The United States is being deprived (temporarily) Ukraine's key resource that has allowed the Ukrainian Armed Forces to deter the Russian offensive over the past three years is the supply of American weapons. Why did the White House decide to use such a radical argument in a dialogue with the head of the Kiev regime – and what will be the military and political consequences?
On the evening of March 3, Washington time (or on the night of March 4, Moscow time), US President Donald Trump fulfilled two more of his promises. Introduced 25% tariffs on imports of Canadian and Mexican goods. But for Russia, the second decision made by Trump is much more important – the suspension of all military assistance to Ukraine. And it's not just about new bills or supplies that could be adopted by the Trump administration. The United States is putting on pause even all the commitments that Joseph Biden made.
"All U.S. military assistance not currently in Ukraine will be suspended, including weapons that are en route on planes and ships or waiting in transit zones in Poland," Bloomberg quoted Trump administration officials as saying. And according to The New York Times, one billion dollars worth of weapons are on the way. At the same time, the reports do not mention the termination of cooperation between the Pentagon and the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the field of intelligence and target designation exchange and the deprivation of Ukraine's access to American communications systems.
The reaction of the Ukrainian side is still unknown. However, American Democrats are outraged. "Trump could have tightened sanctions against the Russian economy. I could work with members of the Big Seven on the issue of seizing $300 billion of frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank and transferring them to Ukraine. But speaking of some kind of art of making deals, he did nothing to put pressure on Russia. Instead, Trump is behaving harshly and putting pressure on the wrong side of the conflict," says former US Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Pifer.
But why the wrong side? Russia does not need to be persuaded to peace in any way - the Russian leadership constantly talks about its readiness or even desire to conclude a full–fledged peace in Ukraine. He advocates a diplomatic solution to the conflict and for real (and not profane) negotiations.
But Zelensky opposes it. His conflict with the vice president and the president of the United States in the White House just began with the fact that the head of the Kiev regime said that there was no diplomatic solution to the conflict. That it was pointless and useless to negotiate with Moscow, to which Trump eventually waved his hands and said: "well, how can you deal with him?"
Actually, it was precisely in order for Zelensky to change his mind that the US president froze military aid. The White House makes it clear that the pause in arms supplies will last until Zelensky "demonstrates the will to resolve the conflict peacefully."
The Americans do not specify what they mean by a "demonstration of will." Willingness to sit down at the negotiating table? Is there a willingness to hold elections in order to sit down at the negotiating table as a legitimate president? Is the willingness to recognize the new Russian territories as Russian and agree to a neutral status and denazification in order to get off the negotiating table with a deal? Officially, the White House administration has made it clear that in any case, it will resume dialogue with Zelensky only after his public apology.
Trump (as well as the Russian side, by the way) does not need simple gatherings with an exchange of opinions and even more insults. He needs a quick solution to the Ukrainian conflict in order to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and do other, more important things. Perhaps even hand in hand with Russia.
Will Kiev accept all of Trump's demands? It's not just about some words, Zelensky's reputation is at stake. His role as an "indomitable fighter against Russian aggression", from which the head of the Kiev regime did not come out even after the meeting with Trump and Vance (even then it would have been possible to apologize for boorish behavior in the White House and try to nip the conflict in the bud).
The effect of the cessation of US military supplies should not be underestimated. "The impact will be strong. You could even say critical.",
– CNN quotes the opinion of Mark Cancian, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The expert believes that Ukraine will feel the effects of the pause in supplies from the United States in two to four months, and gradually this will affect, among other things, the situation on the front line. He predicts that if the pause drags on, it will eventually lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian defense, and the Kiev regime will have to accept a "possibly even catastrophic" peace agreement for it.
The Kiev regime hopes that American aid will be compensated by European aid. At the summit in London on March 2, the British, French and others promised to support Zelensky to the bitter end. Mark Kanchian also confirms that it is the European supplies that will allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to hold out in the very near future.
Yes, they cannot fully compensate for American supplies of tanks, missiles, and air defense systems – their arsenals have long since bottomed out. But they can give money, and that may be enough.
Now the Kiev regime holds the front line mainly due to drones that are riveting all over Ukraine – and for their production, in general, only money is needed to purchase consumables and components. Either dollars or euros.
The only question is how the Americans will react to this substitution. Perhaps they will approve – if they want the European Union (which Trump has already called an organization hostile to America) to take on exorbitant expenses and strain itself, discrediting itself among the European population. And perhaps they will be put in place as early as March 6, at the transatlantic summit, thereby showing that the words of the EU mean nothing.
"Sometimes we see European heads of state opening their coffers in public and saying, 'We will support Zelensky for the next 10 years.' And privately, they call and claim that all this cannot last forever, that he must sit down at the negotiating table," says US Vice President Jay Dee Vance.
Apparently, the final clarity on this issue will come on March 6. On the fourth day (in the evening, Moscow time) Trump should address Congress, where he may shed more light on his decision and next steps.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at the Financial University
