global geopolitics

The narrative of US withdrawal from Ukraine is a mechanism for forcing Europe to pay for and fight a proxy war that serves American interests, while the arms industry collects the profits and the working class bears the costs

Editorial Analysis | October 2026


The narrative that the United States is abandoning Ukraine has been promoted heavily by both the Trump administration and its critics, with the president portrayed as seeking peace, taking Russia’s side, and turning his back on a besieged ally. This narrative is contradicted by the observable behaviour of the United States, which has continued to provide intelligence, direct targeting, and weapons transfers to Ukraine throughout the period in which the abandonment narrative has been promoted [0†L4-L6]. A state that genuinely sought peace could achieve it by stopping the flow of weapons and intelligence, by ceasing to direct the war, and by sitting down with Russia to negotiate a settlement. The United States has done none of these things, and has instead escalated its involvement while shifting the visible costs of the war onto its European allies. The abandonment narrative therefore serves a strategic function, and the function is to provide political cover for the transfer of the war’s costs from the United States to Europe.

The policy that the United States is pursuing has a name, and the name is burden-shedding. The Pentagon has made this official, stating that future support for Ukraine must not rely on significant American contributions and that Europe must accelerate its assumption of primary responsibility for the conventional defence of the continent. This is described by defence analysts as a shift from burden-sharing, in which allies contribute to a common effort, to burden-shedding, in which the hegemon transfers primary responsibility to its subordinates while retaining strategic control. The United States is concentrating its military power on the Indo-Pacific, where it identifies the greatest threat to its primacy, and it is forcing Europe to bear the costs of containing Russia while it prepares for confrontation with China. The goal is not to end the war but to change who pays for it and who does the dying, and the abandonment narrative is the mechanism through which this transfer of costs is justified and sold.

The evidence that Europe is bearing the costs of the war is overwhelming and documented in official statistics. European NATO members increased defence spending by 12.9 per cent in 2024 and 12.3 per cent in 2025, with Germany’s defence budget alone growing by 23.2 per cent in 2026. NATO’s total European defence spending reached $638 billion in 2026, more than double the level in 2020, and the increase is being funded through cuts to social programmes and public services. The United Kingdom has cut international aid and investment in energy and transport to fund defence, the Netherlands is cutting unemployment benefits and raising the pension age, and Germany is tightening welfare entitlements and cutting housing and parental benefits. The social welfare system invented by Otto von Bismarck, which has been a defining feature of European social democracy for more than a century, is being dismantled to finance the war effort. The working class of Europe is paying for the war through the erosion of the social wage, and the beneficiaries are the arms manufacturers and the financial institutions that profit from the conflict.

The US arms industry is the direct beneficiary of the burden-shedding strategy, and the evidence for this is provided by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who confirmed that European and Canadian orders for US weapons total $300 billion. The United States is not abandoning Ukraine but forcing Europe to pay for weapons that are manufactured in the United States, and the profits flow to the defence contractors whose shareholders and executives constitute a fraction of the capitalist class that benefits from perpetual conflict. The arms industry is the material beneficiary of the crisis, and the political class that authorises the expenditures and provides the diplomatic cover receives campaign contributions, post-government employment, and the social capital that accompanies proximity to power. The working class of Europe bears the costs through austerity and the erosion of public services, while the working class of Ukraine bears the costs through conscription, displacement, injury, and death. The United States suffers no comparable costs because it is geographically remote from the conflict and because its economy benefits from the arms sales and the energy exports that replace Russian supplies to Europe.

The political theatre that surrounds the conflict serves a dual function, addressing the American and European publics in different ways. For the American public, the drama of Trump criticising Zelensky and demanding peace reinforces the narrative that the president is putting America first and ending endless wars, even as the United States continues to direct the war and profit from it. For the European public, the same drama creates the crisis atmosphere necessary to justify massive cuts to welfare states and an unprecedented increase in military spending, because the threat of American abandonment is used to argue that Europe must fend for itself. The theatre is not a genuine shift in policy but a mechanism for selling the burden-shedding strategy to audiences that would otherwise resist it, and the policy remains unchanged beneath the surface of the performance.

The scapegoating of Zelensky is a specific component of the political theatre, and its function is to provide cover for the continuation and expansion of the proxy war. The United States is openly blaming Zelensky for strikes on Russian energy production that are only possible with US capabilities and direction, a formulation that is transparently absurd because Ukraine lacks the intelligence, the targeting, and the weapons to conduct such strikes without American support. The scapegoating serves to create plausible deniability for the United States, which can claim that it sought peace while Ukraine and its European allies escalated the conflict. The same logic applies to the broader European role, because Europe can only widen the war with US capabilities and direction, and the narrative that Europe is acting independently serves to obscure the reality of American control. The political circus is not a distraction from the strategy but a component of it, and indulging in the circus by treating the drama as genuine helps to sell the strategy to publics that would otherwise recognise it for what it is.

The strategy that the United States is pursuing extends beyond Europe and encompasses the broader war on multipolarism. The United States is waging a proxy war against Russia, a proxy war against Iran, and preparing for a proxy war against China, and it is forcing its vassals to bear the costs of these conflicts. The burden-shedding strategy that is being implemented in Europe is the model that the United States is applying globally, and the goal is to drain the resources of proxies and partners to compensate for the growing limitations of American power. The United States is not abandoning Ukraine but is using the conflict to weaken Russia, to drain Europe, and to profit from the arms sales that sustain the war, while it pivots its military resources to the Indo-Pacific for the confrontation with China. The working class of the world is paying the price for this strategy through austerity, inflation, the erosion of public services, and the threat of escalation to nuclear war.

The class analysis of this strategy must identify the specific human agents who benefit from the burden-shedding arrangement and those who bear its costs. The defence contractors that manufacture the weapons being sold to Europe are among the principal beneficiaries, and their shareholders and executives constitute a fraction of the capitalist class whose wealth depends on the continuation of hostilities. The financial institutions that hold the debt that finances the military spending and the energy corporations that profit from the replacement of Russian supplies to Europe are also beneficiaries of the conflict. The political class that authorises the expenditures and provides the diplomatic cover receives campaign contributions, post-government employment, and the social capital that accompanies proximity to power. The working class of Europe bears the costs through austerity, the erosion of public services, and the dismantling of the social welfare system that was constructed over more than a century of struggle. The working class of Ukraine bears the costs through conscription, displacement, injury, and death. The working class of the United States bears the costs through inflation, the diversion of resources from social provision to military spending, and the erosion of public services that accompanies the militarisation of the economy.

The historical parallel with the British Empire’s use of colonial troops during the World Wars is instructive because it demonstrates the pattern of imperial powers extracting blood and treasure from subordinate populations while reserving the benefits of victory for the metropole. The British Empire recruited soldiers from its colonies to fight its wars, promising them rights and representation that were never delivered, and the colonies bore the costs of the conflict while the benefits accrued to the imperial centre. The United States is following a similar pattern, extracting resources and sacrifice from its European allies while reserving the strategic benefits and the profits for itself. The difference is that the European allies are not colonies but formally sovereign states, and their subordination is maintained through the structures of NATO, the European Union, and the financial system that constrains their policy options. The burden-shedding strategy is the latest expression of this relationship, and the abandonment narrative is the mechanism through which it is legitimised.

The alternative to the burden-shedding strategy and the war on multipolarism is not a negotiated settlement between the existing powers, which would merely rearrange the terms of imperial competition, but the construction of a socialist world order in which the means of production and reproduction are controlled by the producers and in which the technological and material resources of humanity are directed toward meeting human needs rather than enriching the oligarchy and waging war. The working class of Europe, the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of the world has an interest in opposing the war, in demanding the redirection of resources from military spending to social provision, and in building the organisations and consciousness necessary to challenge the power of the financial oligarchy. The indicators that would confirm the success of this project are observable, including the growth of anti-war movements, the willingness of workers to refuse participation in the production of weapons and surveillance systems, and the development of democratic institutions capable of managing the economy in the interests of the many rather than the few. The burden-shedding strategy and the abandonment narrative are lies, and the truth is that the United States is waging war on multipolarism, forcing its allies to bear the costs, and profiting from the carnage. The working class is paying the price, and it will continue to pay until it organises to end the system that produces these wars.



Authored By: Global GeoPolitics

Thank you for visiting. This is a reader-supported publication. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:

https://buymeacoffee.com/ggtv |

https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics |

Bitcoin: 3NiK8BoRZnkwJSHZSekuXKFizGPopkE7ns





References

Anadolu Agency (2026) ‘Pentagon says future Ukraine support must not rely on significant US contributions’, Anadolu Agency, 15 October. Available at:

https://www.aa.com.tr

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).

Berletic, B. (2026) ‘US Political Circus Surrounding Europe, Ukraine and Russia’, The New Atlas, 14 October. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewAtlas (Accessed: 15 October 2026).

NATO (2026) Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2026). Brussels: NATO. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_235875.htm (Accessed: 15 October 2026).

Reuters (2026) ‘NATO’s Rutte says European orders for US weapons total $300 billion’, Reuters, 10 October. Available at:

https://www.reuters.com

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).

The Guardian (2026) ‘Germany tightens welfare entitlements to fund defence spending’, The Guardian, 12 October. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).

The Netherlands, Government of (2026) Budget Memorandum 2026. The Hague: Ministry of Finance. Available at:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).

UK Government (2026) Autumn Budget 2026. London: HM Treasury. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).

US Department of Defense (2026) National Defense Strategy 2026. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available at:

https://www.defense.gov

(Accessed: 15 October 2026).