Indeed, I was right! The United States has finally officially announced it! On November 11, the U.S. government laid it all out, announcing that the U.S. will no longer pay for Ukraine, and emphasized that the U.S. has suffered losses due to the Ukraine situation, having already spent 350 billion dollars on Ukraine.
On November 11, Trump made statements at a White House press conference, saying that the U.S. will no longer directly fund aid to Ukraine from now on. The reason is simple: the U.S. itself is in a tough spot, and this Ukraine conflict has dragged on for over three years, causing significant economic losses to the U.S. Official data is clear: since February 2022, when Russia launched its special military operation, the U.S. has invested nearly 200 billion dollars in aid, which is no small amount, including military equipment, economic support, and humanitarian funding. Trump pointed out that these funds should have been used for building roads and bridges domestically and stabilizing employment, but instead, they've all been spent, and taxpayers naturally have complaints.
Speaking of total aid, it's necessary to clarify. Early statistics showed that by the end of 2024, the U.S. Congress had approved over 175 billion dollars in Ukraine aid packages, mainly through the Department of Defense and the State Department. In the first half of 2025, the Biden administration continued several batches, with actual delivery of military aid exceeding 60 billion dollars, covering various equipment such as "HIMARS" rocket systems and "Patriot" air defense missiles. Entering Trump's second term, in March he once suspended military aid for a while after a tense meeting with Zelenskyy, during which intelligence sharing also stopped, leaving Kyiv in a difficult position. Later, at the Jeddah talks on March 11, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day trial ceasefire, and the U.S. resumed aid. However, this statement on November 11 marked a complete shift, not just a temporary pause, but a strategic adjustment. Trump emphasized that the total U.S. aid has reached between 190 billion and 200 billion dollars, and this account needs to be clear; it can't go on indefinitely anymore.
On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its special military operation, and the Western bloc responded quickly, with the U.S. leading European, Japanese, South Korean, and Canadian countries to form a team to provide aid. According to tracking data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, by June 30, 2025, the U.S. had spent 130.6 billion dollars, with the military part being the largest, about 69.5 billion dollars. The European collective pledged 257.4 billion euros, with actual disbursement of 167.4 billion euros. The U.S. is the top financial supporter, but this has made it a target. After Trump took office, the tariff war restarted, global supply chains tightened, and he naturally doesn't want to bear the burden of Ukraine alone anymore. The announcement on November 11 is actually a continuation of the "new weapons supply plan" announced in July. At that time, he had mentioned allowing European countries to buy American goods and then distribute them to Ukraine, bypassing direct funding. Now it's officially implemented, with the first orders already coming from Germany and France, worth hundreds of billions of euros, specifically for F-16 fighter jets and precision-guided munitions.
In the U.S., the defense industry is happy. Lockheed Martin and Boeing's stock prices soared on November 12, with orders pouring in, and Ohio and Texas factories working overtime. Trump's calculation is clear: on one hand, reducing the deficit, and on the other, stimulating exports, in line with his "America First" approach. But what about the Ukrainian front? The supply chain won't stop, but the pace has slowed down. In the eastern Donbas region, the Russian advance puts pressure on the Ukrainian side, and the Ukrainian forces need a stable flow of ammunition. Previously, U.S. warehouses sent supplies directly, but now they have to wait for European logistics, and a few days' delay could mean losing positions. Zelenskyy spoke at the Kyiv parliament on November 13, acknowledging the complex situation but emphasizing that he would strengthen domestic production and mineral exports to exchange resources, such as lithium mine agreements, and continue negotiating with Washington.
European countries are most troubled. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently announced that next year's aid will exceed 11.5 billion euros, of which 150 million euros is specifically for purchasing American-made weapons. France and the UK have also followed suit, but their budgets are tight. The EU as a whole has committed to reaching 3.5% of GDP in military spending by 2035, but the actual implementation has always been problematic. After the Brussels summit, leaders privately complained that this amounted to shifting the burden to Europe, and public protests have increased, with German street demonstrations chanting "Don't be the sucker." Under the NATO framework, this aid is nominally shared, but the money comes from European pockets, with the U.S. supplying the weapons, and Russia watching from the sidelines. Putin commented on November 14 that this was a signal of division within the West.
The impact on the global landscape needs to be viewed from multiple angles. Naturally, Russia welcomes it, as the U.S. stepping back gives them more room for negotiations. Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said on November 12 that this proves the West is weak. As for the Eastern bloc, China has consistently advocated for peaceful dialogue, and the Foreign Ministry reiterated support for resolving the issue through negotiations, remaining neutral. In Asia, Japan and South Korea continue to provide small-scale aid but are also observing Trump's trade policies. Overall, this event accelerates the multipolarization, with the U.S. influence changing from "leader" to "supplier," forcing Europe to mature, and Ukraine learning to be self-reliant.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1849011768621068/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.