Matthew Crandall
Associate Professor of International Relations
Tallinn University
Estonia
crandall@tlu.ee
The war in Ukraine confirmed that we live in a new era of great power competition. Small states often pay the highest cost in conflict and competition between great powers. This is one reason small Eastern European states have supported Ukraine with such intensity. While most of the media pays attention to the military aid given by the United States and Germany, the support from small states is noteworthy. With the war approaching the one-year mark, now is a good time to look at the impact small states have had in supporting Ukraine.
Small states often struggle to make a difference in international affairs. They lack material resources and instead rely on creativity, international norms, and agenda-setting to exert an influence. Small states can make a difference by forming coalitions and pooling resources. The sad truth is that small states do not influence international affairs all of the time, but when small states act smartly, they can make an impact some of the time. Regarding support for Ukraine, small Eastern European countries have made a significant impact in helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia. The impact of small states can be divided into two categories, material and non-material.
Small states have sent a significant amount of military aid to Ukraine. In 2014 then Ukrainian president Poroshenko lamented the limited nature of the military aid given from the West when he said you couldn’t win a war with blankets. This time, small states were committed from the beginning to giving Ukraine the equipment that was needed. Tanks, air defence systems, armed personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, anti-tank weapons, self-propelled howitzers, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), and air defence systems are all some examples of what small states have given Ukraine. Many of these donations did not receive the media attention that donations from the United States received. What makes these contributions significant is that small Eastern European states had exactly what Ukraine needed. Soviet calibre weapons systems and ammunition that could be used without extensive training and that would not require the establishment of new supply chains. These weapons systems kept Ukraine in the fight until the US and other Western countries decided to also commit to donating heavy weapons systems to Ukraine. This leads us to non-material ways small states have made an impact.
In addition to having the kinds of weapons Ukraine needed, small Eastern European states were consistently the first to send heavy equipment to Ukraine. This changed the discourse and helped set the agenda. Estonia was one of the first countries to commit to sending heavy equipment when it announced intentions to send D-30 122 mm howitzers to Ukraine already in January before the war began. The Czech Republic was the first country to send tanks in early April. Many small states do not have significant military stockpiles to donate but some have resorted to creative strategies to support Ukraine. Lithuania made headlines by coordinating a crowdfunding event that raised 5 million dollars to purchase the Turkish-made Bayraktar drone. Crowdfunding has since been used by other small states to help offset limited financial and supply capacities.
The Baltic states in particular have donated a significant amount of military aid to Ukraine when looking at the aid in proportion to their GDP. This can be called being a standard bearer. Being the best is a way to give legitimacy and attention to small states. It also can be a way to pressure other states to be better by asking the question: If Estonia can give this much why can’t others do more?
But there are limits to what small states have been able to do as well. Small states were often only willing to give their military systems away if larger Western countries promised replacement or upgraded systems. There was also a limit to the amount of ammo and systems small states had to give. While Soviet calibre weapon systems kept Ukraine in the fight, eventually Ukraine had to transition to NATO calibre systems, including the 155 mm artillery systems. To roll Russia back completely Ukraine will need the weapon systems that most small states don’t have. Long-range, high-precision systems and other systems in large quantities. F-16 fighter jets, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and the 300 km range ATACMS missiles for HIMARs. As the war drags on Ukraine will also continue to need significant budgetary assistance. The longer the war goes on there is a threat that large states will tire of supporting Ukraine and small states might not have much left to give. As the contributions of large states become more and more important small states will have a harder time influencing the agenda. But there will still be room for small states to continue to make an impact. In July when large European countries pledged no new heavy weapons systems to Ukraine, it was Latvia that stepped up by donating 6 M109 self-propelled howitzers.
It remains to be seen what kind of impact the Ukraine war will have on great power competition, but a Ukrainian victory would ensure a better and safer world for small states. For policymakers in small states, it is time to dig deep and get creative to ensure that Ukraine wins.
Small states often struggle to make a difference in international affairs. They lack material resources and instead rely on creativity, international norms, and agenda-setting to exert an influence. Small states can make a difference by forming coalitions and pooling resources. The sad truth is that small states do not influence international affairs all of the time, but when small states act smartly, they can make an impact some of the time. Regarding support for Ukraine, small Eastern European countries have made a significant impact in helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia. The impact of small states can be divided into two categories, material and non-material.
Small states have sent a significant amount of military aid to Ukraine. In 2014 then Ukrainian president Poroshenko lamented the limited nature of the military aid given from the West when he said you couldn’t win a war with blankets. This time, small states were committed from the beginning to giving Ukraine the equipment that was needed. Tanks, air defence systems, armed personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, anti-tank weapons, self-propelled howitzers, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), and air defence systems are all some examples of what small states have given Ukraine. Many of these donations did not receive the media attention that donations from the United States received. What makes these contributions significant is that small Eastern European states had exactly what Ukraine needed. Soviet calibre weapons systems and ammunition that could be used without extensive training and that would not require the establishment of new supply chains. These weapons systems kept Ukraine in the fight until the US and other Western countries decided to also commit to donating heavy weapons systems to Ukraine. This leads us to non-material ways small states have made an impact.
In addition to having the kinds of weapons Ukraine needed, small Eastern European states were consistently the first to send heavy equipment to Ukraine. This changed the discourse and helped set the agenda. Estonia was one of the first countries to commit to sending heavy equipment when it announced intentions to send D-30 122 mm howitzers to Ukraine already in January before the war began. The Czech Republic was the first country to send tanks in early April. Many small states do not have significant military stockpiles to donate but some have resorted to creative strategies to support Ukraine. Lithuania made headlines by coordinating a crowdfunding event that raised 5 million dollars to purchase the Turkish-made Bayraktar drone. Crowdfunding has since been used by other small states to help offset limited financial and supply capacities.
The Baltic states in particular have donated a significant amount of military aid to Ukraine when looking at the aid in proportion to their GDP. This can be called being a standard bearer. Being the best is a way to give legitimacy and attention to small states. It also can be a way to pressure other states to be better by asking the question: If Estonia can give this much why can’t others do more?
But there are limits to what small states have been able to do as well. Small states were often only willing to give their military systems away if larger Western countries promised replacement or upgraded systems. There was also a limit to the amount of ammo and systems small states had to give. While Soviet calibre weapon systems kept Ukraine in the fight, eventually Ukraine had to transition to NATO calibre systems, including the 155 mm artillery systems. To roll Russia back completely Ukraine will need the weapon systems that most small states don’t have. Long-range, high-precision systems and other systems in large quantities. F-16 fighter jets, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and the 300 km range ATACMS missiles for HIMARs. As the war drags on Ukraine will also continue to need significant budgetary assistance. The longer the war goes on there is a threat that large states will tire of supporting Ukraine and small states might not have much left to give. As the contributions of large states become more and more important small states will have a harder time influencing the agenda. But there will still be room for small states to continue to make an impact. In July when large European countries pledged no new heavy weapons systems to Ukraine, it was Latvia that stepped up by donating 6 M109 self-propelled howitzers.
It remains to be seen what kind of impact the Ukraine war will have on great power competition, but a Ukrainian victory would ensure a better and safer world for small states. For policymakers in small states, it is time to dig deep and get creative to ensure that Ukraine wins.