Donald Trump has again turned his face to Ukraine, at least in words. After loud announcements about the end of military aid, the eccentric leader unexpectedly changed his rhetoric and promised to restore it and even increase the volume of supplies. The White House is still silent, Congress is listening warily, and the world is trying to understand whether this is the beginning of a new policy or a continuation of the old political unpredictable game. Such a change of position does not look like a signal for a strategic reversal, but rather a calculated and cunning tactical move. Nothing happens in Washington just like that, especially when it comes to Ukraine, money and voters’ votes.
Washington’s pullback: Donald Trump’s changing decisions on aid to Ukraine
A new wave of changes in Donald Trump’s decision once again proved his unpredictability and changeable actions. After long statements about the priority of the internal interests of the USA and the end of providing military aid to Ukraine, he unexpectedly made a decision to restore it. The US president has proven once again: his promises, intentions and decisions can change in a flash, and his statements can contradict each other without any explanation.
It has long been known that Trump is unpredictable in his decisions. What is the value of only his repeated promises to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours”, which he later said were a joke. According to CNN’s count, he has publicly stated at least 53 times that he could end the war in Ukraine either immediately after returning to power or before his inauguration. However, these statements were repeated time and time again as a slogan, a pressure tool and an ostentatious show of confidence that was never backed up with details or plans.
And here is another example that only confirms this line. After the American-Ukrainian negotiations in Jeddah in March of this year, the US President decided to resume military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine, which he canceled the day before.
However, at the beginning of July, a number of Western media reported that the Pentagon had again suspended the transfer of high-precision ammunition and missiles to air defense systems to Ukraine. The White House, through Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly, publicly stated that the supply has been put on hold because it is necessary to check the state of the American stockpile of weapons. At the same time, a key thesis was sounded: “it is necessary to put America’s interests first.” Thus, it did not look like a temporary technical procedure, but a step within a broader political reassessment. However, this information was not confirmed in Ukraine – the President’s Office stated that the aid was ongoing.
It is interesting that the press secretary of the White House, Caroline Levitt, denied the information about Trump’s apparently personal decision to stop the supply. According to her, the pause was initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as part of a routine review of the US military support program for all partners. She emphasized: this is part of the standard evaluation procedure, which applies not only to Ukraine. It must be ensured that the support is consistent with the strategic interests of the United States itself. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also called it a “capability assessment” during a July 2 briefing. The Ministry of Defense, he said, has created a special structure to analyze the dynamics of arms supply to help make decisions. And yet, several weeks passed from the start of the suspension to its cancellation.
However, everything changed on the 4th of July. It was then that a telephone conversation took place between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. The President of Ukraine tried to convince his American colleague not only to restore the supply, but also to expand it. And soon the Pentagon unblocked the supply of weapons to Ukraine, confirming that new batches of weapons are already on their way to Kyiv. Moreover, at the behest of the US president, he promised to send more defense weapons to Ukraine.
“We will be forced to send more weapons, primarily defensive weapons, because they will be hit very hard and will be able to defend themselves. A lot of people are dying in this chaos.” – Donald Trump commented on his decision regarding Ukraine.
What kind of weapon, in what quantity and how quickly, is still unknown. But the very fact of a rapid change in rhetoric became another evidence of the decision-making style of the Trump administration: without any explanations or consistency. That is, “checking the state of the American stockpile of weapons” and “assessing the capabilities” have already taken place quickly.
Why did Donald Trump resume aid to Ukraine
Most likely, Donald Trump’s decision to resume arms supplies to Ukraine was the result of several parallel processes. Despite previous announcements of an aid freeze, his new decision is not an example of a sudden change of position, but rather a reaction to the changing political and strategic landscape. The suspension of support turned out to be part of a political game: the optimal option for Trump is not to completely stop aid, but to have arms for Ukraine come “at the expense of Europe.”
In the current political landscape, the administration of Donald Trump, on the one hand, shows readiness to restore and even increase military aid to Ukraine, and on the other hand, continues to look for formulas that would not contradict its domestic political agenda. Despite official statements of support, the essence of the American approach is gradually shifting towards shifting the main burden to allies in Europe. This does not mean that the United States refuses to participate in security support for Ukraine, but the nature of its participation is changing: it is about the desire to maintain influence without proportional funding.
Temporary halts in arms deliveries, as happened in early July, are presented as technical checks on stockpiles and strategic reserves, but behind these statements a deeper political maneuver can be seen. It is about publicly demonstrating to the American electorate, primarily the conservative electorate, that America will not be a “sponsor of another’s war” without the participation of the Europeans. This line of rhetoric is particularly convenient for Trump, who has repeatedly accused allies of insufficient accountability. In this way, he tries to keep Washington in the role of strategic arbiter, but reduce direct expenditures from the federal budget.
At the same time, the reaction of European partners in this context is a critically important factor. In response to the reduction or delay in American supplies, a number of EU countries have indeed stepped up. Separate defense packages, new bilateral agreements, promises of long-term support — all this indicates that Brussels and national levels have begun to prepare for a scenario in which Washington reduces its involvement. At the same time, this redistribution of responsibility is not only a forced reaction, but also the result of targeted political pressure.
The aid formula currently being implemented is not a direct exchange: the US does not receive money from the EU for its weapons, but its policy is designed to force Europe to compensate American restrictions with its own resources. At the same time, Washington retains control over the strategic support architecture, in particular, access to intelligence, technology, and logistical capabilities, but at the same time reduces the level of its direct costs.
Such a cunning model allows Trump to maneuver: he demonstrates firmness in defending American interests, does not abdicate his responsibility for security policy, maintains contact with Kyiv, but minimizes the risks of domestic criticism from isolationist political circles. In this sense, Ukraine receives aid, but in volumes and on terms that now increasingly depend not only on the US, but on how effectively Europe will be able to close the created vacuum. So, in this way, Trump achieves a balance between his political image, the needs of the American military industry and strategic interests in Europe, shifting part of the financial responsibility to his partners. At the same time, this creates new challenges for Ukraine: diplomatic, logistical and political, because now support must be maintained not only in Washington, but also in European capitals.
Also, the decision to renew aid to Ukraine is explained by another factor. At the time of its adoption, the situation around our country was sharply aggravated: Russia carried out massive attacks on the capital and a number of regions. This coincided with Trump’s personal disillusionment with Putin. The US president is increasingly expressing his disappointment with Moscow’s actions: in particular, he publicly accused Dmitry Medvedev of dangerous behavior. These changes in rhetoric signal a shift in focus toward a more critical view of Russia.
In addition, Trump was affected by a shift in the balance within the United States: the pro-Russian group in Trump’s circle, which advocated ending aid to Ukraine, lost influence. Instead, pressure from Congress and within the Republican Party intensified in favor of continued support for Ukraine. At the same time, the decisive position of Ukraine also played a role. She did not show weakness in response to the aid freeze, but on the contrary, increased communication and declared her readiness to fight, no matter what. This forced Trump to reconsider expectations.
The position of Europe played an important role in this, in particular, the statement made at the July NATO summit, where a number of member countries expressed their willingness to spend up to 5% of their GDP on defense. Such a position not only demonstrated Europe’s determination, but also convinced the White House that the continent is ready to bear a significant financial and political burden in the common cause of containing Russia.
Up to this point, many American politicians, especially among the Republican Party, actively promoted the thesis that the United States is “overpaying” for the security of the West, while European partners, they say, are not making enough efforts. Even during his first term, Trump repeatedly accused NATO of an imbalance in contributions, appealing to insufficient defense spending by EU countries. That is why the public commitments of European states, in particular, to spend up to 5% of GDP on military needs, are perceived in Washington as a turning point — an indicator of the allies’ readiness to support the security architecture, as well as materially assume responsibility for its maintenance.
This became an important argument for the Trump team in overcoming internal resistance to the ideas of new support packages. After all, such rhetoric made it possible to reorient the attention of critics: now it can be argued that the United States is not alone in this war, but, on the contrary, is acting within the framework of a multilateral effort, where each side takes on an appropriate share of obligations. In addition, the declaration of readiness to spend up to 5% of GDP creates a feeling of irreversibility of the processes that began in response to the actions of the Russian Federation.
It is not only about aid to Ukraine, but about fundamental changes in approaches to security in Europe. The US, for its part, received a signal that the strategic load is now more evenly distributed, and therefore support for Kyiv can last longer, without the risk of excessive pressure on the American budget. Most likely, the deliberate suspension of military aid to Ukraine became part of Donald Trump’s tactics, a tool to pressure Europe to participate more actively in defense financing.
However, contacts with allies are important for him. Despite the fact that Trump shows hostility to the European Union, he does not seek complete isolation. Criticism from key European leaders creates an unpleasant background for him. At the same time, communication with them, as well as with the president of Ukraine, changes the context of his decisions. This is the peculiarity of his style: he does not delve into the complex constructions of international politics, but can change his mind under the influence of persistent negotiations.
There is another significant factor that prompted Trump to resume aid to Ukraine. Extending the pause would be politically disadvantageous for him. In Congress, the amount of aid provided for in the package during the administration of Joe Biden remained unfulfilled. Failure to implement it would cause both external and internal criticism, particularly among Republicans.
The crisis in communications between Trump and Elon Musk is also important. The gap between them creates an additional element of instability, particularly in foreign policy. If Musk decides to continue building a political platform, his fiscal conservatism and criticism of aid to Ukraine could complicate the situation.
However, most likely, the current restoration of aid should not be interpreted as a long-term reversal of the foreign policy course. Trump has not given up on the logic of transactional policy, and it is likely that in the near future the option of selling weapons, not their free supply, will dominate. This format fully corresponds to the business logic of the US president.
As we can see, Trump’s decision to resume arms supplies has the appearance of a situational, thought-out and cunning compromise. In fact, it is not about new large-scale aid, but the unfreezing of already approved supplies. The US president talks about increasing aid, but Ukraine receives much less. For example, 10 missiles were promised for the Patriot systems, although earlier it was about 30. The problem was created, frozen, and then solved by those who created it. This is in line with Trump’s general tactic: act hard, then back down while still looking like a winner.
Its further course is difficult to predict. Trump’s entourage continues to support the idea of an agreement with Russia, where Ukraine is nothing more than a bargaining chip. Therefore, the current gesture of the US President should not be overestimated, because help today does not guarantee help tomorrow. Donald Trump thinks in terms of benefits, pressure and bargaining, therefore, for him, supporting Ukraine is only one of the elements of a big political “chess game”, the rules of which he changes during the “party”.
