logo
Russia welcomes Trump's cut to Ukraine's military aid but it could be deadly for Kyiv

Russia welcomes Trump's cut to Ukraine's military aid but it could be deadly for Kyiv

CNN — The reactions to the Trump administration's decision to
The reactions to the Trump administration's decision to pause some weapons shipments to Ukraine couldn't be more illustrative of the conflict: welcomed by the Kremlin, branded 'inhumane' by Kyiv.
The Pentagon said on Wednesday that it was pausing some aid because it needs to review whether the assistance that is provided to Ukraine is aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda.
But the move could have deadly consequences for Ukraine as the halt on shipments includes missiles for Patriots, the US-made air defense systems that are currently protecting millions of Ukrainian civilians from Russia's increasingly massive daily aerial attacks.
Kyiv endured the biggest ever attack overnight into Friday, with 13 dreadful hours of explosions and buzzing overhead as Russia launched a record 539 drones towards the Ukrainian capital and 11 cruise and ballistic missiles, according to the country's air force.
As the smoke began to clear over the city, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the military for shooting down or jamming the majority of the Russian drones and missiles.
'It is critically important that our partners continue to support us in defending against ballistic missiles. Patriots and the missiles for them are true protectors of life,' he said – a remark clearly aimed at trying to persuade Trump to reconsider the pause.
Zelensky got a chance to make the case directly to Trump when the two spoke by phone on Friday. A readout of the call from Zelensky's office said the two leaders 'agreed that we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.'
'We are ready for direct projects with the United States and believe this is critically important for security, especially when it comes to drones and related technologies,' the readout said.
No other air defense system can match the Patriots in its effectiveness – but their power comes at a huge cost, their production is limited and the demand for them is growing rapidly around the world, especially in areas deemed by the Trump administration to be more strategically important – such as the Middle East or, southwest Asia and South Korea.
A Patriot system received by Ukraine is seen on the Day of Ukrainian Air Force on August 4, 2024.
Vitalii Nosach/Global'Inhumane' decision
The announcement by the US sent shockwaves through Ukraine, with presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak saying it would be 'very strange' and 'inhumane' to stop supplying missiles that are used to protect civilians.
But despite the panicked reaction, the move was not entirely unexpected. Trump has threatened to withdraw Ukraine's support in a bid to force Kyiv to the negotiating table, and he has previously briefly paused shipments of aid.
While the US was for a long time Ukraine's biggest supporter, singlehandedly covering about 40 percent of Ukraine's military needs, it has not announced any new aid to Ukraine since early January, when Trump returned to power.
Meanwhile, European countries have stepped up their support of Ukraine.
According to the German Kiel Institute, which monitors aid to Ukraine, Europe has now surpassed the US as the biggest donor – having supported Ukraine to the tune of 72 billion euro ($85 billion) in total military aid since the start of the full-scale invasion to the end of April, compared to 65 billion euro ($76.6 billion) from the US.
But the numbers don't tell the whole story.
'Ukraine has a lot of different needs, and some of them can be filled by other suppliers, but some can only be filled by the United States,' Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told CNN.
'For ballistic missiles in particular, only the US can provide this. A cut off in those leaves a huge gap in Ukraine and air defenses. And given the kind of daily and horrible Russian attacks, that's very consequential.'
Russia has ramped up its airborne attacks against Ukraine in recent weeks.
Ballistic missiles pose the deadliest threat and, according to Ukrainian officials, Russia fired as many as 80 of these in June alone.
Rescuers work at the site of a Russian missile strike on a residential building during an attack in Kyiv, Ukraine, on June 23.
Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto/Getty Images
While Ukraine managed to shoot some of them down, likely with the Patriot system, the ones that slipped through caused unimaginable suffering. One ballistic missile strike killed 21 people in Dnipro last week. The week before that, 21 people were killed when a ballistic missile hit an apartment building in Kyiv.
Deadly attacks like this will become more frequent if Ukraine loses access to the Patriots, which are widely considered to be among the best air defense systems available.
They are capable of bringing down cruise and hypersonic missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. According to analysts, the Ukrainian military has been using them in an extremely effective way, shooting down missiles that Moscow claimed were impossible to intercept, such as the Kinzhal ballistic missiles.
At an estimated cost of about $1.1 billion for each system, the Patriots are by far the most expensive piece of equipment sent by allies to Ukraine. According to the CSIS, missile rounds for the Patriot come in at roughly $4 million each – an incredibly high price tag.
But even if Ukraine had the cash to purchase these systems, which it doesn't, it would find it difficult to source them.
'The production pace of Patriot missiles is low. Not because the US doesn't want to produce more, but because it's very sophisticated – you can't produce thousands a year, you can produce hundreds and you have allies all over the world who need them,' Pavel Luzin, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, said Thursday during a discussion at the NEST Center, a think tank.
Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the Patriot missiles for the US Army, has been ramping up production to record levels – but even so, it is only able to make just over 500 per year, with a plan to increase production to 650 a year by 2027.
A major $5.5 billion deal between US and German companies to begin manufacturing the Patriot missiles outside of the US for the first time was approved last year following a NATO order of up to 1,000 rounds – but the first deliveries are not expected until several years from now.
President Volodymyr Zelensky finds out about the training of Ukrainian soldiers on the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system at an undisclosed location in Germany, on June 11, 2024.
Jens Buttner/Reuters
Germany, which has donated several of its Patriot systems to Ukraine in the past, is looking into the option of purchasing some missiles for Ukraine from the US, the spokesperson for the German government said in a news conference on Friday.
Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a UK-based defense think tank, said that while global stockpiles of Patriot missiles are not 'critically low,' there are some grounds for concern about shortages.
'The requirement for Patriots, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, is growing significantly,' he said.
He said that given that some of the missiles initially meant for Ukraine were diverted to other allies, including Israel, it was likely that the US wanted to – or even had contractual obligations to – deliver interceptors to countries who are, in some cases, located within range of Iranian missiles.
Still, Kaushal said the US itself is highly unlikely to face any kind of urgent shortage of missiles.
'While the US has sent a considerable number of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine it has replenished stocks through buy-back schemes from Japan and more recent shipments were diverted from export customers rather than the US' own inventory,' he said in a note emailed to CNN.
Boost for Ukraine
Zelensky said previously that Ukraine would need some 25 Patriot batteries to defend its airspace effectively. It has roughly half a dozen at the moment, although the exact numbers and their locations are closely guarded secrets.
What is known, though, is that the Ukrainians are very worried about running out of the munitions – especially because the latest US pause doesn't concern future aid but impacts deliveries that have been approved and funded and were on their way to Ukraine, where the military was counting on receiving them in the very near future.
'One thing is not having future sales approved; another is stopping what is already in the pipeline. And so that's a very negative shift that is harmful for the future defense of Ukraine and the effect is going to be pretty quick. The Russian attacks are happening daily, and Ukraine relies on these systems to counter them,' Byman said.
The pause in shipments is likely to give yet another boost to Russia.
'It's part of (the Russians') strategy. They believe that without the US support, Ukraine is more likely to collapse or at least make concessions… so it certainly increases the incentives for Russia to keep military pressure on Ukraine,' Byman said.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a US-based conflict monitor, said that previous delays in deliveries of aid to Ukraine have invariably accelerated Russian gains on the battlefield.
When the US dragged its feet on military aid in late 2023 and early 2024, Russia pushed forward in Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine. When the US paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, Russian forces advanced in Kursk.
'The suspension of US aid to Ukraine will reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory that posits that Russia can win the war of attrition by making slow, creeping advances and outlasting Western support for Ukraine,' the ISW said.
The pause in shipments will likely reinforce Putin's belief that time is on Russia's side – and that if he can delay negotiations for long enough, his troops will eventually outlast Western assistance to Ukraine.
For Ukrainians, who have sacrificed so much trying to defend their country against a bigger, stronger aggressor, the absence of US military aid is not just yet another setback – it's potentially a disaster.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Netanyahu: A Third Meeting in Washington Amid Gaza Turmoil
Trump and Netanyahu: A Third Meeting in Washington Amid Gaza Turmoil

See - Sada Elbalad

timean hour ago

  • See - Sada Elbalad

Trump and Netanyahu: A Third Meeting in Washington Amid Gaza Turmoil

By: Dr. Mohamed Mahmoud Abdelwahab Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's latest visit to Washington marks his third in less than six months. In the aftermath of his military confrontations with Iran, Netanyahu is expected to shift his focus toward the southern front, particularly Gaza, where he will attempt to draw US President Donald Trump closer to his position—if only to shield himself from political pressures that could jeopardize his fragile ruling coalition. Netanyahu's anticipated strategy in dealing with Trump's potential pressure over Iran and Gaza is clear: protect military achievements without offering political concessions. He arrives in Washington determined to maintain the gains from recent military campaigns and to avoid any compromises that could weaken his standing among his hardline supporters. A report published by The Guardian under the headline 'Netanyahu Returns to the White House Holding All the Cards in Gaza Talks,' authored by Andrew Roth, suggests that Netanyahu's visit to the White House comes as President Trump attempts once again to mediate a peace deal for Gaza. Netanyahu, however, enters the talks emboldened by what he considers military successes, both against Iran and in strikes on what the report calls 'Iran's proxies in the Middle East.' According to Middle East experts quoted in the report, Netanyahu's strong domestic political position gives him the diplomatic cover he needs to pursue an end to the Gaza war without risking the collapse of his government. Yet, the report raises a crucial question about Trump's patience with Netanyahu—how long will Trump tolerate the slow pace of Gaza ceasefire negotiations? Despite Trump's self-promotion as a dealmaker, the timing and outcome of any Gaza ceasefire may ultimately lie beyond his control, largely due to the complex nature of Israel's coalition politics. Far-right leaders such as Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are pushing hard against any form of ceasefire or prisoner swap deal with Hamas. In this context, Israel Hayom reported that while Hamas presented a response containing some reservations, it has not outright rejected the proposal, suggesting that mounting military pressure is forcing it to show some flexibility. Meanwhile, calls are growing within Israel for a comprehensive agreement rather than another partial or temporary truce. However, such calls face fierce opposition from the extremist elements within Netanyahu's coalition. For ministers like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, settlements are not mere policies but ideological cornerstones. Their political agenda is far from seeking a ceasefire; instead, they are focused on reshaping regional dynamics and positioning themselves for the upcoming 2026 elections. Netanyahu's government shows no indication that it is prepared to seriously commit to ending the war. Anna Barsky, in an article for Maariv, suggested that the Likud Party may soon be led by a dual political campaign: Netanyahu at home and Trump abroad. Her analysis hints at unease over Trump's recent comments regarding Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial—comments that were widely interpreted as a form of direct political support for Netanyahu. Barsky's article, however, overlooks the possibility that Netanyahu's current government could become a liability for Trump's broader regional strategies, particularly given its destabilizing actions that have complicated Israel's relations with several countries it had previously normalized ties with. Adding further complexity to Netanyahu's Washington trip, the Jerusalem District Court postponed Netanyahu's scheduled testimony in his criminal trial to accommodate his visit. In Yedioth Ahronoth, veteran journalist Nahum Barnea wrote a sharply critical piece titled 'No One Should Be Surprised by Trump's Interference in Netanyahu's Trial.' Barnea argued that U.S. administrations have long played roles in Israeli politics, recalling the Clinton administration's efforts to sway the Shas Party to support Yitzhak Rabin. However, Barnea accused Trump of openly undermining judicial independence, warning that Trump's social media interventions regarding Netanyahu's trial risk eroding the integrity of Israel's judiciary. The evolving scene reflects a tangled web of personal ambition, geopolitical power plays, and deep internal divisions within Israel. Netanyahu may enjoy temporary diplomatic cover in Washington, but the longer-term implications—whether for Gaza, U.S.-Israeli relations, or his political survival—remain uncertain, especially with increasing concerns over judicial interference, coalition tensions, and unpredictable shifts in U.S. policy under Trump. read more Analysis- Turkey Has 0 Regional Allies... Why? Analysis: Russia, Turkey... Libya in Return For Syria? Analysis: Who Will Gain Trump's Peace Plan Fruits? Analysis: Will Turkey's Erdogan Resort to Snap Election? Analysis: What Are Turkey's Aspirations in Iraq? Opinion & Analysis Analysis: Mercenaries In Libya... Who Should Be Blamed? Opinion & Analysis Analysis- How 'Libya Nightmare' Takes Erdogan to Algiers Opinion & Analysis Analysis: What Happens After Brexit? Opinion & Analysis Analysis: Strategic Significance of Libya's Sirte, Jufra! News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War News "Tensions Escalate: Iran Probes Allegations of Indian Tech Collaboration with Israeli Intelligence" News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean

Egypt's Al-Sisi meets Rosatom chief as new Dabaa plant deals are signed
Egypt's Al-Sisi meets Rosatom chief as new Dabaa plant deals are signed

Daily News Egypt

time5 hours ago

  • Daily News Egypt

Egypt's Al-Sisi meets Rosatom chief as new Dabaa plant deals are signed

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi met with the head of Russia's state atomic energy corporation Rosatom on Tuesday in the city of New Alamein to discuss developments on the Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant project, the presidency said. The meeting with Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev came as the two countries signed supplementary agreements aimed at accelerating the construction of the plant. Also present at the meeting were the president of Rosatom's engineering division Atomstroyexport, Andrey Petrov, the Russian Ambassador to Cairo, Georgy Borisenko, as well as Egypt's Minister of Electricity and the head of its Nuclear Power Plants Authority (NPPA). Separately on Tuesday, Egyptian and Russian officials held a signing ceremony for the new agreements at the electricity ministry's headquarters in Alamein. Minister of Electricity and Renewable Energy, Mahmoud Essmat, and Rosatom's Likhachev signed a supplementary protocol to the intergovernmental deal on the plant's construction and its physical protection systems. The two officials then witnessed the signing of a related supplementary contract covering the plant's design, procurement, and construction, which was signed by the head of the NPPA, Sherif Helmy Mahmoud, and Atomstroyexport's Andrey Petrov. A statement from the electricity ministry said the agreements were signed as part of both sides' keenness to speed up the project's implementation according to the set timetables. It added that the project is part of Egypt's strategy to rely on clean energy and achieve its updated national energy strategy goals for 2040. 'The cooperation and partnership between Egypt and Russia embody the strong political will of the two friendly countries,' Essmat said in the statement. 'Today's signing… represents an important step towards completing the Dabaa nuclear plant project in its various stages and reflects the fruitful cooperation between Egypt and Russia.' Likhachev affirmed Russia's firm commitment to supporting Egypt's efforts in building its first nuclear power plant. 'We are proud of our strategic partnership with Egypt and look forward to continuing joint cooperation to implement this ambitious project, which will contribute to enhancing energy security in Egypt and achieving sustainable development goals,' he said.

From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities
From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities

Daily News Egypt

time5 hours ago

  • Daily News Egypt

From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities

The past year has laid bare a growing and dangerous campaign against American universities — one that threatens to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the right to dissent. What began with pro-Palestinian demonstrations in late 2023 has escalated into a calculated effort by the Trump administration to police campus discourse, punish ideological nonconformity, and suppress political protest. Behind the rhetoric of combating antisemitism lies a far more ambitious project: transforming America's independent centres of scholarship into compliant instruments of state power. The first major flashpoint came at Harvard, where over thirty student groups issued a statement in October 2023 holding Israel responsible for escalating violence in Gaza. The backlash was swift. Prominent donors, conservative commentators, and federal officials demanded punitive action. Though Harvard's administration initially distanced itself from the protests, its response was neither swift nor severe enough to appease critics. By early 2024, the Trump administration had frozen $2.3bn in federal research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of tolerating antisemitic expression — despite the absence of formal findings to that effect. The message was unmistakable: universities that fail to suppress pro-Palestinian activism will face financial ruin. This retaliation set a precedent. At Yale University, a student group protesting an Israeli official's lecture in late 2024 was branded antisemitic, prompting the university to revoke the group's recognition and sparking campus unrest. Yet even that concession was not enough to prevent federal reprisal. In April 2025, the administration threatened Yale's accreditation, signalling that institutions would now be punished not only for what they say, but for what they allow others to say. The University of California, Berkeley faced its own reckoning in May 2025, when it rejected federal demands to monitor international students' social media accounts for alleged 'anti-American' or 'antisemitic' content. The response was immediate: Berkeley lost $100m in federal research funding. A faculty-led strike followed, with professors warning that such intrusions violated the most basic principles of academic freedom and would devastate American research. Berkeley's defiance made clear that this was not an isolated clash over campus culture, but part of a systematic campaign to bring universities to heel. The consequences are dire. Harvard's Alan Garber noted that the frozen grants threaten vital research on gene editing and GLP-1 drugs — work central to treating genetic disorders and obesity. Steven Pinker warned that the US risks ceding its scientific leadership to nations like China, where research may face ideological limits but not this kind of self-inflicted sabotage. This campaign is not only about silencing dissent; it is about disabling the innovation that has long defined American higher education. Equally alarming is the erosion of academic freedom. Through ideological audits, pressure to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and threats to accreditation, the administration has created an environment in which both faculty and students are discouraged from engaging with politically sensitive topics. The chilling effect is unmistakable. Universities that once prided themselves on fearless inquiry now weigh the cost of financial or political backlash for permitting protest or controversial scholarship. This climate of coercion has fuelled unrest across already polarised campuses. Yale's suppression of student groups and Columbia's heightened policing of protests have sparked further demonstrations. The risk of a nationwide student movement, reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, grows. Yet unlike past waves of protest, today's confrontations stem not from universities defying authority, but from institutions struggling to survive under relentless external attack. Perhaps most insidious is the threat to institutional autonomy. By wielding funding freezes, accreditation threats, and tax status reviews, the administration bypasses due process and replaces independent governance with political fiat. It transforms universities from self-governing scholarly communities into state-dependent contractors — a tactic common in authoritarian regimes, but newly and openly deployed in the American context. The damage also reverberates globally. Visa restrictions and demands for surveillance of international students have already deterred global talent, undermining the diversity and international collaboration that fuel scientific and cultural progress. If the US ceases to be a destination for the world's brightest minds, it will forfeit the intellectual prestige it has long enjoyed. Though comparisons to Hungary's Viktor Orbán or China's Xi Jinping are often made, the Trump administration's tactics are more brazen. Freezing billions in funding without legislative oversight and demanding student surveillance are not the slow, bureaucratic tools of autocracies — they are ideological purges executed with speed and force, bypassing both law and tradition. To be clear, universities must protect all students and ensure civil, inclusive discourse. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it exists. But using that imperative to justify the suppression of political protest is dishonest and deeply damaging. Harvard's legal challenge to its funding freeze — backed by a coalition of 400 college presidents — is a crucial first step. Yet only sustained resistance by faculty, students, alumni, and the broader public can defend higher education's essential role in a free society. The Trump administration's vendetta against American universities, sparked by pro-Palestinian protests, threatens to dismantle the very principles that have made US higher education a global model. The assault on dissent, the coercion of scholars, and the policing of speech must be recognised for what they are: an attack not only on universities, but on democracy itself. The survival of both now rests on whether those under siege choose silence — or resistance. Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store