By Zhao Yuyao and Wang Shuo

赵虞尧 王朔

Washington and its NATO allies have been working on the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) plan, which would allow European nations to transfer funds into a special US account to purchase US-made weapons and equipment for Ukraine. While the plan is framed as a solution to Ukraine's shortage of weaponry, in essence, it is part of the effort of the US to restructure transatlantic defense responsibilities, with "America First" still at the core. The reaction from European capitals has been divergent, with only a handful of countries showing limited support. As a result, the prospects of its implementation remain uncertain, adding yet another layer of unpredictability to the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

近日，美国及其北约盟友正在着手制定“优先乌克兰需求清单”（PURL）计划，允许欧洲国家将资金转入一个特殊的美国账户，用以购买美国的援乌武器装备。该机制名义上是为解决乌克兰武器短缺问题，实则是美国跨大西洋防务责任重构的一部分，核心还是“美国优先”。对此，欧洲国家反应不一，仅有少数表现出有限支持。这也导致该计划的实施前景并不明朗，并给俄乌冲突解决带来更多不确定因素。

So how exactly does this plan work? Ukraine submits an emergency weapons request package worth about $500 million first. Any European country that agrees to supply Kyiv with items from that list will then be granted "fast-track procurement rights," allowing it to bypass the normal US foreign military sales process and directly order US-made weapons as replacements. The ultimate goal is to provide Ukraine with $10 billion worth of arms. The chief advantage is that it avoids lengthy approval procedures. As long as the money is in place, the process can move ahead.

那么，这个计划到底是如何运作的？首先由乌克兰提交价值约5亿美元的紧急武器需求包，然后任何欧洲国家若同意向乌提供清单内武器，即可获得“快速采购权”，绕开美国常规军售流程，直接订购美制武器作为补充。该计划的最终目标是向乌克兰提供价值100亿美元的武器，其最大的好处是无需经过冗长的审批程序，只要“钱到位”就行。

Undoubtedly, the US is the biggest beneficiary of this plan. In the end, the $10 billion will still flow into the hands of the American military-industrial complexes, while Europe becomes a mere "white glove" for Washington to circumvent cumbersome procedures. Much of the procurement cost is shifted onto European shoulders. Even though Europe is footing the bill, the choice of weapons, the standards for data links, and the maintenance systems remain firmly under US control, which indirectly undermines Europe's push for "defense autonomy." In short, through the NATO framework, Washington has shifted part of the financial burden of aiding Ukraine onto Europe. This not only helps soothe anti-war sentiment at home, but also enables the US to maintain its grip on Europe while leaving the latter its “cash cow.”

毋庸置疑，美国是该计划的最大受益者，这100亿美元最终还是要落到美国军工复合体手里，欧洲则沦为美国政府绕开复杂程序的“白手套”，军购的大部分成本也转嫁给了欧洲。欧洲虽然支付了相关费用，但武器选择、数据链标准以及维护体系等仍由美方主导，变相削弱了欧洲推动的“防务自主”。可以说，美国通过北约框架将援助乌克兰的财政压力部分转移至欧洲，既可平复国内的厌战情绪，又可继续控制欧洲、让欧洲当“冤大头”。

Of course, these are all part of Washington's well-laid plan, but Europe has its own calculations. Europe hopes to keep the US engaged. It wants the entire Western alliance to continue backing Ukraine, or at least, to prevent Ukraine from collapsing on the battlefield. After returning to the White House, Donald Trump has obviously changed his attitude on this issue. Europe has to pay the price to keep the US involved in its defense, or else it risks being left to fend for itself. Thus, even though European countries are fully aware that the US intends to shift the burden and make them foot the bill, they have little choice but to accept this asymmetric arrangement.

当然，这些都是美国的“如意算盘”，但欧方也有自己的考虑。欧洲想借此继续把美国拉住。欧洲希望整个西方能继续支持乌克兰，至少要保证后者不能在战场上溃败，但特朗普再次上台后在此问题上的态度有明显转向，欧洲需要付出成本让美国继续承担欧洲防务责任，否则欧洲就要面临“独木难支”的窘境。因此，欧洲明知道美方有转嫁风险、要自己买单的意图，却只能接受这种不对等交易。

Meanwhile, Europe also has to bear the negative consequences of this plan. First, it risks deepening internal divisions. Some Central and Eastern European countries, such as Poland and the three Baltic states, are more dependent on US security guarantees and thus particularly favor supporting America's rapid military aid mechanism. In contrast, countries like France, Germany, and Italy oppose the plan's upfront payment system and prefer to jointly develop European systems to establish an autonomous defense-industrial chain. This growing divide between the "pro-US camp" and the "autonomy camp" will inevitably weaken Europe's efforts toward integrated security and defense. Second, it worsens the prospects for resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict. At its core, the Ukraine crisis stems from the strategic confrontation between Russia and the West. It is not a simple military issue, nor can it be ultimately resolved through military means. Increasing military aid to Ukraine may further drain Russia's resources, but it also raises the risk of escalation, causing more casualties and humanitarian suffering. Therefore, this risks plunging the West into strategic entrapment.

与此同时，欧洲也需要承担该计划带来的负面效应。一是加剧欧洲内部的分化。一些中东欧国家——比如波兰和波罗的海三国——因更依赖美国安全保护，尤其需要支持美国的快速军援机制。相比之下，法德意等国对该计划的预付制表示反对，更倾向于联合研发欧洲自己的系统，建立“自主国防工业链”。这种“亲美阵营”和“自主阵营”的对立，无疑会削弱欧洲安全防务一体化的努力。二是恶化俄乌冲突解决前景。乌克兰危机本质是俄罗斯与西方之间的战略冲突所致，并不是简单的军事问题，更不可能通过军事手段去最终解决。加大对乌军援，虽可进一步消耗俄罗斯，但同时也加大了冲突升级风险，造成更多人员伤亡和人道主义灾难，更有可能让西方陷得更深。

In summary, this military aid scheme for Ukraine may appear "reliable" on the surface, but it carries numerous hidden risks. It represents yet another instance of US exploitation and control over Europe, while also introducing fresh complications to the peaceful resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For Europe, participating in this plan is nothing short of a desperate measure. In sacrificing for US interests, it simultaneously places itself in a position fraught with danger and uncertainty.

总而言之，这个对乌军援计划看上去似乎“靠谱”，实则隐患不少，既是美国对欧洲的再一次剥削和控制，也是对俄乌冲突和平解决的又一次扰动。对欧洲来说，接受这一计划无疑是饮鸩止渴，在为美国利益牺牲的同时，更将自己置于危险和不确定的境地。

(The authors are respectively a PhD student at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a professor at the School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University.)

（作者分别是中国社会科学院大学博士生、北京外国语大学国际关系学院教授）