&w=3840&q=100)
Democrats claim Pentagon boss Hegesth paused military aid to Ukraine by falsely citing weapon shortages
After US Secretary of State Pete Hegseth unilaterally halted agreed shipments of military aid to Ukraine, Democrats argue that the Pentagon boss cited baseless concerns that the American weapon stockpile was running low to announce such a measure. Before Hegseth's proclamation, a batch of air defence missiles and other precision munitions were due to be sent to Ukraine to aid it in its ongoing war with Russia.
These aid pledges were made during former US President Joe Biden's tenure. However, Hegseth went on to conduct a presser in which he announced the halting of shipments of weapons to Ukraine. According to a NBC News report, the Pentagon chief solely decided to halt sending aid even though experts noted the aid would not have jeopardised the US readiness.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As per the report, this is the third time Hegseth has halted US military supplies to Ukraine. When US President Donald Trump was asked about the pause on Thursday, he claimed that it was a necessary move because 'Biden emptied our whole country, giving them weapons, and we have to make sure we have enough for ourselves'.
What is the Trump administration's argument?
Last week, A White House spokesperson said that the move 'was made to put America's interests first following a [defence department] review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States armed forces remains unquestioned – just ask Iran.'
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told reporters on Wednesday that 'the capability review is being conducted to ensure US military aid aligns with our defence priorities.'
'We see this as a commonsense, pragmatic step towards having a framework to evaluate what munitions are sent and where,' Parnell added. He also seemed to confirm that there is no current shortage of arms for US forces. 'Let it be known that our military has everything that it needs to conduct any mission, anywhere, anytime, all around the world,' he said.
What is Congress thinking?
The move surprised several members of Congress as well as Ukraine's European allies. Democrats argued that there is no evidence that American weapon stocks are in decline. 'We are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we've been in the three-and-a-half years of the Ukraine conflict,' Adam Smith, a Democrat and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told NBC News. Smith said that his staff had 'seen the numbers' on weapon supplies and that there is no justification to suspend aid to Ukraine.
The weapons that are being delayed by the pause include dozens of Patriot interceptor missiles that can defend against Russian missile attacks, as well as howitzers and other missile systems.
Amid the pause, Russia has recently ramped up its bombardment of Ukrainian cities, using missiles, wreaking havoc among civilians in the war-torn country. 'This decision is certainly very unpleasant for us,' said Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's defence committee, according to Reuters. 'It's painful, and against the background of the terrorist attacks which Russia commits against Ukraine.' The Department of Defence is yet to respond to the charges.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka truck operators withdraw strike as govt releases pending dues under Anna Bhagya
The Federation of Karnataka State Lorry Owners and Agents' Association on Tuesday withdrew its indefinite strike call after the government said it released Rs 244 crore in dues pending for transport operators under the flagship Anna Bhagya scheme. 'The government has given us in writing that the dues will be cleared in the next two days. So we have decided to withdraw the strike,' said G R Shanmugappa, president of the federation. An order issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology, dated July 8, empowered the chief account officer of Bengaluru Urban zilla panchayat to release 244.1 crore in dues for truck operators. The protest, announced by the federation on Monday, had threatened to disrupt the supply of subsidised foodgrains to ration shops under the Congress government's scheme benefiting low-income families, potentially affecting food security in Karnataka. The truck operators had halted rice transportation under the scheme, citing unpaid dues of Rs 260 crore from February to June 2025. Shanmugappa had claimed that 3,500–4,000 drivers were affected, with some having pawned jewellery to meet fuel and other expenses and facing truck seizures by finance companies. The state government had promised payments to be made by June 19, but failed to clear the dues. Separately, the federation also demanded the rollback of the Rs 5/litre diesel hike, abolition of toll plazas on 18 highways in the state, return of Rs 25-Rs 30 crore tender deposits, cancellation of the Rs 15,000 renewal fee for older vehicles, and a 50 per cent discount on fines. The Opposition BJP has trained guns at the Congress government over the pending dues. Former chief minister Basavaraj Bommai said, 'The government has run out of money and they have no money to pay to the truck owners. The chief minister, deputy chief minister and the entire cabinet are busy saving their chairs. The government is dead and the people are waiting to throw them out.' Sanath Prasad is a senior sub-editor and reporter with the Bengaluru bureau of Indian Express. He covers education, transport, infrastructure and trends and issues integral to Bengaluru. He holds more than two years of reporting experience in Karnataka. His major works include the impact of Hijab ban on Muslim girls in Karnataka, tracing the lives of the victims of Kerala cannibalism, exploring the trends in dairy market of Karnataka in the aftermath of Amul-Nandini controversy, and Karnataka State Elections among others. If he is not writing, he keeps himself engaged with badminton, swimming, and loves exploring. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
EU to set up Critical Chemical Alliance to secure supply chains
* EU to set up Critical Chemical Alliance to secure supply chains Critical Chemical Alliance to tackle supply chain dependencies and distortions * EU chemical production faces competition from cheaper U.S. and Chinese rivals * Commission to expand state aid and simplify rules for chemicals industry By Julia Payne BRUSSELS, - The European Commission will work with EU member states and the chemicals sector to support production of chemicals identified as critical for Europe's industrial supply chains, the EU executive said on Tuesday. It said it will establish later this year a Critical Chemical Alliance, bringing together the Commission, member states, and various stakeholders as part of a wider plan to revive Europe's chemicals industry The chemical alliance will "identify critical production sites needing policy support and tackle trade issues like supply chain dependencies and distortions," the Commission said in a statement. The move mirrors another alliance set up to identify metals and minerals key for the energy transition. The EU then set targets for mining, processing and recycling of 17 strategic materials. Chemicals are a fundamental input for nearly all industries from textiles and defence to tech and account for 1.2 million direct jobs in the EU. However, chemical production plunged during the COVID-19 pandemic and it has not fully recovered in the face of competition with U.S. and Chinese rivals that benefit from significantly cheaper energy and production costs. Commission officials said more than 20 chemical sites have closed over the last two years, with petrochemicals and ammonia "under severe pressure". "First and foremost, there is the issue of sovereignty: keeping our steam crackers," European Commission Executive Vice President and industry commissioner Stephane Sejourne told reporters. Steam crackers, a unit in petrochemical plants, produce building block chemicals ethylene and propylene, which are used in everything from plastic food packaging and rubber to car headlights and fleece hoodies. The EU has around 40 steam crackers. On Monday, chemicals giant Dow said it planned to shut two plants in Germany and one in Britain over the next two years. Sejourne told reporters the alliance would evaluate the bloc's dependence on imports in the context of the importance of the molecule. "We are 80% dependent on foreign imports for methanol, for example, and if we look at the critical production sites, we need to safeguard and retain European sovereignty... Work will be done to identify these molecules, and the plan proposes to move forward on a kind of Critical Molecules Act." Further, the Commission will include chemicals in future trade agreements and strengthen surveillance of chemical imports. The Commission has already opened 18 trade defence investigations into different molecules since 2024. To compensate for high energy prices, the Commission will expand state aid, speed up permitting and provide energy guarantees from EU funds. The Commission will also include EU-content criteria in public procurement for chemicals, an effort being promoted across EU industries, Sejourne said. Finally, the Commission will present its sixth simplification package, known as an omnibus, for the chemicals industry. The omnibus, due to be proposed before the year end, will simplify rules on labelling of dangerous chemicals as well as revise rules around cosmetics and fertilizers adding up to savings of 363 million euros a year. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
As Europe aims to rearm, will India find it difficult to buy Rafale jets in future?
Europe is marching to a different beat these days. My time in Brussels, which saw me meet European Union officials and ex-diplomats, scholars, underlined that the unquestioned dependence on American security there is coming to an end. Europe now knows—that the party is over. This realisation came into the spotlight in early March 2025 when the European Union (EU) leaders convened in Brussels after the brutally honest message from Washington that Europe should take care of itself. Proposals to unlock hundreds of billions of euros of defence spending were supported by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa. The post-1945 security architecture in the EU had long been pegged on the promise of the American security umbrella always being around. This was being overturned with the move. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has become the biggest geopolitical stress test in the continent in decades, had a huge role to play in the shift. For years, the positive belief in American love, rather than any strategy, concealed the bitter fact: The European continent was not ready to defend itself. Major powers in Brussels now admit that European security hinges on ensuring a strong Ukraine and can no longer be delegated. The EU's ReArm Europe strategy that was launched in response in March aims to mobilise up to €800 billion, including €150 billion in defence-related loans, and is a dramatic shift in military ambition. For a bloc long seen as a normative power, this represents not only a strategic recalibration but a philosophical departure from the post-war consensus on peace dividends and social spending. The EU was after all described as a peace project. Learning from close quarters It was my return to Brussels—19 years after my first visit there—in June this year that gave me an opportunity to understand how the EU forges consensus among diverse member states and builds complex regulatory structures. There can be little doubt that the political and economic integration of the EU was a historic success. From the inception of the euro in 1999 to its expansion to more than 20 countries, the EU has bred peace, prosperity and institutional cooperation, which have never been witnessed before. A free movement of goods, services, capital, and citizens is now possible because of a single market of over 450 million citizens. The EU has managed to adjust even during the times of financial crisis, Brexit, and the growth of populism. The integrationist model of the European Union cannot be compared to other regional blocs such as ASEAN with the latter yet to reach the same magnitude of depth and cohesiveness. But beyond budgets and military hardware, the question of moral and strategic autonomy looms. Europe had long benefitted from the US security umbrella, often without the political costs that come with strategic independence. What has suddenly sprung up is the need for the transformation not just of capabilities, but of identity since the EU, as mentioned before, was essentially described as a peace project. Emmanuel Macron, the French President, who had constantly been calling to increase European defence investments, on March 2, 2025, urged the EU member states to increase defence expenditure to between 3 to 3.5 percent of GDP, with 3.5 percent to be directed to the core defence which will include the personnel, arms and munitions. President Macron came up with a proposal of a joint investment tool of 200 billion euros which can be financed by EU level borrowing or by the European Stability Mechanism. This signaled a sea change in European incrementalism and emphasised the recognition that Europe could no longer continue to under-invest in defence. Blunt Prez insists on 'Trump'ing even as cracks open up in EU Around the same time of my stay in the Netherlands, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, President Trump achieved what had long eluded past leaders: getting the allies to raise their spending from 2% of gross domestic product to 3.5% by 2035. Trump's message was blunt: either shoulder the burden or expect diminished American support. He condemned Spain for resisting the target. While the US defence spending hovers at 3.5% of GDP, the European average remains around 1.9%. Even the revised NATO target 3.5% for traditional defence and 1.5% for cyber and infrastructure faces political headwinds. Many capitals remain wary. Spain flatly refused the 5% goal, citing social obligations and there are concerns about unsustainable fiscal deficits and European Union's fiscal rules in this regard. However, expectedly, states like Poland and the Baltics, acutely aware of security threats to the east, have endorsed the higher targets. On June 27, António Costa has even suggested that increased European purchases of American weapons could be leveraged to rebalance transatlantic trade a subtle reminder of how defence and commerce intertwine. But beneath these general trends are the internal cracks that have the potential to weaken the EU cohesion. Led by Viktor Orbán, Hungary remains close to Moscow diplomatically and economically, regularly preventing or diluting EU-wide proposals regarding Russia in the statements of the EU and in sanctions. Such a position has left member states such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia visibly frustrated by the apparent fact that Hungary was completely out of sync with common securitization agendas in Europe. This strategic incoherence has been stoked by the reconsiderations in the Council on the aid to Ukraine by Budapest that have led to delaying of critical decisions. In the meantime, in Slovakia, elections had swept to power a government that sounds less-than-enthusiastic about war-proofing, joining the choir of those opposed to the escalation of defence commitments. Austria too still sticks to its policy of neutrality and Italy wavers between Atlanticism and the political attitudes at home. Such inconsistent national interests are not something new, but they are growing more consequential. As Europe faces an increasingly unstable security environment, such fragmentation could weaken the EU's emerging defence ambitions. What India must prepare for In this evolving landscape, countries from global south like India have to pay close attention as these changes will be consequential. The defence partnerships with Europe, particularly France, deserve closer scrutiny. I was told by an interlocutor that India is 'a victim of its own success.' For instance, bilateral defence cooperation with France has flourished, from Rafale jets and Scorpène submarines to Safran engines and UAV collaboration. However, future engagements may require navigating EU-level frameworks such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). Launched in 2017 under the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, PESCO aims to harmonize European defence procurement and strategic planning. As of 2025, 26 member states participate. While PESCO does not automatically obstruct third-country partnerships, it introduces regulatory layers, particularly when EU funding is involved as with the Future Combat Air System (FCAS). For India, which values flexibility and sovereignty in defence deals, such frameworks could introduce delays or complications. PESCO is based on political vision: to be less reliant on non-EU suppliers and a strong European defence-industrial base. This would progressively motivate key partners such as France and Germany towards focussing on intra-European projects rather than focusing on external projects. India must therefore prepare for a future where bilateral ties with European states are increasingly shaped by Brussels-based structures and standardizations. Curiosity around China and Europe's future In some circles, there is curiosity about the role of Chinese-supplied weaponry in the recent four-day crisis involving India and Pakistan. Their curiosity was not limited to South Asia. Rather, they viewed the episode as a microcosm of Beijing's growing ability to shape regional conflict dynamics through calibrated arms transfers and embedded military technologies. Drones, radar systems, and precision munitions, often provided to Pakistan on concessional terms, were seen as part of a broader Chinese strategy of building tactical leverage without direct confrontation. In their eyes, it was also an opportunity to see how China could practice or perfect instruments that demonstrate its might internationally. The episode also reaffirmed to European policymakers that Chinese global presence is not only all over the economic and trade lanes of the world but indeed right in live conflict zones, and that a more comprehensive European response, premised on long-term strategic thinking, is required. The existential issue in Europe, however, is whether it will be a geopolitically effective player or will it be bound to a failing transatlantic compact. The days of the postwar party are over perhaps, but this is just the start of the new era. Europe is at a crossroads as the continent grapples with war on its doorstep, internal divisions and faltering transatlantic certainties. The way it establishes a new architecture of defence and diplomacy will determine its position in the international order and the connection it will have with the rest of the world, including Asia, in the decades to come. (The author has worked for 25 years as a practitioner, researcher and an analyst on conflict areas and violent extremism issues. He has authored two books including Across the LoC: Inside Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir published by Columbia University Press.)
