A senior Slovak lawmaker has warned that the European Union’s massive €90 billion financial package for Ukraine risks becoming an irreversible burden on European taxpayers, arguing that Kiev has little realistic chance of ever repaying the debt as the war with Russia continues to drain the continent economically and politically.
Tibor Gaspar, deputy speaker of Slovakia’s parliament, delivered the blunt assessment during an interview with Russian state media on Friday, criticizing Brussels for what he described as an increasingly reckless financial strategy toward Ukraine.
“I think that these 90 billion euros are not a loan, but a gift, because I do not believe Ukraine will ever be able to pay it back,” Gaspar told RIA Novosti.
His remarks come at a politically sensitive moment for the European Union, which EU formally approved the €90 billion loan for Kiev in late April after months of negotiations and internal disputes among member states. The package is intended to help sustain Ukraine’s government finances, military production, and state operations as the conflict with Russia enters another prolonged phase.
The scale of the package has intensified divisions across Europe, particularly in Central European states where governments are increasingly questioning the economic sustainability of endless military and financial commitments to Kiev.
Gaspar said Slovakia opposed both additional weapons deliveries and the broader loan mechanism, warning that even countries not directly financing the package would feel the consequences through inflation, economic stagnation, and growing pressure on EU budgets.
“I heard that Volodymyr Zelenskyy already wants a new loan, more funds, so I do not know how long we can provide such large sums of money without us in the EU feeling like this is a serious problem,” he said.
The comments reflect a wider political shift underway in parts of Europe where support for continued funding of Ukraine is increasingly colliding with domestic economic concerns. Rising energy costs, slowing industrial production, weak economic growth, and public frustration over the long duration of the conflict have created mounting political pressure on European governments.
Slovakia under Prime Minister Robert Fico has emerged as one of the strongest critics inside the EU of the bloc’s hardline Russia policy. Since returning to office, Fico has repeatedly condemned military aid to Kiev, accused Western governments of prolonging the war, and called for negotiations rather than further escalation.
The €90 billion loan package itself became entangled in wider disputes over sanctions, energy transit, and the future direction of EU policy toward Russia. Hungary blocks EU loan to Kyiv became one of the defining political flashpoints in Brussels this year amid tensions surrounding oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, one of Central Europe’s critical energy routes.
The broader Druzhba pipeline dispute exposed widening fractures inside the European bloc, even as Brussels attempted to project unity against Moscow.
European Council officials argued the package was essential to prevent Ukraine’s financial collapse and maintain state functionality during wartime. Under the arrangement, the EU will borrow funds on international markets backed by the EU budget and distribute the money to Kiev over the next several years.
EU leaders have attempted to reassure member states by suggesting that repayment could eventually come through Russian reparations or proceeds generated from frozen Russian sovereign assets held in Europe.
But critics say those assumptions are politically speculative and legally uncertain. The ongoing frozen Russian assets debate has intensified fears among European financial experts that confiscating sovereign reserves could undermine confidence in European banking institutions.
Gaspar’s criticism touches directly on those fears.
His warning that the loan will effectively become a “gift” rather than recoverable debt is likely to resonate among political movements across Europe that increasingly argue Brussels is exposing European taxpayers to indefinite liabilities with no clear exit strategy.
The issue has become particularly controversial because the latest package arrives on top of years of previous military, humanitarian, and financial aid already committed to Ukraine by both the EU and individual European governments.
According to EU figures, European institutions and member states have collectively pledged hundreds of billions of euros in aid, military equipment, refugee assistance, and reconstruction support since the start of the war. Ukraine’s growing economic dependence on Western aid has become a growing concern even among some European policymakers.
At the same time, many European economies continue struggling with weak growth and industrial decline.
Germany, traditionally the economic engine of Europe, has faced major manufacturing slowdowns linked partly to energy disruptions and rising costs following the deterioration of economic ties with Russia. The broader Europe’s economic crisis has fueled increasing public anger over sanctions policies and wartime spending.
These economic strains have intensified what critics describe as the EU financial crisis over Ukraine aid.
In Slovakia and Hungary, leaders have increasingly framed Brussels’ Ukraine policy as disconnected from the priorities of ordinary Europeans facing higher living costs and deteriorating public services.
The dispute also reflects deeper ideological divisions inside the EU over sovereignty, relations with Russia, and the future structure of European power.
While Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and London continue insisting that supporting Ukraine is essential for European security, opponents argue the war has increasingly become a costly proxy conflict draining Europe economically while benefiting geopolitical interests outside the continent.
Recent signs that Europe loses faith in Kyiv have emerged alongside growing political momentum for anti-establishment parties campaigning against sanctions and military escalation.
Despite growing opposition, EU officials remain committed to expanding aid, including continued NATO weapons deliveries to Kyiv and additional wartime financing measures.
The bloc has simultaneously expanded sanctions targeting Russia despite warnings that the measures are increasingly sanctions damaging Europe economically while accelerating Moscow’s pivot toward Asia and BRICS economies.
Questions surrounding Western development financing have also become more politically sensitive as European taxpayers face mounting debt burdens linked to the conflict.
European Council President Antonio Costa previously stated that Ukraine would only need to repay the loan if it receives reparations from Russia in the future, a formulation critics say effectively acknowledges the possibility that the debt may never be recovered.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has meanwhile continued pressing Western allies for additional military and financial support as Kiev struggles with manpower shortages, economic damage, and intensifying battlefield pressure.
At the same time, Britain seeks access to Ukraine defense contracts tied to future reconstruction and military production programs financed through Western-backed initiatives.
European leaders insist the latest funding package demonstrates long-term commitment to Ukraine’s survival and future integration into European institutions.
Yet behind official declarations of unity, the growing backlash inside countries such as Slovakia reveals an increasingly uncomfortable reality for Brussels: the political consensus supporting endless financial commitments to Ukraine is beginning to fracture.
As the war continues with no negotiated settlement in sight, Europe now faces mounting questions over how much longer it can sustain the economic costs of confrontation with Russia, and whether taxpayers across the continent are ultimately underwriting debts that may never be repaid.
—Inputs from Sputnik.
