Resilience Through Adversity: How Ukraine’s War Effort Can Endure Diminishing US Aid
- Matthew Parish
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state has been sustained by the resilience of its people and a vast influx of military, economic, and humanitarian assistance from Western allies—chiefly the United States. However with the shifting political winds in Washington and the Trump administration signaling fatigue or conditionality around future support, serious questions are emerging about whether US aid can continue at the current scale—and whether Ukraine can withstand Russia’s aggression without it.
Yet despite these concerns, several structural, financial, and geopolitical factors suggest that military support for Ukraine may persist—possibly for years—even in the absence of new congressional appropriations or sustained White House backing. Moreover the growing resolve in Europe to assume more of the burden of Ukraine’s defence hints at a strategic rebalancing that could ultimately reinforce transatlantic resilience against Russian revanchism.
The Architecture of Existing US Military Aid
While appropriations for Ukraine may not be renewed imminently, the vast size and structure of existing U.S. defence commitments provide breathing room.
1. Remaining Balances from Existing Appropriations
Much of the $113 billion in aid authorised between 2022 and 2024 remains unspent or is tied up in ongoing contracts. Through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF), the U.S. Department of Defense has arranged multi-year contracts with US defence manufacturers to supply Ukraine with equipment and munitions. These contracts may continue to deliver matériel even if Congress does not authorise new funds, so long as funds are legally committed and contracts are active.
2. Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) – Possibly Paused, Not Ended
Even if the Trump administration chooses to pause or halt use of Presidential Drawdown Authority—a tool allowing the president to transfer equipment directly from US military stocks—existing logistics chains and previously authorised drawdowns may still trickle through for months.
3. Lend-Lease Agreements and Bilateral Contracts
Ukraine and the United States have signed various forms of bilateral support, including defence export agreements and lending or leasing frameworks with extended lifespans. These instruments, while politically fragile, may endure bureaucratically, unless actively revoked.
Europe’s Expanding Role: Filling the Gap
If American support stagnates or declines over the remainder of the Trump administration, Ukraine’s viability may increasingly hinge on Europe. Fortunately, European states are showing signs of strategic maturity and long-term planning that may allow them to shoulder more responsibility.
1. Europe Already Outpacing US Aid in Aggregate
As of early 2025, the European Union and its member states have cumulatively outspent the United States on total Ukraine aid. Germany, France, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, and Eastern European states have all committed substantial sums. Crucially, the European Peace Facility (EPF), which funds weapons transfers, is expanding, with billions more allocated for 2025–2027. The United Kingdom, outside the EU, is also committing a consistent GBP3 billion (EUR3.5 billion) per annum.
2. Massive Increases in National Defence Budgets
Several European states—especially Poland, Germany, and the Nordic countries—have drastically increased defence spending, often well above NATO’s 2% of GDP guideline. Much of this spending is directed toward stockpiles, industrial ramp-up, and Ukrainian support. Germany’s €100 billion rearmament fund, for instance, may include provisions for industrial co-production with Ukraine or large-scale donations.
3. Industrial Mobilisation and Co-Production with Ukraine
European defence manufacturers, especially in France, Germany, and the Czech Republic, are opening new production lines and signing co-production agreements with Ukrainian firms. Rheinmetall (the German arms manufacturer), for instance, is building facilities inside Ukraine. This shift from donation to co-production transforms Ukraine from a dependent client into a partially self-sufficient arms producer, ensuring a longer-term capacity for replenishment.
4. Strategic Stockpile Redistribution
Countries such as Norway, Spain, and the Baltic states have begun redistributing older NATO-standard munitions and armoured vehicles. The adaptation of NATO-calibre artillery by Ukrainian forces has opened vast inventories of compatible shells and systems, which can now be more readily shared.
European Strategic Autonomy and Collective Military Action
The US shift toward conditional or transactional support for Ukraine may catalyse a broader transformation in European defence policy, characterised by strategic autonomy and continental burden-sharing.
1. France and the United Kingdom – Europe’s Military Anchors
Both France and the United Kingdom possess expeditionary military forces with aircraft carrier strike fleets, global airlift capacity, and nuclear deterrents. These two nations are increasingly cooperating—especially through joint Ukraine assistance efforts—and could lead a European security initiative in Ukraine’s support, particularly if coordinated through NATO and the EU.
2. NATO Frameworks and EU Initiatives
The recent NATO commitment to €40 billion per year in security assistance for Ukraine, approved at the foreign ministers’ meeting in April 2025, underscores an institutional consensus. Meanwhile, the EU’s Ukraine Facility is funding military and economic reconstruction, using grants and investment guarantees designed to stabilise Ukraine’s internal institutions.
3. Diplomatic Leverage and Soft Power
Even as the US government hesitates, other Western players—including Italy under Meloni and Germany under a likely Merz government—are using diplomacy, economic incentives, and regional forums to signal long-term support. Ukraine is not diplomatically isolated—on the contrary, she remains the fulcrum of a broad European strategy for resisting imperial aggression.
Strategic Implications for Ukraine’s War Effort
Ukraine’s strategic situation remains perilous, but manageable—provided continued material flows and battlefield equilibrium can be maintained.
1. Material Sufficiency and Front-Line Sustainability
With European supplies continuing and domestic production increasing, Ukraine may have the means to sustain her defensive posture along the entire front, though counteroffensives may remain more difficult. The build-up of artillery, anti-aircraft systems, and electronic warfare capacity will remain critical.
2. Time as a Strategic Asset
With Europe increasing investment and Ukraine building defence industry capacity, the key variable is time. If Kyiv can maintain the line through 2025–26, by 2027 European production lines and Ukrainian forces may be far more robust—potentially independent of renewed U.S. help.
3. Deterrence against Russian Escalation
While the absence of US support could embolden Russia, clear European unity and increased military presence may provide sufficient deterrence. The NATO presence in Eastern Europe is larger than at any time since the Cold War.
Conclusion: A Post-American Strategic Paradigm?
While the United States has been indispensable in Ukraine’s defence since 2022, the possibility of reduced American support is forcing a broader transformation. European allies, once reluctant to assume greater burdens, are now rearming, co-producing, and committing to long-term support for Ukraine. Ukraine, for her part, is developing a war economy and domestic defence production base. Together, these developments may allow Ukraine to sustain her defence and deny Russia victory—even if the US aid pipeline narrows for a time.
The coming years may mark a strategic shift—from US primacy in European security, to a more balanced transatlantic partnership. And in this new paradigm, Ukraine’s fight remains not only viable—but symbolically central to Europe’s identity and security in the 21st century.