Promises of supporting Ukraine ring rather hollow if we continue to give paltry military aid
June 15, 2025
So it’s official: Washington is pulling the plug on military aid to Ukraine. At Congressional hearings this week US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration has a “very different view” of the war in Ukraine to that of Joe Biden’s – and insisted that a “negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation’s interests.”
Given that the topic of the hearings was the US’s 2026 military budget, the message could hardly have been clearer. Fighting Russia is now Europe’s problem.
Washington has given Ukraine some $74 billion in military aid since Putin’s invasion in February 2022. That includes game-changing equipment such as Patriot air defence systems that are Ukraine’s only effective defence against Russian ballistic missiles, ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, long-range M777 artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles, and millions of artillery rounds.
Some of the Biden-era packages are still coming down the procurement pipeline. But the bitter bottom line for Kyiv is that it has been abandoned by its most powerful and deep-pocketed ally.
That leaves Ukraine three options. The first is to rely on Europe stepping in to supply the weapons and equipment it needs. The second – proposed earlier this month by Zelensky – was to buy US made weapons from Washington with European money. The third is to make the weapons it needs in Ukrainian factories, funded by money from European allies.
Happily for Ukraine, Europe’s leaders have repeatedly promised to step up to the plate and deliver what Ukraine needs to fight on. Less happily, in practice, Europe seems better at promising than actually stepping.
Back on February 9, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a “ReArm Europe” package in Brussels that “could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years … This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up.”
But it soon emerged that this staggering sum was not, in fact, ready money but represented an easing of borrowing constraints on EU members if they chose to increase their defence budgets. On March 19 EU high representative for external relations, Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy. Last month Europe finally put some cash (albeit someone else’s cash) on the table by directing €1 billion from the EU’s Peace Facility – made from frozen Russian assets – towards financing Ukraine’s domestic arms industry.
Kyiv will certainly put that aid to good use. Domestic production now meets up to 50 per cent of Ukraine’s military needs, despite repeated Russian strikes on factories. And Ukraine already outproduces the EU in the production of many weapons.
Output of Ukraine’s Bohdana howitzer is now 20 per month, outpacing the production of French Caesars, and could double with more EU funding. Drone production is scaling up fast, with five million small First Person View (FPV) drones planned for 2025, plus 30,000 long-range drones, and 3,000 cruise missiles.
Plus some of the new Ukrainian kit is actually better than foreign supplied equipment because it’s tailored more precisely to the specific needs of the killing fields of Donbas. Ukraine’s Limma Electronic warfare system outperforms Russian and Western tech in jamming Russian glide bombs.
And of course there’s Ukraine’s extraordinarily bold and sophisticated mass drone attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Siberia and the Arctic earlier this month, which featured drone swarms hidden in the roofs of prefabricated housing units and trucked right to their targets by unwitting freelance drivers.
So there’s no doubt that Ukraine has the technical sophistication, the industrial capacity and the tactical imagination to create its own formidable defences. Indeed, by many metrics the Ukrainian army is not only the largest but also the best-equipped on the European continent, bar Russia’s. But Ukraine also has deep vulnerabilities further down the defence-procurement totem pole when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts sinews of war, from artillery shells to bullets to spare parts.
And the most urgent military and political problem of all is a looming chronic shortage of bodies to man the front lines. Videos of violent press-gang tactics used to round up military-age men – often featuring posses of citizens rallying to save the men targeted – are the subject of daily online anger on Ukraine’s social media.
Stories of Russia’s imminent economic and military collapse make for feel-good reading – but aren’t borne out by ongoing and relentless assaults in the air and on the ground. Russia is set to spend $160 billion on defence this year, and thanks to purchasing power disparities a dollar spent in Russia gets far more bang for the buck. A Russian T-90 costs approximately $4.5 million, a US M1 Abrams can cost as much as $9.61 million.
Western defence experts have warned that US-made Patriot missile systems, in production since 1981, are increasingly ineffective against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles and massed swarms of Iranian Shaheed drones.
Can Ukraine survive just on its own resources, and Europe’s intermittent money? The deepest irony of all is that much of the Kremlin’s lavish defence spending is directly financed by Europe itself, which is due to spend over €20 billion buying oil, gas, coal and uranium from Russia in 2025.
As long as Europe continues to spend more on financing Putin’s war machine than it does on Ukraine’s, its promises of supporting Kyiv for as long as it takes ring rather hollow.
I’m sure we all remember the “ReArm Europe” package in Brussels that could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years …”
It turned out to be misleading/borderline bullshit.
Comment from :
Gary Simeral
The Russian threat to Europe has been there since the end of WWII. If you read history, General Patton wanted to take them out in 1946. That is why he was killed. Europe, has relied on the US for protection, and unlike the Mafia the us hasn’t charged for it. And what did the US get for its Billions spent on European defense, A Europe that thinks it is oh so superior, looking down their haughty noses and the dumb Amis.
Kasper Christiansen
19 HRS AGO
The US does not have the interest or stamina to defend the Western alliance of which they officially is the leader of, but de facto has abandoned.
Even though they were the ones who were attacked by Al Queda/Taliban on 9/11 2001, they decided to quit and surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban while their European allies didn’t want to.
My country Denmark had per capita casualties in Afghanistan on par with the US but quitting was not an option and not something we even talked about.
The current US Secretary of Defense has just ridiculed the allied forces in Afghanistan by jokingly calling the acronym ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) as I Saw Americans Fight – thus not recognising and respecting the sacrifices of allied countries like the UK.
The US has left the alliance of free nations and who can predict the direction of the US?
They even talk about annexing territories from their allies.
Europe must as a minimum replace the US military and industrial complex on all aspects including nuclear power and intelligence, but preferably surpass it.
Richard Cassin
Reply to Kasper Christiansen
Unfortunately, until called out it is Europe that has not had the interest, stamina or investment to defend themselves let alone the western alliance. Hegseth comments on allies sacrifice in Afghanistan were monumentally stupid and the debacle of withdrawal is a stain on the US (albeit due to Biden incompetence) that is not in dispute. The reality is that China is now the most pressing strategic issue for the US and so Europes long complacent slumber under the US security blanket has to end.
Kasper Christiansen
Reply to Richard Cassin
I agree that many European countries have not spent enough on their defence, but it is more complicated to merely look at money.
1. A lot of the US defence budget is nuclear weapons and the policy before Ukraine was that of non proliferation. Putin has successfully used the threat of using nuclear weapons to scare the US into abandoning its allies thus now practically every country in the world is incentivised to acquire nuclear weapons. Imperialist dictators to scare the US and countries under threat to deter dictators from attacking.
2. The US – a country of 350 million people – couldn’t stomach the loss of 2453 soldiers in Afghanistan over 20 years. Russia (144 million) is loosing 1000 – 2200 soldiers per day in Ukraine. The US has become the world’s most casualty sensitive country and the big military budget is thereby worth very little.
3. Part of the big budget is also high salaries, pensions & healthcare, overpriced equipment, education accounted as military budget etc. Conscripts in Europe are paid very little, education, healthcare & pensions is not on military budget.
4. The US has made a fortune selling overpriced weapons. Flying hours in the F35 cost 10 times that of the Gripen. Now countries are working full time on finding alternative to US weapons.
5. The only NATO country to have evoked article 5 is the US after 9/11 and now both the President, VP & Secretary of Defense are busy ridiculing the allies who died for the US.
6. The risk of war with China has increased substantially by this – US abandoning its own defence alliance – because China knows that the US is now on its own and will quit like always. If the US together with allies (2/3) cannot even win over the Taliban then how should they win over China?
Simon Nahk
Ukraine is on its own but Israel is being supported by a whole US Armada. The Trump view being “you created this mess in Europe so it’s your problem.” It’s probably more likely Trump’s stance on Europe made it less likely that the US would make a serious commitment to defending it over the long term so its not a big risk to go in from Russia.
Jerry Markham
Reply to Simon Nahk
You are writing garbage Simon.
Trump 1.0 is who delivered thousands of Javelin missiles that stopped Putin’s tanks in their tracks.
The US are still supplying arms but are also demanding that the fighting stops.
Only some bloodthirsty monster would want the killing to continue.
All wars end over a table. Why is President Trump being portrayed as bad when all he is trying to achieve is PEACE!?
Ron Thompson
Reply to Jerry Markham
“Why is President Trump being portrayed as bad when all he is trying to achieve is PEACE!?”
Because he’s cut weapon supplies to Kyiv, treated Putin with kid gloves, tried to asset-strip Ukraine and put the USA’s commitment to NATO and Article 5 in doubt.
He’s going for a similar policy of appeasement to Chamberlain’s, prior to WW2.
Which will not lead to peace, but more war.
Paul Connolly
Europe could impose a no fly zone by deploying fighters to the region.
WHO cares what Putin says or thinks?
Patrick Schrabauer
Reply to Paul Connolly
Yes. Because this is an illegal invasion, there are no legitimate military targets.
Even the Pope should be able to walk freely there. The Russian assault on Ukraine lacks any legal foundation. On the contrary, it violates numerous treaties in which Russia explicitly pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to join protective alliances of its choosing. Killing civilians and seizing land is simply illegal.
Gary Simeral
Reply to Patrick Schrabauer –
The taking of Crimea was just as much a crime, where was Europe, the invasion of Georgia was just as much a crime. where was Europe. European leaders ran wringing their hands to the WEF asking what do we do now, and the WEF said nothing, and nothing is what happened.
Karen Kirby
Trump was always going to turn his back on both NATO and Ukraine. His support of Russia, his infatuation with Putin and the Russia-loving cabinet he appointed was there for all to see. Trump wants the wealth and unchecked power he sees Putin has. Trump has no interest in America or the world, just trump.
Reading the comments from trump apologists is hilarious.
“Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy.”
So there you have it. Orbanistan and Ficostan are not the only arseholes in town.
We should add officially to the list Croatia, Spain and Italy.
We need a new trade, military and intel-sharing bloc consisting only of like-minded countries. The list gets smaller every day : Ukraine +
UK, France, Germany (wobbly), Holland, the Scandies, the Balts, Canada, Poland (wobbly), who else?