A Ukrainian soldier waits for orders near artillery shells for the M109 artillery self-propelled vehicle on the front line, in the direction of Bakhmut, where clashes between Russia and Ukraine continue to take place, in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine on January 22, 2024. (Photo by Ignacio Marin/Anadolu via Getty Images)
WASHINGTON and BELFAST — In his first public comments on Ukraine since taking office, President Donald Trump said last night that he was still evaluating whether the United States will continue military support to Kyiv, but either way, Europe will need to step up its own contributions.
But could more European defense spending mean investment in American weapons?
“We’ll look into that,” Trump said when asked whether the US would turn off the tap of weaponry to Ukraine. “We’re talking to [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. We’re going to be talking with President [Vladimir] Putin very soon. And we’ll see how it all happens. We’re going to look at it very soon. One thing I do feel, the European Union should be paying a lot more than they’re paying.”
“The European Union should equalize,” he added. “We’re in there for $200 billion more than the European Union. I mean, what are we, stupid? I guess the answer is yes. Because they must think so.”
Figures from the Kiel Institute, a German think tank, indicate that from the start of the conflict through to October 2024, the US lagged behind Europe on spending for Ukraine, by $37.5 billion. Even so, US spending is hugely significant and uncertainty leaves Kyiv waiting with baited breath for what the White House will do.
But as recently as last week, an outgoing senior US official told reporters that there were people on Trump’s team who supported continuing military support for Ukraine — if there was a way to save the US taxpayer from bearing the brunt of it.
The now-former official offered a pitch that seems at first brush very on-brand for Trump: Call on Europe to pay for American support.
The idea is that Trump can continue authorizing drawdowns of in-stock US military equipment such as munitions, vehicles and small drones, allowing the speedy transfer of materiel to Kyiv and sustaining pressure on Russia, the official said. But instead of using US funds to backfill Defense Department stocks, Trump can get European allies to foot the bill — a solution that benefits US defense contractors without raising the ire of voters who are skeptical of additional financial support to Ukraine.
“You get to go out and say, we’re continuing to support Ukraine, and the Europeans are paying for it,” said the official. “The Europeans have the cash. They don’t have the stuff. That’s the problem, is they’ve run their stocks down, and they don’t have anywhere near the production capacity. … It’s going to have to be the American defense industry who is continuing to power the fight, if Ukraine is going to stay in it.”
Whether such an idea is feasible is unclear.
Analysts Breaking Defense spoke with broadly agreed that US pressure could force European countries to bankroll additional military aid packages for Ukraine, but not all believe that US defense firms would be the major beneficiary of those deals due to global industrial base vulnerabilities and political pressures for Europe to fund domestic suppliers.
“It might not normally be realistic, but if the alternative is a cutoff of American support, then it becomes far more of a possibility,” said Jacob Parakilas, research leader for defense strategy, policy and capabilities at RAND Europe.
“As a function of geography and history, European nations — especially those on Europe’s eastern flank — are more likely to see Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in more existential terms than the US. So while the idea of sending money to a much richer ally in order to buy weapons for a third party might not pass the laugh test under normal circumstances, if the alternative is ceding victory to Russia, it might well become politically feasible (depending of course on exact terms and various other details).”
Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, a Belgian based economics think tank, said that Europeans would have to “step up their support of Ukraine if the United States wasn’t there,” but also stressed that the size of the US defense industrial base poses a fundamental problem for the bankrolling idea floated by the senior official.
“People are starting to understand in Europe that the US defense industrial base would be way too small to rely on in case of peer conflict,” he explained. “I think there’s a strong sense emerging, I hope at least, that, Europe must further develop its domestic” industrial base.
Wolff also said that when production of select weapon systems are considered, European output outpaces the US.
“If you take artillery shells for example, Europe is producing more,” he shared. “My understanding is, even in the area of tanks, Europe is producing more than the United States, which still has relatively small capacities….there’s no reason to believe that Europeans cannot further increase their domestic production in other weapon systems, and that includes, of course, air defense missiles,” which Ukraine continues to plead with military aid partners to deliver urgently.
Tim Lawrenson, a European defense expert, said that without having insight to the thinking of “prime ministers and presidents” across Europe, it is difficult to offer a perspective on how realistic the European bankrolling US military aid for Ukraine plan might be, but it would certainly play into a narrative, striking a chord with “some parts of Europe,” that Trump will work from a “transactional approach” regarding transatlantic relations.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Future Of Ukraine Under Trump
Trump has been critical of US aid to Ukraine and has repeatedly said that he would stop the war by brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, raising concerns in Kyiv that it could be forced to accept unfavorable terms.
However, since the start of the new year, there have been signs that the administration is not going to rush into a settlement right away. Two Trump advisers told Reuters last week that the administration now believes it may take months or even longer to negotiate an agreement. In a Truth Social post today, Trump threatened to impose tariffs and sanctions on Russia if Putin does not come to the negotiating table.
Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, has shed little light on what the Pentagon’s approach on Ukraine will be under his leadership.
In written responses made in advance of his nomination hearing on Tuesday last week, Hegseth said he would “ensure that the Department of Defense plays a key role in the whole-of government effort to support the President’s Special Envoy for Ukraine-Russia” but did not directly answer questions about whether the Pentagon should continue providing security assistance to Kyiv. During the hearing, Hegseth said he would provide his “best guidance” to Trump matters such as Ukraine, but did not elaborate.
RELATED: SASC pushes forward Hegseth’s nomination for defense secretary
Whether Congress moves forward with additional Ukraine funds will likely be determined by Trump’s approach, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told Breaking Defense in a recent interview.
“It’s going to be up to President Trump, what he wants to do. He obviously wants to try to end this war, which obviously we would all like to happen,” he said. “What I am convinced is that President Trump will not allow — not allow — Ukraine to be another Afghanistan.”
Aaron Mehta in Washington contributed to this report.
