European nations sharing borders with Ukraine or Belarus face security concerns about conflict spillover including refugee flows, economic disruptions, and potential military incidents affecting their territories. Polish, Slovak, Romanian, Hungarian, Moldovan, and Baltic security interests directly connect to Ukrainian conflict outcomes, creating stakeholder interests distinct from broader European concerns. These border nation perspectives affect coalition unity as immediate security interests influence policy positions differently than nations geographically distant from conflict.
Poland has absorbed substantial Ukrainian refugee populations while providing military aid and supporting strong responses to Russian aggression. Polish security interests align closely with Ukrainian positions given historical Russian aggression concerns and current NATO membership providing collective defense guarantees. However, sustained costs of refugee support and economic disruptions create domestic political pressures affecting Polish government’s ability to maintain maximum assistance levels indefinitely.
Moldova faces particular vulnerability given existing Russian-backed separatist region in Transnistria and Ukrainian conflict proximity. Moldovan security depends substantially on Ukrainian resistance effectiveness, as Russian victory in Ukraine would dramatically increase threats to Moldovan sovereignty. However, limited Moldovan military capabilities prevent significant direct assistance, creating asymmetric stakeholder relationship where outcomes dramatically affect Moldova while offering minimal ability influencing results.
Baltic states view Ukrainian resistance as crucial defense of broader European security architecture, with Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian historical experiences creating strong identification with Ukrainian sovereignty struggles against Russian aggression. These nations have provided military assistance at levels dramatically exceeding their economic sizes, viewing support as investment in collective security rather than charity. However, limited resources constrain ability sustaining maximum assistance indefinitely regardless of political will.
Thursday’s coalition video conference includes these border nation perspectives alongside major power positions. President Zelenskyy must navigate varying stakeholder interests while maintaining unified coalition messaging. As border nations balance direct security interests, refugee burden costs, and economic disruption impacts against continued support commitments, their perspectives provide important dimensions beyond major power strategic calculations about acceptable peace terms and continued engagement sustainability.
