Financial gamble: Trump’s war on $200 billion spent in Ukraine

By Elnur Enveroglu

Before Donald Trump was elected president, there was a widespread impression that a new era would begin within the framework of the Western alliance, and people imagined the world entering this new phase. Many viewed the Biden administration, which suddenly lost favor, as outdated, and there was a desire to cast it aside, as though relegating it to a corner of history. America had granted Europe so much freedom that every European leader acted like a decision-making official, even standing confidently in front of the world powers with their hands in their pockets.

By 2025, the political landscape began to take shape amid a serious ideological divide between Europe and the U.S. While Donald Trump considered China and Russia as serious opponents, today, he is attempting to checkmate European leaders on the chessboard with a completely opposite approach. But what is the primary goal of Trump’s confrontation with European leaders?

In terms of personal characteristics, Donald Trump can also be described as a business and financial expert. His political platform raised alarm about the U.S. heading toward a financial crisis, a warning directed at the gaps left by the previous Biden administration over the past four years. According to the old system, the U.S. was to pour significant funds into areas such as the Ukraine front over the next four years. However, Trump’s sceptical stance toward Ukraine’s abstract struggle with Russia has made relations between him and Kyiv increasingly tense.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s strong reactions toward the U.S. position stem from his long-standing expectations of uninterrupted support from both Europe and the U.S., along with generous promises made to him. Ukraine, mainly relying on the West, engaged in a risky confrontation with Russia, knowing that, at some point, the war would either be stopped or territories would be conceded to Russia. All the support Ukraine received had made Kyiv complacent, and stepping back became a matter of pride for them. But the outcome remained unchanged: 25% of Ukrainian territories are effectively under Russian control today, with almost no chance of recovering them. For this reason, Trump considers Zelenskyy’s resistance a loss and is attempting to push him to step back.

Despite all the realities and Trump’s increasingly tough stance, Europe, which stands on Ukraine’s side, supports an additional $300 billion in spending for the war.

Zelensky’s univectoral policy discoloured in the face of the West’s political contrast

Ukraine’s excessive trust in the West led it to unattainable dreams. The consecutive, unconditional aid from Trump’s predecessors had so encouraged Kyiv that it was convinced the war would end successfully and that it would create a heroic epic in European history. Trump, however, shattered these dreams, and with his unexpected decisions, he suddenly became viewed as a traitorous ally in Kyiv’s eyes. Zelenskyy’s harsh reaction to the U.S.-Russia talks in Riyadh, which excluded Ukraine from discussions about its fate, later turned into headlines about an exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy. The U.S. president, who called Kyiv’s leader a dictator, is urging him to surrender to Russia. However, this astonishing scene failed to impress the Kremlin. On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not view the diminishing trust between the U.S. and Ukraine positively. He called it an action contrary to future peace negotiations.

What is Moscow expecting from Trump?

Zelenskyy’s exclusion from the Riyadh talks sparked serious debates and brought the issue of alleged secret deals between Trump and Russia into the spotlight. As suspicions grew, people began to believe that the rumoured secret deal between Trump and Putin was a trap set for Zelenskyy. European leaders initially interpreted this move as a challenge to Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, even labelling the idea of holding presidential elections during a time of war as a threat.

Therefore, the growing suspicion led to the belief that Donald Trump also supports Ukraine’s “need for a new leader.” Both Trump and Putin, who want the war to end soon and don’t wish to see Zelenskyy in this agreement, might even be considering the arrival of a new leader in Kyiv, one who could be more flexible and willing to compromise.

Additionally, Trump is still unable to come to terms with the fact that $200 billion of his country’s funds have been spent on the Ukraine war. His struggle might also be tied to efforts to bring back the $300 billion worth of Russian assets frozen in Belgian and French banks as compensation to the U.S. budget.

The issue has reached a point where former leaders in Europe are now intervening. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s comments on X (formerly Twitter) have become quite intriguing with deep implications. His suggestion that the $300 billion worth of Russian assets be spent on continuing the war in Ukraine appeared as a direct message to the U.S. This raises one question: Could the U.S. efforts be solely about recovering lost funds?