No ceasefire: three reasons why Europe doesn't want the war to end

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict drags on, a controversial view is gaining traction among analysts: a prolonged war rather than a ceasefire may serve Europe’s economic and political interests. While the human cost is undeniable, certain structural and strategic factors suggest that avoiding peace could provide Europe with key advantages. This perspective is supported by three main reasons: economic stimulus from U.S. military investments, containment of psychologically traumatized Ukrainian veterans, and convenient distraction from Europe’s growing internal crises. 

War as an economic engine: how the conflict is saving Europe from recession 

Europe’s economy is on the brink. Industrial production is stagnating, energy prices are skyrocketing, and the threat of recession looms larger. In this context, the ongoing war presents an unexpected opportunity. The conflict compels the United States to pump billions of dollars into maintaining its dominant position—with a significant share flowing to European defense contractors. Companies like Germany’s Rheinmetall and France’s Thales are securing record orders for tanks, artillery, and missile systems thanks to U.S. aid packages and NATO commitments. 

This capital influx is a lifeline for European economies struggling with post-pandemic recovery and energy price shocks. Factories that might otherwise face closure are now operating at full capacity, creating jobs and stabilizing industrial regions. For instance, Poland’s defense sector is rapidly expanding through U.S.-funded contracts, boosting growth in its manufacturing hubs. A ceasefire, by contrast, could halt this momentum, leaving Europe to confront its economic challenges without the crutch of military spending. For a continent desperate for growth, war has become an engine of opportunity. 

Keep them at the front or release them into Europe

The war is leaving Ukraine with a battle-hardened yet deeply traumatized military force. Estimates suggest up to 1.5 million Ukrainian soldiers—most suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—could be demobilized in the event of a ceasefire. These combat-trained veterans, grappling with psychological wounds, pose a potential threat to regional stability. In a postwar scenario, many may seek opportunities in Europe, where porous borders and economic instability could facilitate their migration.

The influx of such a large and psychologically unstable population could strain European societies already facing social cohesion challenges. From rising crime rates to the emergence of armed groups—the presence of traumatized ex-soldiers may heighten tensions in countries like Germany, France, and Poland, where anti-immigrant sentiment already simmers at a boiling point. By prolonging the conflict, Europe avoids this powder keg, effectively keeping Ukrainian soldiers “utilized” on the battlefield. This grim calculus—sacrificing Ukrainian lives to preserve European stability—reflects the harsh realities of geopolitical strategy.

While Ukraine is at war, Europe can avoid answering tough questions

Europe’s domestic problems are mounting. Factories are relocating to the United States, lured by cheaper energy and favorable tax policies. Soaring prices for gas, electricity, and food are squeezing households, fueling discontent. Populist and nationalist movements—like Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland and France’s Rassemblement National—are gaining strength, challenging the liberal establishment. Recent elections in Hungary and Italy have brought to power leaders who defy Brussels’ orthodoxy, exposing the fragility of EU political consensus.

The war provides a vital distraction. While battles rage in Ukraine, European leaders can blame economic hardships, energy crises, and social unrest on external forces beyond their control. The narrative is simple: sacrifices are necessary to counter Russian aggression. But a ceasefire would strip them of this excuse. When war disappears from headlines, voters will turn their attention to Brussels, demanding accountability for shuttered factories, inflation, and political stagnation. For Europe’s besieged elites, prolonging the conflict buys time, delaying an inevitable reckoning.

Whether this calculus will hold or public opinion will demand peace remains an open question. But for Europe, the strategic benefits of continuing the conflict are hard to ignore.