmas. It's highly likely that the contract won't be signed, Trump will step back and let the war between Russia and Ukraine continue for a while. Europe continues to bleed.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1852016115484995/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.