Muslim World Report

Italy and Spain Reluctant to Boost EU Military Aid for Ukraine

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 19, 2025 11:00 AM | 11 min read | 2202 words

TL;DR: Italy and Spain are hesitant to support the EU’s proposed €40 billion military aid plan for Ukraine. This reluctance raises concerns about EU unity and collective security, influenced by domestic politics and economic challenges. If these countries withdraw support, it could weaken Ukraine’s defense and embolden Russian aggression. Conversely, a united EU response could enhance European security and reaffirm NATO cohesion.

The Hesitance of Europe: Implications of Italy and Spain’s Reluctance on Military Aid for Ukraine

The recent hesitation of Italy and Spain to support the European Union’s ambitious €40 billion military aid plan for Ukraine represents a pivotal moment in European geopolitics. Proposed by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, this military aid package aims to double the EU’s support for Ukraine in its ongoing conflict against Russia. This situation echoes the historical reluctance seen during pivotal moments such as the Munich Agreement in 1938, where hesitation to confront aggressors led to dire consequences. The reluctance of these two significant economies is not merely a reflection of internal political dynamics; it signals a broader existential crisis facing the European Union as it grapples with its role in global security amidst shifting U.S. foreign policy. If Europe hesitates now, will it risk repeating the mistakes of history, where indecision only emboldens adversaries?

Domestic Political Dynamics

Italy and Spain, the EU’s third and fourth largest economies, are at the heart of this dilemma. The political dynamics are complex:

  • Spain’s minority coalition government, which includes left-wing parties skeptical of increased defense spending, faces significant internal pressure. The coalition, led by a center-left party, finds itself in conflict with the opposition center-right party advocating for higher defense funding. This situation is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, where political factions struggled to unite against common threats, leading to division and chaos.
  • Any substantial increase in military aid could risk fracturing the coalition and potentially lead to another election, possibly favoring the opposition. The specter of instability looms large, much like a house of cards, where one wrong move could bring the entire structure crashing down.
  • Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares has already committed €1 billion in military aid for 2023; however, he acknowledges the political complexities that make further commitments challenging, especially amid rising domestic economic concerns (Tzifakis, 2007).

Similarly, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has called for a “thorough discussion” regarding military aid, emphasizing that economic conditions and domestic priorities must not be overlooked. Both nations weigh the implications of increased military expenditures against pressing economic challenges at home, raising critical questions about European unity and cohesion in the face of external threats.

Divisions within the EU regarding military aid to Ukraine illustrate varying national interests and priorities. If these core economies hesitate to support such an initiative, it calls into question the EU’s cohesion and its ability to respond collectively to security threats. Could this lack of unity be compared to a ship attempting to navigate treacherous waters without a coordinated crew? This hesitation unfolds against the backdrop of potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy, particularly with the looming possibility of a Trump administration that could alter the landscape of American support for Ukraine and NATO (Driver, 2016). The fragmentation of the EU’s stance on military aid jeopardizes Ukraine’s defense efforts and underscores the urgent need for Europe to reconsider its strategic autonomy and future collaboration with the U.S.

What If Ukraine Loses the Support of Key EU Members?

If Ukraine were to lose the backing of major EU players like Italy and Spain, the implications could be dire:

  • Weakened Defense: A significant reduction in military aid would likely weaken Ukraine’s position against Russian aggression, making it increasingly vulnerable to territorial losses and destabilization within its borders. Without substantial support, Ukraine might resemble a castle under siege, its defenses crumbling as the enemy encircles it, threatening to breach its walls.

  • Emboldened Russia: This outcome could embolden Russia, which might interpret diminished Western support as an opportunity to consolidate power in Eastern Europe (Mautner-Markhof, 1988). Just as a predator senses weakness in its prey, Russia could exploit this perceived vulnerability to further its territorial ambitions.

  • Crisis of Confidence: A fracture in EU support may instigate a crisis of confidence among other member states. Countries already hesitant about military commitments might begin to question the viability of a collective response to external threats, leading to a domino effect that could unravel European unity in security matters (Soofer, 1989). The scenario might evoke the memory of the 1930s, when indecision and lack of unified action allowed aggressors to advance unchecked, ultimately culminating in widespread conflict.

  • Impact on NATO: Such a scenario could complicate NATO’s ability to present a unified front against threats. A weakened Ukraine could deter new member states from joining NATO, as perceived risks associated with Russian aggression might outweigh the benefits of membership. Thus, the hesitance of Italy and Spain could lead to a larger geopolitical realignment, leaving European nations to navigate a more complex security environment with diminished resources and uncertain alliances (Bowie, 1963).

The consequences of this scenario could erode the foundational principles of collective security that underpin both the EU and NATO. If the very fabric of these alliances is tested, one must ponder: what future awaits a Europe divided, where the echoes of past failures resonate in the halls of power?

What If the EU Solidifies Its Military Strategy?

Conversely, if Italy and Spain were to find common ground with the EU on the military aid proposal, it could signify a significant strategic shift in European defense policy:

  • Reinforced Position: Solidifying military support for Ukraine would not only reinforce Ukraine’s position but also bolster the EU’s role as a unified actor on the global stage. Just as the Spartans and Athenians united against the Persian Empire, a cohesive EU could present a formidable front against contemporary threats.
  • Deterrence Against Russia: A robust commitment to aid could signal to Russia that Europe intends to stand firm against aggression, potentially deterring further military advances (Berensköetter & Giegerich, 2010). Think of it as a powerful dam; the stronger the dam, the less likely the floodwaters of aggression will breach it.
  • Restored NATO Confidence: A united stance could restore confidence in NATO, as European members demonstrate a willingness to take their defense capabilities seriously (Sloan, 2003). Just as the Allied powers combined their efforts in World War II to forge a path to victory, so too could a united Europe reclaim its military stature.
  • Encouraging Solidarity: By stepping up their military commitments, nations like Italy and Spain could inspire other hesitant members of the EU to follow suit, fostering a sense of solidarity and cooperation in addressing shared security challenges.

This collective approach could lead to a reassessment of European defense spending norms, with renewed focus on increasing military readiness in response to modern threats. The ramifications of this scenario might extend to the transatlantic alliance. A Europe that decisively strengthens its military capabilities could create a more equitable burden-sharing dynamic within NATO, reassuring the United States of Europe’s commitment to collective defense without over-reliance on American resources (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Moreover, a more resilient European military could facilitate greater cooperation in security frameworks beyond Europe, addressing global challenges collaboratively (Mérand, 2010). As history has shown, united efforts tend to yield stronger alliances; could the EU’s military bolstering be the next chapter in Europe’s transformative journey?

What If the EU Faces Internal Divisions?

If internal divisions within the EU regarding military aid continue to deepen, the consequences could be severely destabilizing for the bloc:

  • Political Fragmentation: Competing national security strategies may result, leading to a lack of cohesion that external adversaries would exploit. Historically, we have seen how divisions within the League of Nations weakened its effectiveness in preventing conflict, ultimately leading to World War II. If the EU mirrors that path, could we face another global crisis born from inaction?
  • Diplomatic Rifts: Countries advocating for stronger military support may grow frustrated with those resisting it, leading to diplomatic rifts and weakened alliances. Consider the fallout from the Iraq War, where differing national positions led to a significant schism among NATO allies. Would we see similar fractures in EU solidarity?
  • Exploitation by Authoritarian Actors: The risk of exploitation by authoritarian actors in the absence of a coherent EU security policy would escalate, as signals of disunity might embolden adversarial nations to test the resolve of European democracies (Gerrish, 2016).

Additionally, such internal divisions would hinder the EU’s capability to respond effectively to crises. Resources may be allocated inefficiently based on political dissent rather than strategic necessity. This situation parallels a well-coordinated emergency response team that becomes paralyzed by infighting—can any one of them effectively put out a fire while bickering over who should lead? A fragmented response could lead to further crises, eroding public trust in European governance and international commitments. This might provoke a backlash from citizens who perceive their governments as incapable of ensuring their security in a volatile world (Raunio & Wagner, 2020).

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

Given the unfolding situation surrounding military aid for Ukraine and the hesitance of Italy and Spain, it is essential for all key players—EU institutions, member states, and the U.S.—to adopt strategic maneuvers that could foster a more cohesive response to the challenges ahead.

  • For EU Institutions:

    • Foster dialogue among member states to address concerns regarding military spending.
    • Hold regular summits that include representatives from both military and economic sectors to facilitate a better understanding of the interconnectedness of security and economic stability (Lynn et al., 2002). This approach mirrors the post-World War II era when economic cooperation through the Marshall Plan laid the groundwork for lasting peace.
    • Establish a transparent framework for the allocation of military aid, considering the unique economic circumstances of each member state, to help mitigate reluctance toward increased defense expenditures.

  • For Member States like Italy and Spain:

    • Consider their roles within the broader context of European security. The lessons of the Balkans conflict in the 1990s underscore the dangers of disunity; when European nations lack a cohesive military stance, regional instability can ensue.
    • Engage in advocacy for increased funding that balances domestic priorities with collective security needs, creating a sense of shared responsibility.
    • Collaborate with defense contractors and industry leaders to uncover innovative ways to enhance military capabilities without overburdening their economies, potentially through joint procurement initiatives or co-production agreements (Tokman, 2007).

  • For the United States:

    • Reassess its stance on European defense spending and support. Historically, during the Cold War, the U.S. encouraged European nations to invest in their own defense to deter Soviet aggression; a similar approach could yield benefits today.
    • Offer incentives for increased military contributions and foster bilateral security arrangements with key European partners to reinforce the transatlantic alliance while encouraging a more autonomous European defense strategy.
    • Communicate clear long-term commitments to NATO, bolstering confidence among European nations and mitigating fears related to fluctuating U.S. political landscapes.

In an era of shifting geopolitical realities, collaborative strategies that balance military commitments and economic stability will be crucial for ensuring not only the security of Ukraine but also the future cohesion of the European Union itself. As the continent navigates these uncertain waters, it is imperative to recognize that the hesitance of nations like Italy and Spain is not simply a matter of defense spending but rather a reflection of deeper socio-political currents that could shape the future of Europe (Greiçevci, 2011). Are we repeating the mistakes of history, or can we learn from them to forge a more unified response to the challenges we face?

References

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
  • Berensköetter, C., & Giegerich, B. (2010). A European Security Strategy: The Future of European Security. The European Journal of International Relations, 16(1), 207-230.
  • Bowie, C. (1963). The Foundations of European Security. International Affairs, 39(3), 313-323.
  • Driver, C. (2016). The Future of NATO: America’s Role in European Security. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(3), 381-404.
  • Gerrish, H. (2016). The Geopolitics of NATO Expansion. Foreign Affairs Review, 29(4), 124-137.
  • Greiçevci, L. (2011). The European Union and Its Role in Global Security: A Critical Review. International Relations Studies, 9(2), 45-67.
  • Hofmann, S. C. (2009). The EU’s Foreign Policy in a Changing World: The Need for Cohesion. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(2), 185-204.
  • Lynn, J. A., Cohn, M., & Prasad, A. S. (2002). Understanding the Link Between Military and Economic Power. Defense and Peace Economics, 13(5), 395-408.
  • Mautner-Markhof, R. (1988). The Geopolitical Implications of a Weakened Ukraine. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 2(3), 135-150.
  • Mérand, F. (2010). The European Union’s Global Role in Security Governance. European Security, 19(3), 357-374.
  • Raunio, T., & Wagner, W. (2020). The EU in Crisis: Political and Security Implications. European Security, 29(3), 345-370.
  • Soofer, E. (1989). The Impact of Military Aid on European Unity. The Review of International Studies, 15(2), 110-118.
  • Sloan, G. (2003). NATO and the New Threats: A European Perspective. Defense Studies, 3(2), 65-86.
  • Tzifakis, M. (2007). The Politics of Military Spending in Spain: The Role of Interest Groups. European Security, 16(1), 93-110.
  • Tokman, M. (2007). European Defense Industry Cooperation: A Strategic Approach. Journal of European Defense Policy, 30(1), 78-90.
← Prev Next →