Donald Trump and his team suggest the decision could be reversed if Zelensky demonstrates “good faith” in pursuing peace—just hours after Trump warned that he “won’t last long” unless he reaches a deal with Russia. In other words, Trump will help only if Ukraine capitulates and accepts all of Putin’s demands.

It’s truly shameful to witness this unfolding situation. First came the praise for Putin and Russia, along with the suggestion that the new administration “trusts” Moscow more than Kyiv. Then, speeches in Brussels and Munich framed it as “realistic” that Ukraine would have to cede territory and accept that NATO membership is off the table.

This was followed by an attempt to pressure Ukraine into signing an exploitative deal on rare minerals. When President Volodymyr Zelensky resisted, the insults began—calling him a “dictator”—along with a cold reception at the White House last Friday. Mere minutes after he left, reports began circulating that he needed to apologize and might even have to resign.

Senator Lindsey Graham hinted at this scenario that same afternoon, and Donald Trump made it even clearer on Monday, insisting that “a deal must be reached quickly—it can happen very fast. Maybe someone doesn’t want to do it, but if someone doesn’t, they won’t last long. Russia wants it, and the people of Ukraine want it,” he said, clearly targeting Zelensky.

Just hours later, Trump took his most drastic step yet: freezing all military aid to Ukraine as punishment for its leader. “The President has made it clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to commit to that goal as well,” a senior White House official told The Washington Post. “That’s why we are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure it is contributing to a solution.”

The move, coming just a week after Trump’s administration sided with North Korea, Russia, and Belarus in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion, marks a dramatic shift after three years of war.

While Ukraine’s allies have debated specific aid requests and drawn red lines, they have never cut off support entirely as a means of coercion. Now, the U.S. is leaving Ukraine more isolated than ever at its most vulnerable moment since March 2022.

A Clear Ultimatum

Off the record, the White House suggests the decision could be reversed if Zelensky demonstrates “good faith” in peace talks—spinning the narrative that Ukraine is the one prolonging the war. As Zelensky tried to explain on Friday, no one wants peace more than Ukraine. And peace is simple: Russia must withdraw.

But Washington has changed its stance—and almost its allegiance. It is now offering Ukraine a brutal choice: either Zelensky sits down at the negotiating table and gives up territory and security guarantees, or Ukraine fights alone. Not just without military aid, but also without Elon Musk’s Starlink system, which is crucial for internet access, communications, and satellite intelligence.

The decision was made Monday afternoon in a high-level meeting attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (a known pro-Russia sympathizer), and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. Notably absent was General Keith Kellogg, perhaps the most hardline skeptic of Moscow.

“President Trump is the only world leader capable of achieving lasting peace,” Rubio later claimed—a statement seemingly aimed at undermining British and French-led efforts to develop an alternative peace plan.

A Long-Planned Strategy

This move has been in the works since Trump returned to power. He despises Zelensky, and his children openly mock him. A video from two years ago shows Donald Trump Jr. laying out precisely the strategy now unfolding. The plan was always to cut off aid to force Ukraine into submission. Any justifications now—blaming Zelensky or citing diplomatic concerns—are merely pretexts.

Elon Musk has mobilized online campaigns to discredit and insult Zelensky, accusing him of rejecting peace for dubious reasons. On Monday, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce even mocked him on television, calling him a “troublemaker” for wanting to reclaim all occupied Ukrainian territory instead of surrendering to Russian terms.

The White House’s desire to remove Zelensky is also personal: Trump still believes Ukraine played a role in his first impeachment and sees Putin as a fellow victim of a political “witch hunt.” Even before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Trump threatened to withhold military aid unless Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into Joe Biden and his son.

But beyond personal grudges, Washington also sees removing Zelensky as a key condition for Moscow. Russia has made clear that it wants to keep the occupied territories and permanently block Ukraine from NATO. Now, Washington seems willing to accept that price.

The Most Powerful Form of Blackmail

By Monday evening, major outlets like Bloomberg, AP, The Washington Post, and Fox News confirmed that the aid freeze had been approved, citing administration sources. This is the ultimate form of leverage—forcing Ukraine to sign whatever Trump and Putin decide or face losing critical U.S. support.

According to reports, Trump has ordered a halt to all aid, even shipments that have already been approved and are en route. This includes military equipment that Congress reluctantly authorized last year, some of which is already in Poland, awaiting final delivery to Ukraine. Fox News confirmed that these shipments are now on hold.

On December 30, former President Joe Biden approved a $1.25 billion weapons and equipment package from Pentagon reserves for Ukraine, scheduled for delivery in phases until June. These shipments arrived approximately every two weeks, meeting Ukraine’s essential needs. So far, about one-third of the aid has been delivered, meaning Trump’s directive freezes the remaining two-thirds, according to The New York Times.
Europe’s Costly Dependence

Europe’s reliance on U.S. military support would not have reached this point had European nations met Trump’s demand—issued eight years ago—to invest 2% of their GDP in defense. Instead, they prioritized other expenditures, assuming the Americans would always protect them. Now, that assumption is being tested.

You also might be interested