On June 10, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans to reduce the U.S. budget for purchasing weapons for Ukraine in 2026, though he did not specify the scale of the cuts. He emphasized that a “peaceful negotiated settlement” was in the best interests of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. He added, “I don’t think the word ‘victory’ was clearly defined, but the path to victory, and therefore the path to peace that will stop the killing and the massacre, is exactly what President Trump is very interested in.”
In response to Hegseth's statement, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) argued that reducing U.S. military aid to Ukraine would not lead to lasting peace or force Vladimir Putin to reconsider his “theory of victory.” ISW analysts noted that Putin's “theory of victory” is based on the belief that the Russian military can outlast Ukraine's defense efforts on the battlefield and that the West will eventually tire of supporting Ukraine.
ISW emphasized that Western military support, especially from the United States, remains crucial for Ukraine to achieve decisive success on the battlefield. This type of aid is key to applying pressure on Putin to reconsider his strategy.
According to ISW, only Ukrainian achievements on the battlefield could alter Putin’s calculations and push Russia into constructive negotiations for a peaceful resolution. Reducing U.S. aid, however, risks giving Russia an even greater advantage, which could further embolden Putin's resolve to continue the war and reinforce his belief that Russia can conquer Ukraine.
ISW concluded that this approach is incompatible with U.S. President Donald Trump’s stated goal of ensuring lasting peace in Ukraine.