US hasn't decided yet on new Ukraine aid, focuses on peace, NATO envoy says
The U.S. administration has not yet made any new decisions on military assistance for Kyiv as it remains focused on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker told journalists on June 4.
Whitaker stressed that Washington counts on European leadership in providing Ukraine with the resources needed to achieve a lasting peace, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
The envoy made the comments as Kyiv's partners gathered in Brussels for a Ramstein-format summit of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG).
The UDCG was initially launched by former U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in 2022 to coordinate assistance for Ukraine among some 50 countries.
Pete Hegseth, the current Pentagon chief, relinquished chairmanship of the group to the U.K. and Germany and opted out of the June 4 meeting, leaving Whitaker to represent the U.S.
Since taking office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump has not approved any new defense aid for Ukraine, vowing instead to broker a swift peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow.
The assistance approved under the previous Biden administration continues to flow, but is expected to run out in the coming months. Washington also provides Ukraine with crucial intelligence assistance.
As peace talks stall, Trump has signaled the U.S. might abandon its involvement in the effort, raising fears among European partners that he might also cut off all remaining support for Ukraine.
The U.S. president has repeatedly urged Europe to take up responsibility for backing Ukraine and for its own security as his strategic focus shifts away from the continent.
Under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. has been the leader in military donations to Ukraine, supplying some weapons that European allies struggle to replace, including air defense interceptors.
Read also: Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO
With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.
Boston Globe
an hour 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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Spain exempt from Nato's 5pc spending target
Spain will be exempt from spending 5 per cent of its GDP on defence after striking a deal with Nato, the country's prime minister said. Speaking ahead of this week's Nato summit in The Hague, Pedro Sanchez said he had achieved a 'success' for his country by securing an exception from the new spending target, which had been billed as a strict requirement for all 32 Nato members. It puts Madrid at odds with Donald Trump, the US president, who has called for a significant increase in defence spending and cast doubt on his willingness to defend Nato allies 'if they don't pay'. Mr Sanchez said Spain could fulfil its existing commitments to Nato with a defence budget of 2.1 per cent of GDP. 'We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do so,' the Spanish prime minister said in a televised address on Sunday. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned members earlier this month that they must commit to spending 5 per cent on defence spending or 'better learn to speak Russian'. It came after he had warned that Vladimir Putin could attack Nato by 2030. According to Nato estimates, Spain spent only 1.24 per cent of GDP on defence last year. In April, Mr Sanchez pledged to increase defence spending to 2 per cent by the end of this year. But Spain's Left-wing government is divided on the need to increase military spending and a think-tank linked to the administration has cast doubt on whether the 2 per cent target for this year is feasible. Mr Sanchez wrote to Mr Rutte last week to say that 5 per cent of GDP was 'unreasonable and counter-productive', arguing that such a commitment would impact the country's social spending and undermine EU plans for technological growth. On Sunday, it emerged that the agreement Nato leaders will sign at The Hague on Wednesday has been altered to accommodate Spain's objections. The text on the spending pledge has been changed from 'we commit' to 'allies commit', allowing Mr Sanchez to claim the commitment would not apply to Spain. Under the plan, countries are meant to reach 5 per cent of GDP by boosting their core defence spending goal from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and adding a further 1.5 per cent on related items such as cyber security and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles. Mr Sanchez said that Spain needs only to spend 2.1 per cent of GDP to meet its Nato capability targets – the personnel, equipment and infrastructure requirements set by the alliance The announcement comes at a time of political difficulty for Mr Sanchez, who is under enormous pressure over a corruption scandal within his Socialist party.
