Ukraine needs both American aid and military assistance now. If Ukraine collapses, it will not be just a catastrophe for Ukraine but also Europe, the West, Israel, and Taiwan.
Russia and its allies, Iran, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China, are supporting the enemies of Israel and Taiwan. Unfortunately, "Ukraine fatigue" is starting to set in at just the wrong moment in the war, while at the same time there are increasing demands in Washington on our allies for responsibility sharing.
To mitigate these challenges a creative political deal is required. One that meets the needs of Ukraine’s economic desperation and large military challenges while simultaneously providing American jobs, strengthening America’s security, and re-establishing American alliance leadership going forward.
Congress should take a page from President Roosevelt, who also faced a skeptical American public on a war in Europe before World War II, and pass something akin to a Lend-Lease Act for Ukraine.
Right now, Ukraine needs "guns" more than "butter." While the U.S. Senate recently passed a bill including military funding to Ukraine, the House has stalled discussion on the bill. This is terribly unfortunate as it delays Ukraine's urgently needed aid.
The House Republicans have a chance to reinvigorate the bill should they choose to, and release in the next few weeks a Ukraine (along with Israel and Taiwan) aid bill that mixes immediate access to U.S. weapons stocks that will be quickly be replenished with new, improved weapons for America’s defense and critical loans on the civilian side to support Ukraine’s large budget gap.
Such a bill passed in the House and reconciled with the Senate’s would send a similar signal of hope and provide real support as did Lend-Lease under Roosevelt and the Marshall Plan under Truman.
President Trump has suggested U.S. support to Ukraine, if any, should not be in the form of
grants with no strings attached but instead only as loans. While many will oppose former
President Trump’s stance on this solely on the basis of a visceral dislike and, thus, opposition to anything he says, we should see this as an opportunity to get wider support in the U.S. Congress to revive aid to Ukraine.
President Trump has not said he is against all assistance to Ukraine. Rather he has argued that Ukraine should only get more aid in exchange for a package with some forgivable loans to Ukraine and far more burden sharing with Europe. In this latter case means our European (and NATO) allies spending more money on their own defense up to at least the minimum agreed 2% of GDP for all NATO members.
Others have argued that lending money to Ukraine is not advisable because Ukraine will not be able to pay back the money. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, for instance, said a loan to Ukraine would be a "fig leaf" and that because Ukraine’s economy has been devastated by the war, they would not be able to repay.
Romney is right if we lent them money at market rates and typical terms, but if we offered a loan on a 50 year timeline at a 1% interest and a 10 year grace period, Ukraine probably could pay such a loan back. President Trump has alluded to the idea that if Ukraine could not pay us back, we would forgive the loan.
This would not be the first time the United States has provided large concessional loans on
favorable terms to a war-besieged and war-torn countries in grave economic need. The lend-lease program to the United Kingdom in World War II came about at the time that the United Kingdom had outstanding debt to the United States from World War I, and the U.K. needed additional resources to fight World War II.
President Roosevelt knew there was "war weariness" on the part of the American public and the U.S. Congress who did not want to get involved in a war in Europe. FDR cleverly provided military aid in the form of a loan making the assistance politically palatable for U.S. domestic stakeholders. As part of Lend-Lease, repayment was deferred, allowing the United Kingdom to have access to necessary funding and equipment to defend the West against the Axis powers while also ensuring the United States would be repaid.
In 1945, after the end of the Second World War, the United States also loaned just over $4 billion to the United Kingdom to rebuild as part of the Marshall Plan. The United Kingdom only finished paying off all of these loans in 2006.
We lend poor countries money all of the time. The World Bank, the IMF, for example, lends
money as its primary business even to the poorest countries. The World Bank’s loans to the world’s poorest countries are called "IDA." Wealthy countries give money to the World Bank to lend as IDA loans knowing that the loans will not be repaid for 40-50 years. The World Bank is lending some money directly to Ukraine now and provides grants through a "trust fund."
Ukraine is not one of the world’s poorest countries, but given the political and security
circumstances, it should be given loans on the sweetest of terms. The other Trump stipulation, not enough responsibility sharing by NATO members, is valid, even though the number of European countries meeting the 2% target is rising rapidly.
Every U.S. administration since the Eisenhower administration has criticized European allies for not contributing enough to their own defense.
In the case of Ukraine, many European NATO members face a direct threat from Russia if Ukraine falls. Yes, Europe is carrying a heavy burden for the Ukrainian cause including the recent European Union's $54 billion for Ukraine in economic assistance. But, our allies need to do still more by meeting their 2% NATO commitment. President Trump is suggesting that aid to Ukraine should be part of a larger discussion on collective security in Europe.
In 1940, just a few months prior to Congress passing the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: "The people of Europe who are defending themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war, the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters, which will enable them to fight for their liberty and for our security. Emphatically we must get these weapons to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough, so that we and our children will be saved the agony and suffering of war which others have had to endure."
The same can be said of Ukraine and our European allies today.
Time is running out for any aid package at all to matter. If we dither, Ukraine will run out of shells and morale, and the Ukraine front could collapse. Just recently, Ukrainian forces withdrew from the city of Avdiivka because they lacked ammunition, handing Russia its first victory in months. Putin will not stop at victory in Ukraine; Europe will be next. Supporting Ukraine now does not risk the lives of American soldiers and prevents a future Russia-NATO conflict.
Daniel F. Runde is a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS). He is also the author of the book "The American
Imperative: Reclaiming Global Leadership Through Soft Power" (Bombardier
Books, 2023).
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.