Ukraine ready to buy more air defense systems, Zelensky says

Kyiv is prepared to purchase additional air defense systems to better protect Ukrainian cities from Russian attacks, President Volodymyr Zelensky said during his evening address on April 11.
The need for more air defenses was the focus of his address to the participants in the Ramstein-format summit held earlier in the day in Brussels, Zelensky said, calling it "the first priority."
The president participated in the summit virtually, joining the meeting from Kryvyi Rih — Zelensky's hometown and the site of a deadly Russian missile attack last week that killed 20 people, including nine children.
"The main thing for us is air defense, additional air defense systems, missiles for them," Zelensky said, delivering his address while sheltering underground in a local school where three of the victims studied.
"To protect people's lives, to protect our cities. We are very much counting on the decisions of our partners – we need systems, they exist in the world, and we need a political decision so that air defense works, works here ... and many other of our cities and our communities."
Zelensky also said he discussed the matter with U.S. President Donald Trump.
"Ukraine is not just asking – we are ready to buy the appropriate additional systems," he said.
Shortly after the April 8 missile attack on Kryvyi Rih, Zelensky urged the U.S. to provide more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine. The highly advanced U.S. Patriot systems have played a crucial role in protecting Ukraine's sky. They are capable of downing even the most advanced ballistic missiles, such as Kinzhals.
During a March 19 call with Zelensky, Trump agreed to assist Ukraine in finding additional Patriot systems available in Europe.
While Kyiv and Moscow agreed to a U.S.-brokered partial ceasefire on March 11, Russian attacks against Ukrainian cities did not abate in the month that followed. Russia launched 70 missiles, 2,200 Shahed-type drones, and 6,000 guided aerial bombs over the past 30 days, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on April 11.
Ukraine has already agreed to accept a complete ceasefire on all hostilities as soon as Russia abides by the same terms. Russia continues to refuse.
Read also: Ukraine war latest: US envoy Witkoff proposes giving Russia 'ownership' of Ukrainian regions, Reuters reports
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Miami Herald

21 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency

President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites is a high-stakes gamble that could either breathe new life into or irreparably damage his troubled second term in the White House. Yet for the world at large, it may well prove to be a welcome development. Before we get into why Trump's decision aligns with the consensus among the world's biggest democracies — that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons — let's remember that Trump's popularity was falling fast before the strike. Only 42% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove of it, according to a large-sample Reuters-IPSOS poll conducted June 11-16. Most Americans view Trump negatively, not only on the economy, which was once his strong point, but also on immigration, according to polls. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since Trump took office and launched his erratic tariff wars. According to the latest World Bank projections, the U.S. economy will only grow by 1.4% this year, which would be half of its 2.8% growth last year, in part because of the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off threats to impose huge import taxes on foreign goods. Likewise, many Trump voters in states with large immigrant communities, like Florida, are disappointed by Trump's decision to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records, including more than 350,000 Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders who entered the country legally. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans claimed that Trump would focus on deporting violent criminals. Before his Iran strike, Trump was also haunted by his growing image as a wavering leader. His repeated reversals of his own tariff ultimatums — first vowing to impose 145% tariffs on China, then reducing them to 30% — made him an object of mockery in European capitals and among U.S. critics. A Financial Times columnist popularized the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens out — to describe the U.S. president's trade strategy. Trump got visibly upset when he was asked about the TACO reference at a recent press conference. His fear of being perceived as an indecisive leader may have pushed him — after weeks of reportedly telling Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would not get dragged into the conflict — to join Israel's military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites. But if Trump's Iran gamble turns out well and Iran's theocratic dictatorship either crumbles or gives up its uranium enrichment program through diplomatic negotiations — a big if — Trump will be credited with having done something four previous presidents contemplated but ultimately failed to do. Internationally, virtually all major Western democracies agrees that Iran is a threat to Israel, and to the world. In a statement at the end of the June 16 summit of the G-7 group of Western democracies in Alberta, Canada, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said that 'We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' The G-7 bloc's statement added that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror in the Middle East,' and that 'We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself.' Days earlier, on June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time in 20 years issued a statement warning that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Translation: Iran was enriching uranium at levels only justified to build nuclear weapons. Skeptics who don't follow Iran's political history may ask themselves why the world doesn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons like India, Pakistan and other countries. The answer is simple: Unlike other countries, Iran has a state policy of trying to 'eliminate' a nearby sovereign country — Israel— that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. This is not about Western countries being against Iran's Jurassic theocracy for imprisoning women for failing to cover their heads with a hijab, or for executing gays, or any of its other abhorrent internal policies. The reason is that if we allow a country that calls for the destruction of another nation to have a nuclear bomb, it will set a precedent that makes the world even more dangerous. In Iran's case, it's not just Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's crazy rhetoric, but his actions. Iran has long provided financial aid to terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's proxies have carried out terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina, where Hezbollah was found responsible for the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are many ways in which Trump's political gamble may go wrong, especially if Iran moved some of its enriched uranium into a secret location outside Fordo, or if it unifies Iranians behind their decrepit regime. But if Iran's regime falls, or agrees to a serious international nuclear monitoring agreement, Trump's faltering second term will get a second wind. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:

Los Angeles Times

30 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

With 40,000 troops in the region, U.S. braces for response as Iran weighs its options

WASHINGTON — Fallout from President Trump's historic gamble to strike Iran's nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic. While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran's three main nuclear facilities caused 'extremely severe damage and destruction.' A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory. 'We are ready to be done,' the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed. Tehran's nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks. The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. 'We are not concerned,' the official said. Trump's military action, dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump's predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran. Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a 'right to enrich' uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil. Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel's interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was 'at war' with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, 'at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act. More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call. The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as 'bunker busters,' for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots. While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday's strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said. 'That remains a question mark,' the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities. Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program. 'There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. 'Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers' minds was what shape Iran's response would take. Iranian officials downplayed the strikes' impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact. 'They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,' said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency. 'Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.' Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.' Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could 'go on with their lives,' according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani. The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation 'constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,' according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera. Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its 'denunciation and condemnation' of the U.S.'s attacks. In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel. 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,' France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. 'Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.' The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump's first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020. That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington's footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq. Iran's options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the 'Axis of Resistance' and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks. Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran's missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them. Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect 'regrettable responses.' 'Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,' said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region. 'The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,' the statement said. The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea. Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world's energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen's Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea. It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called 'Tanker War,' attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy. Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being. 'We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,' Maersk said in a statement. Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

Boston Globe

44 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Europe is finally ready to spend more on defense. The hard part is how.

Advertisement This is a 'global reset,' Lieutenant General Sean Clancy, the new chief of the European Union's military committee, said at a security conference in Brussels this month. But 'we haven't even defined what the transition looks like.' Money, though, is far from the only issue Europe confronts now that it has reluctantly accepted the reality that it must be able to protect itself without help from the United States. Formidable political, strategic, and regulatory hurdles remain. EU leaders must maintain public support for common military spending and joint weapons procurement, even as right-wing nationalist sentiments oppose giving the bloc more power. And the farther from the Russian border, the less urgent the threat feels. Poland, for instance, is already spending nearly 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense while Spain dedicated just 1.3 percent last year. Advertisement The European Union and Britain must also figure out how to prepare for the new kind of war that Russian aggression presents. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe's military has been focused on deploying troops to hot spots like Afghanistan and Iraq. Now they must be able to defend their own territory. Intelligence officials warn that Russian forces could be ready to attack a NATO country in five years. Complicating the decision-making are rapid advancements in intelligence, surveillance, battlefield management, and cyber technologies. Warfare is undergoing a transformation that is akin to what occurred during World War I, when horse-drawn wagons, muskets, and swords were replaced by tanks, machine guns, and airplanes. Look at Ukraine's battlefields. They are dominated by new technologies and throwback strategies, millions of drones and muddy trenches. 'Today 80 percent of targets in Ukraine are destroyed by drones,' said Andrius Kubilius, European Commissioner for defense and space. 'Every two months, there is a need for radical innovation of the drones in operation.' In recognition, the British Defense Ministry announced this month a startling overhaul of its warfighting approach, moving away from the Cold War-era focus on heavy armor and mechanized infantry. Under the plan, 80 percent of combat capability will rely on remote-controlled, reusable ground vehicles and drones as well as missiles, shells, and self-destructing drones. The EU has also taken steps to revise its strategy. In March, the 27 member nations issued a blueprint for combat readiness by 2030. Last month, the EU created a 150 billion euro (about $173 billion) program allowing joint investments in security. (Twenty-three countries are members of both the EU and NATO.) Advertisement But higgledy-piggledy rules and practices still hamper efforts to rapidly turn Europe's fragmented defenses into a unified and efficient fighting force. Joint financing is more the exception than the rule. Red tape, lack of coordination, and slow decision-making across the continent are causing delays, supply shortages, waste, and duplication, according to political and industry leaders. Overall strategy and standards are set by NATO commanders, but military budgets, specifications, quality control, export licenses, purchasing, and planning are handled by individual nations. The result is that a German-made component going into a French-made plane needs a separate export certification that can delay delivery by months. And though 12 European countries use NH90 helicopters, there are 17 versions, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official who leads defense studies at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Europe is also looking to decrease its dependence on American weaponry. The share of military equipment supplied to the European members of NATO by the United States has grown to nearly two-thirds, from about half less than a decade ago, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Europe has put a priority on investment in its own defense industry and is looking to make its supply chains for key materials, like gunpowder, more resilient. 'There is an adjustment in terms of the business model for the European defense industry,' Grand said, as it shifts to standardized mass production. That, he said, will require more consolidation to create economies of scale and joint procurement. Industry leaders, meanwhile, complain that they cannot invest in expanded production and research without more direction from government officials. Advertisement 'The political machinery is slow,' said Jan Pie, secretary-general of ASD, a trade group that represents 4,000 companies across Europe. 'So it's difficult to scale up.' Environmental approvals needed before a new weapons factory may be built can take up to five years, Pie said. He said that despite the talk about the need for urgency, the defense industry was not given priority in times of shortages. Nammo, a Norwegian ammunitions manufacturer that supplies Ukraine, for instance, was unable to ramp up production in 2023 because a nearby TikTok data center had already bought up the region's surplus electricity. As economies slow across Europe, budget battles are expected to continue to soak up the spotlight. It's doubtful that some countries will ever reach the 5 percent target. Still, as far as funding goes, Europe has turned a corner, several European leaders and military experts said. 'There's a lot of discussion about numbers, percentages, financing,' Nadia Calviño, president of the European Investment Bank, the EU's lending arm, said in Brussels recently. 'But I want to be very clear: Europe is a rich continent, and we can mobilize the necessary financing.' This article originally appeared in