Major European allies like the UK and France face a "lethal problem" where raising defense spending to meet US-led targets could trigger a bond market revolt. This fiscal constraint, coupled with voter opposition to tax hikes, makes meeting these commitments politically and economically untenable.

Former official Jon Finer posits that sustained American public support for aiding Ukraine stems from its clear, digestible narrative of a perpetrator (Russia) and a victim (Ukraine). This contrasts sharply with the Iraq War, where complex justifications and moral ambiguity made it harder for the public to engage.

The most significant challenge to a lasting peace is not agreeing on territorial lines but on the implementation sequence. Debates over whether a ceasefire, troop withdrawal, security guarantees, or referendums should come first create complex logistical and trust issues that could easily cause a deal to collapse.

A swift peace deal in Ukraine might not be the preferred outcome for all its European partners. Some may see a longer conflict as a strategic opportunity to bolster their own military capabilities while Russia is occupied.

President Stubb uses Finland's peace with the USSR as a framework. Finland lost territory but preserved its nationhood. He argues Ukraine can secure an even better outcome through a peace deal: EU membership, massive reconstruction aid, and US security guarantees—a strategic victory that transcends battlefield lines.

The initial unity of Ukrainian society has eroded after years of war. Deep divisions are emerging between those who stayed versus those who fled, and those who fought versus those who did not. These fractures will likely be exploited politically and complicate post-war nation-building.

European leaders have shifted from seeing Ukraine as a moral cause to a vital strategic asset. Ukraine's battle-tested army is viewed as Europe's "shield," and its innovations in drone warfare are seen as Europe's future "arsenal," especially amid doubts about US security guarantees.

Even though President Trump backed down on tariffs over Greenland, the episode permanently eroded European trust in the U.S. as a reliable NATO partner. The erratic nature of the dispute raised serious questions about American dependability on more critical issues like Ukraine, suggesting long-term damage to the alliance.

By committing to a multi-year, ~$400 billion funding plan, Europe can turn Ukraine's financial weakness into a strategic advantage. This sustained support would exacerbate Russia's already high financial burden, potentially triggering a banking or inflation crisis and crippling its war machine.