As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year since Russia launched a massive invasion of its neighbour in February 2022, it has been made clear that the steady stream of foreign aid Ukraine had been receiving from former president Joe Biden’s administration will not be continued by the office of President Donald Trump.
Since the start of the war, the U.S. congress has appropriated or otherwise made available nearly $183 billion USD for Operation Atlantic Resolve and the broader Ukraine response.[1]
The dramatic change in funding prospects raises significant issues not only for Ukrainian sovereignty but for the European Union and NATO. Member states prepare to potentially continue defence of a country asking both organizations for membership without U.S. aid, until peace terms are achieved that are not tilted in favour of Russia and/or the U.S.
Trump’s decision to stop aid to Ukraine comes amid increasing pressure from within the White House to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate a ceasefire deal with Russia, and to sign a related deal with the U.S. involving Ukraine’s rare mineral resources. Rejected by Zelensky, early terms of this deal had the U.S. staking claim to $500 billion USD in value.[2]
The U.S. and Russia held peace talks in February without inviting Ukraine and other key countries to the table. In this meeting, they drew up plans for peace that would make rebuilding Ukraine a very difficult task.[3]
Additionally, following Trump and Zelensky’s argumentative meeting in Washington on February 28 – which ended in the latter being asked to leave the White House – Trump ordered a pause on shipments of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. This happened on March 3, leaving Ukraine in a precarious position as it loses a major ally and having a dire effect on the country’s military capabilities.[4]
Until then, the U.S had been providing Ukraine with ground, air, and naval equipment. This included but was not limited to 31 Abrams main battle tanks, 10,000 javelin anti-tank missiles, 5,000 Humvee vehicles, and 100 coastal patrol boats.[5]The halt in aid, which came after Trump held a series of meetings with top U.S. national security officials, will remain in place until the White House determines Zelensky has made a commitment to seeking peace talks, essentially forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table by threatening increased losses on the battlefield.[6]
In Figure 1, produced by the BBC with figures from the Kiel Institute, we see the breakdown of total aid sent to Ukraine by various countries and the EU, January 2022 through December 2024. As a whole, Europe has sent 49.5% of the aid, and the U.S. 42.7%. Among individual countries, the U.S. is clearly the largest single donor to Ukraine.[7]
Figure 1 – contributors to Ukraine’s war efforts.
The effects of the Americans’ change in direction are being felt beyond Washington and Kyiv, as European countries especially have moved to plug the aid gap and deal with the potential fallout.[8]
During a recent meeting between key European leaders and then-Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau in London, British PM Keir Starmer gave a speech emphasizing the creation of a “Coalition of the Willing” that could mobilize troops from participating nations potentially in defence of Ukraine as well as for any future peacekeeping operations and filling the deficit in aid left by the withdrawal of the U.S.[9]
This use of the phrase by Starmer is a snide reference to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq when the U.S. called for its own “Coalition of the Willing”, and allied countries came to its aid.
For the U.S., this appears to be a win-win situation because if the Coalition of the Willing cannot find a way to support Ukraine adequately if the conflict were to continue, Zelensky would likely be forced to pursue peace with Russia and the U.S. being in stronger position to set the terms for a ceasefire.
The U.S. could gain a lucrative mineral rights deal while Russian President Vladimir Putin could push for Ukraine to cede territory (e.g., Crimea and Donbas regions) that Russia currently holds. Ukraine could also be refused NATO and EU memberships, which was a central issue when the conflict commenced in 2014.[10]
The impacts for all of this on NATO and the EU mostly relate to defence spending. If a coalition is formed to continue supporting the Ukrainian military, it will have to take on a larger majority of aid to Ukraine while increasing their own defence budgets, therefore reducing reliance on the U.S. for defence spending through the NATO Treaty.
The US has been the main contributor to the collective defence of the NATO alliance since its inception in 1949. Therefore, the burden to pay for NATO military power has fallen on U.S. taxpayers. This is a responsibility that Trump seeks to decrease, if not end. In 2014, a NATO agreement was created that called for European countries to contribute 2% of their national GDPs per year toward defence budgets by 2024. Only 23 of 32 members are thought to have reached this target.[11]
In an interview with BBC News on February 14, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, said that members would have to spend “considerably more than 3%” of their GDPs on defence moving forward. He said that a new target would be decided for defence spending in either April or May of 2025.[12]
One of Trump’s main campaign slogans for the 2024 election was putting ‘America first.’ Part of the effort to achieve this includes cutting government costs by decreasing bureaucratic overspending, reducing foreign aid, and accounting for misappropriated funds. Elon Musk has been brought in as an unpaid special government employee to lead the newly created Department of Government Expenditure (DOGE), tasked with reducing federal spending.
These policies imply that Trump is actively working to reduce the trade deficit with Europe, which was $235.6 billion USD in 2024 while trying to force the EU and NATO to take on a larger portion of the defence budget so that the U.S. can spend more of its money on itself.[13]
The Trump administration is obviously seeking an outcome in Ukraine that benefits the U.S. both directly through a minerals deal within the country, and indirectly by withdrawing aid to Ukraine, knowing that NATO and EU member states will be pressured to spend a higher percentage of their GDPs on defence while the U.S. dramatically reduces its foreign aid expenditure.
References:
[1] The Special Inspector General is committed to ensuring comprehensive oversight of Operation Atlantic Resolve, Ukraine Oversight
[2] Trump faces pushback in Washington over Ukraine aid freeze, BBC News, March 4, 2025
[3] US and Russia forge ahead on peace talks, without Ukraine, Reuters, February 19, 2025
[4] Arming Ukraine: A closer look at US military aid since 2021, CNN, March 11, 2025
[5] What military aid was the US giving Ukraine and why has Trump paused it?, The Guardian, March 4, 2025
[6] Zelensky describes Oval Office meeting as ‘regrettable,’ says he is ready to negotiate peace, CNN, March 4, 2025
[7] How much has the US given to Ukraine?, BBC News, March 1, 2025
[8] Who’s in, who’s out? The ‘coalition of the willing’ that could secure peace in Ukraine, Sky News, March 20, 2025
[9] Who’s in, who’s out? The ‘coalition of the willing’ that could secure peace in Ukraine, Sky News, March 20, 2025
[10] Ukraine, US to hold talks on Russia-Ukraine war in Saudi Arabia next week, Al Jazeera, March 7, 2025
[11] How much do Nato members spend on defence?, BBC News, February 2025
[12] How much do Nato members spend on defence?, BBC News, February 2025
[13] European Union Trade Summary, Office of the United States Trade Representative
(Sam Clarke – BIG Media Ltd., 2025)
