Brussels is seeking a broader international burden-sharing agreement as doubts grow over whether its €90 billion loan will cover Kyiv’s needs through 2027.
The European Union is preparing to press Canada and the United Kingdom to increase their financial support for Ukraine, reflecting a growing concern in Brussels that Europe’s existing commitments may not be sufficient to sustain Kyiv’s defence and public finances through 2027.
The diplomatic push comes ahead of the EU-Canada summit on 29–30 October and the EU-UK summit on 20 November.
A €90 billion commitment under pressure
At the centre of the EU’s strategy is the €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan for 2026 and 2027. Adopted by Parliament in February and implemented in April, the package allocates €60 billion towards defence capabilities and €30 billion for macro-financial assistance and government budget support. Furthermore, by 18 September, the European Commission had disbursed almost €15 billion under the package, including funding for drones, missiles, air defence systems and fighter aircraft.
However, European Parliament official reports state that Ukrainian authorities estimate a financing gap of approximately €23 billion for 2026 alone. The International Monetary Fund has also estimated Ukraine’s cumulative financing needs at around $140.3 billion for 2026–2029.
These figures expose a structural weakness in the current approach: agreeing a substantial funding package does not guarantee that the money will match Ukraine’s evolving military and economic requirements.
The distinction between commitments and actual disbursements is therefore crucial. Kyiv needs predictable financing to pay public-sector salaries, maintain essential services and secure military equipment whose delivery schedules extend into 2027.
Delays or shortfalls could force difficult choices between immediate defence priorities and the functioning of the state.
Canada and Britain become more important
The EU’s search for additional contributors reflects a broader redistribution of responsibility among Ukraine’s international supporters. European assistance increased significantly as US support declined, with Team Europe becoming the largest overall donor in 2025, according to the European Parliament’s research service.
Canada and Britain are particularly important because they combine established military and financial commitments with close security relationships with European governments.
Canada has committed substantial military, financial and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. Its participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defence financing programme and the potential member by association status also creates opportunities to expand industrial cooperation.
For the United Kingdom, the relationship is more complicated.
Although outside the EU, the UK remains a major European security partner and was formally approved to participate in the Ukraine Support Loan framework in July. Its defence companies can consequently access procurement opportunities under the programme.
This creates potential political leverage for Brussels, but not an automatic financial bargain. Linking closer economic relations explicitly to additional Ukraine funding could undermine the spirit of cooperation both sides are seeking to restore.
The more realistic objective is to establish a shared understanding that European security requires sustained contributions from a wider group of partners.
The Russian assets dilemma
Additional contributions from Canada and Britain would help, but they would not resolve the EU’s internal debate over how to finance Ukraine beyond existing commitments.
One alternative is to make greater use of approximately €210 billion in immobilised Russian sovereign assets held within the EU. In late August, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland urged the Commission to examine this option more closely, reviving proposals for a reparations loan.
Belgium, where much of the money is held, has warned of significant legal and financial risks and called for guarantees that potential liabilities would be shared across member states.
The distinction between using profits generated by immobilised assets and directly deploying the underlying capital remains important. The EU has already channelled windfall profits towards Ukraine, but a more extensive mechanism would raise difficult questions about financial stability, legal responsibility and the precedent for sovereign assets.
From emergency assistance to burden-sharing
The coming summits will test whether the EU can translate broad diplomatic solidarity into more predictable financial commitments. Canada and the United Kingdom are not being asked to replace European support, but to help address a funding gap that has widened alongside Ukraine’s military and economic needs.
Ultimately, the challenge is larger than raising additional money.
Brussels must balance immediate assistance with fiscal constraints, legal disputes over Russian assets and the political uncertainty surrounding future support from Washington.
If the EU cannot secure wider participation, it may face renewed pressure to increase its own commitments or revisit contentious financing options.
The next phase of Ukraine support will therefore depend on whether European leaders can turn solidarity into a durable international funding framework, one capable of sustaining Kyiv beyond the limits of the current loan.
(Sources: European Parliament, European Commission)
Read more:
