What will change regarding military aid for Ukraine? The new Trump plan still seems immature and vague.

In his eagerly awaited "big statement" on Ukraine on Monday, US President Donald Trump clarified at least one point: He is no longer opposed to the idea of supplying weapons to Europe to help Ukraine in its war against Russia. The crucial condition for him is simply that the European NATO partners, not the US, take over the financing of these weapons. "We won't buy them, but we will manufacture them. And they will pay for them," he told the Europeans during his meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office.

Essentially, this isn't a new plan. Representatives of the Biden administration had already discussed this model with Trump's team six months ago during the change of administration. But the new president remained hesitant for months. His priority was to play the role of peace mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Now he himself admits that an agreement isn't achievable anytime soon and that Ukraine urgently needs weapons. But even now, he displays a certain ambivalence. In its details, the plan still seems immature and full of open negotiation points.

Trump played this down with bold announcements. Several batteries of the Patriot air defense system could be delivered within days. Weapons worth several billion dollars would soon be transferred. The president also mentioned an unnamed country that no longer needed 17 Patriot systems. The idea is apparently a kind of exchange, in which the Europeans would provide funding and Ukraine's air defense would be strengthened.

This would be a major success for the leadership in Kyiv, which currently has approximately seven Patriot batteries and has requested 10 more. Patriot systems perform excellently in defense against Russian missiles and cruise missiles, but currently only protect a few zones in the country, primarily the capital Kyiv.

Trump's statements, however, should be treated with caution. According to publicly available sources, no country has 17 Patriot batteries. The most likely candidate is Israel, which is modernizing its air defense system and, according to unconfirmed reports, is decommissioning eight batteries, some of which are said to have already arrived in Ukraine. Trump may have mistaken the number, or he may have meant launchers rather than batteries, of which there are six to eight in each battery.

However, the Israeli equipment would likely need to be overhauled first before it would be ready for transfer to Ukraine. Therefore, Trump's optimistic timeline is questionable. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius suggested a different timeframe during his visit to Washington on Monday. He spoke of delivery within months if a decision on the Patriots is made now. Pentagon officials told the New York Times that many details still need to be clarified.

There are also open financing questions. The only thing that seems certain at the moment is that Germany is prepared to finance two and Norway an additional Patriot battery for Ukraine. But the government in Berlin, for understandable reasons, wants a broader commitment within Europe. According to Pistorius, Germany only has six of its twelve Patriot systems left, after handing over three to Ukraine and temporarily relocating two to Poland on NATO's eastern flank. More countries now need to help with the new Patriot plan: "This is an appeal to all other European NATO member states. Everyone needs to open their wallets, so to speak," he told ARD .

It remains to be seen which wallets will be pulled out now. At the EU foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, there were no new offers, but indications of a considerable need for negotiations. The statement by the German Minister of State for Europe in the Foreign Office, Gunther Krichbaum , that "with good will" everything could happen quickly, suggests that the decision-making process is still pending. Krichbaum also mentioned two fundamentally different types of financing: either by individual states or by the EU as a whole. The latter would mark a new emphasis, as the EU plays a subordinate role in military aid to Ukraine compared to the expenditures of the member states.

Regardless, the question arises as to what it would mean for Europe if the US were to withdraw as a direct supporter of Ukraine and instead opt to play the role of a mere arms seller. Fears of further financial burdens are widespread in the EU. But a look at the figures puts this into perspective.

The US has so far provided military aid to Ukraine amounting to around $20 billion per year. If the European members of NATO shoulder this amount in the future, it would correspond to only 0.09 percent of their economic output. This is a tiny amount compared to NATO's new goal of increasing defense spending from 2 to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product. The aid to Ukraine counts toward NATO's spending target and therefore does not represent an additional burden. Moreover, in many cases, it would probably be better money spent on defending against Russia than building up one's own capabilities in case of war.

The fragments of the Trump plan known so far concern the Patriot defense systems. It remains unclear to what extent other military equipment will flow to Ukraine using the new financing model. Ukraine is dependent on the US for several types of weapons because the European arms industry cannot fill the gap. This includes precision-guided munitions for Himars missile launchers. Ukraine recently used these munitions to hit the command center of an enemy brigade, killing its entire leadership and the head of the Russian Marine Corps in one fell swoop. However, the delivery freeze recently imposed by the Pentagon also affected Himars munitions.

Trump has criticized such attacks deep in Russia's hinterland in the past. Now he appears more open to them. As the Financial Times and the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing insiders, he recently asked his counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in a phone call whether Ukraine could also attack Moscow or St. Petersburg. The idea was to hit Russia more hard. Zelensky reportedly answered in the affirmative, "if you give us the weapons to do it."

This would be possible, for example, with American Tomahawk cruise missiles. However, such a transfer is highly unlikely, especially since Trump accused Zelensky months ago of risking a "Third World War." Ukraine, on the other hand, is hoping for American missiles and shorter-range cruise missiles, which could hit the Russian staging areas 100 to 300 kilometers behind the front lines.