Amid pressure from European allies and Ukraine’s mounting military challenges, the White House has 70 days to implement lasting support measures before Trump’s anticipated policy shift threatens continued assistance.
Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the US has become Ukraine’s largest single-country donor, pouring $106 billion into its war economy. American support has been especially crucial in military aid, accounting for nearly 52% of the total international defense assistance provided to Ukraine since the invasion broke out.
However, with Ukraine’s key supporter, Joe Biden, set to be replaced by the unpredictable isolationist Donald Trump, US foreign policy could veer sharply in a new direction within weeks, raising alarms across Ukraine and Europe.
Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Centre for a New American Security, warns that US support for Ukraine could be jeopardized by Trump’s expected shift in policy—highlighting the critical importance of continued aid:
“If Trump, in fact, cuts off military aid to Ukraine, the current assistance package only runs to the end of this calendar year exactly, and the Ukrainians can’t fight adequately absent US military support.”
As European allies make urgent appeals and Ukraine faces mounting military pressure, the White House confronts a series of crucial decisions that could significantly impact the war’s trajectory well beyond January’s transition.
“The next few weeks will be critical to put Ukraine in a strong position,” warns Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Fontaine echos his concern, pointing out critical European limitations:
“The Europeans can’t fill the gaps. The Ukrainians can’t fill all the gaps.”
However, before Trump occupies the Oval Office, Ukraine has a crucial 70-day window during which the Biden administration can seize several fast-closing opportunities to boost its war effort.
The $6 billion package
The Biden administration’s effort to expedite $6 billion in remaining military assistance to Ukraine represents the most immediate and concrete action in its final weeks.
This urgency comes as Russian forces are making their fastest territorial gains in months, compounded by the confirmed presence of North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukraine earlier launched a surprising incursion to slow Russia’s push in the east.
Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh has confirmed a two-pronged approach:
- $4 billion through Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA)
- $2 billion from previous congressional appropriations (from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, USAI)
“We’re committed to providing Ukraine what it needs and that includes that $4 billion in authority,” Singh emphasized during a 7 November briefing. According to her, the Pentagon’s confidence in meeting these commitments stems from ongoing efforts to maintain adequate stockpiles: “We’re always constantly backfilling and restocking our shelves.”
However, the critical question isn’t whether the aid will be authorized – it’s how much can physically reach Ukraine before 20 January, and whether the incoming administration will honor existing delivery schedules for items still in the pipeline.
Senior US and European officials have attempted to “Trump-proof” support mechanisms by moving some weapons delivery authority to NATO. However, as former US NATO representative Ivo Daalder notes: “Whatever you do in terms of executive orders can be changed the next day.”
The importance of this aid being delivered on time cannot be overstated – during the previous eight-month delay in US support, Russian forces captured Avdiivka and gained hundreds of square miles in Donetsk, marking their fastest territorial advances in months.
The $20 billion question
Reports indicate potential for a broader aid package, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer specifically calling on Biden to allocate $20 billion to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets before Trump takes office.
In October 2024, the G7 nations reached an agreement to provide Ukraine with $50 billion in loans, partially financed through interest earned from Russian assets frozen since February 2022.
The US committed to contribute $20 billion of this total package, though the funds have not yet been dispersed. According to the Telegraph, recent US reports indicate preparations are underway to release this funding before year’s end.
Some analysts, like the economist and author Anders Åslund, also call for a $20 billion promised to Ukraine. However, while the $6 billion package appears highly probable given existing authorizations, discussions of a broader $20 billion initiative remain notably absent from official Pentagon and White House communications about pre-transition priorities.
Deep strike authorization: a game-changing decision
The decision to allow Ukraine to strike military targets deep within Russia using Western weapons represents perhaps the most consequential potential shift in policy.
Some European leaders are making concerted efforts to convince Biden to lift these restrictions. French Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad articulated this position:
“When we engage with our American friends and partners, I really hope we’ll continue our support to Ukrainians, including on deep strikes, to use legitimate defense when targets are used to strike Ukraine’s defense and infrastructure.”
The UK joined this push, with Prime Minister Starmer specifically demanding that Biden “authorize Storm Shadow strikes on Russian territory.”
Biden’s administration has thus far resisted these appeals, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has openly opposed such authorization.
The authorization would specifically enable Ukraine to use:
- British Storm Shadow cruise missiles
- French SCALPs
- American ATACMS
- Other Western-provided long-range systems
Former US special representative Kurt Volker makes a strong case for immediate action: “I think the Biden administration would be very well advised simply to just drop its objections. Just let Ukraine use the weapons we’ve given them. And this can be done quietly, it doesn’t have to be a big announcement. It can be done on a case-by-case basis.”
He emphasizes, “There’s no justification for allowing Russia to attack Ukraine from anywhere, and to tell Ukraine that they must not strike back.”
Melinda Haring, senior advisor at Razom and Atlantic Council fellow, argues that the timing is right:
“I think there’s a pretty strong consensus that President Biden can ignore his fears of escalation, and that President Putin isn’t going to start a nuclear war as the administrations change. So now is the opportunity to do it.”
With long-range weapons, Ukraine could target not only Russian military bases but also the camps where North Korean troops are gathering in Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops still control
Aaron Gasch Burnett of Berlin’s Democratic Strategy Initiative suggests the authorization could have lasting impact even if reversed by Trump:
“It would look really bad for the Europeans to then withdraw permission alongside Trump if they had already given it under Biden.”
Before the elections, foreign diplomats in Washington expressed frustration with what they saw as the Biden administration’s hesitancy on Ukraine and slow support disbursement. David Kramer, executive director of the George W Bush Institute and former State Department official, noted:
“Ukrainians have been incredibly frustrated with the decision-making process and then the provision of assistance, the restrictions that have been imposed, particularly on these long-range weapon systems.”
The decision represents what could be Biden’s most significant late-term policy shift on Ukraine, with immediate battlefield implications and potential long-term strategic impact beyond his presidency.
Russian assets
Perhaps the most straightforward yet potentially transformative action involves seizing $5 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets held in US institutions. This move comes against the backdrop of a broader G7 agreement from October 2024 that would channel only the interest from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine through a $50-billion loan package, which has yet to be delivered.
Biden’s potential action would go further than the G7 approach by directly seizing and transferring the assets themselves. Burnett explains: “Biden could do this tomorrow if he wanted to. The US Repo Act gives him that power.”
“If he wanted to, he could just move ahead and declare that these assets are getting seized, or at the very least, the assets that are denominated in American money, an estimated $16 billion, possibly even more,” Burnett adds.
He noted that some European countries, including France and Germany, have resisted similar moves due to fears of “retaliation and reprisals” from Moscow. Burnett characterizes the G7’s interest-only approach as “basically a magic trick to turn $300 billion into $50 billion because you’re too scared to make the necessary choice.”
Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi emphasizes both the practical and moral dimensions:
“It’s fair that Russia pays for the damage it has caused. And it’s also a very relevant way to fund the Ukrainian defense from this money.”
The timing is critical, as Haring notes: “The Biden administration can seize and transfer these reserves, and it needs to be done now, in order to make sure that it’s done correctly.”
Burnett suggests that with Trump’s incoming administrationSecretary of State, Biden has a compelling argument to persuade reluctant European allies – if Trump cuts aid to Ukraine, the financial burden will fall on Europe, making a significant immediate transfer more attractive than waiting for interest to accumulate over time. Moreover, once executed, this asset transfer would be difficult for the incoming administration to reverse.
Given the existing legal framework and European precedent with interest payments, alongside the urgency of Ukraine’s financial needs, this action appears probable as one of Biden’s final significant moves.
Iran sanctions enhancement
Another scenario implies Biden tightening the grip on Iran, which emerged as a enabler of Russia’s air and ground campaign in Ukraine.
Since the fall of 2022, Iran has risen as one of Russia’s key military donors, supplying short-range ballistic missiles, allowing the Kremlin to devote its own stockpiles to longer-range targets, and aiding the supply and domestic production of drones deployed in Russia’s attacks against Ukraine’s civilian objectives and energy grid. In December 2023, Tehran and Moscow pledged to help each other bypass Western sanctions.
As Iran continues to provide military support to Russia’s war effort, new sanctions, according to Eurasia Group assessments, could significantly impact Iran’s support for Russia by:
- Reducing Iranian oil exports by 150,000-700,000 barrels daily
- Constraining Tehran’s ability to support proxy forces
- Limiting technology transfers to Russia’s military industry
The measures could serve multiple strategic objectives – weakening Russia’s military supply chains while simultaneously reducing Iran’s ability to support proxy forces in Western Asia. Coordinating these sanctions in the administration’s final weeks appears to be a priority, reflecting the urgency of constraining Iran’s support for Russia’s military operations.
Oil price restrictions
Experts have proposed tightening the price cap on Russian oil, one of Moscow’s key war funding sources, to $30 per barrel, potentially dealing a significant blow to Moscow’s war chest. However, this measure appears to be least likely among potential actions, given international coordination requirements and fears around the market disruption.
Strategic communication with Trump
The administration’s engagement strategy with the incoming team has taken on heightened urgency as Biden plans to host Trump at the White House for a high-stakes meeting. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized in a television interview that Biden will use his final days to convince both Trump and Congress that “the United States should not walk away from Ukraine, that walking away from Ukraine means more instability in Europe.”
However, signals from Trump’s inner circle have raised additional concerns about future US support. Senator Bill Hagerty, considered a frontrunner for Secretary of State, stated: “The American people want sovereignty protected here in America before we spend our funds and resources protecting the sovereignty of another nation.”
Trump has also announced that neither former UN ambassador Nikki Haley nor former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, both strong advocates for Kyiv, would be part of his administration.
NATO pathway considerations
Since submitting its application in September 2022, Ukraine has received affirmation of its “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership” in July 2024, but still lacks a concrete timeline.
Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served as US special representative for Ukraine negotiations (2017-2019), reveals internal discussions about potential moves:
“There has been some discussion that I’ve heard within the administration about the idea of making a gesture in the direction of Ukraine’s NATO membership.”
However, he himself is cautious against speeding this action: “On NATO membership, we have to be very, very careful. You don’t want it to be uncoordinated with allies… We had an opportunity to do this leading up to the Washington summit this summer, and we didn’t do it. So to bring it up in the last moments of the Biden administration now does not seem to be the wisest choice. It needs to be better coordinated.”
Kramer points to a pattern of hesitation:
“The Biden administration deserves credit for the sanctions regime and keeping allies united, providing assistance to Ukraine, but Ukrainians have been incredibly frustrated with the decision-making process… and the failure to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO.”
The decision’s complexity is heightened by its requirement for alliance-wide consensus, unlike some other potential actions. However, even a unilateral Washington declaration supporting Ukraine’s NATO invitation could represent a significant historical marker, potentially creating momentum that would be difficult for the Trump administration to ignore.
The European perspective
Trump’s return to the office throws down the gauntlet for Europe at a time when the continent is already scrambling to maintain unity.
While the EU remains Ukraine’s largest aid provider with €118 billion allocated since the full-scale war’s start in 2022, Kyiv relies heavily on US support for crucial military capabilities like F-16s and long-range missiles.
However, Trump’s rocky relationship with the Old World during his first term, combined with his isolationist rhetoric, has left Brussels seriously questioning America’s commitment to NATO and aid for Ukraine. It also suggests the new White House occupant may shift much of the responsibility for supporting Ukraine onto Europe’s shoulders.
Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo proposed that European NATO allies boost their defence spending to 3% of GDP and take on the lion’s share of military aid to Ukraine, including purchasing American-made weapons.
Robert O’Brien, a former Trump national security adviser, also speculated that Trump would “continue providing lethal aid to Ukraine, funded by European countries, while leaving the door open for diplomacy with Russia.”
Additionally, Trump’s second term comes at a time when Europe’s two biggest powers —Germany, grappling with a collapsed government, and France, weakened on multiple fronts — find themselves on uncertain footing.
At this critical juncture, European leaders are making appeals for action before the transition. “The next few weeks will be critical to put Ukraine in a strong position,” warns Leonard. He cautions that any future deal “may try to freeze the war on the lines where Russia now occupies 20% of Ukrainian territory.”
Last chance for legacy
A senior congressional Democrat noted the “universe” of the Biden administration’s foreign policy achievements has “gotten smaller” in recent months. These final decisions regarding Ukraine support could significantly impact not only the administration’s legacy but, more crucially, Ukraine’s ability to maintain its defensive capabilities through 2025 and beyond.
The window for action is narrow, but the impact of decisions made in these final weeks could prove decisive for Ukraine’s further steps and the stability of Europe. As European officials and international analysts emphasize in their urgent appeals to Washington, Biden’s 70 days may well determine the trajectory of the war for years to come.
Read more:
• Ukraine plans for two Americas: Harris aid or Trump peace push
• Can Ukraine win? Former Defense Minister Zagorodnyuk explains
• Does Russia face military collapse by 2026? Inside Ukraine’s strategic assessment
• Volker: Biden, Trump set to greenlight strikes deep in Russia
