INVESTIGATION: 1,500 billion for war, zero dollars for Ukraine — where is America's money going?

Introduction: The most colossal defense budget in American military history

A number that dwarfs everything

Some budgets make history, and others rewrite it. The American defense budget proposed for fiscal year 2027 belongs to the second category: 1,500 billion dollars, the largest military financial commitment the United States has ever seen, surpassing even Second World War spending adjusted for inflation. An astronomical figure that makes the head spin and deserves close examination, because the question of who benefits from this money is neither simple nor innocent.

This colossal budget is structured in two blocks: 1,150 billion dollars through the normal congressional appropriations process, and 350 billion dollars extra via a partisan budget reconciliation bill. Together, they represent a 44% increase compared to the fiscal year 2026 defense budget, set at 838 billion dollars. The scale of the undertaking is unprecedented. Yet in this financial monument, Ukraine — which has been fighting for more than four years against a full-scale Russian invasion — finds not a single direct budget line in its favor.

Ukraine's absence: a political decision

This absence is not an oversight. It is a deliberate strategic choice by the Trump administration, which decided to transfer the financial burden of support for Ukraine onto the shoulders of European and Canadian allies. At the G7 summit in France on June 16, 2026, President Trump was unambiguous: the war in Ukraine was "not a priority" for the United States, a conflict he described as happening "thousands of miles away." The formula is short. Its implications are immense.

This investigation attempts to answer a simple but dizzying question: if Ukraine receives nothing from this record budget, where is this money really going? What are the new American military priorities? And what does this turning point mean for European security, for a resisting Kyiv, and for a world order that is reconfiguring at an alarming speed before our eyes?

The mechanics of the 1,500 billion: how we get to this figure

The base budget and the reconciliation mechanism

The structuring of this historic budget is itself revealing of the Trump administration's ambitions. The 1,150 billion dollar base budget represents the Defense Department's regular request submitted to Congress under the National Defense Authorization Act, the famous NDAA. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have advanced their versions of this law with this guideline. But this is only half the story.

The 350 billion in supplements take a far more controversial path: budget reconciliation, a parliamentary mechanism that bypasses filibusters and allows legislation to be adopted with a simple majority. This deliberate choice reveals that the administration wants to avoid any prolonged bipartisan debate on these expenditures. This third round of budget reconciliation, after the 150 billion infusion already granted via the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" last summer, raises legitimate questions about the sustainability of such a trajectory for the national debt, already approaching 40,000 billion dollars.

A historical precedent that surpasses Reagan

To put things in perspective: the proposed increase of 441 billion dollars compared to the 2026 budget eclipses the massive military build-up of the early Reagan years in the 1980s, until now considered the largest in American peacetime history. 65% of Americans oppose such an increase, according to a recent poll. In the House Armed Services Committee, during the committee markup, Democratic representative Seth Moulton attempted to cut the 150 billion budget line — an amendment that failed 25 votes to 31, but which brought together all but two Democratic committee members. In the Senate, a nearly identical amendment by Senator Mark Kelly failed by a single vote.

The resistance is real. But for now, the figures stand. And with them, a haunting question: if we spend this much, against whom, and for whose benefit exactly? The answer lies in the priorities this budget reveals with disturbing clarity.

The Indo-Pacific pivot: China as strategic obsession

The name change that says everything

On June 16, 2026, the American War Department announced that the US Indo-Pacific Command was officially reverting to US Pacific Command (USPACOM). A name change, some will say. Except that in the language of strategic signals, words matter enormously. In 2018, the Indo-Pacific Command's naming was intended to signal to India its centrality in American strategy, to unite the Indian and Pacific Oceans into a single operational theater. Reverting to the original name reverses this message and brutally refocuses attention on the Pacific theater, on Taiwan, on the South China Sea, on the strait, and on the chain of islands facing the Chinese coast.

For Admiral Samuel J. Paparo Jr., USPACOM commander, the situation is of extreme gravity. In a 221-page report submitted to Congress, he requested at least 122 billion dollars to reinforce American military presence in the region. His request includes 67.4 billion for new missiles, 18 billion to counter Chinese military command systems, 15 billion for a space-based missile warning system, and 909 million for the defense of Guam against Chinese ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles. The admiral described this request as the "minimum required to maintain credible deterrence."

The PLA ready for Taiwan by 2027

Admiral Paparo repeated in his report a warning that other American military officials have already issued: China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been ordered to prepare for military operations against Taiwan by 2027. This is a military clock that is ticking. And this clock largely explains why Washington decided to refocus its resources on the Pacific rather than maintain a direct financial commitment to Ukraine. In this logic, Europe is being ordered to fund its own eastern flank defense, while the United States mobilizes its arsenals for the scenario it most fears: a war against China over Taiwan.

This paradigm shift is described by the Pentagon itself as a "monumental shift in resource allocation." The formulation is soberly bureaucratic. The reality it covers is far less so: this is nothing less than the greatest American strategic repositioning since the end of the Cold War. And this repositioning has a direct cost for Ukraine.

Where the money goes: the map of new American military priorities

Drones and autonomy as strategic pillars

If Ukraine does not figure in the American budget, other spending items do — in capital letters. First among them: autonomous systems and drones. The Defense Autonomous Working Group (DAWG) receives a staggering 53.6 billion dollars in reconciliation funding alone. The objective is clearly defined: build American supremacy in autonomous warfare, with naval, aerial, ground, and submarine drones capable of operating at scale in the Pacific against a military power with robust air defenses. This is not preparing to support Ukraine: it is preparing for a high-intensity conflict against a near-peer power.

Added to this are massive envelopes for precision munitions. The 2027 budget allocates 52 billion dollars to high-priority munitions, a five-fold increase compared to the previous fiscal year. The complete arsenal is diversifying: Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff (JASSM) missiles, Joint Advanced Tactical Missiles (JATM), long-range missile systems. In parallel, 100 billion additional is planned for developing the defense industrial base — that is, building the factories that will produce these weapons at the scale required by a major conflict.

Arms purchases and force modernization

Weapons acquisitions jump from 223 to 413 billion dollars, an 85% increase. Research and development climbs from 210 to 344 billion. The Space Force alone requests 12 billion in reconciliation for its Air Moving Target Indicator program and Space Data Network development. The U.S. Air Force requests 2.3 billion for 14 new F-35s, in addition to 2.9 billion for precision munitions. These are investments designed to maintain air superiority against a China that has already surpassed the American fighter force in numbers and aims to surpass all American military forces by 2030.

In this picture, border security also receives a substantial envelope, consistent with the Trump administration's domestic priorities. Billions are also allocated to drones and counter-drones at military bases and land borders. The logic is clear: the Pentagon is preparing for two simultaneous fronts — the Pacific facing China, and the southern border facing immigration. Ukraine, thousands of miles away, belongs to neither of these priority fronts.

The PURL mechanism: when Washington delegates the bill to Europe

A diplomatic innovation hiding a financial disengagement

Faced with the direct budgetary abandonment of Ukraine, the Trump administration put forward the PURL — Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List mechanism. Launched jointly by Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on July 14, 2025, this program works according to a simple scheme: Ukraine draws up a priority list of its military needs, European and Canadian allies fund the purchase of these equipment items from American manufacturers, and the United States handles delivery and logistics. America provides the weapons — but it is Europe that pays.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth presented this mechanism as "progress" at the NATO Defense Ministers summit in Brussels on June 18, 2026. "Through President Trump's PURL initiative, allies have taken the lead in funding Ukraine's defense support," he declared. For Hegseth, it is a validation of the Trump approach — allies pay, the United States delivers. At the Ramstein format meeting on June 18, 2026, partners announced more than one billion dollars for PURL, the largest amount ever announced at a single contact group meeting.

PURL's limits: Italy says no, Patriots remain insufficient

But PURL has its limits. Italy officially announced it would refuse to fund this mechanism. "We said no from the start, and it is still no," declared Defense Minister Guido Crosetto during an address to the Italian parliament. Rome prefers to reclassify existing budget items to meet its defense spending targets rather than genuinely increase its military investments. Its spending level remains below 1.5% of GDP, far short of NATO's 3.5% target. Meanwhile, the program works thanks to Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and others, who collectively committed nearly 6 billion dollars.

The concrete problem is visible on the Ukrainian battlefield: the shortage of Patriot interceptors. After a devastating Russian strike in June 2026 that killed 22 people, Zelensky pleaded with European partners to accelerate deliveries, emphasizing that "the situation is no longer a question of funding." The stockpiles are simply insufficient. Ukraine even considered "borrowing" Patriot ammunition from Germany, with a repayment promise. This is not a country being helped: this is a country trying to survive on the leftovers of Western logistics.

The American senator facing the void: the 400 million unspent

Money voted but not sent

During a Senate speech on June 17, 2026, a senator raised an embarrassing fact: it was "high time for the Pentagon to spend the 400 million dollars in Ukraine aid authorized by Congress and signed into law by the president," as well as the 200 million for security in Baltic countries. These funds have been legally allocated, but they are slow to be disbursed. The senator had repeatedly asked Secretaries Hegseth and Rubio where the procedure stood: he was told the funds would be transferred "soon." But "soon" is dragging on.

This detail reveals a deep institutional tension within the American government itself. On one side, Congress continues to vote Ukraine aid funds, even in small denominations. On the other, the executive slows, delays, conditions. The bipartisan House vote in favor of additional aid to Ukraine and strengthened sanctions against Russia remains blocked in the Senate. The legislative intent exists. The executive will wavers. And meanwhile, Ukrainian soldiers wait for material that does not arrive.

The REPO Act: frozen Russian assets as a replacement solution

Faced with the American budgetary void, bipartisan senators — Tim Kaine, John Cornyn, Chris Coons, Roger Wicker, Chuck Grassley, and Sheldon Whitehouse — introduced in June 2026 a bill aimed at allowing Ukraine to use frozen Russian assets to purchase weapons. The idea is to circumvent the political blockage: if Washington is not putting in fresh money, let Ukraine at least use the 5 to 7 billion dollars in Russian sovereign funds frozen in American financial institutions. As Senators Grassley and Whitehouse pointed out, "this funding of Ukraine's military needs will require no American budget expenditure or American taxpayer money."

It is an ingenious solution. But it remains in the form of a bill. And it underlines how much American support for Ukraine is now forced to seek back-roads rather than taking the royal highway of an exploding defense budget.

The Senate Defense Committee authorizes 780 million for Ukraine — but not in the budget

The subtlety of authorization versus appropriation

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved in its version of the NDAA 2027 an authorization of 780 million dollars for Ukraine through 2029. This provision also prohibits any reduction of American military forces in Europe. For those unfamiliar with the intricacies of the American budget, the distinction between authorization and appropriation is crucial: an authorization permits spending a certain amount, but it does not in itself constitute a release of funds. A separate appropriations law is then required for the money to be actually available.

This parliamentary subtlety is precisely what the Trump administration is cleverly exploiting. Spending for Ukraine can be authorized in the NDAA while ensuring that the corresponding appropriations bills never see the light of day, or are delayed indefinitely. The net result for Ukraine is the same: political promises do not translate into concrete military material.

Europe in the financial front line

In this American void, the European Union decided to step up at a historic scale. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed in June 2026 a law amending the Ukrainian state budget for 2026 to increase security and defense spending by 1.56 trillion hryvnias, primarily financed by the Ukraine Support Loan from the European Union. This loan, part of a global EU package of 45 billion euros, covers two-thirds of Ukraine's financial needs through 2027, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko specified that Ukrainian defense spending would reach a record level of 4.4 trillion hryvnias in 2026.

This unprecedented European mobilization is remarkable. But it contains a paradox: Europe is paying for American weapons for Ukraine through PURL, while the United States is replenishing its own defense industry thanks to these European purchases. It is a clever arrangement for Washington — allies finance American rearmament while persuading themselves that they are supporting Ukraine.

Zelensky facing abandonment: resilience as the only strategy

A hero navigating between abandonments

In this tableau of budgetary reconfigurations and strategic priorities moving away, Volodymyr Zelensky embodies a determination that commands respect. Present at the G7 summit in France on June 16 and 17, 2026, he negotiated inch by inch with leaders some of whom are tempted to let go of the Ukrainian file. He emerged with concrete commitments: additional missiles for air defense, production licenses for anti-ballistic systems in Ukraine itself, and a support package for winter. He welcomed these results as "strong assurances" while maintaining constant pressure on his allies.

At the Ramstein format of June 18–19, 2026, Zelensky enumerated three key results: more than one billion for PURL, more than 500 million for long-range munitions, and approximately one billion for Ukrainian drone and missile production. He thanked the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway. The United States did not figure in his thanks for the financing — only for the provision of equipment bought by others. This eloquent silence says everything about Washington's new role in financing the war.

Ukraine as arms producer: the survival strategy

Understanding that dependence on foreign funding is an existential vulnerability, Ukraine is developing its own defense industry at a forced march. The budget law signed by Zelensky allocates 2.3 trillion hryvnias to the purchase of weapons and military equipment, and more than 1.45 trillion to military personnel compensation. Funds from the special budget from the "military personal income tax" are directed toward developing the defense industrial complex. Production license agreements for American missile systems will be concluded on Ukrainian soil.

This strategy of vertical integration of military production is both a necessity and an ambition. A necessity because foreign aid fluctuates with the domestic politics of each supporting country. An ambition because Ukraine is building a war industry capable of enduring, independent of the moods of American budgetary politics. This is the lesson that Putin's invasion has engraved in the institutional DNA of the Ukrainian state: never again depend entirely on others for its survival.

The Évian G7: Trump signs, but with reservations

A joint declaration wrested away

On June 16 and 17, 2026, the G7 summit at Évian, France, produced a joint declaration on Ukraine. Emmanuel Macron said he had obtained "American alignment" on a "common commitment" to Ukraine. This declaration, extracted through great effort, commits G7 countries to increasing military aid to Kyiv and intensifying economic pressure on Moscow. Trump even raised the possibility of allowing Ukraine to manufacture American anti-ballistic missiles under license on its territory — a significant concession that could permanently strengthen Ukrainian defensive capabilities.

But the context in which Trump appended his signature to this document says a great deal about the nature of this commitment. A few days earlier, at the same summit, he had declared that the United States had "nothing to do" with a war "thousands of miles away." The joint declaration was wrested by the Europeans, notably by Macron, who understands that without a formal American cover, support for Ukraine risks politically eroding in several NATO member states. Trump signed — but his strategic vision of direct American disengagement from Ukraine remains intact.

Diplomatic pressure on Putin

The G7 also agreed on new sanctions targeting Russia. Britain moreover pulled off a spectacular coup: the capture of a Russian tanker linked to the ghost fleet in the English Channel. This European naval show of force is a signal sent to Moscow: Russia's economic strangulation continues, regardless of American budgetary hesitations. Vladimir Putin, who has sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die in futile offensives, must now contend with an increasingly determined European coalition, even as Washington refocuses on the Pacific.

Trump himself declared at the G7 that he believed Putin was "now genuinely thinking" about peace. That may be true. It may also be diplomatic wishful thinking. What is certain is that Russia has not won this war, despite four years of attempts, catastrophic human losses, and growing economic isolation. And Zelensky "is holding the lines against sustained Russian assaults," as Hegseth himself acknowledged.

The national debt: the X factor of the defense budget

40,000 billion dollars and an explosive trajectory

Behind the debates about amounts allocated to Ukraine or China looms an economic reality that neither budget hawks nor warmongers can indefinitely ignore: the national debt is approaching 40,000 billion dollars. Democratic representative Adam Smith, senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was direct: this debt constitutes "the greatest threat to national security" of the United States. His analysis is shared by a growing number of economists and strategic analysts.

The problem with the reconciliation mechanism for the 350 billion in additional dollars is that it adds directly to this debt without any effort to offset the increase with additional revenues. The previous infusion of 150 billion via the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was financed through cuts to Medicaid and SNAP food assistance — that is, on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. The current trajectory of the American military budget is sustainable only if the United States maintains its capacity to borrow at reasonable rates. Which is not guaranteed in the long term.

The Iran war: an unforeseen addition

The budgetary calculation was further complicated by the war in Iran, whose costs amount to approximately 29 billion dollars according to acting Pentagon Deputy Comptroller Jules Hurst III — not counting repairs to military bases damaged by Iranian attacks in the Middle East. These unplanned costs absorbed part of the budgetary maneuvering room initially foreseen for other priorities. The 1,500 billion budget even includes a request for 200 billion initially envisaged as a supplement for the Iranian conflict, ultimately integrated into the annual budget. Wars multiply, costs accumulate, and Ukraine remains at the back of American financial priorities.

This constrained budgetary context partly explains why the Trump administration was so aggressive in transferring the Ukrainian financial burden onto Europeans. It is not only an ideological question or a matter of disinterest in Europe: it is also an arithmetic reality. The United States has costly military commitments in the Pacific, in Iran, at its borders, and cannot finance everything simultaneously. The problem is that it is always Ukraine that bears the burden of American budget savings.

The House Appropriations Committee: the June 24 showdown

A crucial vote to define real priorities

On June 24, 2026 — the day after this investigation's publication — the House Appropriations Committee was to fully markup the defense appropriations bill, with a proposed spending line of 1,070 billion dollars. This bill is separate from the NDAA and represents the concrete translation of authorizations into actual disbursements. Democrats had already announced their opposition, with Representative Betty McCollum having voted against the subcommittee version during the closed-door markup.

The stakes are high: the June 24 vote would determine not only the level of military spending for fiscal year 2027, but also which geographic and programmatic priorities would be concretely funded. If the Ukraine line does not appear in this appropriations bill — and nothing allows us to believe it will — then the NDAA's 780 million in authorizations will remain a dead letter. The gap between what Congress authorizes and what it concretely funds is the real budgetary story of 2026.

The National Security and Foreign Affairs law: cuts in global aid

In parallel, the H.R. 8595 bill on national security, the State Department, and related programs, also examined in committee on June 23, 2026, allocates 49.8 billion dollars to diplomacy and foreign aid — a significant reduction compared to previous levels. Of this amount, 3.3 billion goes to military aid to Israel and 1.8 billion to the Indo-Pacific strategy. The priority of priorities is clear. Humanitarian aid and reconstruction programs in conflict zones like Ukraine receive only residual envelopes.

Democratic committee members described this bill as "unprecedented" cuts of 22% compared to prior levels. But in a Republican-majority House, the final figures risk resembling what the Trump administration requested. Ukraine must count on Europe, not on the American Congress in 2026.

NATO under tension: who does what in the alliance

The new burden-sharing

At the NATO Defense Ministers summit in Brussels on June 17–18, 2026, the new support architecture for Ukraine was formalized. The objective is now explicit: Europe leads Ukraine's financial support, the United States provides military capabilities that only Washington can supply — notably Patriot interceptors and other air defense systems — but at the price set by PURL. Secretary General Rutte described the scheme with rare frankness: "When it comes to the large sums of money needed for Ukraine, it is Europe and Canada that pay."

This division of roles constitutes a structural change in the Alliance. Since 1949, the United States had been the financial and military guarantor of European security. This model is disintegrating before our eyes. NATO has set a new defense spending target of 5% of GDP — including 3.5% for basic military capabilities. Most members are not there. But the most serious ones, Germany leading, have already begun massively revising their military budgets. Germany is contributing to PURL for the fourth time in 2026. Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden are following.

PURL: 90% of Ukraine's anti-aircraft missiles

PURL's figures are impressive: according to NATO, the mechanism funds 70% of the missiles for Ukrainian Patriot systems and 90% of the munitions used across various American air defense platforms deployed in Ukraine. Since its launch in July 2025, the program has engaged nearly 6 billion dollars from more than 27 partner nations. At the Ramstein format of June 18–19, 2026, the billion dollars announced in a single meeting constitutes an absolute record. These figures illustrate both Ukraine's dependence on American systems and Europe's capacity to fill the void left by Washington.

The question nobody openly poses but everyone is asking in the corridors: what would happen if the United States were to decide one day to stop selling through PURL? This is a hypothetical question for now — the Pentagon states that "100% of PURL equipment comes from the United States." But in a context of rising tensions with China and the absorption of American military resources by the Pacific, the question of stockpile availability is not trivial.

The China-Russia-North Korea threat: the axis reshaping the world

A coordinated triangle of destabilization

Admiral Paparo wrote it in black and white in his report to Congress: "China's aggressive military modernization, its territorial expansion, and its deepening relations with Russia and North Korea present major challenges in an increasingly complex security environment." This triangle — Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang — is the true structure of the 21st-century global threat. Iran is associated with it in American analyses, forming an axis of four revisionist powers determined to challenge the Western liberal order.

China is the engine of this axis. Its army has been ordered to be ready for Taiwan by 2027. It has already surpassed the United States in fighter aircraft numbers. It has developed hypersonic, ballistic, and cruise missile capabilities that challenge American defense systems. It has built the world's largest navy by number of ships. And it is quietly financing the reconstruction of Russian industrial capabilities and North Korean armament. This is not an abstract threat: it is a threat in the process of materializing.

Russia: weakened but still dangerous

Putin is waging a war of attrition in Ukraine while surviving economic sanctions thanks to oil revenues and Chinese aid. He is bombing Ukrainian cities, massacring civilians, and maintaining constant military pressure on the front lines. But the human and material costs for Russia are astronomical. Russian losses have reached levels Western military analysts would not have believed possible. The Russian economy has been redirected toward war but is running at full capacity with deep distortions. North Korea sent troops and munitions to support the Russian effort — a sign that even Moscow can no longer rely solely on its own resources.

But a weakened Russia remains dangerous. And a Russia that perceives the American budgetary abandonment of Ukraine as a signal of Western weakness is even more dangerous. This is the paradox of Trump's policy: by withdrawing direct financial support, Washington hopes to force a negotiated peace. The risk is sending Putin a message he will interpret as an incentive to hold on a little longer, until Europeans too grow tired.

Conclusion: 1,500 billion versus zero — the moral equation of a budgetary abandonment

The budget as political act

A budget is never merely a table of figures. It is a declaration of values, a political act, a definition of what matters and what does not. The American defense budget for fiscal year 2027 — 1,500 billion dollars for the largest military arsenal in human history — says something very precise about the Trump administration's priority order: China, drones, missiles, the border. Not Ukraine. Ukraine is relegated to a third-party financial mechanism, PURL, fed by European partners who are paying for American weapons they do not themselves have enough of. It is a remarkably politically efficient — and morally indifferent — sleight of hand.

Ukraine has been fighting for more than four years against an illegal, brutal, murderous invasion. Zelensky is holding his lines, as Hegseth himself acknowledges. Ukrainian soldiers are dying for values that the West claims to defend — sovereignty, democracy, international law. And the country that possesses the most colossal military budget in the history of humanity finds a way to not devote a single direct budget line to them. This is a fact. Brutal, documented, incontestable.

The strategic turning point and its consequences

The geopolitical logic of the American pivot toward the Pacific is understandable. China is a real threat. Taiwan is a potential crisis of historic magnitude. Admiral Paparo is right to sound the alarm. But understanding a logic does not mean absolving it of its consequences. And the consequence of America's financial disengagement from Ukraine is that Kyiv must now count on a European coalition whose solidarity — despite remarkable efforts — remains uneven, politically fragile, and susceptible to erosion. The West cannot claim to support Ukraine and simultaneously empty its coffers. Either we choose to defend the international order against aggression — and we pay the price — or we delegate and hope that others will do enough. The 1,500 billion American budget has decided: it is the second option.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

KPMG Capitol Hill Weekly — American defense budget of 1,500 billion dollars for fiscal year 2027 — June 22, 2026

Responsible Statecraft — The unpopularity of war puts the 1,500 billion defense budget in the crosshairs — June 22, 2026

Ukrainska Pravda — Hegseth highlights PURL "progress" and path to peace — June 18, 2026

Secondary sources

Air and Space Forces Magazine — Where things stand on the Pentagon's 350 billion reconciliation request — June 18, 2026

The Print — USPACOM requests 122 billion and warns of growing threat of war with China — June 17, 2026

United24 Media — Italy rejects PURL funding for Ukraine — June 19, 2026

Militarnyi — American bill to allow Ukraine to use frozen Russian assets to purchase weapons — June 20, 2026

The Guardian — Zelensky thanks G7 leaders for "strong ideas to force Russia to peace" — June 16, 2026