logo
Democrats claim Pentagon boss Hegesth paused military aid to Ukraine by falsely citing weapon shortages

Democrats claim Pentagon boss Hegesth paused military aid to Ukraine by falsely citing weapon shortages

First Posta day ago
While Ukraine seeks clarity on the halt of weapon shipments from the US, Democrats argued that Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth paused military aid by falsely citing weapon shortages read more
After US Secretary of State Pete Hegseth unilaterally halted agreed shipments of military aid to Ukraine, Democrats argue that the Pentagon boss cited baseless concerns that the American weapon stockpile was running low to announce such a measure. Before Hegseth's proclamation, a batch of air defence missiles and other precision munitions were due to be sent to Ukraine to aid it in its ongoing war with Russia.
These aid pledges were made during former US President Joe Biden's tenure. However, Hegseth went on to conduct a presser in which he announced the halting of shipments of weapons to Ukraine. According to a NBC News report, the Pentagon chief solely decided to halt sending aid even though experts noted the aid would not have jeopardised the US readiness.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As per the report, this is the third time Hegseth has halted US military supplies to Ukraine. When US President Donald Trump was asked about the pause on Thursday, he claimed that it was a necessary move because 'Biden emptied our whole country, giving them weapons, and we have to make sure we have enough for ourselves'.
What is the Trump administration's argument?
Last week, A White House spokesperson said that the move 'was made to put America's interests first following a [defence department] review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States armed forces remains unquestioned – just ask Iran.'
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told reporters on Wednesday that 'the capability review is being conducted to ensure US military aid aligns with our defence priorities.'
'We see this as a commonsense, pragmatic step towards having a framework to evaluate what munitions are sent and where,' Parnell added. He also seemed to confirm that there is no current shortage of arms for US forces. 'Let it be known that our military has everything that it needs to conduct any mission, anywhere, anytime, all around the world,' he said.
What is Congress thinking?
The move surprised several members of Congress as well as Ukraine's European allies. Democrats argued that there is no evidence that American weapon stocks are in decline. 'We are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we've been in the three-and-a-half years of the Ukraine conflict,' Adam Smith, a Democrat and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told NBC News. Smith said that his staff had 'seen the numbers' on weapon supplies and that there is no justification to suspend aid to Ukraine.
The weapons that are being delayed by the pause include dozens of Patriot interceptor missiles that can defend against Russian missile attacks, as well as howitzers and other missile systems.
Amid the pause, Russia has recently ramped up its bombardment of Ukrainian cities, using missiles, wreaking havoc among civilians in the war-torn country. 'This decision is certainly very unpleasant for us,' said Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's defence committee, according to Reuters. 'It's painful, and against the background of the terrorist attacks which Russia commits against Ukraine.' The Department of Defence is yet to respond to the charges.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India faces a Russia dilemma
India faces a Russia dilemma

Indian Express

time4 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

India faces a Russia dilemma

India may again find itself in an uncomfortable diplomatic fix. US Senator Lindsey Graham is slated to introduce a bill that seeks to impose a 500 per cent tariff rate on American imports from countries that continue to buy products from Russia. He claims to have the support of 84 co-sponsors and the backing of the US President Donald Trump. If passed, India's diplomacy will be put to a stress test once again. It is likely to also trigger a debate around the strategic utility of India's relationship with Russia. Even if the bill fails to sail through, Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India in the coming months will probably set off similar discussions. Practitioners and strategic analysts are divided on the issue. Russophiles have argued that the India-Russia relationship is rooted in history and has stood the test of time. The genesis of this thought lies in India's experiences with the Soviet Union during the Cold War years, with the India-Pakistan war of 1971 being the watershed moment in the friendship. That event created substantial affinity towards the Soviet Union (later Russia) among the Indian public and political elite, while concurrently generating deep antipathy and cynicism towards the US-led West. The Soviet Union also supported India through the sale of arms at a time when the West (primarily the US and the UK) would openly arm Pakistan with sophisticated and advanced weapons while turning down India's requests. Further, they argue the Soviet Union was India's sole trusted partner with a veto in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), particularly when the West raked up issues pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir. As per this school of thought, the experience of history demonstrates Russia's reliability and creates an obligation for India to support it. Russia, for them, stood with India when the latter found itself isolated by the West for most of the Cold War period. This school also contends that India and Russia are natural partners as their core interests do not conflict. Thus, they argue that the Moscow-Delhi relationship transcends any upheavals in the global order and is critical to maintaining India's strategic autonomy. Finally, any effort towards distancing from Russia would further push it into China's orbit of influence. Per them, an isolated Russia that is more dependent on China presents a significant challenge for India. Lately, a second strand of thought (Russoskeptics) has argued for strategic pragmatism when it comes to India's relations with Russia. It calls for a more pragmatic approach to modern-day Russia, notwithstanding the traditional and historical relationship with the Soviet Union. They endeavour to absolve India of any moral obligation by alluding to the latter's historically ambiguous and even contrary position on matters related to Indian interests vis-à-vis China. Moreover, they highlight, and rightly so, that in the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow is an aggressor that has violated Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty in a blatant disregard for international law. And thus, Russia does not deserve India's moral support in its unjust war. In addition, they point to the deepening strategic partnership between Russia and China as threatening India's security interests. This school also views Russia as a declining power that can do very little to augment India's comprehensive national power. On the contrary, Russia's expansionist tendencies have an adverse impact on India's relationship with the US at a time when its interests align far more closely with the West, owing to the changing geopolitical realities. This has significantly altered the cost-benefit matrix for India when it comes to its relationship with Russia. Morals and ethics aside, there are legitimate strategic reasons, grounded in realism, to argue for either side. The Russoskeptics point out that India's diplomatic capital is not infinite. And thus, it would not be prudent to spend it all to salvage the relationship with Russia, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, Russia continues to be the primary adversary of the US. And there is a possibility that proximity to Moscow may impede cooperation between New Delhi and Washington. Secondly, Russia may no longer be trusted as India's biggest defence and energy partner, given its massive dependence on China, economically, militarily and diplomatically. Notwithstanding the pragmatism and realism displayed by the Russoskeptics, they must answer two critical questions: Will making an enemy out of Russia and pushing it into a possible China-Pak-Russia nexus serve India's security interests in Asia? And would New Delhi be comfortable with the idea of Moscow selling its premium weapons to Pakistan? Moscow is already flirting with Rawalpindi and testing the waters to see if Pakistan could be its new prominent military partner. Further, while the Sino-Russian relationship stands firm, we are yet to see it adversely impact India-Russia ties in any significant way. This perhaps suggests that either the Russia-China relationship is not deep enough, or India-China relations have not strained to a point yet for Beijing to resort to coercion through Moscow. Thus, India cannot afford to downgrade its relations with Russia yet, and it must persist with its balancing act. This would require four actions on India's part. First, conveying to their American counterparts that China should continue to remain the preeminent source of their strategic convergence. Second, while diversifying arms imports from Russia makes strategic sense, it would be imprudent to seek diversification beyond a certain limit, which makes Moscow a little insecure. India needs to find that acceptable ratio. Third, India would need to engage China to ensure that the bilateral relations do not stoop to a point that Beijing feels the need to capitalise on Russia's dependence. Lastly, India must urge Russia not to close the door on themselves. If it wants to avoid slipping into China's sphere of influence and wants India to be on its side as a friendly centre of power, it has to allow India some space to work with. A good start for Moscow would be revisiting its Eurasia policy. The writer is a research analyst with Takshashila's Indo-Pacific Studies programme

'We do not seek confrontation': China responds to Trump's threat to Brics; opposes 'tariffs being used as a tool of coercion'
'We do not seek confrontation': China responds to Trump's threat to Brics; opposes 'tariffs being used as a tool of coercion'

Time of India

time23 minutes ago

  • Time of India

'We do not seek confrontation': China responds to Trump's threat to Brics; opposes 'tariffs being used as a tool of coercion'

China has pushed back against US President Donald Trump's threat to impose an additional 10 percent tariff on Brics nations, saying the bloc is not seeking confrontation and warning that tariff measures serve no constructive purpose. Responding to Trump's remarks, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Monday, 'The use of tariffs serves no one,' and reiterated Beijing's opposition to using tariffs as a means of political pressure. 'We oppose tariffs being used as a tool to coerce others,' the ministry added. The statement comes amid renewed rhetoric from Donald Trump, who said that his administration would consider additional tariffs targeting the Brics group—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newly added members like Egypt and the UAE. The remarks come after Trump issued a sharp warning on his Truth Social platform, saying: 'Any country aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of Brics will be charged an additional 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' The US president's post followed India's endorsement of a Brics declaration that criticised US-led tariff regimes. Trump's comments signalled a possible return to aggressive trade policies if re-elected. Beijing stressed that Brics—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newer members such as Egypt and the UAE—focuses on cooperation and inclusive development, not rivalry. "Brics is not about confrontation but building a more balanced and inclusive global order," the foreign ministry said.

Elon Musk's America Party: Laura Loomer predicts these people may join to spite Donald Trump
Elon Musk's America Party: Laura Loomer predicts these people may join to spite Donald Trump

Time of India

time27 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Elon Musk's America Party: Laura Loomer predicts these people may join to spite Donald Trump

Conservative activist Laura Loomer has reignited political tensions by claiming that several prominent conservatives may align with Elon Musk's newly launched America Party, not necessarily out of shared ideology, but to undermine US President Donald Trump. Loomer's remarks, shared publicly on social media, come in the wake of Musk's official announcement of the America Party. Musk framed it as a bold alternative to the entrenched two-party system. The tech billionaire's increasing political activity, combined with high-profile disagreements with Trump, is stirring speculation about a growing split on the American right. The timing of Loomer's prediction is especially notable. It came just after President Trump signed off on the controversial 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping tax and spending package that drew criticism from fiscal conservatives and Musk alike. As ideological fault lines widen, Loomer's comments reflect growing discontent within Republican ranks and hint at a possible political realignment ahead of 2026. Laura Loomer predicts defections to undermine Donald Trump Shortly after Musk's announcement, Laura Loomer took to X (formerly Twitter) to make a striking prediction. She named Tucker Carlson, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), and Rep. Thomas Massie as potential defectors to Musk's America Party, a move she believes would be aimed at undercutting Donald Trump's influence. 'I predict Tucker Carlson, MTG, and Thomas Massie will join the new 'America Party' to spite President Trump,' Loomer wrote. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo Loomer, a longtime Trump supporter known for her hardline views, has frequently called out fellow conservatives whom she believes are disloyal or politically opportunistic. Her latest comments add fuel to speculation about rising fault lines within the GOP. A bold move from Elon Musk Elon Musk officially launched the America Party on July 4, declaring it a response to public frustration with the current political establishment. In a widely shared post, Musk wrote, "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." His decision followed a public fallout with President Trump over the 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Musk had strongly opposed the legislation, criticizing its size and scope. His move to form a new party signals an effort to reshape the political conversation, particularly among conservatives dissatisfied with Trump-era policies. Cracks within the Republican base Tensions between Trump and various Republican figures have been escalating, especially over issues like government spending and party direction. Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky, has frequently clashed with Trump, including during the pandemic when he opposed Covid relief packages. Trump once referred to him as a 'pathetic loser.' Marjorie Taylor Greene, although once a close Trump ally, has recently voiced support for some of Musk's positions. Tucker Carlson, meanwhile, has maintained a complicated relationship with Trump and may be open to political shifts that align with his populist brand. Loomer's naming of these figures underscores growing uncertainty about where influential conservatives will place their loyalty going forward. Whether or not Carlson, Greene, or Massie will formally align with the America Party remains to be seen. But the speculation itself is already shifting political dynamics, raising new questions about Trump's grip on the GOP and whether Musk can truly disrupt the conservative power structure. As the 2026 elections approach, the right is poised for internal battles that may define its future. One thing is clear. Elon Musk is no longer just a disruptor in tech. He is now a force reshaping the landscape of American politics. AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store