Russia is capitalizing on a temporary halt in U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine—particularly the delay of around 30 Patriot missiles—as an opportunity to cast doubt on Washington’s long-term commitment to Kyiv.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded with visible satisfaction to the news, suggesting that American industry is struggling to keep pace with global demand. “Production can’t meet the needs quickly enough—especially considering the ongoing deliveries to Israel,” he said, implying that U.S. priorities are shifting.
Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, echoed that message via Telegram: “This decision raises serious doubts about the West’s actual capacity to sustain support for Ukraine—and about where U.S. defense priorities truly lie.”
While Russian officials paint the pause as a sign of Western fatigue, military experts and former officials warn the opposite may be true. Despite Peskov’s claims that fewer interceptors bring Moscow closer to victory in its so-called “special military operation,” Russia has simultaneously intensified its missile barrage on Ukraine. Analysts note that in June alone, Russia was on track to fire over 5,000 missiles, many targeting civilian infrastructure.
The Institute for the Study of War weighed in on Wednesday, calling the U.S. pause a strategic windfall for Putin. “Scaling back American aid won’t bring peace or change Putin’s calculus—it will only confirm his belief that time is on his side,” the institute stated. According to their assessment, Putin is banking on slow, attritional advances while the West’s support for Ukraine erodes.
U.S. officials have justified the pause as a necessary step to assess weapons inventories, with the Pentagon emphasizing the need to balance support for allies with readiness at home. Still, the move has drawn criticism. Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan argued in a New York Times op-ed that the bulk of the paused shipments stem from procurement contracts, not active military stockpiles. “These orders don’t drain our readiness—they’re being replaced with newer, more advanced munitions,” he wrote.
Military analyst Colby Badhwar concurred, calling Ukraine’s requests—including Patriots, GMLRS rockets, Hellfires, and ammunition—“modest” when weighed against overall U.S. defense resources. He even accused Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, reportedly a key figure behind the pause, of “actively undermining” both Ukraine and the Pentagon.
Colby, a prominent Trump-era defense strategist, has long argued that the U.S. overcommits to Ukraine at the expense of confronting Chinese threats in the Indo-Pacific—a stance that critics say is now playing out in policy.
Even strong advocates for Ukraine admit that Patriot systems are in short supply globally. A RAND Corporation report noted in November that filling gaps through active inventories is feasible but carries risks. However, it concluded that scaling up domestic production and enhancing Ukraine’s battlefield performance could help offset those concerns.
Still, time is not on Kyiv’s side. NATO’s procurement agency ordered $5.6 billion worth of Patriots and related systems earlier this year—but deliveries won’t begin until 2027. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is also working to boost its own Patriot acquisitions and production capacity.
Whether the U.S. can afford to deliver the 30 Patriots now may ultimately hinge on how serious Washington believes the threat from Moscow truly is.
Brian Finlay, president of the Stimson Center, pointed out a growing rift in perception between Europe and the U.S. “Threat assessments between Washington and European capitals are more misaligned now than at any point since the Cold War,” he said at the GLOBSEC Forum in Prague. “It signals a fundamental divide in understanding the stakes—and that should deeply concern us all.”
