After months of hesitation, US President Donald Trump has changed his tune on the war in Ukraine: he promises weapons, but shifts the financial burden to the Europeans and gives Putin 50 days to reach a peace deal. Forbes Ukraine has compiled the main points from The Economist and WSJ on why aid to Ukraine is delayed, supplies are limited, and Trump’s decisions remain unpredictable.
Buy an annual subscription to 6 Forbes Ukraine magazines with informative materials, ratings and analytics from UAH 1,350 .
After his first phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2025, US President Donald Trump extolled the “great benefits” of rapprochement with Russia and seemed eager to visit the Kremlin, The Economist reports. But on July 14, he announced that the US would resume deliveries of 17 Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems and other weapons to Ukraine, threatening to impose 100% additional tariffs on countries doing business with Russia if a peace deal was not reached within 50 days.
The US president made this statement during a visit to Washington by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Weapons for Ukraine will now be purchased by European allies, and not supplied from US warehouses or purchased with American taxpayers’ money, as before. Although billions of dollars approved by Congress under previous President Joe Biden remain unused, and Trump seems to have no intention of using them. “This is not my war, this is Biden’s war,” he says.
Popular Category Money Date Yesterday “A 180-degree turn.” The Rada abolished the independence of NABU and SAPO. What does this mean for the work of anti-corruption bodies and relations with partners?
50 days of uncertainty
Trump has already given Russia two weeks to conclude a deal with Ukraine several times, so Ukraine is rather concerned about the delay in the implementation of economic sanctions on Russia. Oleksandr Merezhko, the head of the Verkhovna Rada foreign policy committee, called this “good news” in a comment to The Economist, but warned that “these 50 days could be dangerous for Ukraine, because Putin will definitely use them” to intensify attacks.
Global oil markets have barely reacted to Trump’s threat of tariffs, even though they could hit China, India and Brazil, suggesting skepticism about whether the tariffs will be implemented at all.
Trump sees tariffs as a tool for achieving a variety of goals, from filling the budget to ending wars abroad, but his decisions remain unpredictable. He often announces new tariffs and then negotiates for their partial removal. How Trump will coordinate these new tariffs with his broader trade war is not yet clear. This contradicts his efforts to enlist India in a partnership against China.
The Patriot system, which Ukraine needs, is currently in short supply. But, according to Trump, 17 such air defense systems will be transferred to Ukraine. Photo Getty Images
Weapons on possible pause
As for weapons, at first glance, Trump’s statement gives the impression that Ukraine will receive a steady stream of weapons that only the United States can provide. In particular, the Patriot system for intercepting ballistic and cruise missiles. This comes at a time when aid from the Biden administration is running out. However, air defense systems are currently in short supply around the world, in particular because the United States spent a lot of interceptors protecting Israel and Qatar from Iranian missiles during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran.
In June 2025, the Pentagon even temporarily suspended the supply of interceptor missiles and other weapons to Ukraine, ostensibly to audit American stockpiles (but there was no such pause for Israel). Trump later reversed this decision.
Trump also did not say what other weapons the US would provide to Ukraine. These could be long-range missiles capable of reaching Moscow. Biden provided Ukraine with ATACMS missiles with a range of about 300 km, writes The Economist. To strike Moscow, Tomahawk missiles or more stealthy JASSM-ER missiles (with a range of about 800–1,500 km, depending on the modification) are needed. Whether Trump will risk such an escalation – even if the weapons are sold to Europeans, and not directly to Ukraine – is an open question. In addition, long-range missiles are also in short supply.
The arms package for Ukraine could cost about $10 billion, two informed sources told the WSJ.
This aid may not be enough to stop the slow advance of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Attitudes toward Ukraine among Trump supporters and parts of his administration remain reserved, if not hostile.
Trump declined to answer questions about what he would do if Russia escalated its attacks on Ukraine. There is no indication that Putin is willing to abandon his key goals: annexing more Ukrainian territory and “addressing the root causes of the conflict,” meaning imposing neutrality on Ukraine or returning it to Russian control.
Lockheed Martin plant produced 500 PAC-3 interceptors for Patriot systems in 2024. Photo Getty Images
German contribution and the dilemma of priorities for Patriot
In 2024, Lockheed Martin produced 500 PAC-3 interceptors for Patriot systems and plans to increase production to 650 units by 2027. The European consortium, which produces similar missiles for the Franco-Italian SAMP-T system, has much smaller capacities. To speed up the delivery of Patriot systems to Ukraine, Germany and other European countries can transfer missiles from their stocks, provided that these systems are later compensated for by supplies from the United States.
On Monday, July 14, Trump hinted that this was part of his plan, saying that Germany would “send the missiles early” and that they would be “replaced.” Another way to meet Ukraine’s needs would be to buy Patriot systems and interceptor missiles directly off the assembly line. But for a foreign customer, buying Patriots could take years.
To speed up the process, Trump could insist that Ukraine be given priority in the queue for new supplies, the WSJ reported. But that would mean other U.S. allies that have also ordered Patriots would have to wait. On July 14, Trump also did not specify at a meeting with Rutte whether he was willing to interfere with the production schedule of the interceptors. Biden has resorted to such a step during his presidency to speed up Patriot deliveries to Ukraine.
The process of supplying weapons to Ukraine will be controlled by Alexus Greenwich, a US Air Force general who is NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander and heads the US European Command, writes WSJ.
Donald Trump and Mark Rutte at a meeting on Monday, July 14, at the White House, where they discussed aid to Ukraine. Photo by Getty Images
Trump’s fickleness
“The Russian tactic is to force the Ukrainians to use up all their air defenses and leave them defenseless before an offensive in late summer or fall,” Celeste Wallander, a former senior Pentagon official in the Biden administration, told the WSJ. “To change Putin’s calculation of victory, substantial supplies would have to continue throughout the summer.”
At the same time, Trump’s decision is significant. His agreement to sell modern weapons to European allies for subsequent transfer to Kyiv marks the first time that a current US administration has agreed to supply Ukraine with weapons that go beyond the decisions made by Joe Biden, comments the WSJ.
For Trump, the key is that European governments have agreed to pay the US for the weapons and transfer them to Ukraine through NATO mechanisms. This allows him to claim that he has achieved his goal of shifting more of the burden of helping Kyiv to the allies.
At the same time, Trump could change his position again if he is frightened by Putin’s nuclear threats, tempted by the promise of concessions in negotiations, or simply tired of the military stalemate, The Economist adds. His attitude towards Russia is gradually changing. In February 2025, he publicly humiliated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a visit to the White House and temporarily stopped supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence. In April of that year, Trump began to wonder if Putin was “using him” and threatened him with sanctions, but he kept giving Russia another chance.
Trump’s stance changed after months of diplomatic restraint from Ukraine, flattery from European allies (especially Mark Rutte), and persistent calls from hawks in Congress. “For six months, President Trump tried to get Putin to come to the negotiating table. But Russia’s attacks on Ukraine only intensified,” Senator Lindsey Graham explained on CBS. “Playing with Trump was one of Putin’s biggest mistakes.”
Trump, who once mocked Zelensky for having “no trump cards,” has now decided to throw him a few new ones, at least for a while, The Economist concludes.