NATO state opts out of Trump's Ukraine arms plan
Trump unveiled the plan during a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, proposing that American arms be delivered to Kiev with funding from other NATO members. Rutte named Germany as the primary donor, with funding also offered by Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada.
'The Czech Republic is focusing on other projects and ways to help Ukraine,' Fiala told the news outlet Publico. 'Therefore, at this moment we are not considering joining this project.'Trump pitched the initiative as both a commercial opportunity for the US defense industry and a means for NATO countries to increase pressure on Russia. Moscow has likened the effort to the US preparing a deadly meal for Ukraine and forcing others to pay for it.
Rutte said the participating nations represent the initial wave of contributors, with more expected to join. Politico reported on Tuesday that France, one of the EU's largest economies, would not be financially supporting the effort. According to the outlet, citing two French officials, Paris prefers to develop its own defense industry to meet European security needs.
A similar position has reportedly been taken by Italy. The government believes it lacks the financial resources to commit to the plan, according to the Italian newspaper La Stampa.
Fiala said his government will continue to back the Czech ammunition initiative, a program launched in early 2024. The initiative to provide artillery shells to Kiev has drawn support from more than a dozen countries, though it has also faced criticism over cost overruns, quality issues, and delivery delays.
In an interview last week, Czech President Petr Pavel said the EU should reassess its approach to the Ukraine conflict, asking, 'What alternatives do we have, both us and Ukraine? To fight Russia endlessly?'
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
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.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
$10mn of USAID contraceptives to be burned in France
A $10 million shipment of US-funded contraceptives will be incinerated in France, after Washington rejected offers to send the supplies to poorer nations, Reuters reported on Wednesday. The stockpile – made up of birth control pills and implants – has been stuck in Belgium since early 2025, when President Donald Trump shut down USAID and froze foreign aid programs. The supplies were originally meant for distribution in developing countries. A State Department spokesperson confirmed the destruction plan, saying the disposal will cost around $167,000 and take place at a medical waste facility in France. The contraceptives are being stored in the city of Geel and will require dozens of truckloads and at least two weeks to move, sources told Reuters. Belgian authorities have attempted to prevent the destruction of the supplies yet ultimately failed to do so, having exhausted 'all possible options to prevent the destruction, including temporary relocation.' 'Despite these efforts, and with full respect for our partners, no viable alternative could be secured. Nevertheless, Belgium continues to actively seek solutions to avoid this regrettable outcome,' the country's Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that 'sexual and reproductive health must not be subject to ideological constraints.' Human rights groups that attempted to buy the supplies from Washington have also suggested the impending destruction is being driven by 'ideological' motives rather than a desire to cut costs. Sarah Shaw, Associate Director of Advocacy at MSI Reproductive Choices, told Reuters the NGO approached Washington with an offer to pay for repackaging of the supplies without USAID branding and for shipment to their destinations, but the proposal was declined. 'MSI offered to pay for repackaging, shipping, and import duties, but they were not open to that... We were told that the US government would only sell the supplies at the full market value,' said Shaw. 'This is clearly not about saving money. It feels more like an ideological assault on reproductive rights, and one that is already harming women,' she added. The UN sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA, also reportedly offered to buy the shipment. The talks ultimately broke down, partially due to a lack of response from the US government, a source with direct knowledge told Reuters.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin accuses Ukraine of ‘putting cart before horse'
Ukraine's calls for a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky are premature, as the two sides have yet to make progress on major points of disagreement, the Kremlin said on Thursday following the latest round of peace talks. The negotiations, held in Istanbul the day before, lasted less than an hour. Both sides agreed on several humanitarian issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war, civilian detainees, and the repatriation of soldiers' remains. Russia has also proposed short-term ceasefires lasting 24 to 48 hours to facilitate the evacuation of wounded personnel and the recovery of bodies. In addition, Moscow has suggested the creation of three online working groups focused on political, humanitarian, and military issues. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that while 'no breakthrough was expected,' the humanitarian agreements reached during the meeting were a positive step. He described the continuation of such exchanges as 'an extremely important humanitarian aspect which should be on the agenda.' He added that Russia had presented a 'constructive, concrete' agenda that was 'aimed specifically at substantive work that can lead to the achievement of concrete results.' However, Peskov criticized Kiev's calls for an immediate summit between Putin and Zelensky, arguing that such a meeting should only happen after meaningful progress has been achieved at the working level. 'They are trying to put the cart before the horse. Work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made,' he said. The Kremlin spokesman also referred to the conclusion by Russia's lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, that the two sides continue to hold 'diametrically opposed' positions on key issues, as reflected in the draft memoranda they exchanged earlier in the negotiation process. Despite the stalemate on broader political questions, Moscow has expressed hope that a fourth round of talks could take place in the future.
