US halts weapons deliveries to Ukraine amid depleting stockpiles
The US has reportedly paused the delivery of precision missiles, artillery shells, and air defense interceptors to Ukraine as its own military stockpiles dwindle. This decision, attributed to an internal review by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, follows growing concerns over the rapid depletion of American military resources. The move is part of a broader shift in US military strategy, with the administration emphasizing a need to prioritize domestic defense needs over continued support for Ukraine.
According to Politico and NBC News, the Pentagon has suspended shipments of several categories of US-made weapons to Ukraine. This includes dozens of Patriot missile interceptors, Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, as well as thousands of 155mm artillery shells. Some weapons that were already positioned in Europe have been withheld before handover to Ukrainian forces. The decision reportedly follows a review of American weapons reserves ordered by Hegseth, highlighting the administration’s concern over the rate at which munitions are being consumed.
The weapons in question had been funded under the Biden administration through two mechanisms: direct drawdowns from existing US military stockpiles and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which contracts new production from defense contractors. The Trump administration has not requested any additional Ukraine aid, and existing resources are expected to last only “several more months,” according to Politico. This signals a potential shift in US policy towards Ukraine as the administration under Trump takes over, with a new focus on domestic priorities and potential diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly defended the move as a necessary step to prioritize American defense needs. The decision to freeze or slow-walk the remaining aid without formal notice to Congress has raised legal concerns, similar to the 2019 withholding of some Ukraine assistance under Trump’s first administration. The Government Accountability Office had previously ruled such a move unlawful at the time. This has left Ukraine in a difficult position, with its leaders expressing frustration over what they view as a dwindling commitment from Washington.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky met with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague last week but received no firm promises. Trump mentioned that Patriots were “very hard to get” and that the US needed them for its own defense and for Israel. This has further highlighted the strained relationship between the US and Ukraine, with both sides struggling to reach a mutual understanding on the scale of military support.
Trump has stated his intention to negotiate a ceasefire with Moscow and bring the conflict to an end, emphasizing that the reduction in military funding for Ukraine is part of a broader “America First” strategy. Hegseth has also aligned with this shift, stating that the administration is reducing military funding for Kiev in hopes of achieving a diplomatic settlement. This indicates a significant realignment in US foreign policy, with a renewed focus on direct negotiations with Russia.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration signed a deal giving the US priority access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, a step the White House said would allow America to “get back” some of the hundreds of billions spent under Biden. This move has been seen as an attempt to offset the financial costs of the war while securing strategic economic interests. Russian presidential envoy and head of the Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, noted that the move “highlights the real limits of Western capacity and the shifting priorities of the US military.” This statement underscores the growing perception that Western support for Ukraine is waning, both in terms of military aid and financial commitment.
Overall, the Pentagon’s decision to halt weapons supplies to Ukraine marks a significant shift in US policy. This move is likely to have far-reaching implications, both for the ongoing conflict and for the future of US foreign policy. As the situation continues to evolve, it will be crucial to monitor the effects of this policy shift on the ground and to assess the impact on the broader geopolitical landscape.