US approves $322 million arms sale to Ukraine for air defense
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) confirmed the sale includes HAWK air defense equipment worth up to $172 million and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle support valued at $150 million. 'This sale will improve Ukraine's capability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions with a more robust air defense capability,' the DSCA stated.
The Bradley equipment aims to address Ukraine's 'urgent need to strengthen local sustainment capabilities to maintain high operational rates for United States provided vehicles and weapon systems.' The State Department has approved the potential sales, with the DSCA notifying Congress, which must still authorize the transactions.
This latest military aid follows a $310.5 million package announced in May for F-16 training and sustainment. Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, the US has committed over $65 billion in military assistance under former President Joe Biden. However, current President Donald Trump, historically skeptical of Ukraine aid, has not announced new support packages since taking office in January. - AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: 'AI is too important not to regulate'
TECH titans have finally got what they were clambering for: a free pass to artificial intelligence (AI) development, thanks to United States President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan unveiled on Wednesday in Washington, at a tech summit attended by the elites of the industry. Calling it "Winning the AI Race", he said his action plan is designed to put the US ahead of other nations. "America must once again be a country where innovators are rewarded with green light, not strangled with red tape", the media quoted him as saying. There is only one way to read Trump's "green light" message: whatever regulations that stand in the way of AI "innovation" will be removed. First to go will be whatever that remains of the former administration's regulations. Is this the right path to take on AI? While tech titans will say yes, there are others who say no because AI comes with so many unknowns. Not even the AI entrepreneurs know where the technology is taking us. Certainly, AI has promises of benefits, but they come clothed with known and unknown risks. Alphabet and Google chief executive officer Sundar Pichai writing an opinion piece in the Financial Times on May 23, 2023 said that "AI is too important not to regulate and too important to regulate well", meaning regulating in a way that balances innovation and potential harms. But a race to be first will certainly not strike the right balance. Google's promise is to develop AI responsibly, but when the profit chase becomes hot would the pledge still hold? Pichai must know AI is fast becoming a crowded space, with every company racing to shape the technology according to its business needs. In other words, profit before people and planet. Our bad old free market economic model — the myth that markets perform best when they are free of regulations — has followed us into the digital world. Myth-busting economist Ha-Joon Chang has made it crystal clear that the free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world. With this "free-to-choose" mindset, nothing can be developed responsibly, let alone AI. We have long been witnesses of irresponsible capitalism, at times victims even. Hence the call for "compassionate capitalism", a sign that the free-to-choose market model has hit the lowest of low. Innovative AI development is only possible in a regulation-free space is a similar myth by another name. This is why the European Union has opted for the AI Act, one of whose aims is to make the technology "work for people and is a force for good in society". It came into effect on Aug 1 last year, claiming the honour of being the first-ever legislation to address the risks of AI. Whether or not such a goal is enforced is a question of political will, not the fault of the law. The EU model isn't the only way to tame AI. A better approach is a global AI treaty. But this will only work in a rules-based world order. Ours isn't. The Paris Treaty on climate change is in a bit of a shambles. So are the Rome Statute and the Law of the Sea. Regional or national approach may be inevitable.
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis-World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding. While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law. Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings ona case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas. It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling. Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law. Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do. The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts. Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations. Not all U.S. states are sceptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases. In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control. BONAIRE VERSUS THE NETHERLANDS Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels. The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions. In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding. "The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient. The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said. "This is definitely going to help there," Fourniersaid of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case. 'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT' The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as scepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States. A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues. He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled. "This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said. The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel. Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them. TheWorld Courtsaid that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production. Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments. "This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licences to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous. TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment. (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg and Alison Withers, additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici from Washington; editing by Barbara Lewis)
Free Malaysia Today
5 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Philips chops back US tariff bill
Shares in Philips jumped more than 10% during morning trading. (EPA Images pic) AMSTERDAM : Dutch medical equipment manufacturer Philips said today that the impact of US tariffs would be much less than it initially estimated, sending its share price surging. The company had originally estimated in April that US tariffs could cost it €250 million to €300 million this year after President Donald Trump unveiled a 20% tariff rate for goods from the EU. Brussels and Washington reached a deal over the weekend that will see goods from the EU face a baseline 15% levy when imported into the US. It said today it now expects between €150 million and €200 million impact from US tariffs this year. Chief executive Roy Jakobs said Philips updated 'the guidance because we have certainty now around what is happening between the EU and the US.' Shares in Philips jumped more than 10% during morning trading, while the Amsterdam market rose around 0.4% overall. The trade deal has come under widespread criticism in Europe as having been lopsided, saddling its manufacturers with a costly 15% rate with little in return from the US as certainty is a relative concept given Trump's propensity to change positions. Jakobs said that certainty 'is what we value in' in the deal, while acknowledging 'it's a painful additional cost we have to carry'. The company still targets a one to 3% increase in annual sales. Second quarter net profit fell by 47% to €240 million, but last year's performance was boosted by exceptional income from insurance payouts linked to long-running issues with its sleep apnoea machines. Sales slid by 2.8% to €4.3 billion, although they edged higher on a comparable basis that excludes currency changes. The company also noted orders rose by 6% on a comparable basis. The appreciation of the euro relative to the dollar and other currencies has been crimping the results of European companies as their revenues abroad result in fewer euros on the balance sheet. Long known for its light bulbs and television sets, the Dutch company has refocused its business towards medical equipment.
