Ukraine's allies stand at ‘moment of maximum opportunity'
The US president has threatened to impose 'very severe' tariffs on Russia if it does not agree a ceasefire by September 2, 50 days on from his announcement that he would sell 'top-of-the-line' weapons to Nato that could then be given to Ukraine.
Speaking at the 29th meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG), Mr Healey told allies gathered from 52 nations: 'This is a moment of maximum opportunity.
'Last week, President Trump announced a new plan for large scale Nato weapons transfers, and committed to getting these, he said, quickly distributed to the battlefield.
'The UK backs this policy. We will play our full part in its success.'
Mr Healey added: 'Alongside this new agreement to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself, President Trump also started the clock on a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace or to face crippling economic sanctions.
'And as members of this UDCG, we need to step up, in turn, a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table.'
The UK Defence Secretary chaired the meeting for the fourth time, also his third time co-chairing with German defence minister Boris Pistorius.
The group, which brings together defence ministers and officials from Ukraine's allies, was chaired by the US until Mr Trump came to power and began rowing back on American support for Kyiv and European security.
As the UK and Germany led calls for European allies to step up their support for Kyiv, Mr Healey said the two countries have 'agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine'.
His German counterpart Mr Pistorius, meanwhile, said the pair were involved in an initiative to replenish ammunition for anti-aircraft guns.
'We will, together with our British friends, provide 220,000 rounds of 35 millimetre ammunition for the Gepard anti-aircraft gun system at short notice, financed by Germany,' the German defence minister said.
The drive to step up support for Ukraine comes after the UK revealed it has spent some £150 million on air defence and artillery for the war-torn nation over the past two months.
At least £700 million will be spent on similar support over the course of the year, according to the Ministry of Defence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos from 'In Women's Words' exhibition that showcases modern Iranian women artists
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Scotsman
9 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Tony Bloom speaks to Hearts fans about plans for the club - and challenge to Celtic and Rangers
Tynecastle meeting ahead of the Scottish Premiership match against Aberdeen Sign up to our Hearts newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Tony Bloom met Hearts fans tonight to outline his plans after agreeing to invest £9.86m in the Edinburgh club. A Foundation of Hearts event titled '90 Minutes with Tony Bloom' began at 7pm at Tynecastle Park as supporters gathered to hear from the British entrepreneur. Bloom is chairman and majority shareholder at English Premier League side Brighton and Hove Albion. He also holds minority stakes in the Belgian club Union Saint-Gilloise and Australian outfit Melbourne Victory. In June this year, he completed a deal to buy a 29 per cent stake in Hearts, although his shares do not entitle him to vote on club matters. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In his first in-person address to supporters, Bloom was welcomed by around 500 people inside Tynecastle's Gorgie Suite. After thanking the Foundation and Hearts chairwoman Ann Budge, he answered questions from club media and then responded to pre-submitted public questions. First, he explained how his investment came about and what he wants to achieve with Hearts. Bloom made it clear that he intends to topple Scottish football's Glasgow duopoly of Celtic and Rangers. 'I've been owner and chairman of Brighton for 16 years. A few years ago, I was looking to get involved with another football club. We looked all over Europe and landed on Union Saint-Gilloise in Belgium. That has gone very well, perhaps better than I thought. A couple of years ago I was thinking of Scotland. Growing up in the 1970s and 80s, it was very different to today. Scottish football was talked about in the newspapers much more than other leagues - Italy, Spain - so I've always followed Scottish football. I like to see the Scottish national team doing well. Growing up it was always about England, I know that's not quite reciprocated across the Border. 'A lot of you will remember 1986. I'm sorry to have mentioned it but somebody scored two late goals. I backed Hearts at 8-1 to win the league and going into the last game it was looking very pretty. Needed against Dundee and it didn't quite happen. I believe I can make a difference here. I don't want to see a league dominated by two teams. I did look at clubs in Scotland. As soon as I met Ann and looked at Hearts, I knew this was the club I liked to invest in and here I am today. I think it's really important for Scottish football that it's not just a one or two-club show - and it's not going to be from now on. 'I welcome the investment from other clubs outside the Old Firm, I think that's really good for Scottish football. It's not good at all that Scottish clubs, historically, have not been doing well in Europe. That lowers the co-efficient, so even if you win the league, like Celtic this year, you have to win knockout games to get into the group stage of the Champions League. I'm very confident that the co-efficient will change over the next few years, it will be really good for Scottish football. I hope it will be good news for Hearts.' More to follow....
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, called for the creation of a European army earlier this year, suggesting that, this time, the continent might finally be serious. Defence budgets are rising. Threats are mounting. The US is distracted. Surely now is the moment. Except, of course, it isn't. For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads? Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington. Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement. Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist. Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se. A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable. The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
