Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -Several European countries said on Tuesday they were willing to buy U.S. arms for Ukraine under a scheme announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, although arrangements still needed to be worked out.
Trump said on Monday that Washington will supply Patriot air defence systems, missiles and other weaponry to Ukraine for its war against Russia's invasion and that the arms would be paid for by other NATO countries.
But much remains undisclosed, including the amounts and precise types of weapons to be provided, how quickly they would be supplied and how they would be paid for.
U.S. officials have suggested that European countries will be willing to give up some of their own stocks of weapons for Ukraine and then buy replacements from the United States. But some of the countries involved say they still don't even know what is being asked of them.
Such a move would get weapons to Ukraine more quickly but would leave donor countries' defences more exposed until new systems are ready.
"We are ready to participate. Of course we can't do it on our own, we need others to partner up – but we have a readiness,' Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of European Union ministers.
Speaking alongside Trump at the White House on Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said that Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada want to be part of the new initiative.
Many of those countries have been among the biggest military aid donors to Ukraine, either overall or per capita.
Asked whether Denmark could give U.S. arms from its own stocks as part of the scheme, Rasmussen said: 'We don't have these kind of systems – the Patriot systems – so if we should lean in, and we are absolutely ready to do so, it will be (with) money and we have to work out the details.'
European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of U.S. weapons could be paid for. In many cases, that seems likely to involve countries teaming up to buy U.S. weapons systems.
"Now we need to see how together we can go in and finance, among other things, Patriots, which they plan to send to Ukraine," Sweden's Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told Swedish radio.
In Brussels, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said his country is looking into the plan 'with a positive inclination'.
Asked about the scheme, Norwegian Defence Minister Tore Sandvik told Reuters that Oslo was 'in close dialogue with Ukraine' on military aid and 'air defence remains a high priority for Ukraine and for the Norwegian military support'.
'Norway has contributed to significant amounts of air defence for Ukraine, including co-financing the donation of a Patriot system and missiles,' he said.
The Finnish Defence Ministry said Helsinki 'will continue to provide material support to Ukraine'.
"The details of the U.S. initiative ... are not yet known and we are interested to hear more about them before we can take more concrete lines on this issue,' it said.
(Additional reporting by Milan Strahm, Simon Johnson, Essi Lehto, Stine Jacobsen, Madeline Chambers, Bart Meijer and Charlotte Van CampenhoutEditing by Peter Graff)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
South Korea to prepare mutually agreeable trade package as US tariff deadline looms
South Korea, facing 25 per cent tariffs, is rushing to reach a trade deal with Washington. -- PHOTO: REUTERS SEOUL (Reuters): South Korea will prepare a trade package that is mutually agreeable with the United States ahead of minister-level meetings planned next week and a US tariff-pause deadline of August 1, the presidential office said on Saturday. The package will include shipbuilding cooperation, a sector of high interest to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who discussed the matter with South Korea's Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan on Friday, it said in a statement. Friday's meeting was a follow-up to a meeting on Thursday, where Lutnick and Kim reaffirmed their commitment to reach a trade deal by August 1, after a joint meeting of finance ministers and top trade envoys that had been scheduled for Friday was postponed. South Korea, facing 25% tariffs, is rushing to reach a trade deal with Washington, with National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac visiting the U.S. recently for high-level talks and Minister for Trade Yeo Han-koo also in the U.S. for negotiations, as pressure grows on officials to clinch a deal that is no worse than Japan's that cut tariffs to 15%. South Korea's trade negotiations with the U.S. have included non-tariff barriers in the agricultural and digital service sectors, but foreign exchange has not been part of trade talks beyond usual consultations, according to South Korean officials. U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in Scotland on Friday for bilateral talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday, which could yield a trade deal with the European Union, after making a deal earlier this week with Japan and the Philippines. Next week, U.S. officials will hold a new round of trade talks with China in Sweden for an extension to a separate deadline of August 12 set between the two countries. South Korea's Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol and Foreign Minister Cho Hyun will also hold meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and State Secretary Marco Rubio, respectively, next week. (Reporting by Jihoon Lee; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
ICJ advisory gives legal firepower to climate activists
THE world's top court may not be able to compel polluting states to halt planet-warming emissions, but experts say its momentous climate decision gives potent legal and political firepower to countries and campaigners on the frontlines. An advisory opinion like the one issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week is not binding and so is not directly enforceable, but that does not mean it has no weight. By saying that all countries are firmly bound to a swathe of legal obligations under existing laws and treaties, experts say the ruling will influence courts, climate negotiations and policy decisions across the world. The ICJ "couldn't have been clearer" on the binding nature of a range of climate duties, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, professor of law and director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. He said the ruling, which was responding to questions on countries' climate responsibilities from the UN General Assembly, was "as strong as we could have imagined". "The consensus among the judges is fully behind the conclusion that international law establishes clear and binding obligations for states not to cause massive harm to the environment in general and not to harm the climate system in particular," he said. These included ensuring national climate plans reflect the highest possible ambition to stay within the Paris agreement's safer global warming cap of 1.5°C above pre-industrial times — a level that the world could reach this decade. If those obligations are not met, the court said states may be obliged to repair damaged infrastructure or ecosystems — and if that is not possible, they could face compensation claims. This will ripple into future litigation, said Markus Gehring, professor of European and international law at the University of Cambridge. "We are a far cry from a contentious case between two countries, where someone is demanding liability for past and present climate change damage, but in theory, the court lays out an avenue towards such claims," he said. Major petrostates like the United States may take little heed of the court's warning that expanding production of oil, gas and coal could constitute an "internationally wrongful act". But Gehring said countries could choose to ignore ICJ advisory opinions "at their peril". He cited the court's 2019 advice that the United Kingdom should end its occupation of the Chagos islands. After Britain initially rejected the ruling, a UN General Assembly resolution demanded it cede the islands to Mauritius, which it eventually did last year. Gehring said that while the court's climate decision is not directly binding on individual states, it would be indirectly binding through subsequent domestic or international court action and through UN institutions. The move by US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris deal also would be unlikely to absolve the country from its duties, Gehring added, because the obligation to address climate change is now "crystal clear in international law". "So, even leaving the Paris Agreement and the climate treaty regime does not eliminate those obligations," he said. ICJ judge Sarah Cleveland said countries' "significant responsibilities" to protect the climate system may also affect interpretation of international investment law. The ruling was "a decisive legal vindication" for Vanuatu — which spearheaded the push for an ICJ opinion — the country said in a legal analysis of the decision. The Pacific island nation, which is at risk from rising seas, said the court's conclusions would strengthen its hand in global climate negotiations, helping it demand greater climate ambition and attract financial support for countries suffering climate loss and damage. It could also open the way for legal action against countries and possibly companies that have by their actions and omissions caused climate harm, the statement said. "For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice," it added. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, former president of the UN COP20 climate conference in Peru and now WWF Global Climate and Energy lead, said he expects the ICJ ruling to "move the needle strongly". "The timing is so fantastic because we are in difficult times in the climate debate, so to have that opinion in the current time, it is showing that we should never lose our hope," he said.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Central African Republic's Touadera announces bid for third term
FILE PHOTO: Central African Republic's President Faustin-Archange Touadera arrives before a dinner with several heads of state and government and leaders of international organisations at the Elysee Palace, as part of the 19th Francophonie Summit, in Paris, France, October 4, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/File Photo BANGUI (Reuters) -Central African Republic's President Faustin-Archange Touadera said on Saturday he will run for a third term later this year, seeking to extend his rule into a second decade after scrapping term limits in 2023. "Many of you have asked for me, and my answer is yes. I am your candidate for the presidential election of December 2025," the 68-year-old said at a meeting of his party, the United Hearts Movement, in the capital Bangui. "We will continue the work of rebuilding our country." Since taking office in 2016, Touadera has enlisted outside forces to stay in power amid a persistent civil conflict, including mercenaries from Russia's Wagner militia, who intervened in 2018 on the side of the government. Landlocked Central African Republic, roughly the size of France and with a population of around 5.5 million, is deeply impoverished despite being rich in resources including gold, diamonds and timber. It has witnessed waves of instability, including coups and rebellions, since independence from France in 1960. Touadera won a second term in 2020, though militants including the Coalition of Patriots for Change (CPC) have fought to overturn that result. The army, backed by United Nations peacekeepers and Russian and Rwandan troops, has been fighting the group for years. Touadera's current term was supposed to be his last, but in 2023 the country held a constitutional referendum that abolished the two-term limit and extended the presidential mandate from five to seven years. Opposition parties and civil society groups have said the new constitution, which was backed by more than 95% of voters, could allow Touadera to stay in power for life. The exact date of the December vote has not been announced. (Reporting by Pacome Pabandji; Writing by Anait Miridzhanian and Ayen Deng Bior; Editing by Robbie Corey-Boulet and Jan Harvey)
