Germany considers buying US air defence systems for Ukraine
The United States, which has been Ukraine's biggest military backer since the launch of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, said Tuesday it was halting some key weapons shipments to Ukraine.
Among the items affected, according to US media, were Patriot anti-missile systems, which Ukraine deploys to shield itself from Russian attacks.
Moscow has in recent weeks ramped up missile and drone attacks on Ukraine, as US support for Kyiv has appeared to waver under President Donald Trump.
German officials were particularly concerned about the impact of a potential halt to deliveries of Patriot systems and ammunition, German daily Bild reported Thursday.
Berlin had spoken to US officials about a deal that would see it purchase the weapons on Kyiv's behalf and deliver them to Ukraine, Bild reported.
Advertisement
Germany was waiting on a response from the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to a request for two Patriot units made "several weeks ago", the paper said.
Ukraine has long stressed its need to improve its air defence, including with more Patriot systems, but has struggled to source them.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in April his government wanted to purchase "at least" 10 Patriot systems to defend against Russian attacks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Ukraine: Discrimination and hope drive LGBTQ+ soldiers – DW – 07/04/2025
Up to 10% of Ukrainian soldiers are thought to be from the LGBTQ+ community. While tolerance is improving, Ukraine still does not guarantee legal equality. "I've been open about my sexual orientation all my life," says Roman Abrashyn, a 25-year-old homosexual drone pilot in the Ukrainian army. After coming out at the age of 15, he was supported by friends, his parents and two brothers, one of whom now serves in the same unit. Abrashyn enlisted in the Ukrainian armed forces in April 2024. Since then, he's hardly faced any prejudice or discrimination. When fellow soldiers found out about his sexual orientation, most of them reacted neutrally, he recalls. "There were no strange questions." He is more worried that hundreds of openly LGBTQ+ soldiers in Ukraine don't enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual comrades. The abbreviation LGBTQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, and queer people, but also includes those with other identities, such as people who are intersex, asexual, bisexual or transgender. Soldiers from Abrashyn's unit have made themselves at home among crates full of drones in a simple building. Abrashyn is the commander of a group of drone pilots who mostly work from basements and cellars, as they are constantly being targeted. Nowadays they are stationed in the Sumy region, previously they were in the Kherson area. Recently, Abrashyn started dating a civilian, however, it is not possible to register same-sex partnerships in Ukraine. In the case of his death, his partner would not be entitled to compensation. "Also, if I was in intensive care, he would not have any rights," he complains. In his view, this is patently unfair: "We fight like everyone else, but are not legally equal," he told DW. The bill on registered partnerships is one of the central demands of the LGBTQ+ community in Ukraine. Such a law would allow partners to receive medical information or inherit or receive social benefits in the event of death. However, it has been under discussion in the committees of the Ukrainian parliament for over two years. The bill was introduced by Inna Sowsun, an opposition MP. She told DW that the law is being blocked by the Legal Affairs Committee. According to Sowsun, the parliament is conservative, with just under a third of MPs categorically against registered partnerships and just over a third in favor. The rest are either hesitant due to concerns about the reaction of the public and colleagues or have no opinion at all. "For LGBTQ+ soldiers, this is an urgent issue as their lives are always in danger," Sowsun told DW. The 19-year-old Dmytro, who asked DW to not publish his last name for fear of retribution, has been serving in the army for about a year. He describes himself as asexual, likes both men and women and seeks romantic rather than sexual relationships. However, when Dmytro's sexual orientation became known in his brigade, problems arose. "I was threatened with physical violence," he told DW. In a chat shown to DW, a comrade advises him to "look for another unit" and threatens to explain the reasons "very clearly so that it will be remembered for a long time". Such harassment drove Dmytro to attempt suicide. After doctors saved his life, he filed a complaint with the police, but without success. "To this day, there hasn't even been a response," he told DW. Eventually, he managed to get transferred to another brigade. The young man says he also knows of cases from other units where higher-ranking comrades tried to quickly transfer an LGBTQ+ soldier to another unit after finding out about his sexual orientation. Nevertheless, Dmytro observes that attitudes in the army are gradually shifting and says he has had positive experiences. "When the commander of a brigade found out about my sexual orientation, he supported me and said he would never insult or discriminate against me," Dmytro recalls. In addition to the draft law on registered partnerships, the Ukrainian LGBTQ+ community is also fighting for the introduction of criminal liability for crimes based on intolerance, especially homophobia. Dmytro criticizes that attacks on LGBTQ+ people are usually dismissed as 'hooliganism' and are punished too leniently. A draft law that prioritizes hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community has been in parliament since 2021, however, it is still in discussion. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Viktor Pylypenko, veteran and head of the NGO Ukrainian LGBT+ Military and Veterans for Equal Rights, was one of the first Ukrainian soldiers to openly admit his homosexuality. He urges parliament to stop delaying laws to support the LGBTQ+ community. Pylypenko also complains that politicians say that the Ukrainian society is not ready for change, which he cannot understand. The activist points out that support for LGBTQ+ people is on the rise. According to a study conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) from June 2024, more than 70% of Ukrainians are in favor of LGBTQ+ people having the same rights as all citizens. According to the same survey, 14% have a positive attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community, 47% a neutral one and 32% a negative one. The last indicator has been steadily declining since 2015. A charity event organized by the KyivPride organization in early June featured the usual, albeit small, protests. Activists drew attention to the rights of LGBTQ+ people near the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kyiv and raised money for the Ukrainian army. Supporters of traditional values rallied alongside. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine later criticized the fact that the LGBTQ+ event took place near St. Michael's Cathedral and described it as an "anti-clerical provocation." The NGO led by Viktor Pylypenko counts more than 600 military personnel and veterans among its members. According to their information, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or asexual people serve in at least 59 units of the Ukrainian army. It is impossible to determine the exact number as many do not talk about their sexual orientation. According to a study by Pylypenko's NGO, based on estimates in other countries, the proportion of LGBTQ+ soldiers in the Ukrainian army could be between 5% and 10%. There is a lack of rules against discrimination, meaning that the rights of LGBTQ+ soldiers and military personnel go unprotected, Pylypenko says. He hopes that the situation will improve with the planned appointment of a military ombudsman. Drone pilot Roman Abrashyn argues that the more LGBTQ+ people talk about themselves and their problems, the faster change will occur. "This is important, even if there is a wave of hatred," he told DW. The soldier Dmytro agrees with him. Above all, both of them, like most soldiers, want Russia's enduring war in Ukraine to end. "I just want my brothers, my loved ones, civilians and children to stop dying," says Dmytro.
DW
5 hours ago
- DW
Will Germany's military spending bring economic growth? – DW – 07/04/2025
The German arms industry is thriving thanks to a major state-run investment program. But will the country's wider economy benefit? March 18, 2025, will go down in Germanhistory as the day when a two-thirds parliamentary majority cleared the way for the country to take on unprecedented debt. German lawmakers approved an infrastructure investment package worth billions, while also lifting the cap on national defense spending. The aim is to provide the necessary funds to make Germany and its armed forces, the Bundeswehr, "ready for war," as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has repeatedly demanded since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Shortly after he took office as chancellor earlier this year, Friedrich Merz said he wanted to make the BundeswehrEurope's strongest conventional army. This spending spree is great news for companies that build roads and bridges, lay rail tracks and manufacture high-speed fiber-optic internet cables. The German defense industry stands to benefit even more. For decades, the sector had been losing economic importance. Who in Germany, after all, was interested in buying tanks? In 2020, shares in Rheinmetall, Germany's largest arms manufacturer, sold for €59 — by June 2025, they were trading between €1,700 and €1,800 ($2,116) each. Swiss bank UBS has forecast further share price growth, currently estimating a rise to €2,200. These are golden times for German arms manufacturers, with industry top brass insisting that defense spending not only benefits their sector but the economy as a whole. "Defense spending is a gigantic economic stimulus program," Oliver Dörre, CEO of defense contractor Hensoldt, told DW at an event in Frankfurt in March. Lawmakers hope the spending spree will help modernize German industry and boost economic growth. Economists, however, were less euphoric even before parliament agreed the investment package. "The increase in government military spending will give the German economy a boost, but the economic stimulus will be rather moderate," wrote Tom Krebs, an economics professor at the University of Mannheim, in a statement for the Bundestag's budget committee. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Krebs and his colleague Patrick Kaczmarczyk conducted a study examining the extent to which additional government spending will increase Germany's gross domestic product, or total value of economic output. The researchers found that military spending would have a maximum impact of 0.5 — meaning that, in the best-case scenario, €1 of government spending will generate just 50 cents of additional economic activity. Investments in infrastructure, education, child care facilities, day care centers and schools would, however, double or even triple the return on investment. "From an economic perspective, the planned militarization of the German economy is a risky gamble with a low overall economic return," said Krebs. The explanation for this is simple. After a tank is built, it is either parked somewhere or, in the worst case, destroyed in battle. A tank, in other words, does not create any additional economic value. Defense spending is, however, like taking out insurance. You make the payments so that you have protection in case of an emergency. If you don't need the insurance, the money is simply gone. If, on the other hand, the state invests in transport infrastructure, goods can be transported to businesses via these roads, bridges and railways. There, they can be used to manufacture products that are then sold. If kindergartens are built, parents are freed up to work and earn money. Investments in schools mean young people get the education they need for their future. Defense production currently only contributes very little to overall economic growth, although German arms companies have seen orders surge. Rheinmetall, for example, had an order backlog worth some €63 billion ($74 billion) in the first quarter of 2025. Before the start of the Ukraine war, it stood at just over €24 billion ($28 billion). Other German defense companies are also busy, with production at full capacity. But if supply is limited and demand increases, this usually causes prices to are already warning this could happen. Krebs and Kaczmarczyk write that "greater defense spending does more to grow arms companies' profit margins and dividends than improve [Germany's] defense capabilities." Companies currently operating outside the defense sector are also looking to get in on the business, especially those suffering amid Germany's economic malaise. Cologne-based Deutz AG, for example, produces engines for lifting platforms, agricultural vehicles, excavators and other large machines. Due to the weak economy, company sales slumped by some 12% in 2024. Deutz, which also manufactures engines for military vehicles, is now set to significantly expand this previously small line of business. "Defense is a very important and interesting market for us with great growth potential," CEO Sebastian Schulte told DW in March. German carmaker Volkswagen is another example. The company is in crisis and has already cut thousands of jobs, with its Osnabrück plant facing closure. Now, Rheinmetall is looking into whether tanks could be built there instead. These are two examples that show how greater defense spending could benefit the wider economy by offsetting losses, rather than generating additional growth. That said, even companies that are doing well are switching to arms production, with demand surging in the metalworking industry.
DW
5 hours ago
- DW
Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025
A leaked audit accuses far-right parties of improperly spending millions in EU funds. Critics say it's not just a scandal but a symptom of the EU system's deeper problems. From donations to dog shelters to questionable contracts with politically affiliated companies, far-right members of the European Parliament have been accused of funnelling public funds towards personal or ideological allies. An internal parliamentary audit obtained by a group of investigative journalists from German broadcaster ARD's magazine show Kontraste, German newspaper , French newspaper and Austrian media outlet, Falter, reveals that the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy group, commonly referred to as ID, may have spent at least €4.3 million ($5.1 million) in EU operating funds on what the European Parliament's own administration calls "unjustified and potentially unlawful" transactions. Every year the European Parliament allocates funds for the administrative and operational expenses of each political grouping in it, usually between €6 million to €7 million annually. Those funds are meant to support legislative work — such as funding policy research, running public events related to EU politics, or producing communications materials that explain their activities to citizens. Around 5% of this budget can be transferred to external organizations but donations to local charities, national campaign efforts, or groups with no clear link to EU-level work are explicitly prohibited. However the internal audit alleges that around 80 of the ID group's expenses do not meet that requirement. The improper spending allegedly includes fictitious service contracts, improper tender procedures and donations to associations unrelated to parliamentary activities and connected to far-right figures, the investigating publications reported. The scale of the findings suggest that this was more than administrative sloppiness and raises deeper questions about how the EU's own structures may be enabling such abuses. As an example, the report says the ID group — which disbanded in the summer of 2024 but previously included Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, or RN, Germany's Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Italy's Lega and Austria's Freedom Party, or FPÖ — donated €1,000 ($1200) to the president of a French-Russian cultural association, Teremok. She is the spouse of Gregoire Eury, an RN councillor for the Grand Est region. This was just one of many connections between the associations that benefited from ID donations and far-right officials from ID-affiliated parties. Other donations simply reflected the broader political affinities of ID elected officials. In Germany, SOS Leben (or "SOS Life," in English), which is linked to the AfD, received €3,500 to support anti-abortion campaigns. In France, €1,000 went to the Catholic identitarian association SOS Calvaires to restore a parish. Around €600,000 reportedly landed with , a far-right Austrian newspaper close to the FPÖ, with ID paying for advertising far above market rates. Money also went to animal shelters and charities — not necessarily a bad thing, but also not acceptable under EU rules. French companies close to Marine Le Pen were among the biggest beneficiaries: Two firms tied to her longtime political allies reportedly received more than €3 million in total. One of them has previously been implicated in another EU funding scandal. The former secretary general of now defunct ID group, Philip Claeys, denied any wrongdoing and told the investigating journalists that all the payments were "duly invoiced and justified." Claeys said that an external auditor and then the European Parliament had approved the ID group's yearly financial statements. Donations by the group were apparently based on a rule called "Article 68." Only thing is, the investigative journalists found, there's no such thing as "Article 68." Yet it appeared in multiple years of published accounts without triggering alarms. When contacted, the Belgian auditors responsible declined to comment. "This is not an isolated incident," Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, told DW. "This seems to be a scheme that that ran over many years, involved many entities cross-border." Without the proper checks in place, he adds, this could easily happen again today. It is true that this is far from the first time that European MEPs have been caught misusing EU money. In March, Marine Le Pen was sentenced in France to four years probation and banned from holding political office after being found guilty of embezzling European parliamentary funds through a fake jobs scam. She has appealed the ruling. And it's not only the far right. Past scandals have implicated politicians across the spectrum. The so-called Qatargate scandal in 2023 exposed bribery and cash-for-influence schemes involving current and former MEPs. And in 2018, investigative journalists went to court seeking further information on what's known as "general expenditure allowance," or GEA, an amount paid monthly to MEPs for expenses like running an office and travel. MEPs get over €4,000 a month in GEA — this adds up to over €40 million a year — but don't have to provide information on how they've spent it. At the time, investigative journalists found over 200 of what they called "ghost offices." A court denied the journalists the information and the lack of transparency and accountability around the GEAs has remained a sore point. Despite repeated scandals, the European Parliament has failed to implement meaningful reforms, Aiossa says. He argues that the institution has done itself lasting damage — first by refusing to respond decisively when issues arose, and then by continuing to tolerate weak accountability and integrity systems. The result, he warns, is a steady erosion of public trust. At the core of the problem lies the structure of parliamentary finances, according to Aiossa. Instead of managing budgets directly, the European Parliament delegates this responsibility to the political groups themselves. Groups are required to conduct annual audits but those are done according to random sampling, which means misuse of funds may not be detected. This means that the responsibility of how party group money is spent lies primarily with its party leadership, particularly its financial officers and secretary general. This, according to Aiossa, has to change. "The parliament needs to take a much more proactive approach in managing this money itself and not delegating that responsibility just to the political groups." German MEP Niclas Herbst, a member of the conservative Christian Democrats, who chairs the Parliament's committee on budgetary control, agrees. "This is taxpayers money and we want it back," he told journalists. He plans to push for criminal charges on this latest case at the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), to show that there must be accountability. Aiossa warns that unless the European Parliament seizes this moment to enact serious reforms, including transparency on allowances, competitive bidding for contracts and direct control over group budgets, public trust in the body will only continue to erode.
