Trump expected to deliver weapons to Ukraine through Nato allies
During an interview with NBC News, Trump said he will probably have a 'major announcement' on Russia on Monday and confirmed he had struck a deal with Nato leaders to supply weapons to Ukraine.
Trump's Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, is scheduled to arrive in Kyiv on the same day for a week-long trip that comes after the US temporarily halted weapons shipments to Ukraine as part of a Pentagon review of dwindling stockpiles of crucial munitions including Patriot air defense missiles.
The White House has now sought to distance itself from the decision, and Trump has suggested he is ready to greenlight a major military aid package for Ukraine via Nato, reversing a previous policy of reducing support to the Ukrainian government to force Kyiv to sue for peace.
'I think I'll have a major statement to make on Russia on Monday,' Trump said during the interview with NBC News, which aired on Thursday evening. 'I'm disappointed in Russia, but we'll see what happens over the next couple of weeks.'
During the interview, Trump laid out a plan by which the US could sell weapons to Nato and then they could be sent on to Ukraine. Trump has not previously approved packages of military aid to Ukraine.
'So what we're doing is the weapons that are going out are going to Nato, and then Nato is going to be giving those weapons [to Ukraine], and Nato is paying for those weapons,' Trump said, probably indicating that they would be purchased by countries that are members of the Nato security bloc. Administration officials have said this would be different from the US supplying Ukraine directly, as Nato and not Washington would be making the decision to arm Kyiv.
Germany and other member states of the security bloc had spoken publicly about ongoing negotiations to purchase weapons from the United States to transfer to Ukraine.
Ukraine is producing more modern weaponry including drones, but still relies on the US to supply everything from Patriot missiles to defend from nightly Russian missile and drone attacks, Himars long-range missiles to strike behind Russian lines, 155mm artillery shells and other munitions.
The Axios news website said that some officials had said the US would only sell Ukraine 'defensive' weapons, while others said the package could also include 'offensive' weapons such as the Himars missiles.
Yet a key stumbling block remains US military production. The US only has about 25% of the Patriot missile interceptors it needs for all of the Pentagon's military plans, the Guardian revealed this month, and fulfilling new orders can take years depending on the priority level given to the contract.
Kellogg is expected to address the US weapons shipments during his visit to Kyiv, the first since shortly after Trump's inauguration.
During the interview, Trump also endorsed the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally seen as a leader of Russia hawks in the legislature. Graham has said that the bill would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Congressional insiders have told the Guardian that there is strong support for Ukraine in both the House of Representatives and the Senate but that they would require Trump's political backing in order to pass the bill.
'They're going to pass a very major and very biting sanctions bill, but it's up to the president as to whether or not he wants to exercise it,' Trump said during the interview, his first explicit endorsement of the bill.
Experts have said that the bill would give Trump new methods to target Russia, but that he could also tighten enforcement or issue other sanctions unilaterally without waiting for authorization from Congress.
Trump has said in the past that he admires Putin but he increasingly has vented frustration over the lack of progress in peace talks and the continued airstrikes against Ukrainian cities.
On Wednesday night, Russia launched almost 400 Shahed drones and decoys, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, in strikes against Kyiv that killed two and caused fires across the Ukrainian capital.
'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump said during a cabinet meeting this week. 'He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
Putin urges Iran to take 'zero enrichment' nuclear deal with US, Axios reports
July 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has told U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian officials that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, Axios reported on Saturday, citing sources. Iran's semi-official news agency Tasnim denied the report, quoting an "informed source" as saying Putin had not sent any message to Iran in this regard.
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump announces 30% tariffs on EU and Mexico
July 12 (Reuters) - Goods imported from both the European Union and Mexico will face a 30% U.S. tariff rate starting Aug. 1, U.S. President Donald Trump said in letters posted to his social media platform on Saturday. The EU had hoped to reach a comprehensive trade agreement with the U.S. for the 27-country bloc. Earlier this week, Trump issued new tariff announcements for a number of countries, including Japan, South Korea, Canada and Brazil, as well as a 50% tariff on copper.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Young people don't feel part of the EU – and they're right
The former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi produced his much-awaited prescription for how to reboot Europe's economy last year. The Draghi report was rightly applauded as a rude awakening for a European Union that is far too complacent about its own obsolescence. Draghi concluded that an €800bn-a-year public spending boost would be needed to end years of stagnation. If Europe did not catch up with its rivals, he warned, it would face a 'slow and agonising' decline. And yet, one ingredient was missing from Draghi's recipe. In his nearly 400-page roadmap for rescuing the EU, the word 'democracy' is mentioned only three times (once in the bibliography). By contrast, 'integration' is used 96 times and 'defence' 391 times. It's true that Draghi's report was explicitly devoted to the future of European competitiveness (and not more widely to the Europe of the future). But if the EU can't find a way to better engage its citizens, it will be difficult to achieve any more of the integration that Draghi says is indispensable to make a still-fragmented single market more competitive and Europe more capable of defending itself. One thing is sure: the old method of decision-making that a generation of European leaders relied on is obsolete. We urgently need to reform the EU, but the top-down approach to doing so is no longer fit for purpose. True, the debate on the 'democratic deficit' is as old as the EU itself. Direct elections to the European parliament, the first and only international assembly elected in this way, were introduced in 1979 to respond to the same criticism. However, at least until the end of the last century, the discussion on European democracy was seen as a niche for thinktanks – something nice to have to complete an integration project mostly run by an enlightened elite. Today, the picture has radically changed: the European parliament's powers have increased over time, but only about half of people who are entitled to vote in European elections bother to do so. Less than 50% of those vote for the two political 'families' (centre-right and socialist) that for decades provided the consensus that the EU project required to function. And no less worryingly, according to a recent survey from Cluster17, a French polling company, the percentages of European citizens who say the EU is not democratic and instead describe it as bureaucratic and disconnected are higher among younger age groups (becoming a solid majority among those aged 34 and under). More competitiveness requires a larger EU budget (it currently stands at just 1% of GDP) and more money for European 'public goods' (goods for which there is a clear economic case for producing them at EU level, for example, satellite-based telecommunication services or trans-European high-speed trains). But you can't ask for new taxation to fund joint EU spending without more representation. More common defence should be a commonsense direction given the existential threats that Europe is facing and the inefficiencies that running 27 military budgets imply. However, it requires a sufficiently wide public perception that such spending is going to benefit every citizen of the community we want to defend. And yet, surprisingly perhaps, according to Cluster17's poll, younger people feel less European even than their parents, preferring to call themselves citizens of the world. Without a European demos, it will be difficult to create an EU army – if that is what emerges from the debates on security – but also a real European democracy. And if we have neither citizenship nor engagement, we risk a political backlash like the ones we have seen on the green deal or the austerity measures that came after the global financial crash and the eurozone crisis, even when the policies are theoretically right. Last month about 100 policymakers, politicians, journalists, academics and students from all the major European countries (EU and beyond) gathered in Siena to consider how a Europe of the future could deal with some of its biggest challenges, such as common defence, the threat posed by global trade wars and AI. The outcome is a paper that prioritises identifying ways to better engage voters in each of the big decisions. A recent European Commission initiative – a citizens' panel in which 150 randomly selected EU citizens were enlisted to help the EU decide how to spend its money in the future – was considered a good start. But the conference in Siena identified changes that will be essential if citizens' recommendations are to be included in a systematic way. In EU budgetary decision-making for example, the language must change so that citizens can understand what goal is being achieved in any spending plans. The budgetary logic must be 'zero based' (which in accountancy parlance means not decided on the basis of incremental adjustments to past spending). Such an approach could ensure that 'participatory democracy' becomes a mainstream instrument of EU policymaking. No less crucial is a set of 'positive actions' that a group led by Luca Verzichelli of the University of Siena drew up to promote the European demos. The most eye-catching proposal – and one that attracted the broadest consensus – was to make the Erasmus student programme free and mandatory for all EU students in secondary and tertiary-level education. A quarter of the money spent by the EU on farmers would be enough to cover an expanded version of Erasmus, the Vision thinktank that convened the Siena conference calculates. I have no doubt the results would be more transformational. The democracy deficit is not just a European problem. Representative institutions are suffering more broadly from what seems to be a form of technological obsolescence. The internet has massively altered the control of information, which is power. This requires a radical transformation of the mechanisms through which power is acquired, restrained and exercised; and of the instruments we use to transmit individual preferences and convert them into collective choices. The EU needs more clarity about what it is for, and it needs to go well beyond superficially involving citizens to give its messages cosmetic legitimacy. But it has the paradoxical advantage of being an unfinished project. This means it has the flexibility to experiment with new forms of participation, policymaking and citizenship. It must urgently acknowledge that the only way to protect democracy is to adapt its forms to a radically different technological context. Francesco Grillo is a visiting fellow at the European University Institute, Florence and director of the thinktank Vision
