Ukraine celebrates Trump's weapons reversal, but the 'devil's in the details'
Now comes the hard part — agreeing on who will actually give up their prized systems, including the Patriot missile batteries that Kyiv has been desperately seeking.
"We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO," Trump said in the Oval Office on Monday.
Some Patriot missile defense systems should arrive in Ukraine "within days," added Trump, who faces resistance from some high-profile figures in the MAGA movement who oppose U.S. support for Ukraine.
The costly Patriot systems - in high demand among U.S. allies - have proven effective at destroying Russian ballistic missiles aimed at Ukraine's cities.
The U.S. has also signaled willingness under the proposed arrangement with European allies to send additional offensive weapons, said one source familiar with the matter, though Trump has said that Ukraine should refrain from attacking Moscow.
The plan, which Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte hatched in recent days, according to two sources familiar with the discussions, has been received positively by Ukraine and its allies.
Leaders in Kyiv and elsewhere have celebrated a major tonal shift from Trump, who had until recent weeks spoken glowingly of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But since the announcement, it has become clear Trump presented a framework - not a fleshed-out plan. How material any support ends up being for Ukraine will depend on coming negotiations about who provides which equipment, according to 10 officials in the U.S. and Europe.
"As always with these things, the devil is in the details," said one northern European ambassador in Washington.
The central question is who would donate the Patriot batteries, and when.
During his Oval Office meeting with Trump on Monday, Rutte mentioned six NATO countries - Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Canada - that were willing to participate in the weapons-purchasing scheme.
High-ranking sources at two of those countries' embassies in the U.S. told Reuters they personally learned of the plan as it was announced. Even close U.S. allies appeared to learn of the proposal in real time.
"It is my clear sense that nobody has been briefed about the exact details in advance, and I also suspect that internally in the administration they are only now beginning to sort out what it means in practice," said a separate European ambassador.
Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said Trump found a way to balance support for Ukraine with the political realities of the Republican Party. Having the European allies underwrite U.S. arms supplies is "very consistent with what he (Trump) said during the campaign," he said.
Throughout the campaign, Trump said he would push European countries to spend more on defense, to great applause from MAGA crowds. "You gotta pay," he said. "If they're not going to pay, we're not going to protect, ok?"
Volker said Ukraine could ultimately receive 12 to 13 Patriot batteries but it could take a year for them all to be delivered.
Asked for comment, a NATO official said the defense alliance would coordinate weapons deliveries through a mechanism known as the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, a NATO mission located in Germany that is responsible for coordinating Western military aid for Kyiv.
"Several European countries have already committed to support this initiative including Germany, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada and Finland," the official said. "Details are still under discussion."
In response to a request for comment, the Pentagon referred Reuters to Trump's Monday remarks announcing his agreement with Rutte.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the Ukrainian or Russian embassies in Washington.
The rapid hardening of Trump's rhetoric toward Moscow in recent weeks has come amid an increasingly firm belief that Putin is not engaging in good-faith negotiations, according to two U.S. officials.
"At a certain point, you know, ultimately talk doesn't talk. It's got to be action. It's got to be results," Trump said during his meeting with Rutte on Monday.
One of the officials said Trump came to realize that Putin's ambitions extend beyond Crimea and four eastern regions of Ukraine, a point Kyiv and European allies have publicly and frequently made.
Three Russian sources close to the Kremlin said Putin will not stop the war under pressure from the West and believe that Russia - which has survived the toughest sanctions imposed by the West - can endure further economic hardship, including Trump's Monday threat to impose U.S. tariffs targeting buyers of Russian oil.
Now, three U.S. officials involved in weapons matters said, the real work begins.
U.S. officials are now talking with NATO allies and gauging who is willing to send what to Ukraine.
European officials have been broadly receptive.
"We are ready to participate," Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of European Union ministers.
One official cited Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain as good candidates to send a Patriot battery to Kyiv, either because they had multiple batteries or the threats they face are relatively remote.
Some, including Greece and Spain, have previously resisted appeals from allies to give some of their Patriot systems to Ukraine, arguing that they are essential to defend their own countries and NATO as a whole.
Trump's move to take credit for the additional weapons headed to Ukraine has created some mild friction in Europe.
"If we pay for these weapons, it's our support," said EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, speaking after the Brussels meeting, adding that she welcomed Trump's decision.
"So it's European support, and we are doing as much as we can to help Ukraine ... If you promise to give the weapons, but say that somebody else is going to pay for it, it's not really given by you, is it?"
One of the officials said that the Trump administration has been going through NATO inventories to see what's available. Their next effort is to attempt to persuade the allies to gift the equipment to Ukraine in exchange for a "trade" of some sort, the official said.
The trade could be a variety of things, the official said, including giving up an impending acceptance of a piece of military equipment through the Foreign Military Sales program, or sending munitions to Ukraine in exchange for an earlier replenishment date.
Trump told reporters there was one country with 17 Patriots, some of which would go directly to Ukraine.
The figure has caused widespread confusion among European allies and on Capitol Hill - many of whom have not been briefed - according to the U.S. and European officials.
No NATO member except the U.S. has that number of Patriot systems, said two sources familiar with the matter, causing speculation that Trump may have been referring to particular Patriot components, like launchers or missiles.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who visited the Pentagon on Monday, said the Germans would discuss sending Patriot batteries to Ukraine with the U.S. in the coming days or weeks. But no Patriot system would arrive in Kyiv for months, he said, likely delaying any receipt until after the tactically crucial summer months.
Another official said Trump was engaged directly in negotiations, though talks so far were "squishy."
"So far folks have said, 'We can help,'" that official said.
"Now, what that means, we don't know."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
4 minutes ago
- BBC News
US officials investigate former special counsel Jack Smith
US federal officials say they have opened an investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith, who led two federal criminal cases against President Donald Trump before resigning from his post earlier this Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) confirmed to the BBC that an investigation into Mr Smith is underway, but declined to add further Smith was appointed as special counsel in 2022 to investigate Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents and his alleged attempt to interfere in the 2020 OSC does not have authority to lay criminal charges against Mr Smith, but it can initiate disciplinary action or refer its findings to the Department of Justice. US media reported on Saturday that the OSC is investigating Mr Smith for alleged violations of the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits political activities by government comes after Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, called on the OSC to investigate Mr Smith for "unprecedented interference in the 2024 election." Mr Smith was tapped by former Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to oversee federal investigations into Trump. Both of the cases he investigated led to criminal charges being laid against the president, who pleaded not guilty and sought to cast the prosecutions as politically cases were later closed following Trump's presidential election win in November 2024, as Justice Department regulations forbid the prosecution of a sitting president.
BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
Transgender pool player loses discrimination case
A transgender pool player has lost a discrimination claim against one of the sport's English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) banned players who were not born biologically female from its women's competitions and teams in August player Harriet Haynes took the organisation to court, saying the rule was "direct discrimination" against her on the grounds of her gender a court judge has said he is satisfied exclusion was the only "reasonable" way to ensure "fair competition" and dismissed her representatives said they were disappointed with the decision and are weighing up whether to landmark ruling follows a legal definition of a woman by the UK Supreme Court in April as someone who is biologically female under equalities Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "sex" and "gender reassignment".His Honour Judge Parker said pool is a "gender-affected activity" and that excluding those born as male from the female category was necessary to "secure fair competition". The EBPF said it was delighted by the decision and that it welcomes transgender players in its 'open' argued that players who were born male and went through male puberty have specific physical advantages in cue sports, such as an ability to generate higher break speed, greater hand span to bridge over balls and a longer reach.A spokesperson said: "The court found that pool is a game in which men have an advantage over women and that allowing only those born as women to compete in our women's competitions is necessary to secure fair competition."In her claim, Haynes said her exclusion from the Kent Women's A pool team had caused her distress and upset, and she had been subjected to hurtful comments on social also claimed the policy violated the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to respect for an individual's private and family the EBPF said the rule did not discriminate against her on the grounds of gender reassignment as "she was born male".Matt Champ, senior associate at Colman Coyle, who represented Haynes, said: "We are reflecting on the judgment and our next steps which will include whether or not we appeal."In January 2024, Haynes said she received "vile" and "horrific" abuse online after her opponent Lynn Pinches refused to play her and conceded the Women's Champion of Champions final in has argued that transgender players have competed in female categories for 20 years, and that there was no categoric evidence they have an advantage in cue sports.
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves making bigger mistakes than Truss, says Badenoch
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are making 'even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss and have not learnt the lessons of her mini-budget, Kemi Badenoch has warned. Writing in The Telegraph, the Tory leader accuses the Government of taking Britain's finances 'to the brink' over concerns that it is pushing the country into a 'debt spiral'. Comparing Labour to Ms Truss marks Mrs Badenoch 's first major public criticism of the former Conservative prime minister, whose tax-cutting 2022 mini-budget was followed by a market meltdown. Mrs Badenoch says: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Her comments are a bid to blunt Labour's continued efforts to pin Britain's current economic woes on the Tory legacy of Ms Truss's premiership. Almost three years on, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir still regularly resort to blaming the mini-budget for unpopular decisions on tax and spending. But the remarks also risk reopening old wounds within the Tories, with some allies of Ms Truss arguing that she had the right vision for a low-tax economy. A source close to Liz Truss told The Telegraph: 'Kemi has not learned the lessons of the Mini Budget, which is that when Conservative MPs fail to back tax cuts, fracking and welfare restraint, they get booted out of office. 'The Bank of England has since admitted that two thirds of the market movement in 2022 was down to their failure properly to regulate pensions. 'Kemi needs to do the work and actually look at what happened in 2022 and hold the Bank of England to account.' The former Tory prime minister has said it was failures by the Bank of England, rather than her tax cuts, which led to the subsequent financial turmoil. Her supporters have also pointed out that borrowing costs on Government bonds have risen to a higher level now than in the aftermath of the mini-budget. In her now infamous mini-budget in September 2022, Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor at the time, announced a series of surprise tax cuts, including the abolition of the top 45p income tax rate. It was not accompanied by a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, nor did it contain any spending restraints to balance the books. The budget provoked a calamitous market reaction, with the pound hitting an all-time low against the US dollar, government borrowing costs surging and increased mortgage rates. Ms Truss was swiftly forced to abandon the 45p cut and sack Mr Kwarteng, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, to try and calm the financial markets. She resigned two weeks later. Since coming to power last year, Labour has also been criticised for its financial decisions. Ms Reeves used June's spending review to set out a £300bn spree over the next five years, to be funded by higher taxes and more debt. She has handed a £190bn increase to public services, paid for by the tax raid on businesses which has been blamed for stalling economic growth. A further £113bn will be ploughed into infrastructure projects after the Chancellor tore up her fiscal rules to allow herself to borrow more for investment. Last month's borrowing figure came in at £20.7bn, the second-highest level on record behind June 2020, when the Treasury was funding furlough payments. As a result, Mrs Badenoch warns that Britain is entering a 'debt spiral'. She says the reversal on £5bn of cuts to sickness benefits has added 'more pressure to the public purse' and has fuelled fears of further growth killing tax rises. The UK now faces higher borrowing costs than once-bankrupt Greece and is spending more on debt interest repayments every year than the entire defence budget. Mrs Badenoch writes: 'Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. 'Bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. 'But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. 'The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential – cutting government spending.' Mrs Badenoch's comments also come against the backdrop of internal disagreement over whether the Tory party should continue to apologise for its time in office. She used her first speech as leader, delivered in December last year, to directly say sorry to voters for the Conservatives' failures on immigration. One of her closest allies, Baroness Maclean of Redditch, told a meeting in June that the party had 'done the apologies' and should now move on to setting out policies. But a few weeks later Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told activists that the Tories should keep acknowledging their mistakes. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, had led internal Tory criticism of the mini-budget, vowing last month that the party would 'never, ever' repeat it. Until now Mrs Badenoch had held her fire, though she did privately tell her shadow cabinet that it would be helpful if Ms Truss made fewer public interventions. Her warning comes after the International Monetary Fund and senior City figures sounded the alarm about Britain's spiralling debt. Ray Dalio, a billionaire US hedge fund investor, warned last week that the UK has entered a 'doom loop' of more borrowing, higher taxes and low growth. Ms Reeves has repeatedly refused to rule out returning with more tax rises in the autumn despite warnings that doing so would further damage the economy. The Chancellor is under growing pressure from Left-wing backbenchers to introduce a wealth tax, which would probably prompt a fresh exodus of entrepreneurs. Starmer and Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget By Kemi Badenoch Picture the scene: a new Prime Minister and Chancellor spending billions without also making the necessary savings to offset their splurge and balance the books. The markets react adversely, interest rates spike and the cost of living gets worse with prices soaring. For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books. They are egged on by a Left-wing Reform Party, chasing Labour votes with ever more outlandish promises of nationalisation and welfare giveaways. The Conservative Party is now under new leadership, and my abiding principle will be that the country must live within its means. Before you dismiss us as being part of the problem, (after all, the mini-budget happened on our watch), the difference is that in 2022 we recognised what had gone wrong and took action to fix it. Labour aren't doing this. In fact they're making a bad situation even worse. Since the pandemic, Britain has become more and more reliant on debt to pay for public services. We now spend almost twice as much on debt interest than we do on defence. And the deficit is over £70bn. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. Labour politicians are used to entering office with a surplus built up by cost-cutting Conservatives. Their instincts are simply to spend more, and they were wholly unprepared for the post-Covid economic situation. We saw it when both Starmer and Farage refused to back my call to keep the two-child benefit cap, a policy that saves £3 billion a year. And we saw it again when the Prime Minister watered down his own Welfare Bill. Instead of making savings, it now actually increases welfare spending – adding more pressure to the public purse. Before that debate, I made a straightforward offer: Conservative MPs would give him the numbers in Parliament to get the Bill through, if the Prime Minister committed to cutting welfare costs, getting people into work, and ruling out further tax rises this autumn. He refused. So instead, we watched as the Government stripped its own legislation of any serious reform. The markets were also watching. The UK's borrowing costs are reaching levels not seen for 30 years – higher than even those in Greece. Incredibly, borrowing costs are higher now than after the mini-budget. That means prices rising and the long-running cost of living crisis continuing. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. There are now warnings, in the City and in Westminster, that a fiscal crisis may even be on the horizon. Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, said this week that Britain had entered a 'doom loop' of rising debts, higher taxes and slower growth. Dalio's warnings came days after the International Monetary Fund said the government must take radical action to avoid a debt spiral. As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets. Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other. Everyone now assumes tax rises are coming in the November Budget and the Government isn't denying it. The OBR is warning that higher tax is not good for growth. They are right. The Institute of Directors say that taxes and dire economic outlook is leading to the worst business confidence since the pandemic. Labour's mismanagement of our economy is having real consequences, and it's working people, savers and business owners who will pay more for declining public services. At the same time, rising welfare and poor incentives are pushing more people out of the workforce, making our problems even harder to fix. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential: cutting government spending. He should do so, for all our sakes.
