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.

The recent call between Trump and Putin confirms the U.S. president’s pro-Putin stance, as outlined in my “What is Trump Thinking” post. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelinski agreed to a complete ceasefire. Russian President Putin agreed to a ceasefire only on energy sites and some U.S.-Russia hockey games. Zeroing in on only energy is a giveaway of where Putin is feeling the pain. Ukraine has developed its long-range capabilities, enabling it to hit oil and gas facilities in Russia. Diminished oil shipments reduce Russia’s ability to stay afloat.

Remember, for most of Biden’s term, Ukraine was forbidden from using U.S. weapons deep in Russia, while Putin was free to hit anything anywhere in Ukraine. I and others recommend letting Ukraine return fire anywhere in Russia launched attacks or war necessities produced. If Russia felt the pain, it would change its tune. Putin’s counter-proposal proves us correct.

Suppose Trump is serious about preserving Ukraine’s independence. In that case, he should’ve told Putin he either made real concessions or would supply Ukraine with everything it needs to put Russia in a world of pain. He didn’t, showing he favors Putin.

In the post, I pointed out Trump’s position was unworkable. Russia can’t break with China. Turning his back on Europe to cuddle up with Putin makes no sense.

If Trump’s goal in opening peace talks with Putin is to end the current Ukraine war and ensure Russia doesn’t begin a new chapter a few years down the road, he has a strange way of going about it. Instead of presenting Putin with a list of actions the U.S. will take unless Russia agrees to workable guarantees of Ukraine’s borders, Trump’s Secretay of Defence announced NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table. Then, his Vice President infers the right-of-center German Christian Democrats should hook up with the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany (Afd).

If this wasn’t bad enough, Trump chose to denigrate Ukraine’s President as a Dictator responsible for the continuing war. Trump demands President Zelinsky hold an election. According to Trump, he has little support in Ukraine. (The latest poll has Zellinsky’s popularity at 57%),

Trump proposed that Ukraine pledge its natural resources for U.S. development to secure any more U.S. aid, and no U.S. forces will ever be involved in maintaining Ukraine’s borders. What is strange is that many of the resources are in the Russian-occupied part of Ukraine,

Putin must be dancing a jig over his good fortune. He can visualize sharing a Nobel Peace Prize with Trump while waiting to devour the rest of Ukraine for dessert. He doesn’t have to give up a thing.

What caused Trump to denounce the Ukrainian President? He dared complain about his exclusion from the talks that would decide his nation’s fate. One of the few remaining columnists, George Will, whose first memories were of World War II, reminds us of a similar circumstance on the road to that horrible war. The leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany gathered in Munich to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia. The one excluded was the leader of that nation.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed the agreement reached there promised “Peace in our Time.” Seven months later, Germany completed the takeover of the doomed nation. History gives Zelinsky every reason to object to Trump and Putin deciding the life or death of his country. Trump even excluded friendly European nations from the talks. The U.S. President’s anti-involvement stance echoes Chamberlain’s observation about “a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing.”