Defence analyst: Georgia at Risk of US sanctions over Russian gas imports and limited Ukraine support

The return of Donald Trump to the political stage has cast new uncertainty over Western military aid to Ukraine. The Biden administration’s decision to halt direct assistance and instead offer weapons through sales appears to mark a dramatic policy shift—yet it may also reflect a deeper strategic realignment. Is the White House seeking to redistribute responsibility among allies and forge a new, alliance-based model of support? How will this impact the front lines, and could it reshape international pressure on Russia? Front News spoke to Irakli Aladashvili, Editor-in-Chief of Arsenal magazine and a leading Georgian military analyst.

Mr. Aladashvili, how do you interpret Donald Trump’s decision to end Biden-era aid deliveries while signaling new forms of support to Ukraine? Could this represent an attempt to reshape the West’s support framework?

- Given Trump’s unpredictable nature, it’s hard to discern his exact goals. However, he uses that unpredictability as a tactic to keep opponents off-balance. His Ukraine policy follows the logic of “America First.” Refusing to give weapons away for free, and instead selling them, fits that vision. After years of handing out costly arms, such aid was unsustainable. Trump’s move is an attempt at a pragmatic solution.

- Do you see Trump’s proposal to sell weapons to NATO—which would then distribute them to Ukraine—as a way to shift formal responsibility to the alliance?

- Yes, that seems to be one possible path. Trump has stated he’s open to selling weapons to NATO, which would then ensure their transfer to Ukraine. Another option is direct aid via presidential authority, as Biden did repeatedly. So far, Trump has not used this mechanism during his first six months in office. The weapons currently reaching Ukraine are still from Biden-era packages. If Trump does send the new $300 million package, that will signal a turning point—showing he's willing to resume support.

- Western media has speculated that the Pentagon acted independently and Trump was unaware of the “frozen” aid shipments. Is this credible, or is Trump shifting blame onto his Defense Secretary?

- At first glance, it’s hard to believe the Pentagon would make such a major move without the commander-in-chief’s approval—especially since this is the third time the Defense Secretary has acted this way. Yet Trump and US media insist the president wasn’t informed. If true, it sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting weakened presidential control over the military. If untrue, and Trump is blaming his defense chief, then it’s just another example of political maneuvering.

- President Zelenskyy originally proposed the idea of Ukraine buying weapons, but given the country’s limited resources, is it realistic to expect European leaders to fund these purchases using frozen Russian assets? Would this heighten tensions with Moscow?

- In reality, Europe has already begun tapping frozen Russian assets—worth around $300 billion. Some nations are using those funds to support Ukraine. When Zelenskyy talks about purchasing $15 billion worth of Patriot systems, he’s clearly relying on the EU and those frozen Russian funds. It creates a strange paradox: Russia is, in effect, funding both its invading army and Ukraine’s defense. Russian money is now being spent on both sides of the front.

- Could Trump’s expected statement—possibly including harsh criticism of Putin—reshape US strategy and force European allies to take a tougher stance on Russia?

- Yes, US lawmakers are already discussing a 500% sanctions package targeting countries that continue buying Russian oil and gas but don’t support Ukraine. If such measures are enacted, countries like Georgia could find themselves in a difficult position, as we rely on Russian gas and may be accused of insufficient support for Ukraine. Many expect Trump to emphasize exactly these kinds of issues.

- If Trump’s administration moves from "carrots to sticks," what would that mean for Russia in practice—in terms of battlefield pressure, sanctions, and global isolation?

- Given Trump’s inconsistent policy style, his next move may not be as radical as expected. But if Russia does face 500% sanctions, it would be a severe blow. The Russian economy—and its capacity to wage war—depends heavily on energy exports. If oil exports decline or prices drop from $60 to $45 per barrel, the Kremlin will face critical challenges. Cutting off this revenue stream could become the most effective tool to pressure Russia into ending the war.

By Elza Paposhvili