Ukraine should ask US for obsolete weapons
In an op-ed for the newspaper Ukrainska Pravda on Friday, Zaluzhny, who now serves as Ukraine's ambassador to the UK and is widely regarded as a dangerous political rival to Vladimir Zelensky, arguing that surplus US missiles nearing retirement could be delivered to Ukraine at little cost to Washington.
'The United States today has significant reserves of obsolete or ready-to-be-disused missiles, the transfer of which to Ukraine could be an effective solution,' Zaluzhny wrote. He added these arms 'do not require additional budget expenditures for disposal, and [are] vital for Ukraine.'
Zaluzhny pointed to the example of Hellfire missiles, noting that by the end of 2023, the US had produced more than 170,000 of various types. Much of that inventory is now approaching the typical 20–25-year lifespan, after which the weapons face decommissioning or destruction, he pointed out.
As the Pentagon shifts to the new JAGM system, Zaluzhny argued Ukraine could submit formal requests to secure these soon-to-be-obsolete stocks.
'Ukraine can take advantage of this chance by systematically sending official requests within the framework of various programs,' he wrote, saying it would both strengthen Ukraine's defenses and help the US 'rationally manage stocks.'
While the US has provided Ukraine with more than $66 billion in military assistance, much of the weaponry has not been top-notch. For instance, multiple media reports indicated that the 31 M1 Abrams tanks sent to Kiev in 2023 had been downgraded and lacked the secret depleted uranium armor mix. At least 20 US-supplied Abrams have reportedly since been destroyed.
Throughout the conflict, Ukraine has also scoured global markets for Soviet-era hardware, often acquiring outdated systems purely to cannibalize them for spare parts for its existing fleet.
Moscow has consistently denounced Western weapons shipments to Ukraine, arguing they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
20 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: This is the fatal flaw of Trump's Ukraine ‘strategy'
Donald Trump's recent comments on Ukraine were highly anticipated, especially given his habit of surprising even those who consider themselves seasoned observers. His remarks on 14 July, delivered alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, were characteristically loud but ultimately underwhelming. That in itself should not be surprising. Over the past six months, Trump's style on major international issues has followed a familiar pattern. Ukraine is no exception. At the heart of Trump's approach lies a calculated strategy of noise. He generates maximum bluster to create the impression of strength and decisiveness. What follows is not action, but an endless repetition of simple slogans. Clarification is deliberately avoided, the aim being to appear both consistent and unpredictable. Behind this theater lies a reluctance to become truly entangled in any foreign conflict. Trump wants short, manageable involvement with low costs and quick exit ramps. Above all, he is not willing to challenge the mainstream consensus in Washington as deeply as he claims. For all the bluster, Trump remains tethered to the very 'Deep State' he rails against. The Israel-Iran confrontation earlier this year offers a textbook example. One dramatic strike on Iranian nuclear sites gave the impression of a bold move. It satisfied different parts of Trump's base, pleased Israel, and sent a message to Tehran – without triggering a regional war. Trump got to claim a geopolitical 'win' and was once again floated as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate. But for all the headlines, little actually changed. Iran's nuclear program continues, and the political dynamics of the region remain largely intact. Still, Trump presented it as a major American contribution to world peace. The problem is, Ukraine is not the Middle East. It is far more complex, and Trump appears to know it. His instinct is to avoid the problem altogether. But he can't. The conflict is now a central issue in US-European relations, and Trump's own supporters are split between isolationists and hawks. He knows he cannot ignore Ukraine outright. Nor can he allow Biden's war to become his. This explains the repeated emphasis in his 'It's Not My War' speech. He said it three times. So, what did Trump actually propose? Not much. He suggested that America's European allies should send Ukraine their old weapons systems – especially Patriot batteries – and then buy new ones from the United States, paying '100 percent.' That, for Trump, is the core of the plan: turn war into business. The logic is simple and familiar. Europe gets rid of its aging stock, Ukraine gets support, and America gets orders. But the practicalities remain vague: what systems, what timeline, what delivery mechanisms? These were left unclear. Then there's the question of exerting economic pressure on Russia. Trump approved a plan to impose 100 percent tariffs on Russian exports to third countries. This is a more moderate version of Senator Lindsey Graham's 500 percent threat. The idea is to squeeze Russia economically without enforcing a full embargo. But here, too, the scheme is light on details. The White House will issue the duties and can cancel them at will. Implementation will be delayed by 50 days – standard Trump trade deal tactics. Nothing is final. Everything is leverage. The real message is that Trump is still negotiating. He can't reach a deal with Putin, but he wants to pressure Moscow without entering into an open confrontation. He still refuses to personally attack Putin, saying only that he is 'very dissatisfied' and 'disappointed.' That signals he is keeping his options open. He wants credit for any peace that might emerge but is unwilling to own the risks of deeper engagement. Trump also repeated his claim to being the world's premier peacemaker, listing off a string of supposed triumphs – India-Pakistan, Israel-Iran, Serbia-Kosovo, Gaza ('well, almost'), the DRC and Rwanda, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Egypt and a 'neighboring country' (apparently forgetting the name of Ethiopia). These boasts reflect the core Trump method: declare success, repeat it often, and rely on public attention spans being short. Despite the showmanship, the risk of American entanglement in Ukraine remains high. The measures Trump has announced will not meaningfully shift the military-political balance, but they may prolong the war, at increased cost. Meanwhile, the channel of negotiation opened by Trump's call to Putin in February appears to be closing. Trump is reportedly irritated with Moscow, but Russia has not moved an inch. Nor does it plan to. Putin sees no reason to adapt his position simply to accommodate Trump's political timetable. There are rumors that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivered some new proposals to Senator Marco Rubio in Malaysia. But based on past experience, these are almost certainly familiar Russian talking points in new packaging. Moscow's approach to resolving the Ukrainian crisis has remained unchanged for over three years. Trump's rhetoric won't alter that. From the Kremlin's perspective, Washington no longer has the capacity to engage at the same level as it did in 2023–2024. The political will, financial resources, and strategic bandwidth simply aren't there. Half-measures from the US won't deliver results, though they may prolong the conflict. That is unfortunate, but not sufficient cause for Moscow to adjust its course. Trump, for his part, doesn't want to stay on the Ukraine file. He wants to move on – and fast. Many in the Pentagon share that view. But the war will not end just because Washington wants to focus elsewhere. Neither side has a clear long-term strategy. What remains is inertia – and inertia, for now, is stronger than article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
31 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Ukrainian PM resigns
Prime Minister Denis Shmigal has officially submitted his resignation to the Ukrainian parliament, a day after Vladimir Zelensky announced his replacement and named him the country's next defense chief. Shmigal has held the post since early 2020, serving an extended term after parliamentary and presidential elections were indefinitely postponed due to martial law. He posted a copy of his resignation letter on Telegram on Tuesday, thanking his team for their 'tireless work' – and Zelensky personally for his 'trust' over the years. 'Denis Shmigal's extensive experience will definitely be valuable in the position of Ukraine's defense minister,' Zelensky said on Monday, selecting him to replace Rustem Umerov as the third defense chief since the escalation of the conflict with Moscow. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has faced multiple corruption scandals in recent years, with former defense chief Aleksey Reznikov stepping down in 2023 to join a NATO-affiliated NGO in Slovakia. Outgoing minister Umerov, who also led Ukraine's delegation in negotiations with Russia in Istanbul, will reportedly become Ukraine's new ambassador to the US. Zelensky has nominated Shmigal's deputy and Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko as the next prime minister. Sviridenko, 39, gained prominence in recent months for brokering a deal that granted the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources. Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, is expected to approve the appointments in the coming days. Former Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov, who served under ousted President Viktor Yanukovich, claimed that Zelensky bypassed constitutional procedures by personally naming the new prime minister – a role traditionally proposed by the parliamentary majority. Zelensky's own presidential term expired last year, but he has repeatedly cited the state of emergency he imposed as grounds for remaining in office beyond the constitutional deadline. On Tuesday, Ukrainian lawmakers once again extended martial law and general mobilization for another 90 days, until November 5, with just one dissenting vote. Ukrainian opposition figures, including former President Pyotr Poroshenko, as well as civil society groups, international watchdogs, and Western media, have expressed concern that Zelensky's wartime powers could lead to a lasting erosion of democratic freedoms. Earlier this month, The Economist reported that the government has become entangled in 'palace politics' and internal strife.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump says he's neutral on Ukraine conflict
US President Donald Trump has told reporters that his recent ultimatum to Moscow and promise of weapons for Kiev do not mean he is 'on Ukraine's side' in the ongoing conflict. On Monday, the US leader said he was 'very, very unhappy' with Russia, warning of 'severe' secondary tariffs of up to 100% if no progress is made in diplomacy within 50 days. He also announced upcoming deliveries of advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, which are to be funded by European NATO members. Pressed by reporters on Tuesday, Trump insisted he is 'on nobody's side' and still hopes to resolve the conflict through diplomacy. 'You know the side I'm on? Humanity's side. I want to stop the killing of thousands of people a week. I want to stop the killing. I want the killing to stop in the Ukraine-Russia war. That's the side I'm on,' the US president said. 'I've solved a lot of wars in the last three months, but I haven't gotten this one yet. This is a Biden war. It's not a Trump war. I'm here to try and get us out of that mess,' he added. Since taking office in January, Trump has maintained that he wants the neighboring countries to make peace and has held several phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin focused on settling the conflict. Moscow says it remains open to negotiating with Kiev but has yet to receive a response on when new peace talks will take place. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul so far this year, but no breakthroughs have been achieved, aside from agreements to conduct large-scale prisoner exchanges. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Tuesday that EU and NATO leaders have put Trump under 'improper pressure' to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that 'any attempts to make demands, let alone issue ultimatums, are unacceptable.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also criticized Trump's threat, noting that 'such decisions, made in Washington, in NATO countries, and in Brussels, are perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal toward peace, but as a signal to continue the war.'
