US President Donald Trump’s recent proposal, which is based on the purchase of US weapons from European countries for transfer to Ukraine, has already caused divisions within the West.
Four member states have officially or unofficially rejected participation in the plan, while only three have expressed a clear intention to participate — and those with limited commitments. The question now is not only who wants to strengthen Ukraine militarily, but who can do so without sacrificing its political and economic stability.
Who “opened their wallets” in favor of the US?
Three countries have so far officially declared their support for the plan:
- Germany: Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced the provision of two Patriot battery batteries to Ukraine, while Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called on the remaining NATO partners to “open their wallets.”
- Denmark: Foreign Minister Lars Leokke Rasmussen said Copenhagen is “absolutely ready” to contribute financially to the project.
- Netherlands: Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said his country is “positively considering” participation. That is, not a commitment — just an intention.
The alliance of the unwilling is expanding rapidly
The following countries have stated (or leaked) that they do not intend to participate:
- Hungary: Categorical refusal, with Prime Minister Viktor Orban also blocking joint EU funding for Ukraine.
- Czech Republic: National Security Minister Tomas Poir explained that his country prefers to invest in domestic production for “economic savings”.
- France: According to Politico, he cites a lack of funding, high public debt and the need for European defense self-sufficiency.
- Italy: La Stampa reports that Rome does not want to align itself with Germany and prefers to keep its distance due to financial constraints and the wait for the delivery of American F-35 fighters.
Both France and Italy have developed their own defense system, Mamba, in cooperation — but it is considered less effective compared to the Patriot.
European military self-sufficiency?
The refusal of some European states to buy weapons from the US is not only about economics, but also a strategic choice. They seek to strengthen the European defense industry. But this takes decades, not weeks.
To produce European weapons: Factories must be established, supply chains must be created, personnel must be recruited and technical and military personnel must be trained. This does not offer an immediate solution for Kiev.
The Trump paradox: A plan for weapons without weapons?
Even the US does not have an inexhaustible stockpile. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has temporarily suspended deliveries to Ukraine to reassess available stocks. The irony is clear: Trump is proposing that Europeans buy weapons from the US, at a time when the US is also limiting its own exports.
The political cost to Europe
The economic fatigue from the war in Ukraine is evident. Public opinion in many countries is turning against the long-term involvement. Politicians fear protests, social destabilization and a decline in living standards. Even the pro-Ukraine diplomat Kaja Kallas, the head of European diplomacy, said with dismay: “If you promise a weapon, but say that someone else will pay for it, then in essence you are not providing it.”
The Western coalition is deeply divided
The “Trump plan” is not just a controversial arms purchase proposal; it is a mirror of the West’s internal contradictions. As the war continues, fatigue grows, the stockpiles are emptying, and political patience is running out. Time is running out in Russia’s favor as the West seeks to agree — not on strategy, but on who will foot the bill.
More generally, the new “Trump deadline” for Moscow — 50 days for a ceasefire or sanctions — looks more like domestic politics than serious strategy. The US president, now in his second term, is attempting to “negotiate” with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on terms of a business bluff, setting conditions that neither Russia fears nor Europe supports.
But this ultimatum does not threaten Moscow — it threatens the very negotiating credibility of the United States, the unity of the West, and the hope for peace in Ukraine.
Economic conflict within NATO
The war in Ukraine has exposed not only the military and geopolitical conflicts of our time, but also the economic conflicts that lie behind the uniforms and declarations of solidarity.
At the heart of this new conflict are France and the United States, with Emmanuel Macron vigorously defending the need for European military self-sufficiency and Washington trying to turn the war in Ukraine into a tool to strengthen the American military industry.
France refused to participate in the initiative to transfer American weapons to Ukraine, which would be financed by European countries. This stance by Paris is neither new nor fragmentary. On the contrary, it is part of a longer-term strategy promoted by Macron: strengthening European defense autonomy, and breaking away from dependence on the American military-industrial complex.
France has one of the strongest defense ecosystems in the world. From precision-guided guns (such as Caesar) to ultra-modern fighter jets (Rafale) and submarines, French industry can cover the entire spectrum of military needs without external dependence.
And unlike other NATO member states, it does not want to finance Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman – especially when there are corresponding European capabilities.
US political pressure and the “bloody pie” of the military industry
Washington is not silent in the face of this diversification. The US is exerting enormous diplomatic and economic pressure on states that resist the purchase of US weapons. The goal is clear: to maintain the primacy of the US military industry in Europe.
This is part of a broader framework of “economic imperialism” in the defense sector, in which the US is turning the crisis in Ukraine into an export opportunity. US arms shipments bring billions to Washington’s coffers, while at the same time increasing the dependence of European states on the US defense doctrine.
Macron’s strategy and “Readiness 2030”
Macron’s response comes through the Readiness 2030 initiative (formerly ReArm Europe), an ambitious €800 billion plan that aims to revitalize Europe’s defense industrial base.
France, like other countries with strong domestic production capabilities (such as the Czech Republic and possibly Italy), is looking to a future where European funds will not fund its competitors, but will return to European manufacturers.
The growing “resistance” within Europe
It is not only France that is reacting. The Czech Republic, with significant defense production, has already declared its intention not to finance American systems. Italy, through publications such as La Stampa, reports that it does not have the necessary budget to purchase American equipment in favor of Kiev.
Even Poland, which usually sides with the US, seems to seek a role more as a regional defense hub than as a simple customer. These trends indicate a deep rift within NATO, not ideological but economic and strategic. It is not about supporting Ukraine or not, but about who will benefit from the trillions in European defense spending.
The Naval Group – AUKUS conflict: Background and suspicion
The France-US conflict did not start today. In 2021, Australia canceled a huge deal to buy French submarines from Naval Group, to instead turn to American nuclear submarines through the newly created AUKUS (together with the US and the UK). Paris reacted angrily, calling it a “stab in the back.”
This history fuels Paris’s current wariness. Macron wants to prevent similar developments on European soil, defending the dominance of the European military industry.
