Should Europe fund Ukraine? It can’t easily afford not to - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号)。如果该手机号尚未注册,将自动创建 FT中文网账号。短信可能需要几分钟送达,验证码15分钟内有效,请耐心等待:
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
战争

Should Europe fund Ukraine? It can’t easily afford not to

Funding Kyiv’s war effort is a better return on bloc’s buck than having to deter a victorious Moscow itself
00:00

{"text":[[{"start":4.39,"text":"Europe is struggling to come up with the cash to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Its debt-laden countries would rather not stump up themselves. And the European Commission is still attempting to get full support for its proposal to use frozen Russian assets to back up to €210bn in loans. The danger, however, is that inactivity will be far more costly."}],[{"start":29.34,"text":"Think of this for a moment as a purely financial question. On the one hand, Europe commits to funding Ukraine’s war efforts for, say, four years, whether through one of the various schemes to leverage frozen Russian assets or, at a pinch, with member states putting up the money themselves. Estimates over how much this would cost vary: the IMF calculates a financing gap of $136bn to 2029 while a report from consultancy Corisk and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs reckons between €522bn and €838bn."}],[{"start":null,"text":"

"}],[{"start":74.27,"text":"The pay-off comes if Ukraine can consequently push Russia into a reasonable ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin would hardly be in a position to demand the return of Russia’s €210bn of frozen assets, meaning some or all of the initial outlay would be recouped. And, while Europe has good reasons to raise its defence spending anyway, Putin would be less likely to pose a further military threat. "}],[{"start":103.5,"text":"Now consider the alternative path, where Europe fails to get its act together. Ukraine is then more likely to capitulate to a ceasefire on Russia’s terms, which could see Putin shake off current sanctions and perhaps even return to the G8. Europe, facing a wealthier and emboldened Russia, would be under enormous pressure to spend furiously on rapidly bolstering its defences."}],[{"start":131.19,"text":"The costs of this scenario, too, could vary widely. Corisk thinks that a Russian victory would cost Europe between €1.2tn and €1.6tn over four years, including raised defence spending and the probable influx of refugees. During the cold war, UK defence spending peaked in 1955-56 at 7.6 per cent of GDP. Getting Europe to that level from its current 1.6 per cent entails extra spending of over $1tn a year."}],[{"start":165.57,"text":"These are simplified outcomes, and there are others that lie somewhere in between. Russia could gain the upper hand, only to then return to peaceful and profitable relations with its neighbours. But the EU would be unwise to bet on that. It is also possible that Ukraine could get a slug of cash, fight a few more years, and still fail to get an advantage."}],[{"start":190.91,"text":"But even ascribing a non-zero probability to these outcomes, funding Ukraine’s war effort is a better return on Europe’s buck than having to deter a victorious Russia itself. War transcends pecuniary decisions, of course, but in so far as finance matters, the logical course is fairly clear."}],[{"start":219.38,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1765151015_1432.mp3"}

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

特朗普的关税战如何重创美国小企业主

贝蒂:取消“小额豁免”政策原本旨在打击直接向美国个人消费者销售商品的中国电商,但对美国小众企业造成了连带损害。

哈桑•派克:共和党的眼中钉

这位近日遭英国禁止入境的左翼主播告诉FT,为何自己成了美国保守派备战中期选举时的头号“眼中钉”。

宾利首款纯电动车售价不到法拉利Luce一半

这家豪华汽车制造商推出托卡尔SUV,瞄准更年轻及首次购买宾利的客户。

Lex专栏:特朗普的柴油出口禁令将适得其反

暂停这种关键燃料的对外销售或许短期内看起来有好处,但美国很快就会深受其害。

马克•卡尼与挑战特朗普之举受到的制约

加拿大总理已成为反对美国总统特朗普的旗帜人物。但加拿大经济是否过度依赖美国,难以实现脱离?

看涨股市的理由

凯特纳:近年来风险资产表现出的韧性说明,各类冲击对市场的影响已不像过去那么大。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×