Trump’s claim, Zelenskyy’s response: Who really pays for Ukraine’s fightback against Russian invasion?

For a comedian performing on stage, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in his role as the wartime president of Ukraine, has steered his country through its gruelling conflict with Russia. Often seen in military or civilian fatigues rather than suits, he recently dismissed claims that Ukraine owes the United States $500 billion, insisting that Washington has provided $100 billion instead.

His remarks, made at a press conference at the Ukraine: The Year 2025 forum, came as an outright rejection of the suggestion that Ukraine owed $500 billion debt to the US, regardless of how the argument was framed.

While acknowledging his respect for Ukraine’s partners, he remained unwavering in his position, asserting that even the $100 billion should not be considered debt but rather a grant—something he had personally negotiated with US President Joe Biden. As reported by RBC-Ukraine, Zelenskyy insisted that the financial assistance was explicitly classified as a grant, meaning Ukraine did not recognise it as a liability.

More from World

‘All for all:’ Zelenskyy proposes prisoner swap with Russia to start peace talks, hopes war to end ‘this year’ What’s the minerals deal that Ukraine has agreed to negotiate with US and why?

Beyond financial aid, Zelenskyy also addressed ongoing negotiations over a potential resource deal with the US, making it clear that he was in no hurry to finalise an agreement. He suggested that if Washington’s support came with conditions requiring repayment or economic benefits for the US, it would no longer qualify as a grant but rather a formal transaction.

While expressing readiness to engage in discussions, he stressed the need to clarify the terms—whether the aid in question was $10 billion, $20 billion, or $30 billion and whether it was direct financial assistance or military support.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

‘The cries of this widow will echo’: In first public remarks, Erika Kirk warns Charlie’s killers they’ve ‘unleashed a fire’

Trump urges Nato to back sanctions on Russia, calls for 50–100% tariffs on China

His comments come amid growing scrutiny over US aid to Ukraine, particularly from President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticised American support. Trump appears to believe that Ukraine’s financial obligations justify stripping it of half its rare earth mineral reserves. However, Zelenskyy’s latest statements suggest that Kyiv views its relationship with Washington as one based on strategic support rather than conventional debt.

The fine print on aid and grants

Before diving into the debt-versus-grant debate, let’s first define both terms along with aid.

Aid, debt and grants are three distinct forms of financial assistance, each with its own implications for recipients. Aid is a broad term that refers to financial, material or technical support provided by governments, international organisations, or NGOs to individuals, institutions or countries. It can be humanitarian, economic, military or development-oriented. Aid may be given freely, but it often comes with conditions, such as policy changes or diplomatic alignments.

Debt, in contrast, refers to borrowed money that must be repaid, usually with interest, over a specified period. Countries, businesses, and individuals take on debt to finance infrastructure, economic growth or personal needs. Unlike aid, which may be concessional or non-repayable, debt creates a financial obligation and can lead to economic challenges if mismanaged. High debt levels can burden economies leading to issues such as debt traps or reliance on further borrowing to meet repayment obligations.

Grants, on the other hand, are financial awards that do not require repayment. They are usually provided by governments, foundations or organisations for specific purposes such as education, research or social development. Unlike debt, grants do not create financial liabilities, and unlike aid, they are typically project-specific and come with strict usage guidelines.

Who gives more?

While Trump has triggered a debate about whether President Biden’s decision to support Ukraine was wise or reckless, most European aid, despite strong public statements, comes with conditions. In contrast, the US has provided assistance to Kyiv with fewer restrictions, which challenges President Trump’s claim that America is bearing the biggest financial burden.

Although the total amount of aid from Europe and the US may seem similar, the way they provide support is quite different. The European Union mainly offers loans, with nearly 90 per cent of its direct financial aid falling into this category, though these loans come with very low interest rates.

On the other hand, about 60 per cent of US financial aid comes in the form of grants, meaning Ukraine does not have to pay it back. This makes American support more direct and unconditional.

Among individual European countries, Germany has provided the most aid, contributing about €17 billion. The United Kingdom follows with around €15 billion in military, humanitarian and financial support. Denmark, though a smaller country, stands out as one of the most generous when considering its size.

However, despite Germany being the largest donor in absolute terms, The Economist notes that wealthier countries like Germany and the UK have only given about 0.2 per cent of their GDP to Ukraine. This suggests that while their total contributions seem high, they are relatively small compared to their economic strength.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, many countries and organisations have pledged financial, military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. President Trump has argued that the US is spending much more than Europe, but research by The Economist, based on data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy’s Ukraine Support Tracker, shows a different picture. When considering both the total amount of aid and each country’s economic capacity, the situation is more balanced than it may seem.

According to the Kiel Institute, total global aid to Ukraine since the invasion has reached about €267 billion (around $280 billion), averaging €80 billion per year. This support comes from national governments, international coalitions and global financial institutions.

When comparing US and European aid, the numbers challenge the idea that America is carrying most of the financial load. The US has committed about €114 billion, but its aid has fluctuated due to political debates and delays in Congress.

Meanwhile, the EU and individual European countries have together contributed €132 billion, which is actually more than what the US has given. If additional European commitments—those not yet fully disbursed—are included, the gap between Europe’s and America’s contributions grows even larger.

Japan has become one of Ukraine’s biggest supporters, providing more aid than France, Italy and Spain combined. This is impressive because Japan has a large economy and is far from Eastern Europe, yet it has still chosen to contribute a significant share of its GDP to Ukraine’s defence and recovery.

Looking at past wars, it is clear that countries have sometimes given more financial support to conflicts that were less directly connected to them. In 1990, Germany spent a larger share of its GDP to help Kuwait during the Gulf War than it is currently providing for Ukraine, even though Ukraine is much closer and has a direct impact on Europe’s security.

The United States also spent much more each year on its military efforts in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq than it is spending on aid to Ukraine today. These comparisons show how different factors—such as political priorities and strategic interests—can shape the level of financial support given to different conflicts.

While embracing European solidarity, President Zelenskyy must be aware that the assistance from Ukraine’s European allies is not without cost. Beyond repaying the principal amount, Ukraine is also obligated to pay interest—no matter how low—on the financial support it has received.

Zelenskyy’s Nato gamble

There is no doubt that President Zelenskyy is determined to secure a lasting legacy. Why else would he offer to step down as Ukraine’s president, but only if the country is admitted to Nato? This move is both a bold political manoeuvre and a strategic form of pressure. He reinforced this stance on social media after first making the statement at a press conference in Kyiv on Sunday.

By insisting on Nato membership, Zelenskyy is effectively trying to outsource Ukraine’s security to the alliance, placing the country’s future defence in Nato’s hands.

President Zelenskyy stated on X that Nato is the most cost-effective way to prevent another war, describing it as the simplest and most logical solution. He explained that if Ukraine is not admitted to Nato, the country would need to build its own version of the alliance by maintaining a strong military, securing adequate funding, producing and stockpiling weapons and coordinating with partners to deter future Russian aggression.

Emphasising the need for a comprehensive security system—including military, economic, and political guarantees—he stressed the importance of evaluating all options based on cost, feasibility, and speed. He also expressed gratitude to those supporting Ukraine in its efforts to achieve real security.

Zelenskyy stressed that security includes economic agreements, noting Ukraine’s talks with the US for a long-term deal while praising soldiers and supporters for the country’s strength.

Zelenskyy’s legacy play

Amid the war and diplomatic manoeuvering, Zelenskyy is subtly shaping his legacy—not just as a wartime leader but as the architect of Ukraine’s long-term security and economic future. His push for Nato membership, strategic negotiations with the US and insistence on aid being seen as grants rather than debt all signal a broader vision. While presenting these moves as necessary for Ukraine’s survival, he is also positioning himself as the leader who secured lasting benefits for the nation, ensuring his influence endures beyond the battlefield.