In the midst of the continued conflict in Ukraine and the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, Ukraine publicly announced intentions to buy new fighter jets from Sweden and France instead of from the U.S.. After receiving nearly $180 billion in American aid (including free aircraft), Zelensky turns to others when it’s time for Ukraine to actually pay for weapon systems. Zelensky turns to the Swedes and French while President Trump has fought for a peaceful settlement and an end to this ugly war initiated by Russia. All wars end at a table, and we should continue to push both Putin and Zelensky to that end. But we should also require Zelensky to commit to buy American.
I want to be very direct: The nation of Ukraine exists today because of the U.S. and our taxpayers. For decades the U.S. has invested its treasure, military equipment and diplomatic capital in Ukraine’s survival. America stood with Kyiv when the skies darkened and the rockets fell. So when President Volodymyr Zelensky signs a letter of intent to purchase up to 100 to 150 inferior Gripen jets from Sweden or Rafale jets from France, in effect bypassing or sidelining U.S. makers, he betrays more than an acquisition plan: He slaps the face of a nation that saved him.
Why is this a betrayal? First, procurement of major weapon systems is not simply a “which plane” choice — it is a signal of strategic alignment. The U.S. has already committed itself to training Ukrainian pilots on the U.S.-made F-16s via a multinational coalition, clearly demonstrating its commitment. When Kyiv opts instead to anchor its future air force around a Swedish or French platform, it signals that America’s aircraft — American systems, logistics, munitions, industrial base — are not preferred. That sends a chilling message to U.S. policymakers, industry and taxpayers: Ukraine isn’t “in it to win it”.
Second, the U.S. has borne the lion’s share of Ukraine’s air-capability upgrade. American legacy systems, munitions compatibility, training pipelines, and logistic networks have been the foundation for Ukraine’s western-aligned force structure. To divert investment to non-American systems complicates logistics, dilutes interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces, and raises the risk of fragmented supply chains.
Third, consider the political dimension. American defense manufacturers, American legislators and the U.S. electorate expect that when America steps up, strategic partners show clear preference and alignment. By giving Sweden or France the edge, Zelensky undercuts the implicit contract of mutual solidarity.
Lastly, as a former fighter pilot I can say with 100% certainty that Gripen and Rafale are not the best solutions for Ukraine. They are, simply put, targets in an era of rapidly evolving fighter and air defense capabilities. If the goal is to deter future invasions, Ukraine should seek to asymmetrically offset threats posed by Russian systems. That’s what American made aircraft have been evolving around for decades.
Ukraine’s commitment to European built aircraft represents more than a simple business transaction. It’s a strategic pivot. And in that pivot lies a betrayal—of American trust, of the alliance structure, and of the very logic that bound U.S. assistance to Ukraine’s western alignment. If Washington is to remain the guarantor of Ukraine’s air power, Zelensky’s choice means America must reconsider how reliably Kyiv can be counted on in return. It should give the White House and Congress great pause in consideration of future support.
