As reports surfaced of a possible Ukraine war summit in the works between President Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping that would exclude Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, lawmakers and observers continue to express outrage and bafflement at the White House’s sudden abandonment of Kyiv as it struggles to defend itself against Moscow’s unrelenting war of aggression and continued assaults on civilian targets.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Putin proposed the idea of a three-way summit to Trump during an October 9 phone call, although a “senior U.S. official said Trump hadn’t agreed to such a summit.” Still, Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to indicate that a proposed summit was possible, remarking, “I think there’s been talks of a meeting. I don’t know everything’s been finalized.” For its part, Ukraine firmly rejected a summit that would exclude Kyiv, with Ukraine’s foreign minister saying it would “encourage Putin to continue his war. As long as he continues this terror, there should be no place for him at any table.”

Experts like Heather Conley, who serves as senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, are noting that Trump has claimed the summit would not primarily focus on the Ukraine war.

“He said this proposed [summit] would be about nuclear or denuclearization issues and then mentioned perhaps the war in Ukraine would be raised,” she explained during “Washington Watch” Monday. “There is a lot of confusion about what this meeting would actually accomplish on nuclear issues. The Chinese have refused to negotiate over their growing nuclear weapons and nuclear arms program, and even the Russian press spokesman said today that if there’s a discussion over the war in Ukraine, they need a Ukrainian leader to be at that table.”

Conley went on to contend that while such a summit would be historic and the stakes would be high, it would also put the U.S. in a risky position since both Russia and China “are America’s adversaries.” “[T]he irony,” she pointed out, “[is] that China is providing components to Russia to continue … assembl[ing] its very powerful jet powered drones, its cruise missiles. So China is very much part of fueling Russia’s war in Ukraine. So you’d have really all three of these powers siding against Ukraine.”

Conley further highlighted how Trump’s positive rhetoric regarding Russia appears to be occurring at the expense of the killing of innocent Ukrainian children. On Monday, the president told reporters outside the White House, “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven’t been doing much.”

“[T]hat was really disturbing,” Conley lamented. “… Russia [on Monday] targeted a playground in Kharkiv. There are five children that are dead because of that strike. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is not fine. These children are losing their lives, and Ukraine is losing the means to protect itself from these Russian rockets.

To make matters worse for Ukraine, Conley detailed three “very confusing” policy changes that the U.S. has made regarding Kyiv, including its apparent decision to restrict the Starshield internet system from being used by Ukrainian forces.

“First and foremost, the Ukrainians rely on a military version of Starlink, which is called Starshield, and that helps the Ukrainians be able to defend themselves and their territory from Russian drones and attack,” she noted. “[T]he second part [is] our Space Command. We send intelligence to the Ukrainians to alert them when the Russians release a ballistic missile … to afford them the opportunity to try to strike it down, although they’ve run out of Patriot missiles. And that seems to have stopped, or has been slowed down or happens sporadically. Ukraine can no longer use communications to a certain point. And now there are reports that there may be delays in the European countries that have purchased Patriot missiles from the United States to be sent to Ukraine, that we are delaying those shipments. So it just seems that we’re doing everything to prevent Ukraine from defending itself, as Russia has taken total advantage of this and has increased its drone and rocket attacks, hitting civilian targets.”

“[I]t’s hard to even understand,” Conley continued. “I think we’re all grappling with why is President Trump doing this? He’s paying for more war as he says he wants to end the war by providing Russia’s economy a boost by buying their diesel. We’re fueling this war. We’re allowing more killing to continue. … Why did he suspend the Graham bill? This would be a way to punish the Russian economy, to help stop them from continuing to send rockets into Ukraine and killing innocent civilians. … And it doesn’t really help people who are really suffering from high diesel prices. It really isn’t going to make a difference.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill from both sides of the aisle are also expressing disgust with the president’s actions, with Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) remarking that the late Senator Lindsey Graham “would be appalled” by Trump’s suspension of the bill that bears his name that enforces strict economic sanctions on Russia.

Analysts like National Review Senior Fellow Andrew McCarthy say that Trump’s current about face on the Ukraine war only makes sense if viewed through the lens of the president’s previous comments expressing fondness for “Russia’s strongman” Putin in the wake of the Russiagate fiasco and his disdain of Volodymyr Zelensky’s effusive past praise of former President Joe Biden. “It is the foreign policy of a president who admires and feels connected to Putin but regards Ukraine as a Democratic-aligned nuisance whose president he loathes,” McCarthy wrote on Monday.