U.S. President Donald Trump is adopting a transactional strategy regarding aid to Ukraine, focusing on the return on investment for American taxpayers. This approach has drawn mixed reactions, with some viewing it as insensitive. However, supporters argue it may provide a more sustainable method to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

Initially, public support for Ukraine stemmed from a moral obligation to address the suffering caused by Russian forces. The images of displaced refugees, civilian casualties, and war crimes galvanized Western nations to provide substantial aid to Ukraine. Over time, however, interest waned as the conflict dragged on. Many began to question the relevance of the war to their own lives, with some asking, "Why is this important to me?"

Despite the ongoing tragedy, the war's distance from daily American life led to a sense of fatigue. Proponents of aid often highlighted that U.S. assistance to Ukraine constituted a small fraction of the annual defense budget, suggesting it was a modest investment in countering a global adversary. They also pointed out that Ukraine serves as a testing ground for Western military technology. However, these arguments were frequently sidelined in favor of appeals to morality and the urgency of Ukrainian suffering.

This moral framing, while understandable, may have been counterproductive. Many supporters of Ukraine's cause have struggled to effectively communicate the practical benefits of aiding Kyiv. The potential dangers of Russian expansionism, while significant, often felt abstract and distant to many in the West, particularly in North America. In contrast, the immediate costs of sending billions in aid to Ukraine were more tangible.

As fatigue with the conflict grew, some advocates shifted their messaging to emphasize the direct benefits of supporting Ukraine. For instance, American civil society groups noted that approximately 70% of the aid sent to Ukraine is spent within the United States or on U.S. military forces. This assistance can be framed as a boost to American industry and military modernization, as old weapons are replaced with new ones produced domestically.

In Canada, some organizations and government officials have highlighted that weakening Russia is crucial for protecting Canadian Arctic sovereignty. Both Russia and China have interests in dominating the Arctic, which could threaten Canada. Thus, investing in Ukraine could lead to future defense savings and provide Canada with more time to strengthen its military.

Despite these arguments, they have not been sufficiently emphasized by political leaders. The Biden administration has not fully highlighted Ukraine's value to American manufacturers, and Canadian officials have not capitalized on the Arctic narrative. Concerns about appearing to exploit Ukraine may have hindered these discussions. However, Trump's approach suggests that there is merit in forming mutually beneficial alliances.