Image from GB News video (uploaded March 3, 2025)
Military genius, a winning diplomatic move, or just a man baby seeking revenge on President Zelenskyy for not saying “thank you,” President Trump’s decision today to pause all military aid to Ukraine marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. With far-reaching ramifications. It follows a “contentious Oval Office clash” with Zelenskyy on February 28.
So what is likely to happen next, and for whom? What are the likely ramifications, and for whom? They vary:
Military Vulnerability: Ukraine relies heavily on U.S. military aid – $65.9 billion since 2022, with billions in weapons like air defence systems and artillery still in the pipeline. A halt could deplete stockpiles within six months. Russian advances could “accelerate,” especially in Donbas, where Ukraine lost ground during a 2024 aid lag.
Civilian Impact: Paused aid weakens Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian air attacks and it’s not difficult to predict more effective Russian bombings, hitting infrastructure – as they have always done – and increasing civilian casualties. Kyiv’s Patriot missile reserves, critical against drones and missiles, could conceivably run dry.
Economic Strain: The minerals deal with the U.S., meant to offset war costs, is now in jeopardy. Ukraine’s wartime economy, already stretched, faces further pressure without this financial lifeline.
Negotiation Pressure: Trump’s move, tied to demands for Zelenskyy to commit to peace talks could force Ukraine into concessions – like territorial losses – to Russia, weakening its bargaining power.
Strategic Advantage: A U.S. pullback strengthens Russia’s hand and they may exploit this to sabotage the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal, securing economic and territorial gains.
Emboldened Aggression: This one is bleeding obvious, with Ukraine’s defences waning, Russia could intensify its offensive, targeting key regions. This aligns with Trump’s past praise of Putin, potentially signaling U.S. tolerance of Russian expansion.
Alliance Strain: European allies, rattled by Trump’s decision, are doubling down on support. Britain and France, meeting Zelenskyy in London on March 2, pushed a “coalition of the willing” (where have we heard that before?) for peacekeeping, but – I assume – without U.S. backing.
Domestic Fallout: Politically, Trump faces a GOP clash – Congress approved $170 billion in aid, and halting shipments could spark legal battles over emergency powers like the Defense Production Act. Public opinion splits: MAGA would cheer this decision, but a slight majority of Americans favour Zelenskyy, suggesting – I expect – backlash from Ukraine supporters.
Global Standing: The halt, alongside Trump’s NATO threats, signals an isolationist turn. This could erode U.S. credibility, emboldening adversaries like China or Iran, while allies pivot to Europe or self-reliance.
Increased Burden: Europe, already committing €132 billion, can’t fully replace U.S. aid. Could this stall EU unity, forcing reliance on ad-hoc coalitions?
Peacekeeping Risks: Britain’s Keir Starmer offered troops for a ceasefire, but without U.S. support, this risks overextension or direct confrontation with Russia, which rejects foreign boots on the ground.
Peace Talks Dynamics: Trump’s push for peace, excluding Ukraine from initial talks may hasten a settlement but likely on Putin’s terms. Zelenskyy’s “far away” peace comment enraged Trump, suggesting a miscalculation that fuelled the aid cut.
Long-Term Precedent: This could deter future U.S. aid commitments globally, especially if Trump’s review deems them misaligned with his “America First” agenda. It’s feasible that some allies like might adjust strategies accordingly.
I predict a brewing storm: protests, Democratic fury, and MAGA applause. How long the pause in providing military aid lasts is anybody’s guess. Maybe we’ll know more after Trump’s address to Congress tomorrow (our time). Even if he resumes military aid, could the damage already be done? If he doesn’t resume aid, we can say goodbye to Ukraine.
In short, Trump’s decision risks tipping the Russia-Ukraine war toward Moscow, straining U.S. alliances, and reshaping global power – while testing his domestic support against a backdrop of economic and moral stakes. The next few days will clarify how deep the fallout runs.
See also: Sleeping with the enemy
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
By James Moore Along Ranch Road 170, just west of the tiny border town of…
What is the Deep State? Does it really exist? These questions are hard to answer.…
By Roger Chao The West is red, the tweets are loud, the slogans reach the…
By Lachlan McKenzie In an era where information is disseminated at lightning speed, the role…
Since World War II Australia and the United States have fought together in several major…
By Roger Chao What makes a man in times like these, Where hearts grow cold…
View Comments
So, Trump stops military aid to Ukraine and Netanyahu blocks humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Birds of a Feather !
MICHAEL TAYLOR
Onya Michael, for this prescient overview that is soooooooooo important !
Maybe Zelenskyy could ask Russia for military supplies ...only delivered by road and rail, rather than drone , rocket and artillery.In return Zelenskyy would stop dealing with the orange lunatic, and the logistics make much more sense,Russia being a lot closer,and Vlad wouldn't want to be pounded with his own weapons.
Peace would be upon us..it's a win win .
Now, about that Israeli war criminal...
I name this creature President Donald Nasty Spiteful Petulant Vile Child Donald.
I name this creature President Donald Nasty Spiteful Petulant Vile Child Donald. (Dunks thing in font full of bilious green foul slime and almost forgets it's there when mobile rings.)
What will happen next?
There’s no point in asking that question until people have a clear understanding of what has already happened.
It’s clear from quite a few of the comments here over the past few days that this is not happening. Many people do not realise what’s happened.
What happened is that NATO wanted to extend Russia for political and financial reasons but they miscalculated. They assumed that the Russian economy was weak, that sanctions would bring it to its knees, even though they knew in 2021 that it had the 4th largest economy in the world. And very resilient.
Economic realities somehow did not work their way up into political discourse. The masses were shielded from reality.
How could such a huge mistake happen?
They relied on economic data to paint a false picture.
The entire global financial system they set up is a vast casino operating 24/7, but these geniuses relied on data they knew was dodgy.
Things like GDP that always portrayed Russia as struggling to keep up.
When even the CIA does not have any regard for GDP, and rightly so.
Here’s a humorous but accurate take on how GDP works.
I pay you $40 to wash my car.
You pay me $40 to mow your lawn.
Bingo, we have created $80 of "wealth" aka GDP, but the resulting “product” part of “Gross Domestic Product” is a bag of grass clippings and a bucket of dirty water.
That is not a fantasy.
US GDP figures look good because if my memory is correct, non-productive elements such as rents and interest payments are included.
So what has happened is that the US finally woke up that they miscalculated Russian resilience and now they want out. If it had not happened under Trump it would have happened somewhere down the line.
When people have that clear in their mind, they’ll be in a position to consider what will happen next.
I'm not sure, with Steve Davis, that the USA would want out of this war, even in a situation beyond Trump. The USA has not shown, in the wars post WW2, any keenness to get out of war, even when there's a stalemate, or they seem to be losing, In the past, it was probably loss of American lives that embarrassed the government into negotiation or withdrawal. In the Vietnam war, they made the mistake of letting television expose the carnage. The war-mongering mindset is strong in America, and they would probably plan on winning this one somehow with futuristic technology and no USA blood spilt. On the one hand Ukraine, taking the human toll for the West, is supposed to beat the "oh so weakened Russia", while at the same time we're supposed to believe that the "powerful monster Russia" is about to overrun Europe. Therefore the fight must go on indefinitely, so that NATO military bases can be setup in Ukraine. Ukraine's membership of NATO is apparently a fetish worth millions of Ukrainian lives. There seems to be no thought that a reasonable negotiation could take place, before it all gets even worse.
Steve, what do you mean by the phrase "... NATO wanted to extend Russia"?
Fun fact: Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe, after Russia. Yet its area is only 75% that of New South Wales. POV is significant, either Ukraine is quite small or NSW is quite large.
One is not so pessimistic, as Europe and other nations have been helping Ukraine with armaments for three years, and will tell the US and Russia to quite rightly, f'off.
On supplying armaments, Europe is about parity with the US (latter spends domestically to replace expiring munitions etc.), but on intangible technical and social support, Europe does far more overall.
Despite it's alleged 'unlimited resources' Russia has been hurting and desperate for a ceasefire or an end of their war upon their terms, with the support of their ally the US (after Hamas-Netanyahu helpfully kicked off in '23); while requiring North Korean soldiers, armaments etc.
Defence analysts writing under the descriptor 'Sarcastosaurus' based in Poland, Austrai and Ukraine, for balance they also cynically view Ukraine's leadership as simply less incompetent than Russia's, recent report:
'Russian Military Setbacks, Economic Strains, Demographic Crisis, Internal Dissent & Social Stability, and counters with strengths including territory already occupied, economic and military adaptability'
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/actually-russia-is-at-its-most-fragile
Saturday ABC RN's Global Roaming with Doogue, MacDonald and guest Bryant had an 'emergency' podcast speaking about Trump - Zelensky WH meeting optics, but on Europe.... appalling and embarrassing ignorance* from Anglophere media types with alleged geopolitical knowledge; they need a researcher (disappeared by ABC cuts?) or Lowy Centre? (*another symptom of pressure on ABC to avoid experts, but embrace personalities)
Doogue asked out loud can Europe arm itself.... silence..., left to McD to guess, maybe Turkey..... Fact is Europe has a massive defence industry across multiple nations, and eg. Poland has been rearming with much South Korean kit; either Poland or Turkey alone could give Russia a conventional hiding.
For an overview (haven't watched yet) is Perun on YouTube who does much in arms analysis (ABC Global Roaming should get him on the phone, he is Australian)?
'Could Europe Defend Itself Without the US' https://youtu.be/7giYIisLuaA?si=QclWBxe9Gr7yHIJc
As interesting is how these events are smoking out and/or compromising fossil fuel anti-EU Koch 'realism' school followers on the right, and allies, the faux anti-imperialist tankies of the left, sharing perceptions, talking points and solutions....
There were more than 1K dynamic comments below SMH's Peter Hartcher's pretendy impartial opinion piece this am, the antithesis of Michael Taylor's fulsome and informative analysis (thank you Michael):
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/it-s-clear-that-trump-is-an-agent-of-putin-all-us-allies-should-be-alarmed-20250303-p5lghu.html
Then tonight in an emotional interview with Sarah Ferguson Simon Schama referred to the behaviour of the Oval Office bullies as 'infamy' alongside a few cautious historical comparisons. Her next guest (Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs columnist, UK Financial Times) was no less candid.
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2501H034S00