German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for every EU member to contribute to Ukraine’s financing as Brussels prepares its long-term budget beginning in 2028. His November 10 comments exposed differences among governments over exemptions, common borrowing and the balance between European solidarity and national fiscal control.
Merz puts burden-sharing at the centre of talks
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said all European Union countries should help finance Ukraine rather than leaving the responsibility to a subset of governments. He linked that position to negotiations over the EU’s long-term budget beginning in 2028. The intervention adds pressure to an already complicated budget debate, where governments disagree about how much to spend and which priorities deserve protection. Merz’s position is a political demand, not a decision already accepted by every member state. The next step is translating principles of solidarity into a legal financing mechanism.
The projected gap in Ukraine’s finances
Merz referred to a projected €70 billion financing gap for Ukraine in 2027, alongside an expected €45 billion EU contribution. Such figures describe anticipated needs and planning assumptions, not necessarily money that has already been approved or disbursed. The gap can change with battlefield conditions, public revenues, infrastructure damage and support from other partners. Kyiv must finance both security needs and essential public services. Predictable external assistance helps planning, but the distinction between a political commitment and an actual transfer remains crucial for fiscal management.
Why the next EU budget matters now
Multiannual budgets are negotiated years ahead because governments must agree on spending ceilings, priorities and financing arrangements. The next framework begins in 2028, yet disputes over Ukraine’s 2027 needs already influence the debate. The budget must also support agriculture, regional development, research, industrial policy and other commitments. Adding sustained assistance for Ukraine intensifies trade-offs. An agreement on an overall budget does not automatically determine the legal details of a specific loan or grant programme, which may require additional decisions.
Previous opt-outs complicate a new package
Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary opted out of a previous €90 billion loan for Ukraine agreed last December, according to Reuters. Their exemptions illustrate how EU financial solidarity can be negotiated differently from one instrument to another. A new proposal could use common borrowing, guarantees, national contributions or a mixture of tools. Each structure changes who bears the risk and who has political control. It would be inaccurate to assume that an earlier exemption either guarantees or prohibits a similar arrangement in future negotiations.
Slovakia calls the approach blackmail
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico accused Merz of blackmail for linking Ukraine support to wider budget discussions. That is Fico’s characterization of the political pressure, not an established legal conclusion. His reaction demonstrates how governments can interpret conditional bargaining as an infringement on national choices. EU negotiations frequently involve trade-offs across policy areas, but the tactic can become contentious when a government believes unrelated spending priorities are being used to force agreement. Whether the dispute can be resolved will depend on the substance of the financing proposal.
Hungary distinguishes tactics from substance
Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar did not adopt Fico’s blackmail description, but questioned whether connecting the issues sent a helpful message. This is a more nuanced objection: a government may challenge a negotiating tactic without taking an identical position on every possible form of support. Reporting should preserve that distinction. Treating dissenting states as a single bloc can conceal differences over the size, timing and design of assistance. Those differences may create room for compromise if negotiators can identify what each government is actually willing to accept.
Germany’s own fiscal and security interests
Germany is a major EU budget contributor and has significant domestic debates over spending and defence. Merz’s argument combines a strategic claim that European security is shared with a fiscal claim that financial obligations should be distributed fairly. However, fairness can mean different things. One model allocates contributions by economic size; another relies on common borrowing; a third allows differentiated participation. Each creates different incentives and risks. The German government must also reconcile European commitments with national budget constraints and public expectations.
Defence and competitiveness are also priorities
Merz has urged greater emphasis on defence spending and economic competitiveness in the EU’s future budget. Those priorities can overlap with assistance for Ukraine, for example through industrial capacity and military procurement, but they are not identical. Funds for EU innovation or domestic infrastructure cannot simply be counted as emergency assistance to Kyiv. Policymakers will need transparent categories and measurable objectives to avoid double-counting. The challenge is to fund immediate needs while maintaining the long-term economic and security capabilities that European governments say they want to strengthen.
Why Kyiv needs dependable financing
War-related uncertainty makes government budgeting difficult. Public employees, health services, repairs and essential infrastructure require regular funding, while defence procurement often involves long lead times. Assistance that arrives late can force short-term borrowing or delays even when the eventual amount is substantial. A multiannual commitment could improve planning if it comes with credible disbursement arrangements. Political statements alone cannot pay invoices. That practical distinction helps explain why the structure and timing of EU support matter as much as headline totals.
What EU solidarity could look like
Shared assistance can be funded through grants, loans, guarantees or coordinated national budgets. Grants transfer resources without creating a repayment obligation for Ukraine; loans may offer immediate liquidity but create future liabilities; guarantees distribute risk differently again. The appropriate instrument depends on fiscal capacity, legal authority and the objectives of support. Common borrowing may offer scale and predictability but raises questions about repayment and governance. Differentiated participation may secure agreement while creating political concerns about unequal responsibility. There is no cost-free design.
The decision rules cannot be ignored
Different EU financial instruments are governed by different legal procedures. Some require unanimity or extensive agreement, while others may be approved under different voting arrangements. It is therefore misleading to say that one dissenting country can veto every conceivable funding proposal. At the same time, governments cannot simply ignore treaty constraints because a financing need is urgent. The legal design will influence political feasibility. A successful agreement must specify who contributes, who approves payments, how funds are monitored and how disputes are resolved.
The political risks of linking negotiations
Merz’s approach may increase pressure on reluctant governments by making Ukraine funding part of a larger package they care about. It could also harden opposition if leaders feel publicly cornered. Budget bargaining involves both material concessions and political signalling to domestic voters. The rhetoric of solidarity may resonate in some capitals while prompting concerns about sovereignty in others. Negotiators must decide whether a broad package creates incentives to compromise or makes agreement more difficult by combining several contentious subjects.
What would demonstrate a genuine breakthrough
Watch for a detailed Commission proposal, revised member-state positions, agreed rules on participation and a timetable for approval and disbursement. A statement that leaders support Ukraine in principle would be weaker evidence than a legally adopted instrument with funding sources. The November 10 clash does not mean EU support has ended, nor does it show that every country has accepted Merz’s demand. It reveals an unresolved question at the heart of European policymaking: how to finance a shared security priority when national governments disagree about the bill.
Frequently asked questions
How large is Ukraine’s projected 2027 funding gap?
Merz cited approximately €70 billion.
When does the EU budget being negotiated begin?
In 2028.
Have all EU members accepted equal participation?
No. Several governments dispute the approach or its terms.
Source: Original reporting. Featured image is illustrative, not documentary photography of the event.
