Supporting Ukraine with arms and funds would prove far more cost-effective for the European Union than accepting Russian peace terms and subsequently having to build fortified defenses along its own borders. This is the conclusion reached by the authors of the "Europe’s Choice" study, prepared by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in collaboration with the consultancy Corisk.
As reported by the New York Post, analysts compared two baseline scenarios over a four-year period. In the first, the EU mobilizes between $606 billion and $972 billion to fund Ukraine's defense. In the second – allowing Russia to achieve a gradual victory – the bloc would be forced to spend between $1.4 trillion and $1.8 trillion to strengthen its eastern flank and respond to emerging threats.
The study is premised on the assumption that the United States provides almost no support. The authors explicitly explain that they modeled a situation in which Ukraine effectively remains reliant on European funding.
A separate section of the report addresses the 28-point "peace plan" proposed by the Donald Trump administration. The document notes that this plan only underscores the necessity for Europe to take the lead in diplomatic efforts to end the war.
If the EU does not increase military aid, the authors predict a gradual Russian victory. In this scenario, millions of Ukrainian refugees would head to European Union countries, costing governments billions of dollars in upkeep. Meanwhile, researchers estimate the Kremlin would consolidate its positions and could pivot its attention to the Arctic or the Baltic region, forcing NATO states to sharply increase defense budgets to protect western borders.
The alternative calculation in "Europe’s Choice" assumes the European Union secures up to $972 billion to support the Ukrainian army over four years. In this case, the authors believe Kyiv stands a real chance of a decisive military victory. They estimate this would allow millions of refugees to return home, stabilize the region, and make it more attractive for foreign investment.
The report concludes that in the event of a protracted war or a Russian victory, the need for Western aid would become permanent, whereas following a Ukrainian victory, support volumes could – according to the authors' logic – gradually decrease.
Specific parameters of the proposed program are also outlined. Researchers believe additional funding would allow for the procurement of approximately 8 million drones, the formation of 95 brigades, and the provision of up to 2,500 new main battle tanks and other necessary equipment. They identify one source of funds as the confiscation of frozen Russian assets already under Western control.