US, NATO developing novel funding mechanism for Ukraine weapons transfers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. and NATO are working on a novel approach to supply Ukraine with weapons using funds from NATO countries to pay for the purchase or transfer of U.S. arms, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
The renewed transatlantic cooperation on Ukraine comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed frustration with Moscow's ongoing attacks on its neighbor.
Trump, who initially took a more conciliatory tone toward Russia as he tried to end the more than three-year war in Ukraine, has threatened to start imposing tariffs and other measures if Moscow shows no progress toward ending the conflict by August 8.
The president said last month the U.S. would supply weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but did not indicate how this would be done.
NATO countries, Ukraine, and the United States are developing a new mechanism that will focus on getting U.S. weapons to Ukraine from the Priority Ukraine Requirements List, known under the acronym PURL, the sources said.
Ukraine would prioritize the weapons it needs in tranches of roughly $500 million, and NATO allies - coordinated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte - would then negotiate among themselves who would donate or pay for items on the list.
Through this approach, NATO allies hope to provide $10 billion in arms for Ukraine, said a European official, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was unclear over what timeframe they hope to supply the arms.
"That is the starting point, and it's an ambitious target that we're working towards. We're currently on that trajectory. We support the ambition. We need that sort of volume," the European official said.
A senior NATO military official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the initiative was "a voluntary effort coordinated by NATO that all allies are encouraged to take part in".
The official said the new scheme included a NATO holding account, where allies could deposit money for weapons for Ukraine, approved by NATO's top military commander.
NATO headquarters in Brussels declined to comment. The White House, Pentagon, and Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
Russian forces are gradually advancing against Ukraine, and control one-fifth of Ukraine's territory.
FASTER ARMS RESTOCKING
If a NATO country decides to donate weapons to Ukraine, the mechanism would allow that country to effectively bypass lengthy U.S. arms sales procedures to replenish its own stocks, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Money for the arms would be transferred into a U.S.-held account, possibly at the U.S. Treasury Department, or to an escrow fund, although the exact structure remains unclear, the official said.
The new mechanism would be in addition to the United States' own effort to identify arms from U.S. stockpiles to send to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to draw from current weapons stocks to help allies in an emergency.
At least one tranche of weapons for Ukraine is currently being negotiated under the new mechanism, two sources said, though it was unclear if any money has yet been transferred.
Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation, known as the PEACE Act, that aims to create a fund at the U.S. Treasury in which allies can deposit money that would pay to replenish U.S. military equipment donated to Ukraine.
Ukraine's needs remain consistent with previous months - air defenses, interceptors, systems, rockets, and artillery.
The last statement of need from Ukraine came in a July 21 video conference of the country's allies, known as the Ramstein group, now led by Britain and Germany.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi Escalates Attacks On Obama Officials By Calling For Grand Jury Investigation: Reports
The Justice Department is reportedly probing allegations that Obama officials fabricated evidence of Russian interference during the 2016 election, doubling down on attempts to distract from its controversial handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Per reports from CNN and Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi has called on prosecutors to initiate a grand jury investigation into these claims – a move that could lead to subpoenas of former officials and even potential indictments. A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bondi's decision effectively endorses Trump's latest baseless conspiracy theory — which has included accusing Obama of treason — and comes as the administration has struggled to move on from the Epstein debacle. In recent weeks, Trump argued that Obama and his team manipulated intelligence to delegitimize his presidency, pointing to an announcement from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as proof. Gabbard, in July, released files that she says indicate that Obama officials produced a 'contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win.' She also referred the issue to the DOJ for a criminal investigation ― and suggested that these actions were effectively a 'coup.' Gabbard's interpretation distorts past conclusions drawn by members of the intelligence community, who determined that Russia fielded an influence campaign to damage former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. That finding was also backed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate Intelligence Committee – including now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio. While Gabbard's files provide new information, they don't negate prior findings that Russia sought to influence U.S. voters during the 2016 election, NPR reports. Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush has dismissed Trump's accusations as a 'ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction' as well. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Rodenbush said in July. Related... Sen. Graham Calls For 'Investigation' Into Obama — Playing Into Trump's Epstein Distraction Obama Team Issues Rare Rebuttal To Continued Trump Nonsense Trump Renews Lie That Russia Did Not Help Him In 2016, This Time With Gabbard's Help
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Jack Smith was 'racing against the clock' to get cases against Trump to a jury: Sen Tom Cotton
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., explains why he requested a special investigation into Jack Smith's actions to bring charges against President Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election on 'Hannity.'
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
‘How much does it cost for fascism?': Tensions erupt at Nebraska GOP congressman's town hall
Rep. Mike Flood faced a barrage of criticism at a packed town hall in Lincoln, Nebraska, Monday evening as constituents repeatedly confronted him over his support for President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' immigration policy and what they described as threats to democracy. It didn't take long for the audience gathered for the meeting at the University of Nebraska to erupt in chants of 'tax the rich,' while the Republican congressman attempted to defend his decision to vote for the the president's massive agenda. 'I truly believe that this bill will allow America to experience growth, that it will allow our communities to thrive, that it will spark our economy, that it will help farmers and ranchers, that it will take care of the vulnerable. And more than anything, I truly believe this bill protects Medicaid for the future,' Flood said, speaking over outbursts from the crowd. Flood, one of few members of his party to hold in-person events during spring's congressional recess as the GOP looked to avoid blowback from the president's DOGE initiative, heeded the National Republican Congressional Committee's updated guidance to focus this August district work period on selling Trump's agenda. 'With the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law just a few weeks ago, this is a critical opportunity to continue to define how this legislation will help every voter and push back on Democrat fearmongering,' the memo from the NRCC, the House GOP's campaign arm, stated. But as he did earlier this year, Flood met a largely hostile crowd. The congressman was pressed on everything from the president's sweeping tax and spending cuts legislation to veterans' issues, Medicaid funding and the war in Gaza during a wide-ranging question-and-answer period – all against a backdrop of near-constant heckling, chants and booing from the audience. Still, the he maintained his position on the president's domestic agenda package. 'Is every bill perfect? No, but I supported this bill,' he told the crowd. In one tense back-and-forth in Nebraska, an audience member confronted Flood about government spending and authoritarianism. 'My question is fiscal,' the attendee began, referencing reports that the makeshift immigration detention facility in Florida dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' is expected to cost $450 million to operate for a single year. 'How much does it cost for fascism? How much do the taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country?' the attendee asked, as the crowd erupted in applause. Flood responded, 'Americans went to the polls in November, and they had a choice between a Democratic candidate that had an open border, no enforcement, fentanyl, drugs, human trafficking, and they had a choice between that and a candidate that said close the border, get illegal immigrants out of our country, stop the fentanyl, stop the human trafficking, stop the drugs, stop the crime, stop the violence. That's what Americans voted for.' 'Americans voted for a border that is secure, and I support the president enforcing our immigration laws, which, by the way, were written by Congress.' The audience appeared to grow increasingly agitated, with continued shouts hurled at the congressman. Another member from the audience accused Flood of staying silent in the face of what they called a 'fascist machine,' referring to the conservative blueprint Project 2025. 'You said in Seward that you were not a fascist,' the person said. 'But your complicity says otherwise.' 'Fascists don't hold town halls with open question-and-answer series,' he responded. The audience again booed. Despite his efforts to present the recently passed budget bill – which one constituent called 'the big, ugly bill' – as a solution for Medicaid funding and rural hospitals, audience members attacked Flood over cuts to SNAP benefits, veterans' programs and health care access. Veterans in the audience criticized him for backing a law they said threatens benefits for those who served. 'How can you stand a bill that erodes the very services that people like me, my family, and younger vets rely on?' one Marine Corps veteran asked. Flood said he had personally met with the VA secretary and promised improvements to the system but offered no specifics. The Nebraska lawmaker also fielded a question on the Jeffrey Epstein files – a topic that has consumed Capitol Hill in recent weeks but yielded limited exchanges so far in the early public town halls during lawmakers' break from Washington. Read aloud by an aide at the event, the written question posed: 'Why are you covering up the Epstein files?' It was met with raucous applause from the audience. Flood responded: 'Let's be very clear – at the next pro forma session of the Congress, you will find my name as a sponsor on a resolution from the House Rules Committee to release the Epstein files to protect the victims and not re-victimize them again.' He added that he supports Congress' subpoena of Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell for a deposition, and declard: 'I am for the release of those records.' The topic also arose at a Democrat's town hall Monday night in Benton Harbor, Michigan, where Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin made a case against presidential pardon power. Asked by an audience member if she thinks the presidential pardon power should be limited, Slotkin called it 'a quirk of history that does not make sense in America for either party, for any reason.' 'To me, it is just a strange thing that the president of the United States has a few extra chits in their pocket to give away,' she continued, adding that she doesn't think people who are wrongly imprisoned should be in jail. As pressure grows on the Trump administration to release more information related to the Epstein case, the president hasn't ruled out a pardon for Maxwell, who met recently with a top Justice Department official and also was transferred to a lower security prison camp from where she was previously being held. Asked last week if clemency was on the table in exchange for Maxwell's testimony, Trump said, 'I'm allowed to do it, but nobody's asked me to do it. I know nothing about it. I don't know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it.' Slotkin expressed wariness that Trump is talking about pardon for Maxwell 'in year one of his presidency, not the end of his presidency, which is what you typically see.' 'Look, I thought it was controversial with President Biden, too. It was controversial with everyone that Obama or Clinton or Bush did. So to me, it's just this weird kind of literally get out of jail free card that I just think muddies the waters,' she said. 'When you have a president who has a deep, deep problem with corruption, it just can be taken to such a dangerous degree that he's letting out pedophiles and criminals, violent people because he's paying back favors to others. I just can't support that,' she continued. The Michigan senator, who delivered what she called her 'economic war plan for America' and argued against the massive domestic policy bill that Trump signed into law July 4, addressed another issue that looms large for lawmakers when they return to DC in a matter of weeks: government funding. As Democrats weigh how to approach negotiations with Republicans to keep the government funded past the September 30 deadline, Slotkin, who did not vote for the GOP-led bill to avert a shutdown earlier this year, said she would not be open to any proposal without a commitment by Republicans to restore some of the health care-related funding they have voted to slash. 'For me, for my vote, for my willingness to join in that negotiation, you're going to have to restore something of Americans' health care in order to get me back on that team,' she said.
