The most recent remarks from Donald Trump and associated commentary reflect a sharp shift in the Western posture on Ukraine. Trump presents the conflict as a business transaction. His proposition was that he is not sending weapons as aid anymore, but as inventory to be paid for, primarily by European states. He states that the United States will send sophisticated arms like Patriot missiles, not at its own expense, but at the Europeans. The plan is to sell these weapons to Europe, which will then pass them to Ukraine. Trump frames this arrangement as overdue and insists that Washington should no longer carry the financial burden. He criticises Biden for failing to secure reimbursements, stating that the U.S. has already committed over $350 billion.
Lindsey Graham and other U.S. figures echo this stance, framing it as a strategic shift in the American approach to Ukraine. Trump is turning the war into a commercial opportunity for U.S. arms manufacturers. The Europeans are expected to pay, and Ukraine becomes the channel through which the trade flows. There is no talk of resolution or diplomacy. The war is not seen as a crisis to be solved, but as an open-ended market to be served.
France and Germany have both committed to steep increases in military spending. France intends to jump from 1.9 percent to 5 percent of GDP. Of that, 1.5 percent is allocated to collective defence, which loosely covers aid to Ukraine. The rationale is that Ukraine is acting as a buffer against Russian aggression, and funding its war effort constitutes indirect protection for Europe.
But this justification stretches the definition of collective defence. Ukraine is not even a NATO member. The conflict did not originate from fake claims of a Russian campaign to conquer Europe, but from NATO instigated political and territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine, rooted in events following the 2014 Victoria Neuland and CIA backed Maidan coup in Kiev and the subsequent breakdown of the Minsk agreements. The core argument that Moscow is determined to rebuild an empire has not been substantiated by facts on the ground. Even if Russia has the military power to threaten countries beyond Ukraine, there is no articulated objective or political logic for such expansion. The claim that France is a primary target of Russia lacks evidence and serves primarily to support domestic spending on arms.
Trump’s approach, though self-interested, acknowledges a basic reality. The current Western posture is unsustainable. Turning Ukraine into a weapons marketplace allows him to withdraw American taxpayer involvement without appearing to abandon the cause. From a business standpoint, it is consistent. But it also exposes the failure of Western governments to establish any clear goals in this war. Billions are spent, weapons flow in, but there is no roadmap. The purpose of the conflict has become less about Ukraine’s defence and more about keeping Western governments in motion.
Zelensky’s earlier offer to Trump of strategic mineral rights in exchange for U.S. support illustrates the transactional logic at work. But Trump rejected future payment and instead treated it as compensation for past aid. In this, he flipped the expectation and again placed profit above partnership. European leaders, meanwhile, scramble to maintain the illusion of cohesion and resolve, while facing mounting domestic opposition and economic decline.
Social services are being quietly gutted to fund military increases. Rutte suggested that European countries redirect spending from pensions and health into arms. This is a dramatic change for nations whose political identity rests on state-supported welfare. The poorest EU members now top defence spending rankings. These are the same countries that backed U.S. wars in the past. They continue to echo Washington’s line in the hope of future favour. But the costs fall on their own citizens.
The conflict has grown far beyond its original scale. What began as a regional dispute has been shaped by sanctions, energy politics, and military aid into a global fault line. But the decision-makers still present Russia as pursuing a vague imperial ambition. There is no credible explanation of why Russia would wish to occupy or govern the rest of Europe. The narrative is maintained only to justify continued spending and to distract from internal political failure.
European leaders speak more often about Ukraine than about their own countries. Macron, Merz, and Starmer all reflect this shift. Domestic problems are ignored. External conflicts are used to draw attention away from growing dissent at home. The war becomes a political tool, not a strategic obligation.
Ukraine itself is collapsing. The army faces desertion rates of up to 70 percent. Soldiers no longer believe in the mission. There is no viable military path to victory. Europe sends more arms, but no strategy. The hope appears to be that Russia will somehow overextend, but the opposite is happening. Russia advances and consolidates. It avoids full occupation and focuses on pressure. The result is a slow, grinding loss for Ukraine.
Putin’s objectives remain unchanged. Demilitarisation and denazification were clearly stated. The idea that Russia aims to conquer Europe has no basis in Russian policy statements. The West projects its own tactics onto Russia. It wages wars without strategic purpose and assumes others do the same. This leads to circular logic,Russia is a threat because it must be, not because it has explained any ambition.
During the Cold War, Western defence strategy was built on defined ideological and military assumptions, however flawed. The Soviet Union was assessed as a geopolitical and ideological adversary, and NATO’s posture was developed around that framework. Today, by contrast, policy decisions on Ukraine and broader European security lack a coherent strategic framework. Public justification for defence spending increases and military deployments often relies on episodic political statements rather than clearly defined security threats or articulated objectives. Legal institutions have also been drawn into this inconsistency. The International Criminal Court, which was widely supported in the West when it issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children, received a markedly different response when it issued similar proceedings against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2024 for actions in Gaza. In that case, Western political leaders either dismissed the charges or actively opposed the court’s intervention. The selective application of international legal standards according to political alignment undermines institutional credibility and weakens claims to rules-based governance.
Donald Trump’s stated approach to the conflict in Ukraine avoids direct financial commitments by the United States and reframes involvement as a commercial transaction. His proposal, publicly described in July 2025, involves the U.S. supplying advanced military systems, such as Patriot missile batteries, to European countries on a fully reimbursable basis. These systems are then transferred by the European buyers to Ukraine. This model effectively shifts the financial burden from Washington to European capitals and positions the conflict as an opportunity for domestic defence industry profit. While it alters the structure of involvement, it does not address the core issues of the conflict or offer a resolution. No plan has been presented for ceasefire negotiations, conflict de-escalation, or territorial settlement. This position reflects a tactical reconfiguration of policy, not a strategic or diplomatic initiative.
Russia continues to gain ground and diplomatic weight. It has built links through BRICS and avoided the full isolation Western leaders expected. Sympathy grows where hypocrisy is exposed. The ICC, sanctions, and international law are applied selectively. The result is a loss of moral standing.
No viable peace plan exists from the Western side. The Zelensky plan remains a demand for Russian capitulation. The Russian proposal, delivered in Istanbul, reflects battlefield realities. It calls for NATO exclusion and territorial concessions. That remains unacceptable to Kiev and its backers.
Current demographic and economic indicators suggest that Ukraine’s long-term viability is deteriorating. Since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, over 6 million Ukrainians have left the country. Multiple EU member states have reported that a significant portion of these refugees have integrated into host societies and express no intention to return. Many are of working and reproductive age, contributing to a decline in Ukraine’s post-war recovery potential. Simultaneously, casualty rates among the Ukrainian armed forces have affected the same age groups critical for reconstruction. On the battlefield, Russian forces have maintained gradual but steady territorial gains across multiple fronts, particularly in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. If current trends continue, Western governments will face growing internal and fiscal pressure to reassess their level of engagement. Diplomatic negotiations, previously avoided or delayed, will likely become necessary. When talks resume, the Russian side will enter with battlefield leverage and broader international backing from non-Western states. Western governments, having set high political stakes on outcomes that now appear unlikely, will face limited room for manoeuvre. Their negotiating posture will be shaped not by strategic initiative but by conditions they failed to influence.
The present stage of the war is defined by political inertia, in the absence a coordinated strategy. Policies continue without realistic objectives, and material support is provided absent a path to resolution. This lack of direction has reduced the conflict to a protracted confrontation with no defined endpoint and no consensus on how or when it should conclude.
( NATO to speed up arms deliveries to Ukraine, calling U.S. support "critically important," says NATO Secretary General)
If you think my voice should be heard louder then PLEASE support by becoming a paid subscriber. I have minimal overheads, no sponsors to sell myself or soul to, no bosses who tell me what to write (or NOT write), or staff I have to pay. I’m here for your raw, straight, and dedicated analyses. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Share this post