Europe Dominates Ukraine Aid as US Pulls Back Under Trump; Putin Honored at White House

Europe Steps Up as US Military Aid to Ukraine Plummets

The geopolitical landscape supporting Ukraine’s defense has undergone a dramatic transformation throughout 2025, characterized by a decisive shift in global responsibility. Data compiled by the Ukraine Support Tracker paints a stark picture of this realignment. As shared by @ylecun on Feb 11, 2026 · 7:31 PM UTC, the metrics reveal an almost complete withdrawal of American military commitment: US military aid to Ukraine plummeted by an astonishing 99% during the previous year. This near-total cessation fundamentally alters the calculus for Kyiv’s long-term security strategy.

Conversely, European solidarity appears to have hardened under pressure, manifesting in tangible financial and material support. In direct contrast to the American retreat, aid flowing from the European Union (EU) experienced a robust 67% increase. This substantial surge signals Europe’s collective realization that it must now shoulder the overwhelming burden of sustaining Ukrainian defense capabilities. The implication is clear: where Washington once led the security architecture, Brussels and its member states are now stepping forcefully into the void.

The Shifting Burden of Defense

This dramatic divergence in support levels forces a critical examination of transatlantic security guarantees. Is this temporary recalibration based on domestic US politics, or does it represent a permanent repositioning of the United States away from the European theater of conflict? The numbers underscore a continent determined to prevent a collapse, even if the primary guarantor has stepped aside.

Leading European Donors in 2025

The financial muscle supporting Ukraine in 2025 was overwhelmingly concentrated within the continent of Europe, providing a clear hierarchy of commitment among the leading nations. Germany emerged as the undisputed champion among European contributors, pledging a staggering €9 billion in financial and material assistance throughout the year. This volume sets a high benchmark for the rest of the continent.

Following Germany, the next tier of major European backers demonstrates significant financial heft dedicated to Kyiv’s survival:

• Great Britain: €5.4 billion
• Sweden: €3.7 billion
• Norway: €3.6 billion
• Denmark: €2.6 billion

This snapshot confirms that while the rhetoric surrounding European unity is often debated, the concrete financial response in 2025 proved remarkably unified and substantial. These five nations alone accounted for a significant majority of the non-US aid package, effectively underwriting Ukraine’s immediate military and economic stability.

US Policy Shift Under Trump and Humanitarian Impact

The assumption of the presidency by Donald Trump in early 2025 heralded an immediate and profound policy reversal concerning the war in Ukraine. Since taking office, the United States has, for practical purposes, halted virtually all military aid and intelligence sharing crucial to Ukraine's defensive posture. This abrupt policy severance has had immediate, tragic consequences on the ground, contributing directly to what many observers describe as one of the war’s most severe humanitarian catastrophes.

The reported impact of this withdrawal is visceral and immediate: reports cited by @ylecun suggest that Ukrainians are now "literally freezing to death." When the flow of winterizing equipment, critical medical supplies, and timely intelligence is choked off, the civilian population bears the brunt of the conflict’s relentless cruelty. How does a major global power justify the cessation of support that directly leads to mass civilian suffering, especially when that support was previously central to its foreign policy doctrine?

Diplomatic Indictment and White House Imagery

The policy decisions surrounding the conflict have taken bizarre and highly controversial turns, further alienating allies and observers. Instead of imposing further sanctions or isolating the aggressor, the administration reportedly extended an invitation to Vladimir Putin to visit the US to discuss a so-called “Board of Peace.”

The controversy reached an apex with the alleged display of a photograph of the Russian leader—labeled a war criminal by many international bodies—hanging within the halls of the White House. This visual symbolism, coupled with diplomatic overtures, suggests a radical reassessment of the conflict’s adversaries.

Furthermore, the administration’s call for a tactical “pause” in Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure is analyzed not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a strategic maneuver that primarily benefited Moscow. Analysts suggest this supposed "pause" provided Russia with the necessary window to resupply its dwindling stockpiles of precision missiles and long-range drones, setting the stage for future, potentially more devastating, mass attacks. Was this pause a diplomatic misstep, or a deliberate, covert concession designed to ease tensions on terms favorable to the Kremlin? The human cost of such strategic ambiguity remains the most tragic casualty.

Source: Shared by @ylecun on Feb 11, 2026 · 7:31 PM UTC via X.

Source URL: https://x.com/ylecun/status/2021668354994360502