Ukraine Scrambling for Clarity as US Downplays Halt to Arms Shipments
Ukraine is contending with some of Russia's largest missile and drone attacks of the three-year war, and a halt to the provision of munitions -- especially for air defense -- would be a significant blow to Kyiv.
"The Department of Defense continues to provide the president with robust options regarding military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end," Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told journalists Wednesday.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce meanwhile told reporters that "this is not a cessation of us assisting Ukraine or of providing weapons. This is one event, and one situation, and we'll discuss what else comes up in the future."
The White House had said Tuesday that it is halting some key weapons shipments to Ukraine that were promised under the Biden administration, without providing details on which weapons programs were affected, said AFP.
It said the decision was taken after a review of US defense needs and of its military assistance to foreign countries.
Moscow reveled in the decision, saying that it could bring the end of the war closer.
Politico and other US media reported that missiles for Patriot air defense systems, precision artillery and Hellfire missiles are among the items being held back.
But the State Department's Bruce said Wednesday that "the president has also indicated his remaining commitment regarding Patriot missiles," Bruce said, referring to an air defense system that has played a key role in defending against Russian attacks.
Kyiv has long feared halts to US aid after Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, having criticized the tens of billions of dollars in support and weapons sent by his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an evening address that Kyiv and Washington were clarifying details on supplies.
"Continued American support for Ukraine, for our defense, for our people is in our common interest," he said.
The Ukrainian foreign ministry summoned John Ginkel, the deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Kyiv, in a rare diplomatic move that is usually reserved for foes and rivals, not vital allies, indicative of the uncertainty about what the cuts would mean for Kyiv.
Under Biden, Washington spearheaded Western support for Ukraine, with Congress having approved more than $100 billion in aid, including $43 billion in weaponry.
Trump instead has pushed the two sides into peace talks, including in phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- who rejected pleas for a ceasefire and demanded that Ukraine cede more territory if it wants Moscow to halt its invasion, which was launched in 2022.
'Consistent pressure'
Trump has refused to announce new aid packages and Kyiv has been corralling Washington's European allies to step up their support.
Kyiv remains "seriously dependent" on US arms supplies, a high-ranking source in the Ukrainian military told AFP.
"Europe is doing its best, but it will be difficult for us without American ammunition," the source added.
A May report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that Europe "had only made limited progress" in strengthening its defense industries.
But it said that "continued US aid remains extremely important for Ukraine's long-term effectiveness on the battlefield."
In Moscow, the Kremlin said that reducing weapons deliveries to Kyiv would help end the conflict.
"The fewer the number of weapons that are delivered to Ukraine, the closer the end of the special military operation," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in response to a question by AFP, using Russia's term for its more than three-year-long offensive.
Escalating drone attacks
Russia ramped up attacks on Ukraine in June, launching nearly twice as many missiles and more than 30 percent more drones than in May, according to an AFP analysis of Ukrainian air force data.
Kyiv was in June subjected to at least four fatal attacks that left more than 40 people dead. Its residents are worried that a cessation of US aid would leave the capital even more vulnerable.
"We had gotten used to seeing America as a country of values, a country that defends democracy," Igor Stambol, a Kyiv resident, told AFP.
"But there is hope that they will remember their values," the 36-year-old added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump, Putin to Talk on Thursday ahead of Possible Zelenskiy Call
US President Donald Trump said he will talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, while a Ukrainian source told Reuters Trump may speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday. "Will be speaking to President Putin of Russia at 10:00 A.M. Thank you!" Trump wrote on his social media platform. He did not say what they would discuss. On Friday, Trump and Zelenskiy are expected to discuss the abrupt halt in some key US weapons deliveries to Kyiv, with Zelenskiy expected to raise potential future arms sales, the Financial Times earlier reported on Thursday, Reuters reported. The timing of that call could change, the FT added, citing people familiar with the planning. The US has paused some shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine due to low stockpiles, sources earlier told Reuters. That decision led to Ukraine calling in the acting US envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington continuing, and caution that the move would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend against intensifying Russian airstrikes and battlefield advances. The Pentagon's move led in part to a cut in deliveries of Patriot air defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Russia Focusing Airstrikes on Ukraine Draft Offices to Derail Recruitment, Kyiv Says
Russia killed two people in an airstrike on the central Ukrainian city of Poltava on Thursday and damaged a military draft office there in what Kyiv said was a concerted campaign to disrupt recruitment for its war effort. The strike on Poltava, which also injured 47 people and caused a fire at the city's main draft office, followed a drone attack on Monday near a recruitment center in Kryvyi Rih. Both cities are regional capitals. "We understand that their (Russian) goal is to disrupt the mobilisation process," Vitaliy Sarantsev, a spokesperson for Ukraine's ground forces, told Ukraine's public broadcaster, Reuters reported. "But I want to say is too early (for Russia) to uncork the champagne because the process is impossible to stop." Ukraine has struggled to fend off a bigger and better-equipped Russian army, and its call-up process has been marred by reports of draft-office corruption, poor training and weak battlefield command. Well into the fourth year of its full-scale invasion, Russia has gained ground in eastern Ukraine and repeatedly hit cities far behind the front lines with drones and missiles, while also waging a sabotage campaign there, Kyiv's domestic security agency says. In a statement to Reuters last month, the Security Service of Ukraine said it had arrested more than 700 people since 2024 for alleged crimes that included arson attacks on troop vehicles and bombings at draft offices. A Ukrainian security official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said Russia was aiming to derail Kyiv's military call-up effort also by spreading disinformation and hacking recruitment office computers. "The disruption of mobilisation is closely linked to the spread of panic and intimidation of the population," the source said, adding that bombings were part of the general strategy. INTENSIFYING STRIKES Russian forces have also stepped up strikes on military training grounds in recent weeks, prompting Kyiv's top general to order a strengthening of security measures at bases. A missile attack on southeastern Ukraine this week killed a brigade commander. Ukrainian forces have also staged longer-range attacks on Russian bases in occupied territory as well as deep inside Russia. Thursday's strike on Poltava came after the US said it had paused some weapons shipments to Ukraine, which drew warnings in Kyiv that the move would harm Ukraine's defence against intensifying Russian air strikes and battlefield gains. Separately on Thursday, two people were killed in a ballistic missile strike on port infrastructure in the southern Ukrainian city of Odesa, said regional governor Oleh Kiper. Dozens of people have been killed in recent drone and missile salvoes at Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
America risks upsetting the balance of powers at its peril
Picture the scene: it is January 2029 and the 48th US president, a Democrat, is in the Oval Office, having achieved a comfortable win over Republican candidate J.D. Vance in the November 2028 election. As is the custom for newly elected presidents, the fiery former New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (for it is she) is ensconced behind the Resolute Desk signing a slew of executive orders. Her first one restricts the possession of firearms to police officers, the armed forces and the National Guard, and requires all armed American civilians to hand over their weapons or have them forcibly confiscated. Inevitably, there is uproar: it is a brave president who would deny every freeborn American their inalienable right to go shopping for a rotisserie chicken and a quart of milk in Walmart while strapped up with a Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifle. The National Rifle Association files a lawsuit in the state of New York, where it is incorporated, demanding that the order be overturned because it breaches the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, whereby 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' It is an open and shut case, the order is overturned, but the plaintiffs' victory is limited. Previously, a ruling by a federal judge would have applied nationwide ('federal' is a clue). In this case, however, the judgment applies only in the state of New York and only to members of the NRA. The reason we know this would happen is that it just did. Executive orders are increasingly being used to avoid the tricky business of actually passing legislation Ross Anderson The first executive order signed by Donald Trump in his second term in office denied automatic citizenship to children born in the US to a parent or parents deemed to be in America illegally. Like our imaginary Ocasio-Cortez weapons ban, on the face of it the order breaches the constitution — in this case, the 14th Amendment, which explicitly confers citizenship on almost any US-born child, regardless of parentage. Lawsuits against Trump's executive order followed and federal judges in Maryland and New Hampshire issued nationwide injunctions preventing the birthright ban from taking effect. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court and deployed a masterstroke. Trump's lawyers were not born yesterday: their basis for appeal was not that the birthright ban was in accordance with the constitution — they knew perfectly well that it almost certainly was not. Instead, they argued that there was no constitutional imperative for a federal judge's ruling in one court to apply nationwide and that injunctions overturning the executive order should apply only in the jurisdictions where they were issued and only to the plaintiffs in each case. Last week, by six votes to three, the Supreme Court agreed. Now, to anyone other than a legal scholar, this may all seem like angels dancing on the head of a pin, but in fact it has profound implications for how the US is governed. Supporters of Trump's executive order welcomed the judgment as a triumph and opponents view it as a defeat. They are both wrong: it is neither. The court was not asked to, and did not, make any determination on the constitutionality of the executive order. This case was not about birthright, it was about the law. There are striking parallels with another controversial Supreme Court ruling: the decision in 2022 to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 judgment that women had a constitutional right to abortion. As with the 'birthright case,' anti-abortion activists viewed the 2022 ruling as a victory and supporters of women's right to choose viewed it as a defeat. They were both wrong: it was neither. The case was not about abortion, it was about the law. The Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that the Roe vs. Wade judgment was flawed because, in 1973, the court had given itself a power to which it was not entitled — to make the law. It ruled, correctly, that the justification for the 1973 verdict — the 14th Amendment 'right to privacy' — was wholly spurious. And it ruled, correctly, that in the absence of a federal law regulating the provision of abortion, such regulation was a matter for individual states and not the Supreme Court. No such law exists, nor is it ever likely to. Any US president who even contemplated one would look at the experience of Barack Obama and shudder. Obama, you may recall, tried to repair a US healthcare system that, by common consent, is terminally dysfunctional, ruinously expensive, delivers medical outcomes that are among the worst in the developed world, and is ripe for reform. Obama spent eight tortuous and combative years wrangling with Congress, herding cats in the House and Senate, expending political capital he could barely afford, dividing the country — and ended up with a truncated Affordable Care Act that delivered a level of universal healthcare viewed in Europe and elsewhere as not even close to what they take for granted. Opponents complain that executive orders are in fact 'royal decrees' — an emotive phrase for a US audience Ross Anderson And this was healthcare, which you would think most people might agree on: can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if a president tried to legislate on abortion? It would be irrelevant whether the proposed legislation expanded or restricted access to pregnancy termination services — an already polarized country would explode. No president will even try, the political risks are too great. Which brings us back to executive orders, a device increasingly used by US presidents of all political stripes to avoid the tricky and inconvenient business of actually passing legislation. Until recently, you could count on your fingers the number issued by presidents in their early days in office and most averaged about 12 a year. That changed with Obama, who signed 19 in his first 100 days in 2009. Trump beat that in 2017 with 33, but Joe Biden smashed it out of the park in 2021 with 42. The incumbent president is, however, now a class apart: in the first 100 days of his second term in office, he issued a frankly astonishing 143. Supporters of executive orders advance two arguments. First, legal: Article II of the US Constitution vests executive power in the hands of the president. Second, moral: a president, especially a newly elected one, has obtained the support of a majority of Americans and should be permitted to give effect to campaign promises. Opponents complain that executive orders are in fact 'royal decrees' — an emotive phrase for a US audience. Here in the Gulf, we are accustomed to laws enacted by royal decree and no one bats an eyelid: but Americans fought an eight-year war of independence to rid themselves of a king as head of state and view aspirations toward royal privilege with deep suspicion. For this reason, the Constitution, although 250 years old, imposes a system of checks and balances that is sophisticated even by 21st-century standards. Presidential power is countered by the Congress, and vice versa, and the power of each is constrained by a Supreme Court independent of both. It is a balance that has stood the test of time, but it is a delicate one. With presidential executive orders, Americans risk upsetting that balance at their peril.
