Ο Ντόναλντ Τραμπ στέλνει τον «λογαριασμό» της Ουκρανίας στην Ευρώπη, ζητώντας αποζημίωση για την αμερικανική βοήθεια δισεκατομμυρίων και σηματοδοτώντας μια μεγάλη αλλαγή στους όρους χρηματοδότησης του πολέμου και της ευρωπαϊκής ασφάλειας
www.pentapostagma.gr
Donald Trump sends Ukraine's "bill" to Europe, demanding compensation for billions in US aid and signaling a major change in the terms of financing the war and European security
Donald Trump is introducing a new and potentially explosive parameter in relations between the United States and Europe, declaring that Washington intends to ask the Europeans to cover the cost of US military aid provided to Ukraine under the presidency of Joe Biden.
The statement is not just another call by the US president for European allies to increase their defense spending. If it becomes a concrete government policy, it could open a whole new debate about who ultimately pays for the war in Ukraine and, more broadly, European security.
“We will ask for that money”
In a social media post, Trump claimed that “hundreds of billions of dollars” were given to Ukraine and NATO for free, money that, he said, Europe could have paid if the previous US administration had demanded it.
The US president even went a step further, announcing that his administration now intends to request this money, albeit belatedly. He did not specify, however, which European states would be asked to pay, how the amount would be calculated, or what the legal basis for such a request might be.
The last element is crucial. So far, this is a political announcement by Trump and not an announced mechanism for collecting debts from Europe.
The huge American bill
The sums that the United States has mobilized since the start of the Russian invasion are indeed huge, but not all of them are direct transfers of money to Kiev.
According to data cited by Euronews, by the end of March 2026 the US Congress had allocated approximately $195 billion in expenses related to the war in Ukraine. At the same time, the US State Department had reported that the military assistance provided since the Russian invasion of February 2022 amounted to tens of billions of dollars.
This is precisely the model that Trump is trying to overturn. His basic policy position is that Europe has a much greater direct interest than the US in the outcome of the war and therefore Europeans should shoulder a greater share of the financial burden.
The new model has already begun to be implemented
In fact, the cost shift to Europe has already begun.
Central to the initiative is the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), created in 2025. Through the mechanism, allies offer money to purchase critical US military equipment, which is then delivered to Ukraine.
NATO says more than two-thirds of allies have already committed to participating, and together with partners such as Australia and New Zealand, more than $6 billion in US military equipment has been financed through PURL.
It is essentially a different economic model: the weapons remain largely American, but the bill is increasingly being passed on to Europeans and other allies.
Europe’s dependence on US weapons
The problem for Europe is that, despite impressive increases in its defence spending and production, it is not yet in a position to fully replace the US in certain critical categories of weapons systems.
The latest data from the Kiel Institute is typical. In the first half of 2026, European countries procured at least 3 billion euros of military equipment for Ukraine from American defense companies. This amount corresponds to about 30% of European military aid that came from defense industry supplies.
Even greater is the dependence on PURL, where over 90% of the military aid channeled through the mechanism comes from American stocks.
Systems such as the Patriot remain particularly critical, for which the available European alternatives are limited.
This creates a paradox: Europe can take on a larger share of Ukraine’s financing, but it still needs American production lines and military stockpiles to a significant extent.
The other big worry: American stockpiles
Trump’s statements come alongside a second, particularly important debate in Washington: the state of American ammunition stocks.
The US president dismissed reports of serious depletion of stocks and claimed that production is increasing drastically. At the same time, however, he essentially revealed his administration’s priority: some of the ammunition that could otherwise be exported is temporarily kept in the United States.
“We are keeping them for ourselves,” he said, adding that sales to allies would resume soon.
This stance is particularly important given the parallel military demands the US faces. The war with Iran has significantly increased the consumption of advanced American munitions, while Washington must simultaneously maintain reserves for potential crises in other theaters of operations.
Ukraine, Iran and the new American hierarchy
Here lies perhaps the most important geopolitical dimension of the case.
The United States is now being asked to allocate limited military resources across multiple fronts and potential crises. Ukraine needs a steady stream of anti-aircraft missiles and ammunition, the Middle East is absorbing significant quantities of weapons, and Washington cannot ignore the demands of deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
In this environment, Trump’s logic becomes clearer: the United States will continue to be the West’s main arsenal, but it no longer wants to automatically act as the main financier of European defense.
The bill goes to Europe
For European governments, the message is hard to ignore.
Even if Trump’s demand for retroactive compensation never results in the actual collection of “hundreds of billions,” Washington’s political direction is clear: the era in which the US assumed a large part of the cost of supporting Ukraine without a corresponding European financial burden is considered by the Trump administration to be a thing of the past.
Europe has already begun to adapt. The Kiel Institute records a significant increase in European military commitments, while the new European Ukraine Support Loan of €90 billion for 2026 and 2027 is another indication of the effort to cover a larger part of Ukraine’s needs from European resources.
The real question, therefore, is not only whether Europe will retroactively pay the “bill” announced by Trump.
It is whether it can finance and, above all, produce on its own the weapons that its security requires.
Because the new American approach is gradually shaping a different transatlantic relationship: the United States remains Europe’s most important military partner, but it is increasingly demanding that Europeans not only increase their defense spending, but also pay for the American military power on which they continue to depend.
And this may constitute one of the most significant changes in the structure of NATO and European security since the start of the war in Ukraine.
www.epc.eu
www.dw.com
