Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/01/2025 3:34:25 PM PDT by ransomnote
President Trump said the US no longer funds the Ukraine war. He said we now sell weapons to NATO, and NATO can do whatever it wants with them. The MSM and NATO vigorously describe this as Trump's continued support for the Ukraine war.
I asked GROK AI specific questions about what kind of aid we are giving in terms of military, budgetary and humanitarian/economic support. Grok says there have been no new appropriations by Congress in 2025; any US funds being spent now (e.g., training Ukrainian troops) were from prior appropriations (Biden). There is still tens of billions in Biden era appropriations remaining (unspent) for military and humanitarian spending.
At the end of Grok's responses, I tagged on questions about refugees and Ukraine's employment/unemployment levels.
Overview
Yes, the United States is still providing support to Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia as of October 1, 2025, but the nature of this support has evolved significantly under the Trump administration. Direct U.S. taxpayer-funded military aid has been largely paused since early 2025, with no new congressional appropriations sought. Instead, the U.S. is facilitating weapons transfers through a new NATO-funded mechanism, where European allies cover the costs for U.S.-origin arms. This shift aligns with President Trump's emphasis on peace negotiations and reducing U.S. financial burdens, while still enabling arms flow to Ukraine. Total U.S. commitments since Russia's 2022 invasion exceed $130 billion, though disbursements are ongoing from prior funds.
Key Changes in U.S. Policy (2025)
- Pre-2025 Baseline: Under President Biden, Congress appropriated over $174 billion in supplemental funding from FY2022–FY2024, including $66.5 billion in military aid since February 2022. This covered weapons, training, and replenishment of U.S. stocks via mechanisms like Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).
- Trump Administration Shifts:
- Upon taking office in January 2025, the administration prioritized a negotiated peace, freezing new direct funding requests. A brief suspension of aid and intelligence sharing occurred in March 2025 amid tense talks, but it was lifted after cease-fire discussions in Saudi Arabia.
- In July 2025, some aid (e.g., Patriot missiles) was temporarily paused for a Department of Defense review but quickly resumed.
- By September 2025, the U.S. approved its first weapons packages under the "Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List" (PURL), totaling up to $1 billion in tranches. These include air defense systems and precision-guided munitions, but funding comes entirely from NATO allies—not U.S. taxpayers. Ukraine prioritizes needs (e.g., $500 million batches), and NATO coordinates European contributions to purchase or transfer U.S. arms.
- Rationale: Trump has expressed frustration with stalled peace talks and Russia's attacks, but insists on burden-sharing. This avoids escalating U.S. involvement while pressuring Moscow. European nations have stepped up, committing €40 billion annually via NATO for military aid.
Breakdown of U.S. Aid Totals (as of June/July 2025)
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled GROK AI confirms President Trump's statements that the US no longer provides funds to Ukraine. All funds spent now are from prior Congressional Appropriations - no new ones planned, Stingray51 wrote: I think your point is a good one.
There are of course ongoing US operations in support of Ukraine apart from the supply of weapons. Examples: the US fusion center in Weisbaden from which the US military helps Ukraine run the war, the manned and unmanned intelligence flights that provide Ukraine (thru Wiesbaden presumably) the information it needs about targeting and Russian movements; the 150 (?) US military advisors in Ukraine assigned to the State Dept.... Now, how these activities (and perhaps more which are non-public) are being paid for (allocations from existing budgetary items or old money or whatever), IDK. Oh, and I thought we were giving them fuel also?
Regardless, these costs are likely pretty modest compared to the weapons systems, munitions and direct funding of wages and government functions. So dumping all of that on our so-called allies is a solid accomplishment
The money for ongoing operations had to come from Biden era Congressional Apportionment. There are still funds available from Biden's many gifts to Ukraine.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled GROK AI confirms President Trump's statements that the US no longer provides funds to Ukraine. All funds spent now are from prior Congressional Appropriations - no new ones planned, MinorityRepublican wrote: A "big deal" for Ukraine: On July 14, 2025, Trump and Rutte announced an agreement in which NATO allies would purchase U.S. military equipment, such as Patriot missiles, and supply it to Ukraine.
Selling weapons to NATO is not the same as giving weapons to Ukraine. THe MSM is pushing hard on the optics to falsely portray Trump in the center of the proxy war so once the false flag kicks off, NATO can turn to Trump and say, "Well you have to help us NOW. You've been supporting this war all along!"
Trump tried to negotiate peace over and over and then finally in a recent comment, washed his hands of the conflict and wished all those in it "Good luck to all...."
Trump won't be fooled.
It's past time to give those responsibilities to the EU as well.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled GROK AI confirms President Trump's statements that the US no longer provides funds to Ukraine. All funds spent now are from prior Congressional Appropriations - no new ones planned, Kazan wrote: That doesn't negate the fact we're still providing intelligence and military planning to Ukraine. It's past time to give those responsibilities to the EU as well.
I asked grok about this and assertions that we're still providing intelligence and/or we're going to provide long range missiles are, until I find better proof, FAKE NEWS.
Biden era funding may have purchase contracts to supply satellite coordinates or intel (gov contractors) and I'm not so sure the world would be safer when Ukraine fired it's missiles without accurate technology.
I don't think President Trump wants to jerk whatever support Biden set up out from under the Ukraine too rapidly. Grok confirmed that training of soldiers was being done under Biden funding and I just saw an article saying as early as February, Pete Hegseth was signalling the US intentions to signficantly reduce training efforts (Biden era training of Ukrainian soldiers) and that the EU needs to supply the lions share of the funding (which they don't have).
Here's Grok's info on Hegseth's statements in march to the UDCG (Ukraine Defense Contact Group) and I see notes that after this speech, Hegseth began skipping those UDCG meetings to signal the US distancing itself from the Ukraine war in order to serve US needs first:GROK SAYS:
Full Transcript of Relevant Remarks
You can read the complete official transcript on the U.S. Department of Defense website here: Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group
Key excerpts from the speech:
- "Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine. Members of this Contact Group must meet the moment."
- "We're also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland... The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs..."
- "We ask each of your countries to step up on fulfilling the commitments that you have made. And we challenge your countries... to double down and re-commit yourselves not only to Ukraine's immediate security needs, but to Europe's long-term defense and deterrence goals."
ransomnote: Since then, Trump has signaled he washed his hands of the Ukraine war. I can see some safety concerns if Zelensky is firing missiles inacurately. Everytime I see claims that Trump is going to supply long range missiles, I see an entirely different statement from Vance in which he diplomatically says the US is looking at a number of such requests (i.e., get in line Zelensky).
So it's likely Trump has zero intention of giving Zelensky long range missiles when Trump has said the US just sells weapons to NATO and Trump's facetious post saying he thinks Z can win back all their land - after telling Z over and over 'you don't have any cards.' Also, Trump is aware of Zelensky's attempts to False Flag the US into fighting Russia - why would Trump EVER give long range missiles to Zelensky?
NATO won't listen because it needs the US to fight it's war, and Trump isn't going to try to convince them anymore. They just won't get what they want and the US will turn its attention to our own concerns. Now NATO is set on supplying optics that Trump supports the war even though he attempted over and over to negotiate peace.
The NYT article linked below cites 'officials' and presents Deep State fabrications as news.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/us/politics/trump-ukraine.html
What worries me about this echo chamber of fake news among NATO and Ukraine, MSM etc. is they are doing this for a reason. They want to claim Trump is morally obligated to send troops to engage Putin when they launch their false flag. There's no other reason to do this unless they hope to deceive Putin. But Putin is listening to Trump's statements too, so I don't see how that will work.
I'll keep looking, but I have yet to find honest truth supporting MSM/NATO/Z claims.
When did you go so far neocon/globalist?
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled GROK AI confirms President Trump's statements that the US no longer provides funds to Ukraine. All funds spent now are from prior Congressional Appropriations - no new ones planned, nickcarraway wrote: When did you go so far neocon/globalist?
I see you don't know the difference between neocon/globalist views and my views. No time for me to bring you up to speed. Let's just drop it.
I read everything you wrote. You specifically said you supported a country starting a war.
Meanwhile we are funding the war through NATO. Don’t be fooled.
This site started out as basically a neocon site. It stayed that way until about 2015, with some notable exceptions of individual posters.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled GROK AI confirms President Trump's statements that the US no longer provides funds to Ukraine. All funds spent now are from prior Congressional Appropriations - no new ones planned, nickcarraway wrote: |
I read everything you wrote. You specifically said you supported a country starting a war. |
That's a mis interpretation. President Trump said most Americans don't know our State Department helped overthrow the Ukraine. CIA's Barbra Nuland is on tape picking Ukraines new installed government...NATO is responsible for building up fortifications and building an army to take on Putin. Merkel later admitted that they (NATO) only agreed to the last treaty to 'buy time' to build up Ukraine for the war. This is NATO's war and it's not over yet. NATO still wants to force regime change in Russia. NATO is not our friend. Neither is Putin. As I write this I see the futility in trying to communicate with you. You'll just distill what I write, if I finished it, into a false statement like the one that started me replying to you. As it stands, you have only a fragment of my answer to distort into some new accusation that doesn't fit me.
I disagree with that. You were here a long time, you don’t remember Bill Clinton?
Explain to me why you are against the a preemptive war against an enemy of the U.S., but you rabidly support a preemptive war by a foreign country?
See, that's where you can't explain it to me. There is always a reason for war. So, whatever Saddam Hussein did, you say that's way beneath what Barbra (It's actually Victoria) Nuland's phone call was?
I mean think about it: if you say neocons are bad, then you say a stupid phone call is grounds to start a war? Talk about a major disconnect!?
If Nuland's phone call is justification for war, then the U.S. should be at war with most countries on earth! Certainly, the U.K., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Germany, Ireland, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Brazil. Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, oh, and Iraq again. There are more, but you get the point.
Why do you support Russian invasions for far less than the U.S.?
Well, you were doing fine there until you veered off into your own opinions. Euro-NATO is far from “broke” short term (several years) - most of it’s countries’ debt to GDP ratios are much lower than the US’. Take a look at the biggest euro economy: Germany. Yes, it’s weak now, and the future isn’t bright, but plenty of cash can be drummed up for the next several years.
If you want to know who is REALLY in trouble, given the way things are evolving, go check out China’s debt to GDP. Russia has chosen its friends very badly....
Oh, God. These same old ridiculous arguments about Nuland, etc.
Nuland, etc., are essentially IRRELEVANT. Fundamental events, tendencies, and currents (some shifting - societal, cultural, long-term historical) drive this war.
(My above post is NOT criticism of YOUR post.) In fact, it’s basically supportive.) :-)
but you rabidly support a preemptive war by a foreign country?
What are you talking about?
You either support a preemptive war or not. Someone who supports Russia's invasion, can't call someone a neocon for supporting the Iraq War, when they are just as much a neocon.
And more to the point, why does someone from the U.S. give extra privileges to a foreign country?
I originally posted on this thread because we have someone who thinks that Russia is an economic and military dynamo and that all is great. Then that same person wants to tell us that they don't support Russia. That circle didn't square with me.
I added you to that response but it wasn’t a response to your post.
For that reason, I couldn't support it. And after 20 years we found out the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.