Why the US is sending weapons to Ukraine again and how it's tied to NATO
The NATO talks in Brussels proved that the United States is coming back to the Russia-Ukraine war, this time on our side. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, formerly a leading critic of support for Ukraine, has completely changed his tune – clearly in response to the evolution of US President Donald Trump’s own views.
Clearly, this reflects the evolution of Donald Trump’s own views.
The most important factor behind the shift in the US position, which was also the main achievement of the Brussels meeting, is the fact that most NATO member states have agreed to participate in purchasing US-made weapons for Ukraine, including long-range systems. With the exception of Germany, however, key European members of the Alliance remain outside this programme – each for their own reasons.
Read more about all this, along with Kyiv’s efforts to secure $60 billion for its 2026 defence needs, in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: America is back: NATO considers massive weapons support for Ukraine in 2026.
The focus of the NATO defence ministers’ meeting was US-made weapons.
Secretary General Mark Rutte was quick to reassure reporters that America is back.
He was referring to the gradual shift in US policy regarding Ukraine and the supply of US-made weapons to resist Russian aggression. Adjustments in Washington’s position on this matter had been ongoing for several months, but by autumn, they seemed to have reached a point of no return.
Anti-Ukrainian sentiment seemed embodied in Pete Hegseth, the Trump-appointed Pentagon chief who, during his first visit to Brussels in February 2025, suddenly spoke out against a return to Ukraine’s 2014 borders and NATO membership for Ukraine. Hegseth was also behind some of the suspension of weapons deliveries to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
He removed the US from the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (also known as the Ramstein format) and later, when the US did return to the group, became known for pointedly ignoring its meetings.
Given this context, it can truly be said that America is back in the game after 15 October.
Moreover, he spoke in support of supplying arms to Ukraine.
"If there is anything we've learned under President Trump, it is the active application of 'peace through strength'. You get peace when you are strong," Hegseth said ahead of the meeting.
The explanation for this dramatic turnaround is simple.
At the core of it is the PURL (Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List) initiative. The idea of PURL was proposed in the summer by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with the specific aim of rekindling US interest in strengthening Ukraine’s military capabilities. Under the proposal, NATO allies and partner countries voluntarily allocate funds which are used to purchase weapons in the US from a list drawn up by Ukraine.
But US weapons alone won’t solve everything, especially if Ukraine – if Trump is to be believed – is preparing for counteroffensive operations.
However, a financial mechanism works only if it’s actually funded.
Just a few months ago, the US was opposed to sending any weapons to Ukraine, arguing that it would only "prolong" the war. Six months ago and even somewhat later, the Americans even halted intelligence-sharing with Ukraine.
Another feature of PURL is that it involves monthly contributions, so it’s not possible for a country to simply declare its willingness and then hide behind its promise and fail to come up with funds for an extended period.
The Ukrainian government anticipates that defence funding will increase significantly next year, enabling Kyiv to seize the initiative. This was Shmyhal’s central message in all his public appearances at NATO, and presumably it was discussed in greater detail behind closed doors.
Shmyhal has proposed that funding for the Ukrainian Armed Forces should be brought up to the same level as the Russian army, effectively aiming for parity in resources.
Ukraine has indeed gained unique combat experience during the war and has truly become one of the pillars of European security, but this complements the Alliance’s capabilities rather than replacing them.
This point is best illustrated by the story of how NATO, at Ukraine’s request, is developing weapons to combat not only Iranian Shaheds but also guided aerial bombs.