Ukraine's European backers can't replace US military aid
The administration of US President Donald Trump has shifted from spending billions on supporting Ukraine to focusing on domestic issues. It has also signaled to its European NATO allies that Washington has no interest in propping up the military bloc alone.
The NYT noted that the US has not announced a new arms package for Ukraine for more than 120 days. While the Pentagon still has $3.85 billion in armaments earmarked for Kiev under the previous administration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to answer when asked if the arms would be sent to Ukraine, the newspaper wrote.
Kiev is running low on long-range missiles, artillery and, most of all, ballistic aid defense systems – which are mostly manufactured in the US – the NYT wrote, citing a Ukrainian official.
While European leaders and investors appear willing to pump more funds into arms manufacturing, 'industry executives and experts predict it will take a decade to get assembly lines up to speed,' according to the newspaper.
This comes on the backdrop of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's proposal to mobilize up to €800 billion for military spending in the EU, citing threats from Russia and the inability to rely on long-term US support.
The Trump administration has consistently demanded that the European NATO states increase their annual military spending to 5% of GDP, calling the longstanding 2% target insufficient.
Russian officials have condemned the steps being taken in Europe toward militarization, and dismissed claims that Moscow intends to attack either the EU or NATO. Moreover, Russia has expressed concern that, rather than supporting the US peace initiatives for the Ukraine conflict, the EU is instead gearing up for war with Russia.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously noted that the EU is 'becoming militarized at a record pace,' and said that there was now 'very little difference' between the EU and NATO.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
29 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Germany looks to reinvent warfare with spy cockroaches
Germany is heavily investing in futuristic warfare technologies, including surveillance cockroaches and AI-powered robots, as part of a sweeping rearmament plan, Reuters reported Wednesday. The outlet spoke to two dozen executives, investors, and policymakers to examine how the EU's largest economy aims to play a central role in the rearming of the continent. Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently announced plans to increase Germany's overall military budget to €153 billion ($180 billion) by 2029, up from €86 billion this year. He pledged to allocate 3.5% of GDP to defense under a new NATO framework to counter what he called a direct threat from Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Western concerns about Russian aggression as 'nonsense,' accusing NATO of using fear to justify increasing military budgets. According to Reuters sources, Merz's government views AI and start-up technology as critical to its plans. This week, the cabinet approved a draft procurement law designed to streamline the process for startups developing cutting-edge technologies, from tank-like robots and unmanned mini-submarines to surveillance cockroaches. The law aims to help such companies quickly contribute to the modernization of Germany's armed forces. Публикация от Cerebral Overload (@cbrovld) Startups like Munich-based Helsing, which specializes in AI and drone technology, alongside established defense contractors such as Rheinmetall and Hensoldt, are now leading Germany's military innovation, the article said. Critics of the German government's policies warn that continued military spending could strain the national budget and further damage the country's industry, already burdened by rising energy costs, the fallout from sanctions on Russia, and trade tensions with the US. Germany has been the second-largest arms supplier to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, surpassed only by the US. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they prolong the conflict and risk escalating tensions. Moscow has warned that Berlin's policies could lead to a new armed conflict with Russia, decades after the end of World War II.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russiagate was America's other Pearl Harbor
US Senator Ted Cruz has compared the launch of the Trump-Russia investigation to the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, calling it a moment of 'infamy' in American political history. The Texas Republican made the remark on Fox News on Wednesday, accusing former President Barack Obama's administration of lying to the public and using federal agencies to undermine Donald Trump's presidency. 'December 9 should be a day that lives in infamy,' Cruz said, referencing the date in 2016 when the FBI opened its inquiry and the famous wording Franklin D. Roosevelt used in a speech following a surprise Japanese attack on the US naval base in Hawaii. 'That's a moment when senior members of our government decided to lie to the American people and sabotage President Donald Trump.' During a meeting on December 9, 2016, then President Obama ordered National Security Council officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump's campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data, according to declassified documents released by US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard last week. Trump had defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the presidential election that November. The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as 'Russiagate'. It severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy. Russia has not yet commented on Gabbard's revelations. It has however consistently denied allegations that it interfered in the 2016 US election. The Kremlin has described the Russiagate affair as a politically motivated smear campaign intended to justify sanctions and worsen relations with Moscow.
Russia Today
4 hours 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.
