On July 7, President Donald Trump said he had no idea who paused shipments of air defense weapons to Ukraine, but that they would resume.
“They have to be able to defend themselves,” he said. “Now they’re getting hit very hard. We’re going to have to send more weapons. So many people are dying in that mess.”’
On July 8, he publicly called out Vladimir Putin for throwing “a lot of b*llshit” about seeking peace in Ukraine. Then he greenlit the Lindsey Graham-Richard Blumenthal bill that would impose 500% sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil or uranium and don’t aid Ukraine.
Putin’s response was to further humiliate Trump by unleashing a withering attack on Ukrainians, convinced that their defenses and Trump’s resolve would collapse.
Then, Putin’s sidekick, Dmitry Medvedev, piled on: “The American is once again riding his favorite political seesaw: ‘I’m satisfied with the conversation with Putin.’ ‘I’m disappointed with the conversation with Putin.’ ‘We’re not supplying new weapons to Ukraine.’ ‘We’ll supply lots of weapons to Ukraine for defense.’ How should we react to this? The same way as before. The same way our warriors do. The same way the Supreme Commander-in-Chief does. Not at all. Keep pursuing the goals of the Special Military Operation. Take back our land. Work for Victory.”
The weapons controversy raises serious questions. Who authorized the pause in deliveries to Ukraine and why? Are there enough air defense systems to protect Ukrainian skies? Will the President flip-flop again? And will Lindsey Graham’s 500% tariffs be enough to stop Russia? Or will the President change his mind? “Trump is now inclined toward Ukraine, but what will be in two weeks, no one knows,” commented a journalist. “Russia hasn’t changed its position since the very beginning of the war. So why would it change now?” Then, Politico noted wryly that “his comments marked a notable turnabout in his approach to the conflict – at least for now.”
Trump is erratic and unpredictable, often changing direction abruptly. However, his tone toward Putin began to shift during the NATO summit in June and has since evolved into anger. The first indication that his patience was finally wearing thin was when he said Putin offered to assist with mediation over the conflict between Israel and Iran. But Trump said he brushed aside the offer: “I said, ‘Do me a favor, mediate your own. Let’s mediate Russia first, OK?”
He attended the NATO summit, which was a major diplomatic victory for Trump, who successfully persuaded members to more than double their security budgets. Perhaps his view of Putin turned because of comments made by NATO chief Mark Rutte, who warned that “Armageddon” may be around the corner. He said World War III will start with simultaneous invasions from Xi Jinping and Putin: “Let’s not be naïve about this. If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, residing in Moscow, and telling him, `Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory.’ To deter them, we need to do two things. One is that NATO, collectively, must be so strong that the Russians will never do this.”
Most likely, Putin’s constant bombardments have backfired because footage of his carnage is carried nightly on Trump’s favorite news channel, Fox News. Then he no sooner pledged to send additional defensive arms to Ukraine than Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz called and promised to cover the costs, guaranteeing more in the future.
That day, the Pentagon announced: “At President Trump’s direction, the Department of Defense is sending additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure the killing stops.”
But the question remains, who stopped the shipments to Ukraine? Trump, the Commander in Chief, said he didn’t, then admitted he didn’t know who did. This represents a serious lapse at the Pentagon and in Trump’s team. Those immediately responsible for this are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon Chief of Staff Eldridge Colby, who has opposed America’s significant involvement in Ukraine because it distracts attention away from China. The breach also blindsided American military leaders and negotiators, and reports are that Trump was frustrated with Pentagon officials who left him in the dark.
The Associated Press wrote: “Two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive internal discussions, said there was some internal opposition among Pentagon brass to the pause – coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby – before it was announced. It’s excruciating for Hegseth, who was already damaged goods following a series of public missteps.”
The Economist waded in bluntly: “The Pentagon had presented the halt in arms deliveries as a part of a review to ensure that America maintained its stocks. This was mostly misleading. Granted, much of the West is short of air-defense weapons like Patriot missiles, which intercept ballistic and cruise missiles. But those being sent to Ukraine now come from contractors’ production lines rather than from American forces. Moreover, there was no similar interruption of weapons for Israel, which, along with America, expended many air-defense interceptors to parry Iranian missiles in the recent 12-day war,” it wrote.
Last week, Trump also agreed to deploy Lindsey Graham’s “bunker buster” economic weapon to cut Putin’s oil income. This legislation will empower the President to levy tariffs of 500% on goods imported from Russian oil and uranium customers – a weapon aimed at Russian customers like China or India, which also supply technology and equipment to Putin’s war.
The bill gives Trump enormous leverage and allows him to waive sanctions on nations for 180 days, giving targets time to come up with concessions, help Ukraine, or find other sources of supply, likely the US or the Middle East. Already, nations such as India are negotiating, lobbying for an exemption, and also placing pressure on Putin.
A Wall Street Journal editorial, headlined “Trump Calls Out the Putin Charade,” lauded him for tackling the Pentagon’s “mutiny” and supporting Graham’s bill. “The President is grasping what some of his staffers don’t: Arming Kyiv is realism rooted in America’s security interests. Republicans in Congress will back the President if he asks for more weapons, and they’ll support a new sanctions bill when it comes to a vote, as it soon should. Another pressure point would be to inform Mr. Putin that if he continues fighting, he will lose the approximately $300 billion in Russian reserves held by Western banks. Mr. Biden refused to play that card, too.”
Hegseth and Colby slipped in the pause on shipments before Trump’s newly appointed top US general in Europe, a pro-Ukraine soldier named Alexus Grynkewich, assumed control.
A former fighter pilot, the general has said publicly that “Ukraine can win against Russia.” On July 4, he took command and delivered a speech of resolve and reassurance to allies concerned about potential cuts to US forces in Europe by the Trump administration. He will push for air defense weapons to protect Ukraine’s skies.
Trump may “seesaw” in the future, but Europe militarizes, existing weapons commitments will last for another two years, and Germany has given Trump a blank check to buy Patriots and air defense systems. Finally, Lindsey Graham’s oil tariffs will damage Russia’s accomplices, raise tens of billions, and hopefully do to Russia’s war what America’s “bunker buster” attack did to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Reprinted from dianefrancis@substack.com – Diane Francis on America and the World.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.