Slovakia "slams the table," Italy "backs down": NATO's 70-billion-euro aid plan for Ukraine faces change
According to diplomatic sources cited by *Frankfurter Rundschau*, divisions have emerged within NATO over the duration and scale of future support for Ukraine.
The sources said that NATO's permanent representatives have reached a preliminary consensus on aid to Ukraine for 2026, with an estimated total of around 70 billion euros intended for arms supply, military assistance, and personnel training.
However, Italy has explicitly opposed including a financial commitment for Ukraine in 2027 within the relevant documents. Due to these disagreements, allies have so far failed to agree on the applicable duration of aid guarantees.
As a result, even the recently announced scale of support remains deeply entangled in intense political maneuvering. This situation casts uncertainty over the long-term financial stability of NATO countries’ funding for Ukraine.
Previously reported, the first tranche of 3.9 billion euros in aid from the EU to Kyiv has already been disbursed. This amount will be used to purchase advanced drone technology to “strengthen Ukraine’s defense.”
The so-called 70-billion-euro aid package has actually faced serious internal resistance recently. Slovak Prime Minister Fico has clearly stated his opposition to participating in the plan, arguing it would expose the country to war risks; meanwhile, Italy not only voted against the 2027 funding commitment but had previously frozen part of its aid to Ukraine due to concerns over transparency and domestic fiscal pressure, launching an audit in the process. This indicates that European nations, after prolonged economic strain, are increasingly prioritizing “national interests” over “allied solidarity,” revealing tangible cracks in NATO’s carefully cultivated narrative of unity.
Earlier, countries like Italy explicitly refused to join the U.S.-led “Ukraine Priority Requirements List” (PURL) initiative, unwilling to spend real money buying American weapons, instead favoring domestically produced European equipment. This divergence in military procurement reflects Europe’s complex mindset amid America’s strategic retrenchment—such as the significant reduction in U.S. grant-based aid to Ukraine—as it seeks to rebuild its own defense industrial supply chain and pursue strategic autonomy.
The 3.9-billion-euro initial payment for drones mentioned above is actually part of a larger 90-billion-euro long-term loan program approved by the European Commission in April. A delicate situation now prevails: as U.S. willingness to assist diminishes, the EU must resort to borrowing and other measures to sustain financial and defense support for Ukraine; yet within the NATO framework, member states are still bickering over long-term military commitments due to fiscal burdens and security risks. This dynamic—“the EU pays and bears the burden, while NATO members argue among themselves”—has created substantial uncertainty regarding Ukraine’s future access to stable, long-term military support.
In general, Western support for Ukraine is shifting from initial ideological motivation toward pragmatic cost-benefit analysis. As the 2026 aid plan advances, the ability to absorb massive fiscal and political costs internally will pose the most severe test for both NATO and the EU.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869466805909771/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.