On July 1, the Trump administration announced a pause in specific United States weapons systems to Ukraine as part of a more exhaustive Pentagon review of U.S. munitions stockpiles. The suspension caught Europe and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by surprise. Lawmakers, including some in the Republican Party, were aghast that U.S. defense officials would throttle shipments, even if temporarily, at a time when Russia’s air attacks on Ukraine were at their most intense since the war began in February 2022.
However, something in the last week has changed President Donald Trump’s mind. When asked on Monday whether the U.S. would continue to arm the Ukrainian military, Trump answered affirmatively. “We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to,” he replied. “They [Ukraine] have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now.” Sure enough, the Pentagon released a statement shortly thereafter that the U.S. would deliver additional defensive military aid to Kyiv.
Recommended Stories
- Liberal judge attempts to overrule Congress
- California Democrats walk back climate policies to avoid a political collapse
- Now Ukraine aid is ‘America First’?
Several variables are at play that may help explain Trump’s shift.
First things first: the aid pause was unlikely to be permanent anyway. The Trump administration is still working off the Biden administration’s multibillion-dollar supplemental aid bill. According to some experts, slightly less than $4 billion remains, enough to last the Ukrainians through the fall. Trump wouldn’t allow this cash to expire without it being used up, if only because doing so would cause a headache on Capitol Hill that he doesn’t want to deal with. Congress appropriates these funds and wants them spent.
As a general principle, the aid pause wasn’t necessarily a bad thing either. Initiating a department-led process to determine what the U.S. military has in its stockpiles is the sort of activity any responsible Pentagon would take. It’s not like the U.S. defense industrial base isn’t over-stretched and struggling to fill orders. Taiwan, in fact, is still waiting for weapons systems it has already purchased. And recent U.S. military activity in the Middle East, including a high-intensity bombing campaign against the Houthis in the spring, air defense assistance to Israel, and the bombing operation against Iran’s nuclear program last month, has taken a toll on the Pentagon’s inventory.
If the Pentagon’s review were complete, Trump’s decision to authorize more defensive weapons to Ukraine would make sense. But per the department’s statement, that review is still being processed. It seems Trump is prioritizing Ukraine for the first time in his second term. Again, why?
I’m convinced it has something to do with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s tendency to stonewall every peace initiative Trump proposes. It’s no coincidence that, in the same breath that Trump green-lit more military aid to Ukraine, he also condemned Putin for being a hindrance to the peace process and choosing violence over dialogue. One of Trump’s major foreign policy talking points on the campaign trail, if not the most major, was quickly ending the war in Ukraine. That means the president is under some pressure to deliver. And if Trump can’t deliver, he must blame the failure on somebody else’s feet.
TWO REASONS THE US AND IRAN LOOK SET TO FIGHT AGAIN
Renewed U.S. military aid shipments to Kyiv, therefore, probably serve two purposes in Trump’s mind: first, it’s punishment for the constant maximalism Putin brings to the negotiating table; second, it’s a strategy designed to bolster Ukraine’s ability to hold the line this summer and pressure Putin into compromising on better terms.
Whether the strategy goes according to plan will hinge partly on Trump’s willingness to sustain it. It’s not like sending U.S. missiles, air defense systems, ammunition, and battle tanks to Ukraine is a radical change in U.S. policy. The Russians have responded to all of these equipment shipments by doubling down on their military campaign, not by begging to sit across from the Ukrainians to negotiate an end to a war that Putin, rightly or wrongly, views as existential to his rule and Russia. Will this time be any different?