Zelensky ‘losing his lustre' as EU withholds aid to Ukraine
The European Union said on Friday that it would withhold €1.5 billion (about $2.7 billion) from an overall fund of €4.5 billion whose disbursement is dependent on achieving good governance standards and that can't be used for military purchases. The decision is not final, however, and the funding can be restored if Ukraine meets certain benchmarks.
Zelensky had no public comment on the aid cut, which nevertheless was a setback for Ukraine's leader, who is depending on European financial support to fill gaps left by the Trump administration's refusal to underwrite Ukraine's war effort.
While holding back Western aid to spur reform was common before Russia's invasion, Friday's decision seemed to signal a new willingness by the bloc to admonish Zelensky's government on domestic policy during the war. It also raised questions about whether the glow around Zelensky might be beginning to dim among Ukraine's Western allies.
James Wasserstrom, an American anti-corruption expert, said that 'the lustre is definitely coming off' Zelensky's wartime leadership among governments providing financial assistance. He added, 'There is exasperation at Zelensky in the donor community.'
The EU's decision capped a tumultuous week for Zelensky, who first pushed a measure through parliament that stripped the independence of two anti-corruption agencies, raising protests from foreign leaders as well as the Ukrainian people.
He then reversed course, submitting a new bill to parliament to restore the agencies' independence. That calmed the street protests, but could not head off the EU's aid cut, which had been decided on the basis of long-standing guidelines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
25 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Tulsi Gabbard explains why Russia must have thought Hillary Clinton win was ‘inevitable'
The Russians privately felt it was 'inevitable' that Hillary Clinton would triumph in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Miranda Devine's 'Pod Force One' podcast. Despite widespread narratives that Russia was in President Trump's corner, Moscow's objective was to sow chaos in the American political process and brace itself for a Clinton presidency, Gabbard claimed, citing the trove of intelligence documents her team has released. 'It surprised me that all of these documents still existed, quite frankly,' Gabbard said in an episode set for release Wednesday. 'As we've learned in later documents that we've reviewed throughout that campaign, Russia believed that Hillary Clinton would win the election. 'They felt it was inevitable.' Last month, Gabbard's team began disclosing a trove of documents that gave a behind-the-scenes look at the intelligence community's machinations during the 2016 election cycle regarding the probe of Russian interference. This included a House Intelligence Committee report from 2020 that claimed the Russians may have had intelligence that Clinton was 'placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing.' That was supposedly due to her alleged 'psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Gabbard pondered why that supposed Russian intelligence wasn't leaked to the public if Moscow's chief objective was to prop up Trump and undermine Clinton. 'If Russia aspired to help Trump get elected, which is what the manufactured January 2017 intelligence community assessment says with high confidence, according to Brennan and Clapper, then Putin would have released the most damaging information and emails to help President Trump,' she said. 'It was intentionally withheld and not released because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win thatelection, and their plan,' Gabbard added, citing the 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, '[was to] wait until maybe days or weeks before her inauguration to release these documents.' The Russians were widely alleged by US officials to have hacked Democratic National Committee emails during he 2016 campaign. The 2020 House Intelligence Committee report had concluded that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process' and that he didn't necessarily prioritize propping up one candidate over the other. 'The American people, I think, have been, and our republic, has been most harmed by this,' Gabbard said of the Russia collusion narrative. 'Of course, President Trump went through hell and his family because of this Russia hoax that was manufactured by President Obama and his administration.' Critics such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accused Gabbard of peddling 'patently false' accusations about their Russiagate activities. Much of what Gabbard has released centered around rebuffing a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded among other things that 'the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' Brennan, Clapper and others have pointed to a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which noted the panel 'heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.' Clapper and Brennan recenty penned an op-ed insisting that the intelligence community report never referenced 'collusion' between Trump and the Russian government, and stood by their claims that the Kremlin prefered him in the 2016 election. Gabbard pointed to how Obama ordered the 2017 ICA of Russian interference in the 2016 election and his administration's machinations detailed in the document dump to accuse the 44th president of subversion. 'What we now know came from President Obama was a covert mission, essentially, to subvert the will of the American people, create this lie that would challenge the legitimacy of President Trump's election and the four years of his administration, resulting and affecting in what was truly a years' long coup,' Gabbard said. Reps from Obama have refuted those characterizations, saying that the 'bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement last month. Gabbard made referrals to the Justice Department based on her findings, and the DOJ has since formed a 'strike force' to comb through the claims. Originally published as Tulsi Gabbard explains why Russia must have thought Hillary Clinton win was 'inevitable'
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Major Ukrainian drone operation devastates Russian oil refinery
A massive explosion has taken place at a Russian oil refinery in Novokuybyshevsk. The explosion occurred around 1,000 kilometres from the Ukrainian border. The oil facility was targeted in a wave of long-range attacks coordinated by Ukraine's secret services and Armed forces. The Ryazan oil refinery, a fuel and lubricant depot in Voronezh Oblast, and the Primorsko-Akhtarsk military airfield in Krasnodar Krai were all targeted in the strikes. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine posted to Facebook, commenting on the attacks. 'Ukrainian Defence Forces carried out successful strikes on verified targets in Russia that support the ongoing war of aggression against our country. The attack was in response to Russia's recent terrorist shelling of Ukrainian cities, which killed and injured civilians,' said the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine 'The systematic and deliberate targeting of infrastructure that supports the enemy's military will continue until the Russian Federation's armed aggression against Ukraine is fully stopped.' Amid the Ukrainian attack, Russia has bombed a key bridge in Ukraine's southern city of Kherson, killing one.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Israel must open its eyes: Defeating Hamas does not require starving a single child
Compounding the problem, the method of distributing what little aid is available requires thousands of Palestinians to travel long distances, which imposes an extreme hardship on the most vulnerable people – the very old, the very sick and the very young. Palestinians also have to cross military lines, which creates its own risk of violence as thousands upon thousands of hungry civilians encounter heavily armed soldiers who are on high alert. In Iraq, I participated in humanitarian missions that involved far fewer people, and I can tell you that these missions can be remarkably tense. It takes extreme discipline to keep the peace. Consequently, even as the amount of aid has diminished, the number of violent incidents during aid distribution has skyrocketed. Hundreds of Palestinians in search of food have been killed, many of them by Israeli soldiers. So there is less aid, and it's harder and more dangerous to obtain. The decrease in aid would be dreadful on its own, but what makes it incalculably worse is the timing. Israel's aid blockade came after a year and a half of war, when Hamas is decimated, Gaza's government is largely dismantled and chaos reigns. The dominant power in Gaza is Israel, not Hamas, and Israel, not Hamas, is the only entity with both the power to control aid distribution and the ability to obtain and distribute aid in the Gaza Strip. There is no way for civilians in Gaza to feed themselves. They are utterly dependent on Israel, and Israel removed the United Nations from the aid distribution network without replacing it with an effective alternative. Anyone who has spent time fighting al-Qaida or the Islamic State or Hamas knows that those groups think civilian suffering advances their cause. They don't burrow into cities and wear civilian clothes and hide behind hospitals and mosques simply to conceal themselves; they do so knowing that any military response will also kill civilians. They want the world to see images of civilian death and suffering. So why is Israel giving Hamas what it wants? Hamas should lay down its arms. It should release every hostage. But Hamas' war crimes – including its murders, its hostage taking and its concealment among civilians and civilian buildings – do not relieve Israel of its own moral and legal obligations. This is a moment of short-term strength and long-term vulnerability for Israel. Its triumphs in its fights with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran mean that its foes are militarily the weakest they've been in more than a generation. At the same time, however, European and US public support for Israel is in a state of collapse. Loading A May YouGov poll found that public support for Israel in Western Europe was the lowest it had ever recorded. A July Gallup poll found that only 32 per cent of Americans approved of Israel's military actions in Gaza. But don't take collapsing support for Israel as proof that nations support Hamas. On Tuesday, all 22 members of the Arab League and all 27 members of the European Union called on Hamas to disarm, release all remaining hostages and surrender control of Gaza. This was a vitally important step – a clear indication that key nations in the world utterly reject Hamas. It matters when President Donald Trump – the man who ordered US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities – describes what's happening in Gaza as 'real starvation' and says, 'I told Israel, maybe they have to do it a different way'. Israel's defenders can rightfully complain that nations with far worse human rights violations receive far less scrutiny. Where are the protests, they ask, against North Korean gulags? Or against the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs? But again, Israel has moral responsibilities, regardless of Western hypocrisy, and it still needs those Western friends. No nation – not even the United States – can thrive without allies, and Israel (despite its nuclear weapons) is far more vulnerable and dependent on international friendship than the United States or Britain or France. If Israel creates a lasting rift with its European allies and shatters the long-standing bipartisan American consensus on aiding Israel, then the long-term consequences could be grave. Loading It's easy to forget that it was President Barack Obama, a Democrat, who signed the largest-ever US military aid package with Israel – a $38 billion, 10-year deal that helped supply Israel with many of the weapons it has used in this war. It's easy to forget that President Joe Biden, a Democrat, twice deployed US forces to help defend Israel from Iranian drone and missile attacks. Is Israel better off if its alliance with America depends on whether a Republican is in the White House? Can it even count on Republican support in the long run? Putting aside for the moment the rise of antisemitism in the online right, 'America First' has never been a concept hospitable to foreign aid or alliances. One of the most frustrating aspects of our political discourse is the expectation that once you're identified on a side, you are somehow betraying your side if you speak up when it goes terribly wrong. Partisans are used to ignoring their opponents, but there might be a chance they will listen to their friends.
