The United States is suspending military aid to Ukraine a few days after U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky had a confrontation in the Oval Office.
According to the representative, the U.S. is suspending and evaluating the aid to ensure that it contributes to a resolution. The pause will persist until Trump determines that the leaders of the country have a sincere dedication to peace.
A Trump administration representative told Fox News, that this is not a definitive cessation of aid; it is a temporary pause.
Some see this as a signal to Russia to come to the table.
Bloomberg reported that all U.S. military equipment that is not presently in Ukraine will be suspended. This includes weapons that are in transit on planes and ships or awaiting transfer in transit zones in Poland.
It added that Trump ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to implement the pause.
The reports were released mere hours after Trump informed reporters at the White House that he had not contemplated suspending military aid to Ukraine. He also stated that Zelenskyy “should be more appreciative” of Washington’s assistance.
Rumors of such an action had been circulating prior to the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28. Since then, talk of stopping deliveries has only intensified in unofficial briefings.
U.S. Aid is Replacable?
The most critical components of U.S. support include weapons, the capacity to maintain and restore them, air defense missiles that maintain city functionality, the Starlink system that serves as the foundation of military communications, and, perhaps most importantly, intelligence sharing.
A significant portion of Ukraine’s artillery firepower can be replaced with its drone systems. The local defense industry is not operating at full capacity, so the issue is merely a matter of securing the necessary funds. On the battlefield, Ukrainian drones have demonstrated their effectiveness, frequently exceeding that of artillery and costing significantly less. Nevertheless, artillery continues to be in demand, and the limited utility of the dozens of new systems that are produced on Ukrainian production lines each month will be exacerbated by the absence of ammunition. The loss of American Bradley fighting vehicles would be equally calamitous. Russia would also enjoy significantly increased mobility dozens of kilometers beyond the front lines as a result of the discontinuation of GPS-guided GMLRS missiles.
Ammunition supplies are of lesser significance than other elements of U.S. assistance. Only the United States is capable of manufacturing advanced armaments such as Patriot missiles, which are capable of intercepting Russian hypersonic and ballistic missiles. On paper, the French-Italian SAMP/T system could serve as a substitute if it were mass-produced. In practice, the system is unable to neutralize the fastest missiles, although a more advanced variant is anticipated to be released next year. The cessation of Patriot missile shipments will render a significant portion of Ukraine susceptible to the same level of devastation as that observed in frontline cities such as Kharkiv, where the deployment of costly systems is typically considered too risky. Other sources of Patriot interceptors may be accessible—for example, the United States is currently in the process of enabling Japan to co-produce them—but it is unlikely that they will be in large quantities. U.S. approval would be necessary for any transfer.
Another irreplaceable resource is the Starlink satellite network, which is financed by Poland but is under American control. The impact of the suspension of military aid on the system is uncertain; however, Ukrainians have already devised remedies, particularly during operations in Russia’s Kursk region, where Starlink systems are primarily disabled. In this instance, engineers employed drone relays and mobile technologies to maintain the connectivity of personnel.
According to a Ukrainian official, a fallback system that employs comparable technologies is currently under development. He stated that Ukraine had a solution that could be deployed within days and a larger-scale solution within three months. However, the transition will be difficult and cost the Ukrainians a major battlefield advantage. Alternative systems are inadequate in critical respects, particularly their susceptibility to Russian electronic warfare.
The most critical of all is U.S. intelligence, which is provided through NATO agreements. This enables Ukraine’s military to observe various threats, including the stockpiles, logistics, and command centers of Russia’s military machine; Russian aircraft preparing to strike; Russian troops preparing for new offensives; and the flow of Russian, Iranian, and North Korean weapons. This allows Ukraine to direct missiles and drones to targets within Russia in real time. Ukrainian drones are capable of observing a brief distance beyond the current front lines. However, American surveillance allows them to observe at a deeper level.
U.S. officials at European Command (EUCOM), which is responsible for the supervision of all U.S. forces on the continent, use artificial intelligence to integrate data from satellite images, electronic surveillance, and other sources to identify critical targets. According to a Western military official, Europe has the potential to offer certain capabilities, such as the regular flight of Rivet Joint reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea by Britain. However, the speed of response is not as rapid. Timing is paramount in this type of conflict. Ukraine will encounter challenges in dynamic targeting, which involves the real-time detection and elimination of emergent threats, in the absence of U.S. intelligence.
Europe becomes Ukraine’s main hope following the Oval Office confrontation.
On March 1, Zelenskyy arrived in London and was greeted by Starmer. Starmer announced a $2.84 billion loan agreement to fortify Ukraine’s defense, which was funded by proceeds from frozen Russian assets.
European leaders expressed their unwavering support for the Ukrainian leader and committed to providing additional assistance to Kyiv at the London summit on March 2, which occurred just two days following Zelenskyy’s confrontation with Trump.
At the London summit, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged European leaders to take the lead in a “once-in-a-generation moment” for the continent’s security. The summit’s objective was to bolster military cooperation and reaffirm support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
“A peace plan for Ukraine” would be presented to Trump by a “coalition of the willing,” according to Starmer.
To demonstrate to Trump that Europe is capable of self-defense, European leaders concurred that they should allocate additional resources to defense. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, proposed that the EU relax its debt regulations in light of the fact that numerous nations are currently experiencing financial difficulties.
Starmer, who also revealed a deal that permits Ukraine to use £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in UK export financing to purchase over 5,000 air defense missiles, asserted that Europe must take the lead in securing peace in Ukraine.
Starmer identified three critical elements for a successful “peace agreement”: the provision of Ukrainians with weapons to establish them in a secure position, the inclusion of a European security component, and the assurance of “U.S. support” to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from violating his commitments.
Are there European peacekeepers in Ukraine?
The Telegraph, citing sources within the British government, reported that the leaders of the United Kingdom and France are secretly contemplating the deployment of “peacekeeping forces” to Ukraine following the conclusion of the conflict. According to sources, the initiative is not entirely supported by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, while French President Emmanuel Macron continues to advocate for it. Macron has previously discussed the idea with Zelenskyy and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
The West is purportedly planning to deploy a peacekeeping contingent of approximately 100,000 soldiers in Ukraine, which the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service regards as a de facto occupation.
According to Dmitry Peskov, the deployment of peacekeepers is contingent upon the agreement of the parties embroiled in the conflict.