Announced as a “special military operation,” Russia officially invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Since then, the West, led by the United States and the EU, has donated billions of dollars worth of equipment, humanitarian aid and more to Ukraine in an effort to stall and hopefully fully repel Russia’s invasion. This support had been widely covered by international media, with Ukraine frequently encouraging allies to send more aid. However, many people may not know that the United States actually began donating to Ukraine following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. In 2017, Trump’s administration continued sending weapons to Ukraine, primarily sending Javelin antitank missiles. This practice continued and increased following the Russian invasion in February of 2022, when the United States Congress passed a $13.6 billion aid package to be sent to Ukraine. 

By Feb. 27, 2022 the European Union responded swiftly and similarly with a 500 million euro, roughly $577 million,  military package composed of 90% “military equipment and platforms designed to deliver lethal force…”  By the end of May 2022, Ukraine had received two billion euros ($2.3 billion) from the European Union, $55 billion from the United States, and over 1.3 billion pounds ($1.7 billion) from the United Kingdom. The start of this war shook the geopolitical landscape of the world. Countries were shaken, frightened at what more could come and were staunchly motivated to resist Russia’s encroachment into Ukraine’s territory. With over $59 billion in aid, Ukraine was able to launch its 2022 Kherson counteroffensive, taking back Kherson, the only regional capital that Russia was able to occupy since its initial invasion. 

This huge financial package and commitment from the West signaled the West’s support for Ukraine and its opposition to Russia’s actions. However, the war has now lasted over three years and sees no clear end in sight. Therefore, it begs the question of how long can this commitment last? 

The last U.S. aid packages sent to Ukraine came in the form of $3.4 billion in “direct budget support” on Dec. 30, 2024 and $500 million worth of military aid on Jan. 9, 2025. These packages were approved by the Biden administration, presumably to preempt changes before the Trump administration took over. 

Since the start of the second Trump administration, the United States has suspended all aid to Ukraine. In doing this, Trump seems to be applying pressure on Ukrainian President Zelensky to sue for peace, stating that Zelensky is “gambling with World War three.” The EU on the other hand, has not slowed down its aid. From January to Aug. 31, 2025, the EU has already given roughly $50 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, ranging from direct financial support and loans to military equipment.

From these donation patterns, conclusions about the United States and European Union’s differing attitudes towards Ukraine appear. Evidently, the European Union has not been experiencing Ukrainian fatigue as they continue to donate billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine in an effort to fight Russia. The EU likely feels a larger threat from Russia than the United States does. If Russia were to take over part or all of Ukraine, Russia would be closer to the EU than to the U.S., essentially knocking on the EU’s doorstep. If a war were to occur, it would likely be on Russia’s Western front making it significantly closer to the EU than to the U.S. This difference suggests differing threat perceptions between the U.S. and EU with the second Trump administration stalling funding. 

Furthermore, this does not seem likely to change any time soon as the relationship between Trump and Zelensky has been shaky at best following their clash in the Oval Office. However, a “Supporting Ukraine Act of 2025” bill has been introduced to Congress on July 31, 2025, though has not been voted on by the Senate or the House of Representatives. While U.S. aid has stalled at the federal governmental level, public support echoes this attitude as well. While 46% of polled Americans say U.S. assistance to Ukraine is not enough, the other 53% of Americans polled state that American assistance to Ukraine is either the right amount or too much. 

However, it is worth noting that the sentiment of sending American support to Ukraine is on the rise. In December 2024, only 30% of Americans said not enough aid was being sent, and by March, 46% said it was not enough. The contrast between EU and U.S. relations with Ukraine highlights a shift in Western engagement: while Europe views the conflict as a more immediate security threat, the U.S. political landscape reflects growing wariness over long-term involvement.

The involvement of North Korean troops fighting on Russia’s side of the war in Ukraine is perplexing. Throughout its entire history, North Korea has never launched a foreign military intervention, so their presence in the Russian-Ukraine war is unprecedented. 

Russia is at a turning point in its history. With the war in Ukraine waging on for nearly three years, its ultimate status remains unclear; however, the war has undoubtedly questioned the U.S.-led global order. After the start of the invasion, Western nations immediately imposed trade and economic sanctions on Russia, effectively isolating it and reducing it to a pariah state similar to North Korea. 

As the war in Ukraine has gone on far longer than Russia anticipated, Russia has begun to run low on ammunition and manpower. Unwilling to back down on Ukraine, Moscow’s options for wartime trade have become largely restricted to the handful of other countries who have similarly been isolated from the Western financial world, such as Iran and North Korea. Russia has already been turning to Iran for thousands of cheap yet deadly drones throughout the war. As for North Korea, the country has spent decades preparing for a war with South Korea and the United States. As a result, outside of Russia itself, North Korea possesses the largest arsenal of artillery munitions of any country in the world. Realizing this and sharing a land border with North Korea, Putin saw a golden opportunity to restock on munitions by shipping artillery shells from Russia’s far east to the far west into Ukraine. 

In exchange, Russia agreed to give North Korea some of its significantly more advanced military technology compared to North Korea’s frozen in time Soviet military armaments. Previously, nearly the entire world including Russia was united in restricting trade with North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program. This restricted North Korea’s military from advancing into the modern day, especially compared to their South Korean counterpart. However, now that Russia has been ostracized by the Western world, its previous cooperation with Western powers has been abandoned, prompting Russia to seek new trading partners to counter its isolation.

The Russian Defence Minister visited Pyongyang in July 2023. Afterwards, Kim Jong Un traveled across the border to meet personally with Putin in September 2023. In summer 2024 Putin personally visited Kim on his own turf in Pyongyang for the first time in 24 years, pledging to support one another in the event of an attack on either country.

This marks a significant departure from North Korea’s previous attempts to normalize relations with the United States during the Trump administration, and realign its relations with Russia similarly as they were during the Cold War era. 

The details of Putin and Kim’s meetings are unknown, but the U.S. state department suggests that, since mid 2022, roughly 11,000 shipping containers have entered Russia from North Korea presumably carrying primarily munitions. Western estimates suggest that roughly 1.6 million to 6 million artillery shells have entered Russia from North Korea worth several billions of dollars. These shells are of debatable quality and reliability but have undoubtedly given Russia the edge in munitions while Russia restocks from their own factories. In October 2024, Western intelligence sources reported that roughly half of the Russian artillery shells used in Ukraine came from North Korea.

North Korea is arguably the most militarized country in the world. North Korea spends 36% of its GDP on military spending, which is nearly the same as Ukraine (37%) with an ongoing invasion across its territory. However, since North Korea is so impoverished, this is only a fraction of the spending the United States and South Korea spend on their militaries. 

Pyongyang knows that once Russia restores itself on munitions, its need for North Korea will diminish. As a result, in order to maintain the relationship and gain further military advances from Russia, North Korea is left offering Russia the only other thing they have that Russia is in need of: its massive reserves of soldiers. Approximately 30% of the entire North Korea population is either actively serving or in the reserves. All North Korean men are required to serve ten year terms while women are required to serve eight year terms. The country has more than 1.3 million personnel in their active duty army. This is almost as much as the 1.4 million U.S. personnel and more than Russia’s 1.1 million personnel.  

The New York Times estimated in October 2024 that approximately 115,000 Russian soldiers have been killed fighting in Ukraine, in addition to another 500,000 that have been wounded. Russia likely considered doing a larger mandate draft as Ukraine has done but it knows it would presumably make the war deeply unpopular. As a result, Moscow calculated the better option for itself is to give North Korea more technology in exchange for manpower. The Ukrainian military suspects that Moscow will use these North Korean troops to deploy in the Russian Kursk Oblast which Ukraine acquired in their counter offensive in August 2024. The presence of North Korean troops in Russian territory leads to frightening implications for the war and the rest of the world. 

Currently, the Ukraine-Russia war is at its worst point for Ukraine since the start of the war, with Russia slowly advancing further into Ukraine’s territory as Ukraine faces extreme artillery and manpower shortages. North Korean forces entering the Kursk Oblast would allow Russian troops to redeploy to the Russian offensive helping to increase their advances. The current North Korean troops are still untested with significant language barrier and operational differences to overcome. However, if North Korean soldiers prove effective it could suggest that these 10,000 troops are only the start of a much larger share of forces entering Russia to help the war effort. 

As for what this means outside of the Russian-Ukraine war, the Korean peninsula has become extremely precarious. In January 2024, Kim Jong Un formally called for an alteration to the North Korean constitution to remove all commitments to a peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, he had the constitution changed to label South Korea as the nation’s “primary foe and invariable principle enemy.” In addition, he ordered the arch of reunification, a monument constructed in 2001 symbolizing Korea’s eventual reunification, to be destroyed. These moves effectively eliminate the long standing peaceful reunification of Korea from North Korea’s official policy. This has led several North Korea analysts to suggest that Kim Jong Un plans to go to war with South Korea. The publication does not suggest a specific when or how, only that Kim has made it in his mind to do so eventually. 

That being said, the South Korea military still far outclasses the North’s in almost every way. The rationale for North Korea to invade the South can be seen as extremely irrational. However, with the aid of advanced Russian technology in the form of advanced missiles, submarines, and more, South Korea is on high alert.

The involvement of North Korean troops in Russia’s war against Ukraine marks an unprecedented shift with significant implications for global security. For Russia, North Korea’s vast munitions and manpower alleviate critical shortages, enabling its prolonged offensive. For North Korea, the partnership offers advanced military technology, currently desperately needed by the Kim regime to bolster its aggressive ambitions. This alliance not only complicates Ukraine’s defense but also destabilizes the Korean peninsula, as Kim Jong Un dismantles the long standing peaceful reunification efforts and escalates hostile rhetoric toward South Korea. With authoritarian regimes deepening ties and defying international norms, the ripple effects of this partnership extend far beyond the battlefields of Ukraine, threatening to reshape regional dynamics and global power balances.

Trump’s position to swiftly end the war does not come as a surprise. He has said on multiple occasions during his campaign trail that it would be one of his top priorities if reelected. However, despite Trump’s ambiguity and unspecificity on how he would end the conflict, the international community has drawn on statements from the former President to infer how the war will end if his administration takes office: the United States will simply stop funding the Ukrainian War effort. 

Trump’s conservative view on foreign aid toward Ukraine has been expressed numerous times to both the general public and world leaders. In March of this year, when Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Orban sat down with ABC News and said that he was assured that Trump would not give Ukraine “a penny” if elected. 

Following the Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine has become one of the top recipients of US foreign aid, something not seen in Europe since the Harry Truman administration created the Marshall Plan after World War II. Sitting at 41%, the United States is the second largest contributor to Ukraine’s foreign aid behind the European Union. Foreign aid has largely been allocated toward military operations, law enforcement, communication departments and humanitarian efforts. 

Yet, even under the Biden Administration, it has been increasingly difficult in recent months for the United States to get bi-partisan support for funding efforts towards Ukraine. Much of foreign security discourse has shifted to the Israel-Hamas war, and Ukraine is not getting the media coverage that it once relied on for international support. Additionally, domestic chaos has fostered turbulence in Congress, with bi-partisan negotiations taking months. In Dec 2023, Zelensky’s appeal to Congress for funding was unsuccessful, as many GOP members cited domestic security issues like illegal immigration as a bigger priority. The shift of the Republican Party becoming increasingly neo-isolationist has created additional struggles for the Biden administration in terms of foreign policy, as many senators have said that their support remains contingent on stricter immigration policies along the Mexican border. 

On Tuesday, Apr 23, the foreign aid package that took months of deliberation finally passed through Congress, allocating $60.8 billion for the Ukrainian War effort. The majority of House Republicans opposed the effort, but the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, managed to structure the bill in ways that separated large groups of opposition, preventing a congressional gridlock. However, despite this win for Congress and the Biden Administration to uphold their support for the war effort, Ukraine said that the delay in US aid has already had a direct impact on the ground. Hal Brands, a US foreign policy expert and a professor of global affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said recently in an interview with The Hub that “the cost of this delay can be measured in Ukrainian lives and territory lost”. He cites that these losses, including the loss of the influential fortress city, Avdiivka, are a direct result of the dire need for artillery ammunition, which US aid helps to supply. 

Recognizing the US’ fundamental contribution to the war effort, for months now US allies in Europe have been trying to “Trump-proof” the conflict’s security, fearing the implications of Trump’s potential return to office. The two nuclear powers of Europe, the UK and France, can hardly compare to the US military arsenal, as they are but a small fraction of the size and have failed in test launches. 

Reflecting on this threatening potential reality, Norbert Röttgen, a veteran German lawmaker and ex-chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, commented it would mark a big change for Europe.  

“Europe would have to stand up for its own security in an unprecedented way,” Röttgen said. 

Similarly, Valérie Hayer, who leads the Renew Europe group, and is French President Emmanuel Macron’s top lawmaker in Brussels, claims now is the perfect opportunity for Europe to start becoming more independent. 

“Europe has relied on the U.S. to provide its security for too long,” Hayer said.  “It’s high time for Europe to improve its own deterrence capacities and take its security into its own hands.” 

Restructuring trans-Atlantic relations would include multiple components, but the overarching theme centers around diverting economic reliance. Europe must look to other regional and global partners to ensure stability. This effort has already been seen in the geopolitically chaotic, yet productive, move to wean off of Russian oil exports.

Trump has said on multiple occasions, both in interviews and on his Truth social network, that the 2021 Russian invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in office. He even claimed that he delayed the invasion for years, citing his close-knit relationship and ability to influence Putin. However, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, has claimed that it would not make a difference if Trump was in power, because the mutual trust between the United States and Russia was tarnished when President George W. Bush Jr. pulled the United States out of the anti-ballistic missile treaties, which many international relations scholars believe escalated a new arms race in the Post-Cold war era. Nevertheless, Trump has continued to double down on his claims on his ability to influence Russian foreign policy. 

Since the Marshall Plan, a bilateral transatlantic security relationship has been fostered between the U.S. and most of Western Europe, materialized in NATO. However, Trump has been a vocal critic of NATO for years, claiming that other states have been freeriding on the US economic and security contributions to the organization. In fact, foreign policy expert and widely-regarded author Anne Applebaum believes that there is a considerable chance that Trump would pull the U.S. out of NATO entirely. 

However, regardless of his win in the election in November, it is clear that an emerging fundamental shift in transatlantic security relations seems imminent. As the war continues on to its third year, US foreign aid is a rising contentious topic among Americans, and Europe will have to adjust accordingly.