Washington: In a rapidly unfolding geopolitical twist, former U.S. President Donald Trump has reentered the global security arena with a controversial proposal to aid Ukraine. This time, his idea involves a dramatic reversal offering long-range American weapons to Ukraine through an allied funding mechanism, while simultaneously suggesting to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Kyiv could consider launching strikes on Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The remarks reportedly came during a private July 4th phone call between Trump and Zelensky, where the former U.S. president is said to have asked bluntly: “Mr. Volodymyr, can you attack Moscow and St. Petersburg?” Zelensky’s reply, according to sources cited by the Financial Times, was equally direct: “Absolutely, we can, if you give us the weapons.”
The call marks a stunning evolution in Trump’s tone. Once an admirer of Vladimir Putin’s “strength,” Trump has grown increasingly hawkish toward Russia, spurred by mounting evidence that the Kremlin has no interest in a negotiated peace and continues to escalate the war in Ukraine’s east.
Trump’s pivot is now built on a new weapons-sharing concept: European allies will donate their existing weapons including Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine, and the U.S. will sell those allies newer American-made systems as replacements.
This allows Trump to simultaneously claim he’s supporting Ukraine while fulfilling his long-standing campaign rhetoric: that European nations should pay more for their defense. “You gotta pay,” Trump reiterated recently. “If they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect.”
The plan's key selling point the deployment of much-needed Patriot missile batteries is, however, mired in ambiguity. Trump suggested “one country has 17 Patriots,” some of which would be sent to Ukraine immediately. That claim baffled European and U.S. defense experts alike. No NATO member aside from the United States possesses that number of complete Patriot systems. Trump may have been referring to components such as launchers or radar units rather than full systems.
Meanwhile, officials from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden all named by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte as potential participants revealed they had not been briefed in advance. According to one northern European ambassador: “It is my clear sense that nobody has been briefed about the exact details in advance, and even within the U.S. administration, they’re only now sorting out what this really means.”
Germany, Spain, and Greece have been floated as potential donors but have previously resisted requests to share Patriots, citing national defense needs and operational shortages.
The European response has been cautiously optimistic but fraught with concern over the optics. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put it bluntly: “If we pay for these weapons, it’s our support. If you promise to give them but someone else foots the bill, then the credit doesn't really belong to you.”
Meanwhile, NATO’s Ukraine military aid coordination center in Germany has been tasked with sorting the logistics. Diplomats admit the plan is “squishy,” with many countries saying, “We can help,” but not defining how, when, or with what.
For Kyiv, the offer is both a blessing and a puzzle. Zelensky’s administration has long sought long-range weaponry to target Russian military installations and supply lines beyond Ukraine’s borders. Yet the potential political fallout from launching strikes on major Russian cities especially under the impression of U.S. instigation poses serious diplomatic risks.
While Zelensky has not commented publicly on the conversation, aides have indicated that Ukraine will carefully weigh how to use any new weapon systems.
In Moscow, the reaction has been one of cold disdain. Kremlin insiders told Russian media that “no Western ultimatum will change President Putin’s long-term strategy,” and described Trump’s remarks as “theatrical.”
Putin, whose regime has weathered unprecedented sanctions since 2022, appears confident that Russia can continue the war effort despite mounting military and economic strain.
U.S. and NATO defense officials are now working overtime to clarify what equipment is available and which countries might part with it. There is also talk of “swaps” where countries may receive fast-tracked deliveries of U.S. weapons if they donate existing systems to Ukraine.
However, several officials have warned that any delivery of new Patriots to Ukraine could take months possibly until after this summer’s critical combat season.
Whether this marks a genuine reorientation of U.S. policy under Trump’s influence or merely a grand gesture with little follow-through remains to be seen.
For Ukraine, the prospect of receiving more Patriots is a potential game-changer. For Europe, the challenge lies in balancing solidarity with Kyiv against the uncertainty of Trump’s ad hoc diplomacy. And for the world, this is yet another reminder that in geopolitics, the boldest statements often leave the thorniest questions unanswered.