The U.S. Decision To Suspend Weapons Promised And Scheduled For Ukraine: A Poorly Reasoned Act Of Strategic Self-Harm.

• Ukrainians, who are fighting against Russia’s onslaught and daily barrage of missiles, ballistic missiles, and drone attacks, didn’t even receive prior notice or notification before yesterday’s announcement that the U.S. was suspending the delivery of weapons Ukraine was previously promised and scheduled to receive.

• This suspension included, crucially, PAC-3 Patriot missiles, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stingers, AIM-7 missiles, and Hellfire missiles.

• Leaving aside strategic interests and concerns, at a time when Russia’s aerial attacks are escalating daily (more on that below) cutting off Ukraine’s air defense systems, and doing so without prior notice so they could plan their defenses or potentially seek emergency assistance from other NATO allies, was exceptionally cruel and unethical.

• Not only is it contrary to U.S. military and strategic interests, but it also undermines the image of the United States as a credible and reliable ally on the global stage.

• What makes this particularly devious is that it appears to be the work—or at least the push—of a single individual in the Pentagon: Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

• Colby has long advocated for a pivot to the Pacific, and redirecting material and resources to focus on China.

• And so, through that prism, every decision is being evaluated.

• But here is the problem: the world does not operate that way.

• You cannot divide theaters into discrete units and abandon allies in one part of the world without damaging credibility in another.

• This decision came just one week after Trump, during NATO’s summit in The Hague, suggested the U.S. could increase Patriot missile and air defense support for Ukraine(while boasting about their performance in the conflict with Iran).

• Two quick points and observations deserve a mention here.

• First, it’s difficult to argue that this decision was about prioritizing the Pacific when some of the withheld weapons—like 155mm artillery rounds, Hellfire missiles, anti-tank munitions, or mines—are unlikely to be central to a Taiwan contingency.

• They are more easily replaceable and are already being produced in large quantities.

• If China has already landed on the island and such weapons are needed, then the war is essentially already lost.

• The usefulness of Patriot systems is easier to understand, but the withholding of artillery and short-range missiles looks more like ideological signaling—a definitive shift away from Ukraine—rather than a strategic necessity.

• Ukrainians analyzing what exactly was withheld will see that it does not at all align with the reasoning being offered.

• Second, this is simply too much power for one man in the Pentagon to wield.

• We need to hear from Secretary of Defense Rubio, or from the President himself.

• Was he even informed about this?

• Because the move directly contradicts what he said just last week.

• And it sends yet another bad signal to allies: that one individual in the bureaucracy can overturn a major foreign policy position that was recently endorsed by Congress and even verbally reaffirmed by the President.

• This is not how reliable foreign policy is made.

• It doesn’t project stability, consistency, or trustworthiness to American allies.

• With those out of the way, let’s now unpack this decision and see why exactly it is so damaging to U.S. interests and its standing:

• 1) A major gift to the Kremlin.

• Fifth, this is a gift to the Kremlin.

• Seven months into Trump’s presidency, Russia has faced no significant increase in pressure for its war in Ukraine.

• Although Trump has occasionally made threats about sanctions, they have not materialized.

• Whether by neglect or design, the Treasury Department has failed to maintain and tighten restrictions. Instead, it has quietly lifted sanctions, even on figures close to the Kremlin.

• For example, in April, the Treasury Department removed sanctions on Karina Rotenberg, the wife of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

• Why?

• What strategic value was gained by doing this?

• It appears to be part of a broader softening toward Moscow.

• And this latest suspension of arms to Ukraine fits right in.

• It’s exactly the sort of move the Kremlin needs to advance its propaganda narrative: that the U.S. is abandoning Ukraine and that Russian victory is inevitable.

• Dmitry Peskov all but celebrated the decision, stating, “The less weapons supplied to Ukraine, the sooner the invasion will end.”

• In other words, the less help Ukraine receives, the faster it collapses, and Russia completes its “special military operation.”

• A chilling statement.

• 2) The myth of distinct theaters of conflict.