The Russian summer offensive in Ukraine is in full swing. Heavy attacks along the front lines join heavy drone and missile attacks pounding that valiant nation. It stands to reason that the US and its NATO allies are rushing all the help they can. On Monday, we were surprised to find this isn’t the case. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the US is not only not increasing its support, but is also holding up already approved armaments, some of which are already in Poland.

With all the attention focused on the President’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” this situation is being overlooked. It shouldn’t be. Russian control of Ukraine brings it right up to NATO’s borders. Unless we withdraw from the organization, a Russian attack on a NATO nation will directly involve us. Why would anybody want that? Right now, we only have to provide material support to fend off Russian aggression. An attack on a NATO nation means Americans are in harm’s way. Whatever we’ve spent supporting Ukraine is cheap compared to direct conflict.

This action is the second time the Trump administration has halted arms to Ukraine. Last March, we halted shipments while the Russians were pounding Ukraine, including civilians, to pressure that nation to agree to a ceasefire. They agreed and are still open to the idea.

Russia has agreed to nothing except some prisoner exchanges. Yet the administration has refrained from exerting any real pressure on Putin. Why are we putting more pressure on Ukraine in the middle of a battle, when they’re not the holdup?

Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, appears to be the point person on the arms pause. The excuse given is low stockpiles. What an odd reason. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East didn’t start yesterday; they’ve been going on for a long time. If we hadn’t ramped up production, it would be our mistake—Produce more rather than taking the bullets out of our friends’ guns. Some are questioning whether the stockpiles are, in fact, low.

Could Trump see Putin as our friend rather than Zelensky? I’ve written before about the President’s strange attitude on the war. He had no problem figuring out who the bad guys are in the Israeli-Iran conflict, and he took decisive action against Iran. I pointed out the fantasy of Putin switching sides and abandoning his alliance with China. Is it an aversion to war? Bombing Iran is at odds with that.

We need answers. Where are the 80 senators on both sides of the aisle who signed the Graham-Blumenthal Russia sanctions bill? They see Putin as the aggressor and supposedly against his expansionist goals. To reach 80 senators requires a large number of Republican signers. Where are they?

It’s rare when both the Washington Post (WP) and the WSJ editorials take the same side, but both strongly question the weapons halt. They are at least aware of the dangers. While some of our elected representatives are making some noise, we aren’t getting timely answers. Once Ukraine dies, answers won’t matter.

The WSJ editorial board points to “Elbridge Colby as the driving force behind the arms denial. He’s the Pentagon undersecretary who has argued that the US can’t arm Ukraine and defend US interests. His chief patron in the White House is Vice President JD Vance, and his outside cheerleader is Tucker Carlson.” Anyone who saw the vice-president’s Oval Office attack on Ukrainian President Zelensky is well aware of his lack of affection for that embattled nation. Are these the people responsible for the weapons halt, apparently with the support of the President?

This act isn’t the first time I’ve questioned the President’s motivation for Ukraine. In the past, Trump has criticized our European allies for not maintaining their defense forces, and it wasn’t right that we bore the cost of defending them; he was right. However, our NATO allies have significantly increased their defense spending and intend to spend even more. No matter what our President says, they have spent more helping Ukraine than the US. Despite past failings, our NATO partners are now doing their share.

Our ability to project worldwide power in no small measure depends on our strategic alliances, such as NATO in Europe, Israel in the Middle East, and Japan and Australia in the Asia-Pacific Area. Trust is essential. Those who are attacked must know they can count on the support of others. After 9/11, NATO troops joined us in Afghanistan. At the time of our sad pullout, NATO had more troops there than we did. That’s what allies do.

Yet, our actions towards Ukraine have caused our allies to question our reliability. They can’t help but distrust the arms that pause at the height of battle. What is going on between Trump and Putin, and how does that affect their security? Is this a pattern?

In 2021, the US, Australia, and the United Kingdom (AUKUS) signed a nuclear-powered submarine agreement under which Australia would acquire three older US nuclear-powered attack submarines, while building new ones in the UK. The plan increased deterrence in the Asia-Pacific area. A few weeks ago, the US Department of Defense announced a review of the agreement. Again, the key person is Elbridge Colby—the same one involved in the Ukraine arms holdup. Our allies are aware of who he is and what he represents. None of this is inspiring confidence among our friends.

So far, we haven’t heard from Lindsey Graham or other Republicans concerned about our alliances and friendships. Our alliances, for the most part, are Senate-approved treaty obligations. It’s time for senators to determine if there’s an undermining of the agreements they signed. If so, why? What exactly is Eldridge Colby up to? Before we suffer irreparable damage, we need answers now..