Italy won't buy US arms for Ukraine
On Monday, Trump authorized new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, given that European NATO members provide funding, calling it a 'very big deal.'
La Stampa said in an article on Wednesday that the strategy of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has already agreed to purchase several Patriot surface-to-air missile systems for Ukraine, 'will not be pursued by Italy.'
According to the paper's sources, Rome will be opting out of the scheme 'not only because our weapon systems already handed over to Kiev have other technological configurations, but above all because – unlike Germany – the budget that Italy can allocate to such an operation is practically non-existent.'
The only arms purchase from the US currently planned by Italy is the delivery of a batch of F35 fighter jets scheduled for the 2030s, the sources added.
Politico reported on Tuesday, citing two French officials, that Paris would not be purchasing US weapons for Kiev as France is looking to invest in its own defense industry to meet European security needs.
The same day, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala told Publico outlet that Prague is also currently 'not considering' joining the initiative. The country 'is focusing on other… ways to help Ukraine,' he explained.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas earlier welcomed Trump's pledge to send more weapons to Ukraine, but urged Washington to 'share the burden' in terms of financing the deliveries. Washington, meanwhile, has threatened to impose secondary US tariffs of up to 100% on Russia's trading partners unless progress toward a peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev is made within 50 days.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that it is hard to predict how effective the weapons financing scheme would turn out due to Western Europe's 'emotional state bordering on inadequacy' over the Ukraine conflict. European NATO members appear to be ready 'to spend countless amounts of money on purchasing weapons in order to further provoke the continuation of the war,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate' is officially dead, but its rotten corpse has done its toxic job
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russiagate was America's other Pearl Harbor
US Senator Ted Cruz has compared the launch of the Trump-Russia investigation to the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, calling it a moment of 'infamy' in American political history. The Texas Republican made the remark on Fox News on Wednesday, accusing former President Barack Obama's administration of lying to the public and using federal agencies to undermine Donald Trump's presidency. 'December 9 should be a day that lives in infamy,' Cruz said, referencing the date in 2016 when the FBI opened its inquiry and the famous wording Franklin D. Roosevelt used in a speech following a surprise Japanese attack on the US naval base in Hawaii. 'That's a moment when senior members of our government decided to lie to the American people and sabotage President Donald Trump.' During a meeting on December 9, 2016, then President Obama ordered National Security Council officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump's campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data, according to declassified documents released by US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard last week. Trump had defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the presidential election that November. The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as 'Russiagate'. It severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy. Russia has not yet commented on Gabbard's revelations. It has however consistently denied allegations that it interfered in the 2016 US election. The Kremlin has described the Russiagate affair as a politically motivated smear campaign intended to justify sanctions and worsen relations with Moscow.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
