“Ukraine at the Crossroads of War, Dialogue, and US Strategy”

In recent weeks, a number of significant developments have unfolded that could reshape both the military and diplomatic landscape around Ukraine. The US decision to temporarily halt part of its military aid, Donald Trump’s talks with both Putin and Zelensky, Russia’s territorial advances, and signs of political imbalance in Kyiv – all these elements now form a complex yet logical pattern. The war is entering a new phase, increasingly intertwined with internal transformations in Ukraine and its key allies

As of July 1, the United States has officially paused certain arms shipments to Ukraine. The formal reason: a critical depletion of national stockpiles and the need for strategic resource redistribution amid ongoing military operations in the Middle East. Twelve key items from the $61 billion military assistance package previously approved by Biden have been affected, including missile systems, ammunition, and air defense systems. In the case of 155 mm artillery shells, up to 70% of Ukraine’s supply comes from the US. Without them, the country’s ability to engage in counter-battery warfare and support offensive operations drops sharply. The pause also affects Patriot, HIMARS, and ATACMS systems, which have played a vital role in deterring Russian advances and conducting precision strikes deep behind enemy lines. Clearly, this is not a full withdrawal of American support. Statements made this morning, including by Donald Trump himself, suggest that supplies will resume. However, Trump is trying to maintain a careful balance: avoiding alienation of pacifist voters while also fending off accusations of being “soft on the Kremlin”. His rhetoric reflects this ambiguity with phrases such as “the aid continues, but some deliveries are paused” or “Biden has depleted our stockpiles”. This strategy of calculated uncertainty allows Trump room for maneuver and further diplomatic overtures aimed at persuading Moscow to halt hostilities. To that end, the US president has held two phone calls – one with Vladimir Putin and another with Volodymyr Zelensky. With Putin, he discussed Ukraine, Iran, and a possible face-to-face meeting. No concrete ceasefire proposals emerged, but for the first time, Trump openly expressed frustration with Moscow’s stance, claiming that “Putin doesn’t want to stop the war”. Still, such statements may serve as a fallback narrative, enabling the White House to wash its hands of responsibility if diplomatic efforts fail. According to some sources, Putin is now pushing for bilateral talks with Kyiv in Istanbul, excluding all third-party mediators, including the US. This move can be interpreted as an attempt to solidify Russia’s image as the dominant force shaping the region’s geopolitical architecture on its own terms. Trump’s conversation with Zelensky reportedly touched on possible Patriot deliveries, joint arms production, and investment. While the details remain unclear, it is likely that for the Ukrainian president, the primary goal was to restore and strengthen personal ties with his American counterpart, that had been severely damaged by a recent and highly publicized White House dispute. Meanwhile, the battlefield situation continues to deteriorate for Kyiv. In June alone, the Russian army seized over 500 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory – a record high for the year. In the first week of July, another 200 km² were added. The main offensives targeted the Pokrovsk front, Sumy oblast, and Novopavlivka, with Russian troops advancing toward the administrative border between Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. The fall of Kamianske in the Zaporizhzhia oblast poses a direct threat to Orikhiv and Zaporizhzhia city itself, while continued pressure near Pokrovsk endangers Ukrainian supply chains. Simultaneously, Russia has intensified strikes on infrastructure. On July 4, it launched a massive attack involving more than 500 aerial munitions. One new target: Ukraine’s territorial conscription centers (commonly known as military commissariats), which have long sparked public anger. Strikingly, some segments of society actually celebrated these attacks and even offered to facilitate them. As Washington “pulls into the background”, Europe is trying to act more independently. A new Ukraine Recovery Conference will be held in Rome by the end of the week. There, the “Coalition of the Willing” will also convene to reassess military and financial aid to Kyiv. This is particularly important in light of recent news that the US investment firm BlackRock has suspended efforts to attract donors to Ukraine’s development fund. At the same time, signs of shifting priorities in Washington are emerging. Several Russian banks and insurance firms, linked to nuclear energy projects such as Hungary’s Paks II, have been removed from US sanctions lists. Ongoing discussions about restarting gas flows through Nord Stream suggest a pragmatic turn among parts of the American elite. The so-called “energy compromise” with Moscow may reflect Washington’s desire to prioritize profits over continued escalation. Amid an American pause, a Russian offensive, and European indecision, it is becoming increasingly clear that the war is entering a new stage. Strategic risks for Kyiv are rising. Ukraine now faces not only growing pressure at the front but also a potential loss of trust in its Western allies, whose support is becoming delayed, conditional, and limited. This environment creates fertile ground for growing demoralization, both among the troops and within Ukrainian society, which has been trapped in a state of prolonged uncertainty. In the medium term, the US will likely continue its gradual disengagement, recasting the Ukraine conflict within a broader global framework. The war will remain on Washington’s radar, but no longer as a central issue. Multiple indicators suggest that the US is increasingly ready to pursue large-scale compromises in exchange for global stability, shifting its focus from Eastern Europe and the Middle East toward the Indo-Pacific. Amid rising Western fatigue, Russia is expected to ramp up both military and diplomatic pressure. Its primary strategy remains attrition, provoking demographic and energy crises in Ukraine. Moscow has abandoned hopes of a swift military victory, but is fully prepared to wait for conditions to ripen in its favor, when Kyiv might be forced to make painful concessions. Despite all challenges, Ukraine still demonstrates a degree of resilience. Yet it will soon need to reassess its plans, recalibrate military priorities, and find a new strategic balance with its partners. This fragile position could eventually push Kyiv toward unpredictable or irrational decisions. In this context, one can only hope that Moldovan authorities, focused as they are on domestic electoral campaigns, have provided compelling arguments to their eastern neighbors, that preclude even the slightest temptation of a military adventure on Moldovan soil, regardless of its current control status, but recognized constitutional territory.