Recently, the United States made the crucial decision to halt the shipment of certain military aid including missiles for the Patriot air defense system and Hellfire missiles to Ukraine [1] which brought serious worries about the future of Western support in Kyiv’s war against Russian aggression. Although the suspension covered some categories of weapons it could have served to deter attacks from Russia, especially during Ukraine’s efforts to hold eastern frontlines and defend crucial infrastructure from missile attacks. The negative side of this decision is that the adoption came at the period of massive pressure on the front lines. Taking into account the technical advantages of the above-mentioned weapons it is considered to be a key opportunity to ensure Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities. Within the fact that this decision was not immune from criticism by the politicians and lawmakers of both parties it is also possible to suggest that the halt may be a reasoned tactical pause to evaluate the expenditures and analyze the outcomes of continuous involvement in the war.[2]
Hence, it was expected that the Ukrainian side didn’t welcome this decision positively as disruption in military aid supply may lead to inability to resist new Russian advances.[3] Simultaneously, the decision somehow would regard European allies.
Nevertheless, on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that U.S. military aid shipments to Ukraine have been restored.[4] This suggests that despite some periodical fluctuations, mutual engagement between both sides will continue to occupy a considerable place on Washington’s foreign policy agenda.
It seems that the current administration in Washington continues to carry out an unordinary global foreign policy proposing uncertainty to the international community. The domestic political dynamics occurring in the United States, affecting the development of its strategic priorities, are unlikely to escape the attention of its partners. Particularly in the Eastern Europe region, due to its vulnerability, significant geopolitical implications may be expected amid the heightened wave of threat from Russia.
According to geographic factors it’s not difficult to assume that Poland and the Baltic states are particularly interested in the consistent support of Washington, fearing that refrain from supporting Ukraine will stimulate Russian aggressive policy.
Poland’s willingness to increase the number of its national armed forces could be evaluated as a part of a broader preparedness strategy aimed at deterring potential threat from Russia. Western-European countries already have made their own military contributions, but their capacity to compensate for potential U.S. armed forces reduction remains questioned. From the recent speech of the Danish Prime Minister [5], it’s obvious to admit that the Russian invasion of Ukraine concerned the whole of Europe.
Thus, the EU must seriously put into consideration the enhancing collective defense mechanism in order to be prepared for difficult scenarios. The unified strategy could raise the defense capacity of Europe which will reduce dependency on the U.S. However, for the majority of European countries NATO is still perceived as a security umbrella. Within this framework, it’s worth mentioning a joint air unit from the Dutch and Norwegian Air Forces, consisting of F-35 fighter jets, which recently has been relocated to Poland to safeguard the delivery routes of military aid to Ukraine.[6] This mission will operate under a rapid response framework, with the F-35s prepared to intercept potential aerial threats or respond to any breaches of NATO airspace.[7] The collaboration between the Netherlands and Norway—both users of fifth-generation fighters—demonstrates enhanced operational coordination aimed at countering risks along the alliance's eastern flank.
Additionally, a group of countries—such as Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia—has positioned itself as a supporter of diplomatic dialogue with Russia. The differences in views within Europe itself regarding Russia could be a guarantee of the future destabilization of European security, which, judging by everything, is becoming inevitable.
The future of European security may increasingly depend on Europe's own ability to lead. In this case, Europe should devise a common security strategy that can serve as an alternative balance to NATO in situations where U.S. military assistance is not guaranteed. As Russian forces adapt and regroup, any gaps in Western-supplied weapons could have long-term consequences on the battlefield. In addition, there is an assumption that Russia’s economic system is attempting to become more adaptive to the imposed sanctions.
Although the current geopolitical landscape and territorial borders of European countries differ from those during the Cold War, the Russian threat still remains a relevant factor.
Notably, the United Kingdom currently has a significant opportunity to promote itself as a leading force and key supporter of Europe, despite no longer being a member of the EU. It seems that the capacity of proposed military options of the UK allows itself to conduct active foreign policy in order to maintain stability in Europe. It's worth mentioning the forthcoming mutual defense treaty between the UK and Germany.[8] Certainly, Germany, by providing extensive support for Ukraine, increasing military spending, and implementing a policy to reduce energy dependence on Russia, recommended itself as a valuable partner. The given mutual treaty is anticipated to accelerate and reinforce the leading roles of both countries within NATO, potentially diminishing France’s relative influence.
In parallel it should be noted that it’s impossible to imagine the collective security of Europe without Türkiye. Undoubtedly, Türkiye, which has the second-largest army in NATO and is continuously enhancing its military capabilities, is actively engaged in regional processes. Its balanced foreign policy between Ukraine and Russia allows Türkiye to play a pivotal role across multiple strategic fields.
Developments in the Ukraine issue reflect broader geopolitical implications and a rebalancing of the U.S. global strategy. It is not excluded that with rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific and an increasing focus on China, Washington may be growing concerned about its global arms distribution priorities. Despite the fact that China had avoided officially condemning Russia over its war with Ukraine, the recent statement of the Chinese side demonstrated that Russia’s losing doesn’t match its interests.[9] It illustrates that China’s proclaimed neutral stance toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is under suspicion and ambiguous.
Changing international political circumstances and power dynamics among global actors raised questions about the sustainability of the current global order and whether new coalitions will emerge to encounter future security crises.
[1]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/us-halts-some-weapons-shipments-to-ukraine
[4]https://trt.global/world/article/b1b701b73cd4
[5]https://www.politico.eu/article/us-nato-eu-danish-prime-minister-mette-frederiksen-ukraine/
[7] Ibid.
[8]https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-germany-mutual-defense-treaty-nation-olaf-scholz-joint/
[9]https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/04/europe/china-ukraine-eu-war-intl