Trump’s deal

President Donald Trump’s announced, on July 14, that the US will indirectly provide weapons for Ukraine by allowing European countries to buy them themselves, while NATO coordinates deliveries. European leaders — and NATO’s secretary-general, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte — hailed the announcement as a sign of the American president’s great leadership, following the first rule in dealings with Trump: Praise the man. “Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big. This is really big,” said Rutte, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office. As assumed, Trump’s proposal received a mixed reception.

Today, it seems that the following YES-countries belong to the lowest “donkey class” of European vassals:

Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Many “patriotic” countries have refused this kind of deal: France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Other countries are still pondering. Fractures inside the NATO are further widening and the “Trans-Atlantic harmony” is under heavy stress.

In reality, the key decisions had already been taken in Europe, where European leaders, faced with Trump’s ambivalence toward arming Ukraine and Russia’s escalating summer offensive in the embattled country, knew they had to act fast. German leaders in particular pushed for the arrangement, viewing what Trump has repeatedly called his “disappointment” with Russian President Vladimir Putin as opening a window of opportunity. Germany is “massively” invested in the plan, said Rutte, who visited Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin only last week. In private, German officials say the initiative was a German idea.

Despite Trump’s increasing disillusionment with Putin for his lack of interest in a peace deal, the US president has dithered on taking concrete steps to drastically step up military aid to Ukraine. So, the Europeans, led largely by Merz along with Rutte, found a workaround.

European leaders knew it would be much easier for Trump — who sees global politics, from trade to NATO, largely as zero-sum financial transactions — to agree to supply arms for Ukraine if the Europeans bought them, allowing the US to swing a profit. But they were also aware of Trump’s reluctance to abandon the isolationist wing of his MAGA movement by taking a more active role in defending Ukraine and directly confronting Putin. By providing American weapons themselves, the Europeans are providing Trump with cover to act.

EU pushback on US arms purchases could signal NATO rift

European divisions remain. Not all European countries are on board with the approach, however. In the Oval Office, Rutte listed four Nordic countries in addition to the UK and the Netherlands as backing the plan to send US weapons to Ukraine. France, whose President Emmanuel Macron has long pushed for Europeans to build up their own defense industrial base by buying locally, was a notable omission from the list. The French government is struggling to boost its own defense spending as it tries to make budget cuts and rein in its staggering deficit.

But given Europe’s limited manufacturing capacity, Merz’s government believes buying American is one of the only ways to swiftly supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs. Details on specific weapons purchases remain scarce but as Ukrainian cities undergo heavier bombardment, the German government has been pushing particularly hard on a deal to buy US-made Patriot air defense systems.

The approach marks an astonishing turnaround for Merz, who on the night of his election victory back in February vowed “to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence” from the US. Since then, Merz has drastically shifted his rhetoric, speaking of his faith in Trump’s commitment to NATO and the indispensability of the transatlantic relationship.

NATO members are not united in their desire to finance the US military-industrial complex, as evidenced by the refusal of some European nations to purchase American weapons for the Kiev regime. The number of such dissenters may serve as an indicator of a split within NATO.

France as a key player in the European military-industrial complex. France does not intend to transfer US weapons to Ukraine, an initiative to be funded by European countries, because President Emmanuel Macron has long stood for the Europeans encouraging their own defense production by purchasing weapons from European manufacturers.

Paris has significantly strengthened its position in recent years and has become second after the United States with 9.6% of the total global arms market share. This suggests that the French military-industrial complex is the only one in Europe capable of competing with the American military-technical machine. This is why Paris is not interested in losing the position, much less buying the products of its direct competitors.

The Czech Republic, which also has its own production, is already planning to join the ranks of those who do not want to finance the American military-industrial sector. It is quite possible, that we will hear Poland, which is trying on the role of a regional military-technical hub and a key springboard for building up military potential on the Eastern European flank of NATO. Italy does not intend to purchase new weapons from the United States for transfer to Ukraine, primarily because it has practically no budget capacity to conduct operations of this kind.

France and some other European countries are not interested in paying for American weapons, but they are being dragged into this process. Washington is exerting serious military, political and economic pressure on all European leaders who are inclined to refrain from this format of interaction and payment for the supplies of American military products for Ukraine.

Despite a lot of discussion from President Emmanuel Macron, Europe does not have the strength to send a multinational force to Ukraine that could impose peace. Even if he were to implement the idea, it would be tantamount to suicide, especially if they were to enter before a peace agreement is reached.

Macron is not alone in this, as the top leadership of Germany stands with him. However, they are overlooking a crucial point: the implementation of this idea, lacking a solid foundation, lacks the support of both their country’s citizens and those in the United States.

It is certainly crazy to talk about European peacekeeping forces coming to the territory of Ukraine before any agreement is reached. It is an attempt by Macron to leave an impression, given that US President Donald Trump has also partly excluded Europe from deciding on these issues.

The American president should not be seen as a peacemaker but unlike Macron and Merz, he has certain strategic goals. Trump, unlike his predecessor, understands that Ukraine cannot win the war in any way. He understands that Ukraine cannot do anything on the battlefield, even with Western help, and has the alibi that he did not start the war. He is trying to get Russia to compromise.

Nothing Personal, Just War: The Cold Business Of Ukraine’s Destruction

Trump delivers next “Nothingburger” to Ukraine

On July 3, Donald Trump had a phone call with the Vladimir Putin and Trump revealed the details of his conversation. Trump shook his head and said, “I’m not happy about that,” as the president remarked about the ongoing war he hoped to quickly end.

Donald Trump’s long-awaited claims about the war in Ukraine have sparked widespread reactions. Washington is assured that Russian forces are preparing a new offensive to seize additional Ukrainian territories.

Trump wanted to pause the war In Ukraine while Putin sees an advantage for Russian troops in the field and wants to continue the war until its root cause, the NATO march towards Russia, is eliminated. Trump could not get his will. He was also under pressure from neoconservative parts of Congress to commit the US to a longer war against Russia. They asked for shipping more weapons to Ukraine and for penalties against countries which continue to buy oil and gas from Russia. Trump said he would help Europe speed more weapons to Ukraine and warned Russia that, if it did not agree to a peace deal within 50 days, he would impose a new round of punishing sanctions.

Several additional Patriot air defense missile systems are supposed to be given to Ukraine by NATO countries which would buy new ones, when the US is able to deliver them. Trump said the United States would sell those arms to European nations, which would ship them to Ukraine or use them to replace weapons they send to the country from their existing stocks.

It is doubtful that new Patriot batteries will help against Russian swarm attacks each with several hundreds of drones and missiles. There is also a severe lack of munitions for these systems with new production of Patriot missiles per year still being lower than the monthly consumption in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Trump’s so-called “50-day ultimatum” to Russia, warning of 100% tariffs to Moscow, if Moscow refuses peace talks, also sparked controversy. Initially, Western media reacted with optimism, believing Russia would face severe consequences. But this soon turned to frustration, which argued that the delay gives Putin a strategic advantage. Western partners accuse Trump of his usual tactic: making bold statements without immediate action, leaving uncertainty.

Military escalation remains a key concern. Supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles could trigger a catastrophic response, including potential nuclear escalation. Analysts largely call Trump’s strategy a failure, arguing that his attempts to pressure Putin into unfavorable terms backfired. Despite threats and promises of military aid, Moscow refused to concede. Trump’s “peace through strength” approach has repeatedly failed—in Yemen, Iran, and now in Ukraine.

Trump’s statements, reactions abroad and this situation have been analyzed interestingly in a couple of videos, here below

Trump’s Empty Threats🗣️Russians Cleared Voskresenka☠️Konstantinovka’s Defense Crumbles💥MS 2025.07.15

Doomsday☄️Europe Won’t Pay for Weapons💸✖️ Russians Storm Vovchansk⚔️ Military Summary For 2025.07.16

Harsh and gloomy reality facing Ukraine

Military and human reality in Ukraine is becoming more and more horrifying but despite this, so many European countries and politicians are ready and willing to send more weapons to Ukraine and prolong the unhuman sufferings of Ukrainian people, just as Zelensky’s regime does.

Ukrainian Cemetery Mega-Project: Grave Nation. A new Le Monde article is very revealing:

Based on large data sources, it is obvious that the total number of killed Ukrainian soldiers (since Feb 24, 2022) has exceeded 1,5 million servicemen, the current “kill-rate” is about 1500 per a day. The analogous total figure regarding Russian soldiers is estimated up to 140000. Territorial losses of AFU are increasing on daily base. Dnieper River or beyond?

Protests in Ukraine as Zelensky signs bill targeting anti-corruption bodies. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed a bill that critics say weakens the independence of the country’s anti-corruption bodies, sparking protests and drawing international criticism. Critics say the new law undermines the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sapo) – placing them under the control of the prosecutor general. Large protests have erupted in many big cities in Ukraine on July 23, largest protests during the wartime.

However, politically blind European politicians and the sucking up media are still willing to give an open cheque to Zelensky’s corrupted regime.

More western military aid, more scrap and debris

So far, 4-6 American F-16 have been shot down as well as two French Mirage 2000. Other western “wonder weapons” like Abrams, Leopards, HIMARS, ATACMS, Patriots and others have been turned into scrap and burned on the battlefields.

What is surprising is that neither western military analysts nor western media are asking, where the previously sent military materials are, already worth over $200 billion.

WHY IS THE MAJORITY OF THE EU POLITICIANS WILLING TO CONTINUE THIS COMPLETE MADNESS?