Trump hatched a plan, but the Europeans were taken aback.
It was not long after meeting NATO Secretary-General Martti Lithuan, that Trump suddenly “relaxed” and agreed to provide Ukraine with “Patriot” missiles, but at a cost for Europe.
After all, Trump had previously shown no interest in providing these weapons, leading to anger from Ukraine and anxiety among Europeans, who feared that without these weapons, Ukraine might collapse.
Therefore, Lithuan was delighted, announcing that Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada were interested in joining the “rearming” of Ukraine through NATO to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
Trump was also pleased with his clever scheme: 1) You can’t blame me anymore for not helping Ukraine or not providing it with weapons; 2) We supply the Patriot missiles, and you Europeans pay for them, which we make a profit off of.
Is Europe really willing to spend money?
Several informed American and European officials stated that before Trump announced the above plan, “no one” had been informed about it in advance.
So, two days of joy (more like waiting) later, the Europeans still complained.
First, they complained about 50 days—because Trump said if there is no ceasefire within 50 days, then the US will impose sanctions on Russia and levy tariffs at 100%.
Ms. Caras, the EU Foreign Minister, complained about this,
And then about buying weapons. On the 16th, Ms. Caras complained that Trump was “committing to dinner but not paying for it.”
Because, “If we pay for these weapons, then it is our support for Ukraine,” she said.
“Therefore, this is European support, and we are doing our utmost to help Ukraine…” Ms. Caras said, “If you promise to provide weapons but say it will be paid for by others, then these weapons are not actually yours, right?”
Caras also mentioned, “We welcome Trump’s announcement of providing Ukraine with more weapons, but we hope the US can share the responsibility as well.”
Her intentions were very clear.
1. We’re spending money, that means we’re backing Ukraine.
2. If we’re spending money, how can it be said that the United States is supporting it?
3. As the leader, you should not act this way.
Anyway, looking at news reports, Czech Republic has decisively refused to participate in Trump’s weapons aid program. France, Italy, Greece, Spain, and others also hold a negative attitude towards it.
After all, whoever’s money isn’t just given away by the wind.
Moreover, with the economy already sluggish, there aren’t many surpluses left for landlords.
Additionally, giving away our own “Patriot” missiles to Ukraine and then purchasing them from the United States seems like an unnecessary waste of resources.
Later on the 16th, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zakharova stated that the EU was paying for the weapons sent to Kyiv, but in reality, it was funding Ukraine’s “death.”
“Has Kasia (Khalak) finally understood?” Zakharova wrote, “Let me explain: The EU is somewhat like being asked to pay for someone else’s feast, only to find out that person eventually died. Am I right?”
In a word, you Europeans are really foolish.
1. There will definitely be various arguments and negotiations. In the end, under the coordination of NATO, Europeans gritted their teeth and sent some “Patriot” missiles to Ukraine, but certainly not as many as Trump claimed, and the timeline will drag on.
2. Who is the biggest loser? Lytton was scolded mercilessly, and Europeans were upset. Of course, the 27 EU countries have 27 hearts, France is very cunning, Czech Republic, Greece, and others will cry poverty more, and in the end, everyone’s eyes turned towards Germany. Germany, you’re on your own.
3. Trump is the happiest. Biden, look at the crisis, it’s an opportunity for American arms sales. You’re a spendthrift, see how I’ve helped Ukraine while also making a significant profit. Europeans are no longer daring to speak out of turn; otherwise, we’ll send more weapons and ask them to pay more for them.