German minister to press Hegseth on arms supplies, missile deployment
BERLIN (Reuters) -German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius heads to Washington on Monday to meet U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, to seek clarity on American arms supplies to Ukraine, missile deployment plans and the future of U.S. troop levels in Europe.
Pistorius is likely to receive a warm reception as Europe's biggest economy recently emerged as a key player in NATO's largest military build-up since the Cold War, having for decades lagged behind in defence spending.
As European officials fret over a possible future attack from Russia and brace for a drawdown of U.S. forces, Germany loosened its constitutional debt brake to meet NATO's new core military spending target of 3.5% of national output by 2029.
The move will boost German defence spending to 162 billion euros ($189 billion) in 2029 from 95 billion euros in the draft budget for 2025.
At a meeting with Hegseth at the Pentagon, Pistorius will discuss Berlin's offer to pay for American Patriot air defence systems for Ukraine, a proposal made public by Chancellor Friedrich Merz weeks ago after private discussions failed to elicit a response from Washington.
On Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he will send Patriot missiles to Ukraine. He did not give a number, but he said the United States would be reimbursed for their cost by the European Union.
Germany has already donated three Patriot units to Kyiv, as Ukraine endures some of the heaviest Russian attacks in recent weeks.
However, European allies remain uneasy about the new U.S. administration's unpredictable stance on arms supplies. On Tuesday, Trump said he had approved sending defensive weapons to Ukraine and was considering additional sanctions on Moscow, just days after the Pentagon halted shipments of critical arms to Ukraine.
Pistorius will also seek clarity on whether Washington remains committed to temporarily deploying long-range missiles to Germany from 2026, as agreed under former President Joe Biden.
The deployment would include systems such as Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1,800 kilometres (1,118 miles) and the developmental hypersonic weapon Dark Eagle with a range of around 3,000 km.
Russia has criticised the plans as a serious threat to its national security and dismissed NATO concerns that it could attack an alliance member.
Another key issue will be an ongoing review of the U.S. force posture worldwide that could lead to troop cuts in Europe where around 80,000 U.S. soldiers serve, including some 40,000 in Germany.
European allies are urging Washington to ensure any drawdown is coordinated to prevent capability gaps that might leave NATO members vulnerable to Russian aggression.
($1 = 0.8555 euros)
(Reporting by Sabine Siebold, Editing by Louise Heavens)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
9 minutes ago
- The Star
Moscow court fines Zoom for failing to abide by Russian internet rules
The Zoom Video Communications logo is pictured at the NASDAQ MarketSite in New York, New York, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo
New Straits Times
9 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Netherlands bars two hardline Israeli ministers
AMSTERDAM: The Netherlands has declared Israel's finance and national security ministers persona non grata for inciting violence and urging ethnic cleansing in Gaza. In June, the Netherlands backed a failed Swedish proposal to impose EU sanctions on Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. "They repeatedly incited settler violence against Palestinians, promoted illegal settlement expansion, and called for ethnic cleansing in Gaza," Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp told parliament in a letter released late Monday. Smotrich responded on X, saying European leaders had succumbed to "the lies of radical Islam that is taking over" and "rising antisemitism." Ben-Gvir said he would continue to act for Israel, even if he was banned from entering "all of Europe." "In a place where terrorism is tolerated and terrorists are welcomed, a Jewish minister from Israel is unwanted, terrorists are free, and Jews are boycotted," he wrote on X. Veldkamp said the Netherlands wanted to "relieve the suffering of the population in Gaza" and was exploring further ways to contribute to humanitarian aid. "Airdrops of food are relatively expensive and risky," he said. "This is why the Netherlands is also taking steps to further support land-based aid delivery." Aid drops resumed in Gaza on Sunday as Israel announced temporary humanitarian pauses in parts of the besieged territory. Around 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza are facing what UN aid agencies have warned is a deadly wave of starvation and malnutrition. The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Initiative (IPC) said on Tuesday that famine is unfolding across much of Gaza, with thresholds breached and over 20,000 children treated for acute malnutrition since April. Veldkamp said the Netherlands would push to suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement if Israel fails to meet its humanitarian obligations. "The summons will also be used to remind Israel to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law," he said. After speaking by phone with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the government's position was "crystal clear." "The people of Gaza must be given immediate, unfettered, safe access to humanitarian aid," he said. Israel's foreign ministry said Foreign Affairs Minister Gideon Sa'ar had summoned the Dutch ambassador Marriët Schuurman to Jerusalem for a formal reprimand on Tuesday afternoon. "The conversation will take place in light of the Dutch government's decisions to take measures against Israel, including against its right to defend itself and against ministers in its government," the ministry said in a statement. The war in Gaza was sparked by Hamas's Oct 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed 59,921 Palestinians, also mostly civilians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
The Star
39 minutes ago
- The Star
Analysis-World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding. While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law. Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings ona case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas. It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling. Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law. Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do. The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts. Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations. Not all U.S. states are sceptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases. In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control. BONAIRE VERSUS THE NETHERLANDS Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels. The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions. In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding. "The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient. The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said. "This is definitely going to help there," Fourniersaid of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case. 'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT' The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as scepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States. A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues. He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled. "This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said. The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel. Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them. TheWorld Courtsaid that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production. Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments. "This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licences to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous. TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment. (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg and Alison Withers, additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici from Washington; editing by Barbara Lewis)
