Donald Trump yesterday seemed to be overcome with newfound goodwill for Volodymyr Zelensky. On a call with his Ukrainian counterpart, the US President agreed to help improve Kyiv’s air-defence systems, and today he said the US “might” even supply Patriot missiles to that end.

Such a move — desperately needed by Ukraine — may appear surprising. Earlier in the week, the US halted shipments of critical weaponry to Ukraine, including air-defence missiles. Yet Trump has never ruled out helping Ukraine in the air. During last month’s Nato summit, he indicated that America would “see if we can make some [Patriots] available”, even while committing only to “see what happens” regarding military aid as a whole.

So what is the source of Trump’s enthusiasm? It could be an emotional response to harrowing footage of shelled Ukrainian cities, or a more calculated desire to distance himself from any blame for such scenes of devastation. Insiders disclose that Russia’s brutal bombing tactics have “surprised” Trump, particularly assaults on areas with children. The conversation with Zelensky came just hours after Russia launched its largest aerial assault on Kyiv since the start of the war, and Trump later explained that he does not “want to see children being killed”. Alternatively, the US President’s eye for a bargain may have prompted him to prioritise air defence. On Thursday, he spoke with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz about Berlin’s proposal to purchase Patriots for Ukraine, with Head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office Andriy Yermak last month suggesting that kit could be partially funded by European allies or frozen Russian assets.

The decision is likely to be a punishment for Vladimir Putin following Trump’s discouraging call with him on Thursday. The Russian leader wasted his counterpart’s time, restating maximalist goals for the war and leaving Trump “very disappointed” that he was unable to make “any progress with him”. This seems to be Trump’s way: a reactive policy which offers concessions piecemeal depending on whichever side has angered or pleased him most recently. See how the US President emerged from a June meeting with Zelensky — during which the Ukrainian leader “couldn’t have been nicer” — with greater sympathy for Kyiv and increased openness to sending Patriots.

While that may constitute Trump’s policy towards Ukraine, it is not necessarily America’s. His vacillations have created a space for members of his administration to push their own, more consistent positions. The halt to weapons shipments was instigated unilaterally by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, having been repeatedly proposed since March by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. The three-month delay reflected no lack of enthusiasm on Hegseth’s part, instead stemming from personnel changes. Meanwhile, the official justification of the US needing to conserve weaponry was rejected by senior American military officials, implying that the pause was in fact due to the pair’s goal of shifting resources from Ukraine to the Indo-Pacific in order to counter China.

The White House defended the move, yet this incident raises questions about who is truly leading American foreign policy. Colby was privately pushing for stoppages at the same time Trump was publicly promising to look into supplying Patriots. This is not the first time Hegseth has taken matters into his own hands, having attempted to pause weapons deliveries to Ukraine in February and May. Such was his single-minded decision-making this time that members of the State Department and Congress were kept in the dark. Allies of Trump expressed frustration and, as a further indication of splits within the US Government, Germany is engaging directly with Trump about purchasing Patriots in a bid to circumvent Hegseth and Colby, creating a bizarre situation whereby foreign allies are collaborating with the US President in the hope of thwarting his ministers’ machinations.

Yesterday, Zelensky congratulated America on its founding success in fighting for independence. It is a situation he knows all too well. However, as Trump’s lack of an overall strategy sparks no real progress in ending the war, members of his cabinet are implementing their own approaches. Trump may need to win independence from the encroaching power of his own ministers.

---

Bethany Elliott is a writer specialising in Russia and Eastern Europe.

BethanyAElliott

---