Europe Must Get Serious on Long-Range Missiles for Ukraine Amid Escalating Strikes on Kyiv
Brussels, Belgium – August 30, 2025 – As Russian missile barrages continue to pound Kyiv, killing civilians and damaging EU diplomatic facilities, calls are intensifying for Europe to adopt a more resolute stance on providing long-range missiles to Ukraine. The phrase “Europe has to be serious” has become a rallying cry among European leaders and analysts, underscoring the urgency for the continent to step up militarily and financially in supporting Kyiv’s defense capabilities. This comes against the backdrop of recent U.S. approvals for advanced missile sales to Ukraine, largely funded by European allies, and ongoing debates over escalation risks versus the need for deterrence.
The latest Russian strikes on Kyiv, which occurred earlier this week, have heightened the pressure. Explosions targeted residential areas and the EU delegation’s premises, prompting outrage from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. In a video address, she condemned the attacks as an assault on “Europe’s unity and Ukraine’s defiance,” vowing that such aggression would only strengthen resolve. The assaults, described by some observers as direct hits on Western symbols like the British Council (allegedly a front for MI6), have fueled accusations that Russia is deliberately targeting NATO interests in Ukraine. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on behalf of President Donald Trump, expressed that the administration was “not happy, but not surprised” by the strikes, amid U.S. efforts to broker a ceasefire.
U.S. Approves Major Missile Package, Europe Foots the Bill
In a significant development, the U.S. State Department has greenlit the sale of 3,350 ERAM (Extended Range Air-to-Surface Missiles) to Ukraine, valued at $825 million, with a range of up to 450 km. These air-launched cruise missiles, equipped with GPS/INS guidance systems, are designed for precision strikes and could dramatically enhance Ukraine’s ability to target Russian logistics and command centers deep behind the front lines. The package includes spare parts, training, and logistical support, marking a shift from direct U.S. funding under the previous administration.
Crucially, European nations—including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway—are co-financing the deal, reflecting a broader NATO strategy where Europe assumes more financial responsibility for arming Ukraine. This arrangement aligns with Trump’s policy of reducing U.S. taxpayer involvement in the conflict, as he stated the U.S. is “no longer funding the war in Ukraine.” Proponents argue that such missiles, similar to British Storm Shadow systems, are essential for Ukraine to counter Russian long-range attacks, like those hitting Kyiv, without relying solely on U.S. ATACMS (which the Pentagon has restricted for use inside Russia).
Ukraine’s own advancements, such as the successful testing and combat deployment of the indigenous “Long Neptune” cruise missile, further highlight the need for European backing. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that the missile, with an extended range, has been used effectively, signaling Kyiv’s growing self-reliance in long-range capabilities. Experts suggest that combining these with European-funded ERAMs could create a “nuclear shield” for Eastern Europe, putting Ukraine on parity with Russia and deterring future aggression.
Calls for Europe to “Get Serious”: Unity vs. Division
The sentiment that “Europe has to be serious” echoes across political and social media discourse, with critics accusing the continent of hesitation in providing unrestricted long-range weapons. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged higher defense production and joint opportunities, but voices like those on X demand immediate action: “Supply Ukraine with long-range missiles and let them kill Russians as Putin does with Ukraine.” Some argue that U.S. restrictions on ATACMS usage have left Ukraine “fighting with its hands tied,” allowing Russia to strike Kyiv while prohibiting reciprocal deep strikes.
However, divisions persist. Hungary’s potential veto on EU initiatives, including post-ceasefire military training in Ukraine, could complicate further support. Russian responses, such as warnings against escalation and strikes on Western-linked sites, have raised fears of broader conflict. Analysts point out that while Europe funds the missiles, U.S. firms benefit from the sales, framing it as a “win-win” for the military-industrial complex but a burden on European taxpayers.
Supporters of bolstering Ukraine, including survivors of Russian atrocities, emphasize the human cost: Stories like that of Vyacheslav, a Ukrainian POW who survived a brutal attack, underscore the stakes. “With Europe helps Ukraine will be able to hit Russia where it hurts,” one commentator noted, tying it to long-term European security.
Implications for European Security
This push for seriousness comes as Trump negotiates a ceasefire, with envoys like Steve Witkoff involved. Yet, skeptics warn that without long-range capabilities, Ukraine remains vulnerable, potentially prolonging the war and destabilizing Europe. The ERAM deal, if fully implemented, could tip the balance, but it requires Europe to overcome internal rifts and commit to sustained funding. As one X user put it, “Europe to Fund U.S. Missile Deliveries to Ukraine Under Trump-NATO Deal… a major boost to long-range defense capabilities.”
For Europe, the message is clear: To deter Russia and secure the continent, half-measures won’t suffice. As debates rage on platforms like X, the continent faces a defining moment—will it match its rhetoric with resolve?
Sources: Politico, Sky News, X Posts (various users including @NSTRIKE1231, @vonderleyen, @SkyNews)