The U.S. and Russian presidents have agreed to “start negotiations immediately” to end the war in Ukraine, Donald Trump said Wednesday after a phone call with Vladimir Putin—adding that he would “inform” Kyiv of the conversation. But Ukrainian political and military leaders have said that Putin’s broken promises make U.S. military support essential for even a short-term ceasefire.
Ukraine is unlikely to agree to any ceasefire talks unless it can be sure that it can protect the territory it still holds—and that means receiving the U.S. arms that have been promised, Oleksandra Ustinova, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, told reporters in December.
“It’s not about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It’s the parliament who needs to vote on that. And I cannot imagine a person in the parliament voting for giving up any other territories, because it’s not about territories. This is people. And this stuff has been promised. This stuff needs to be delivered,” she said.
And last week, two Ukrainian battlefield commanders told Defense One that they expect Putin will likely restart the war “in one year, maybe five,” and that Ukraine must be prepared for a “prolonged” war.
That means Ukraine will still need long-range fires such as ATACMs missiles that can reach Russian staging and logistics hubs if Moscow orders preparations for another large assault, they said.
Other arms and gear are necessary to prevent smaller-scale attacks like the thousands launched by Russia amid the Minsk II ceasefire it agreed to after its initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
Ustinova said Lockheed Martin UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters would help fight cheap Russian drones and patrol a negotiated line.
“We have been asking for 12 [Black Hawks] for almost half a year,” she said. “We’re not going to use it at the front lines…but it’s much easier to use a helicopter with a machine gun to shoot both cheap Iranian drones and also patrol the interior of the country.
The commanders agreed that helicopters, and particularly Black Hawks, would enable their forces to rapidly respond to ceasefire violations—and to enable Ukrainian special forces to to defuse Russian assault staging behind enemy lines.
Black Hawks would bring less of a financial or logistical burden to Ukraine than some other U.S. systems, said Jon Hemler, an analyst at Forecast International, a sister brand of Defense One.
“The UH-60A and later variants have been operating and sold globally since the late 1970s, there is a vast worldwide support network. Even if new-build purchases are out of play, Ukraine could conceivably acquire units from private entities or second-hand transfers from allies as it has with fighter aircraft,” he said. “Any potential deal could also include maintenance and training support. There is a high percentage of parts commonality between Black Hawk models, including with the marinized Seahawk version. Poland’s PZL Mielec, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary, produces the S-70 Black Hawk and could arguably offer far more technical support than what Ukraine has in place for its Soviet-era helicopter fleet.”
Other gear is needed to enable Ukrainian forces to operate amid Russian electronic-warfare efforts, which are expected to continue despite a ceasefire, and more satellite-communications equipment.
Who will pay for Ukraine’s arms, now?
Trump officials have sought to shift more of the burden of supplying Ukraine with arms on European allies. Since 2022, the U.S. has provided Kyiv with about $94 billion in aid ($66 billion, military; $28 billion, humanitarian and financial), while European allies have sent about $129 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Ukrainian military and government officials have said that Europe is willing to continue support for Ukraine but have said that American equipment is still essential for territorial defense and Ukraine’s operations.
Last month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said NATO was on board.
“If this new Trump administration is willing to keep on supplying Ukraine from its defense industrial base, the bill will be paid by the Europeans, I’m absolutely convinced of this, we have to be willing to do that.”
The White House might welcome this proposal, said Derek Bisaccio, who edits Forecast International’s International Military Markets.
“Moreover, considering that European countries have been buying significant amounts of hardware from the U.S. for their own militaries in recent years, it would be a matter of expanding those order sizes to include Ukraine as a recipient, as well, and decisions on that can be taken at the national level,” Bisaccio said.
Bisaccio said European NATO members are already using joint procurement agreements, such as the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act, or EDIRPA.
“But, the European-funds-for-U.S.-arms proposal will receive pushback in some European capitals that have been urging Europe to buy more locally, including as part of its support for Ukraine,” he said. “Europe’s stance on this issue is thus not likely uniform, and if a coordinated European effort to buy U.S. arms for Ukraine emerges, it may end up being limited in participants or in the scope of equipment it buys from the U.S. industry.”
Jesus Christ is King
