Even a brief pause in the flow of US arms and intel ‘greatly weakens’ Ukraine’s defense

Neither the duration nor the extent of the pause are clear. A source with knowledge of the  decision told Defense One that it applies only to intelligence collected over Russian territory, not on Russian forces in Ukraine. But Economist reporter Oliver Carroll reported on Wednesday that the United States “cut a key intel link for alerts at 2pm Kyiv. Before that: targeting data for HIMARS [long-range rockets]. Ukraine also isn’t receiving real time information for long-range strikes”—whether against Russian targets on Ukrainian or Russian soil. 

A military analyst said the pause means Ukraine “may not have real-time warning when Russian bombers, missiles, and drones start taking off.” The analyst continued, "Ukraine's military officers' ability to see Russian divisions and armies massing in the deep rear and prioritizing new directions of attack—essential forewarning for Ukrainian fighters to know to brace for intense attacks, and give Ukraine's high command time to redeploy reinforcements so they arrive in time in the essential areas of theater.”

A former senior White House official said that even a limited pause “greatly weakens” Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Even if the pause only extended to intelligence sharing on Russian soil, Ukraine’s operations in Kursk would surely be affected, said the former White House official. 

Trump administration officials confirmed on Wednesday that they had ordered the pause, after also suspending U.S. military aid to Ukraine, to press Kyiv to submit to negotiations with Russia. “It underscores Trump's willingness to play hardball with an ally as he pivots to a more conciliatory approach to Moscow from previously strong U.S. support for Ukraine,” Reuters wrote.

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said Wednesday, “We have taken a step back, and are pausing and reviewing all aspects of this relationship.” But he added that the pause could be lifted quickly, depending on what Ukrainian officials say, and that he was having positive talks with his Ukrainian counterpart.

The move comes days after President Donald Trump halted arms and weapons to Ukraine, including vital arms like artillery ammunition, howitzers, armored vehicles, Patriot air defense missile batteries and long-range missiles like HIMARS and ATACMS. That move further complicates Ukraine’s military efforts and weakens their position going into ceasefire negotiations. 

The Institute for the Study of War on Tuesday said that the weapons pause does not portend an "imminent collapse” of Ukraine’s defenses. But “Ukraine's ability to become self-sufficient in the long-term is contingent on continued support from partner states in the short- and medium-term,” they said, despite substantial expansion of Ukraine’s independent defense production capability. 

The United Kingdom and France are considering sending officials to Washington as early as next week, along with Ukraine, to finalize some sort of ceasefire deal, according to a Daily Mail article on Wednesday. The deal may include the insertion of European forces into Ukraine to back a ceasefire, but no additional U.S. security guarantees—only a U.S. expectation that Ukraine will relinquishing key minerals to U.S. companies.

“If you want to actually ensure that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine,” Vice President JD Vance told Fox on Tuesday. 

Daniel Fried, a former U.S. diplomat now with the Atlantic Council, told Defense One the idea was sound and has a precedent in the discussions to include Poland in NATO that occurred in the 1990s, when U.S. approval was at least partially contingent on Poland’s willingness to allow U.S. commercial interests to operate inside the country. 

“Point was, with American investment, that gets America. That's a hard American interest. Trump has said the same thing,” Fried said.

But he added that the success of any ceasefire agreement, even if it puts other European troops in Ukraine, would also need the U.S. to keep its forces in in Eastern European and Baltic nations. 

In February, The Financial Times reported that European officials fear that the United States might withdraw its forces from NATO’s eastern front to appease Russian leader Vladimir Putin. 

Fried said that would make it difficult for countries to contribute to a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine as more European forces would be needed to reinforce vulnerable Baltic nations such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. 

“The units in the Baltics are there for a good reason. The idea that you would draw down to put the forces in Ukraine would not make the Baltics very happy,” he said.

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment. ]]>