Is U.S. Policy Pushing Ukraine into Europe’s Defense Industry Arms?

Summary and Key Points: Despite significant U.S. military aid during the Ukraine war, bureaucratic delays and political uncertainties under President Trump are pushing Ukraine toward closer cooperation with European defense firms.

-Ukrainian industry executives report frustration at stalled licensing and production partnerships with American companies, prompting them to seek collaboration elsewhere, notably with EU firms already demonstrating flexibility in adapting technology.

-Notable examples include French weaponry successfully integrated with Soviet-era Ukrainian aircraft.

-Continued uncertainty in U.S. policy could drive Kyiv deeper into partnerships with European manufacturers, reshaping defense alliances and potentially diminishing U.S. industry influence in Eastern Europe at a critical juncture in global security.

Will US Policy Cause Ukraine to Increase Alignment with EU Defense Firms?

US defense industry representatives responsible for the Ukraine market within their companies now report that “as of today nothing is happening with initiatives on Ukraine. Most of us would like to be engaged with Ukrainian industry, but there is no path forward for us to do so without the US Government approval that we need.”

The situation would seem counterintuitive—the most significant military conflict in 80 years of history is now taking place on the European continent. But most US efforts on international cooperation appear to be “frozen in place,” said one of the Ukraine industry representatives who spoke to 19FortyFive.

Almost the only activity that involves what could be considered “US weapon systems” is between Ukraine and BAE Systems. BAE’s corporate parent is a UK company, but due to multiple mergers and consolidations in the industry, its operations in the US now “own” the rights to some US platforms that have performed well in Ukraine, like the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

“We meet with our American counterparts at exhibitions and conferences. We discover that we can agree on many projects where we can agree on cooperation. Our personnel, our fluency with the technology, our understanding of the US elementnaya baza [component and microelectronics industry] are as good as or better than theirs.

“But when we suggest ‘why don’t you let us license-produce the American weapon systems that we are using here in Ukraine – this would relieve the burden in US industry and help us get ourselves equipped to become US suppliers’, what do we hear? As you Americans say, ‘We hear crickets.’”

No Forward Motion

The same companies report that the USG is not moving forward on any new significant programs for Ukraine because the “mid-level US bureaucracy are all scared that [US President Donald] Trump will fire them if they step out of line,” said a recently retired US Government colleague.

“People see what happened at USAID and other agencies, and they are afraid they might be next,” he said.

This apprehension is based on the contentious February 28 Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelensky. The American president stated that his Ukrainian counterpart had “disrespected” the United States and was “not ready for peace if America is involved.”

During the same week, Trump accused Zelensky of being “a dictator without elections.” He had also refused to identify Russia as the aggressor in the conflict. This stance slowed activity by American industry due to the US administration considering the cessation of military equipment shipments.

At one point this time last year, Ukraine faced the possibility of having to continue fighting without US military assistance. This created a great disruption, as Ukraine’s dependency on a steady flow of weapons, munitions, and supplies to continue the war against the Russians was vital to the war effort.

That same dilemma is raising its head again, with one of the major defense and foreign policy think tanks asking, albeit rhetorically, “Is Ukraine now doomed?” President Zelensky has consequently worried that Ukraine would “have a low chance to survive without the support of the United States.”

The question is if his assessment is correct. 

As of early March, US funding for military aid to Ukraine had depleted. However, a steady stream of American equipment still programmed to be sent to Ukraine based on previously announced commitments is theoretically still in the pipeline. Much of this depends on Trump’s approval to carry on with these deliveries.

Defense Non-Cooperation

Ukraine’s defense sector has shown remarkable resilience during this war. The ability to adapt a weapon system designed to perform one function and utilize it for another has been the hallmark of many of the country’s most notable successes.

According to one of the most senior Ukraine defense industry executives, they are looking for “the opportunity to repurpose US weapons for a mission they were not originally designed for. “

However, for a US defense company to begin the process of any such cooperation, it requires the firm to receive an export license and other approvals, which have not been forthcoming. This is pushing Ukraine companies to give up on the US and cooperate with European firms that are willing to take that extra step.

Some of the more spectacular combat successes that the Ukraine MiG-29s have had have been with that Soviet-era aircraft dropping the French-made Safran Armement Air-Sol Modulaire (Modular Air-to-Ground Armament), also known as AASM “Hammer.” Not only has the French firm adapted the weapon to the Russian airframe, but they have also licensed the AASM for production in India.

“There is a difference between just accepting US military stocks being sent to us and then saying to Washington ‘thank you, boss,’ and the reality of actual industrial engagement. This means cooperation on modification and local production of design—like America has done with Israel and Singapore in the past.

“Here in Ukraine, this is what we are anxious to engage in—for our own survival.”

About the Author: 

Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw. He has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments and the Australian government in the fields of defense technology and weapon systems design.  Over the past 30 years he has resided in and reported from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.