EU top diplomat says US should share ‘burden' of arming Ukraine
'We welcome President Trump's announcement to send more weapons to Ukraine, although we would like to see US share the burden,' Kallas said after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
'If you promise to give the weapons, but say that it's somebody else who is going to pay for it, it is not really given by you.'
Trump announced a tougher line on Moscow over its war in Ukraine on Monday as he gave the Kremlin 50 days to end the fighting or face massive new economic sanctions.
With NATO chief Mark Rutte, Trump also unveiled a deal under which European members of the alliance would buy billions of dollars of arms from the United States – including Patriot anti-missile batteries – and send them to Ukraine.
Trump has long railed against what he sees as the outsized role the United States has played in arming Ukraine, even though NATO says Europe is now responsible for the bulk of the weaponry going to Kyiv.
European nations Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have already said they will or are looking to participate in the new US scheme.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
41 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Trump vs O'Donnell
"Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Saturday. "She is a threat to humanity, and should remain in the wonderful country of Ireland, if they want her." Is revoking the citizenship of the actor, who was born in the US, something President Trump could legally do? As reported by DW, following the post over the weekend, experts were quick to point out that the threat is unconstitutional and cited the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, which established that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." "The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born US citizen," University of Virginia School of Law professor Amanda Frost told the US news agency, the Associated Press. "In short, we are a nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people." US citizens can voluntarily renounce their citizenship, but the process is strictly regulated. It involves two separate interviews and requires taking an "oath of renunciation of US nationality," as outlined by the State Department. 'New levels' of denaturalisation The US president has similarly threatened to strip away citizenship from naturalised citizens, notably that of his former ally, billionaire Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa. He also questioned the citizenship status of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic politician was born in Uganda, and moved to New York City at age 7, becoming a US citizen in 2018. A Supreme Court ruling from 1967 determined that the US government can't usually strip citizenship without a person's consent, but this can still happen in cases where fraud was involved in the citizenship process. "Denaturalisation is no longer so rare," Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor at Case Western Reserve University's law school, told news site Axios. The increase began during former President Barack Obama's administration, she noted, as new digital tools allowed authorities to track down potential naturalisation fraud cases. "But the Trump administration, with its overall immigration crackdown, is taking denaturalisation to new levels," Robertson added. The Trump administration is also seeking to end birthright citizenship. On July 10, a US federal judge issued a new nationwide ruling blocking Trump's executive order, but the constitutionality of the order is still unresolved. Why Trump hates O'Donnell The feud between Trump and O'Donnell spans nearly two decades. The talk show host first publicly commented on Trump's lack of moral standards in 2006 amid a Miss USA Pageant controversy. That prompted a vicious reaction from the then-host of reality TV show The Apprentice. The grudge only deepened when Trump became president in 2016, as the comedian kept criticising his policies. At the beginning of 2025, O'Donnell left the US in reaction to Trump's reelection: "It's been heartbreaking to see what's happening politically and hard for me personally as well," she said on TikTok in March, as she revealed having moved to Ireland with her child. She is reported to be in the process of securing Irish citizenship through descent. She has since pursued her criticism of Trump's policies from abroad. Most recently, in a TikTok that some observers believe could have prompted Trump to react with his threat on Truth Social, she criticised his administration's response to the Texas floods, claiming the president gutted "all of the early warning systems and the weathering?forecast abilities of the government." Following Trump's headline-grabbing Truth Social post, O'Donnell fired back on Sunday with an Instagram post featuring a photo of Trump with his arm over the shoulder of child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In the post, O'Donnell dares Trump: "You want to revoke my citizenship? Go ahead and try, King Joffrey with a tangerine spray," she wrote, referring to a much loathed, sadistic, authoritarian character from Game of Thrones.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
BRICS 2025 and the Indian dilemma
The writer is a PhD scholar of Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication at Charles University Prague. She can be reached at shaziaanwer@ Listen to article The 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro concluded without the presence of the presidents of China, Russia and Iran. Russia and Iran were represented by their foreign ministers, and China by their premier. The theme of this year's summit emphasised multilateralism and the upholding of international law, based on the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the UN Charter. It reaffirmed the central role of the UN in maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and encouraging cooperation grounded in solidarity, mutual respect, justice and equality. BRICS is increasingly positioning itself as an alliance of the historically oppressed. The list of members and partners continues to expand each year. In 2025, Colombia and Bolivia expressed interest in joining. Colombia pivoting away from longstanding American influence toward a more sovereign foreign policy in the past three years is particularly noteworthy. Current full members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran. Partner countries include Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan. Over 30 countries expressed interest in joining BRICS in 2024, either as full members or partners. A relatively low-profile summit was expected this year, especially when compared with the 2024 Kazan Summit, partly because Brazil is also hosting COP30 and its attention appears divided. Nevertheless, BRICS 2025 generated more media attention than expected. Notably, US President Donald Trump has become increasingly vocal, recently threatening a 10% tariff on any country that joins BRICS or attempts to bypass the US dollar. Bilateral trade in sovereign currencies, along with growing mistrust of US economic policies, especially Trump's proposed 100% tariffs, have already begun shaking global markets. According to the US Dollar Index, the dollar fell approximately 8.8% from June 2024. In 2023, several UN investment banks raised concerns that the dollar could be dethroned as the world's primary reserve currency, citing possible replacements such as the Chinese yuan, Japanese yen or a potential BRICS-issued shared currency. The summit also addressed major geopolitical flashpoints. It strongly condemned US and Israeli bombardments on Iran in June and reaffirmed commitment to the two-state solution in Palestine. India's participation in endorsing such resolutions highlights a strategic tightrope: while aligning with BRICS' broader anti-imperialist stance, India's longstanding ties with Israel and its own illegal occupation of Kashmir may draw future scrutiny within BRICS circles if consistency in international law is demanded. The 2024 Kazan Summit had set a high benchmark, marked by Russia's comprehensive efforts to institutionalise BRICS mechanisms. Initiatives included the BRICS Finance Track and Central Bank Working Group, Payments Cooperation Council, BRICS Rapid Information Security Channel, Anti-Corruption Working Group and the BRICS Space Council. Additionally, a BRICS Healthcare and Nuclear Medicine Working Group was launched. Brazil followed suit this year by initiating five new working groups on employment, SMEs, counterterrorism, disaster management and anti-monopoly/competition policy. In this light, BRICS 2025 can be viewed as a step toward deeper cooperation among the Global South, aimed at inclusive and sustainable global governance. While the 2024 Kazan Summit was more focused on reinforcing multilateralism for equitable global development and security, the Rio Summit leaned more towards amplifying the Global South's voice in the evolving world order. Looking ahead to the 2026 BRICS Summit, which India will host, questions loom large. As a swing state straddling the Global North and South, India faces growing skepticism from within the alliance. Experts remain uncertain about India's long-term commitment to BRICS' transformative agenda. The 2026 summit will thus serve as a test case — whether India is genuinely aligned with BRICS' vision of multilateralism, inclusive governance and South-South cooperation, or it prefers to maintain strategic ambiguity.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Widening diplomatic space for Taliban 2.0
Listen to article On July 3, Russia became the first country to formally recognise the Taliban regime as a legitimate government. China welcomed the Russian move but adopted a cautious approach of not going beyond maintaining contacts with Kabul. Other countries like Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India also possess ties with the Taliban regime short of granting diplomatic legitimacy. So far 17 countries have established embassies in Kabul but except Russia, none has formally granted diplomatic recognition to Taliban 2.0. For the Afghan Taliban, the Russian diplomatic recognition is a big victory because so far Kabul has no representation in the UN. Recently the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution against the Taliban regime which was supported by Pakistan but not endorsed by India. From a pariah state and a source of international condemnation because of its repressive policies against women and girls, Taliban 2.0 failed to comply with the Doha Accord of 2020 which called for forming an inclusive government in Kabul. Since seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban regime is able to widen diplomatic space and seeking full control of Afghanistan. The first Taliban regime which ruled from 1996 and 2001 controlled 90% of Afghan territory and its writ was effectively challenged by the Northern Alliance. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its granting of diplomatic recognition to Kabul means that Afghan Taliban will now try to extend their legitimate status. Russia as a successor state of the Soviet Union is however carrying the baggage of 10 years of its military intervention from 1979 and 1989 which devastated Afghanistan. According to the July 4, 2025 report of Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), "The normalisation of diplomatic ties with the Taliban since their 2021 takeover has come gradually. China became the first country to accredit a Taliban diplomat as an ambassador in December 2023. Beijing was nonetheless quick to claim that this did not amount to diplomatic recognition. Since then, several other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Türkiye and Pakistan, have upgraded diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level. So far no Western country has granted legitimacy to Taliban regime despite the fact that the Trump administration is in contact with Kabul on security issues." Facing threats from IS (K), Russia considers Taliban regime as a lesser evil and its natural ally. The ICG report further states, "Although it has been critical of the presence of transnational jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Moscow has found a willing partner in the Taliban in addressing the threat posed by Islamic State's Khorasan Province (IS-KP), which was involved in the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack that killed 145 people. Moscow went on to remove the Taliban from its list of designated terrorist organisations in April 2025. Russian special envoy Zamir Kabulov stated that Afghan authorities will participate as a full member in the upcoming Moscow Format meeting — a regional forum for addressing concerns around the country." How is the Taliban regime, despite condemnation from human rights organisations, able to widen its diplomatic space? When Taliban rule is highly authoritarian in nature and prevents any dissent, how has it maintained peace in Afghanistan and given the impression to the outside world that it is focusing on development? Certainly, it is the ambition of Kabul to get maximum legitimacy without reforming its mode of governance, but in view of its rigid approach vis-à-vis women and opposition, it may not be able to achieve its objective so easily. The widening diplomatic space for the Taliban regime needs to be examined from three ways. First, the Afghan Taliban seem to be confident that after Russia's diplomatic recognition, other countries will follow suit. According to a BBC report of July 4, "Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said he hoped it would serve as an example to other countries, which have been reluctant to recognise a regime which implements a version of Sharia law along with severe restrictions on women and girls. Others have decried the move, with former Afghan politician Fawzia Koofi saying 'any move by any country to normalise relations with the Taliban will not bring peace it will legitimise impunity'." For those countries which have established diplomatic contacts with the Taliban regime despite legitimacy issue, it doesn't matter who rules Afghanistan. What matters is that Taliban government, despite its repressive policies, is a reality and controls the country. Economic, security and strategic interests in Afghanistan are more important than human rights violations by the Taliban regime and denial of a democratic mode of governance by Kabul. Critics argue that compromising on Taliban's exclusive form of government is a violation of Doha Accord which will further encourage the Islamic Emirate to deny women and opposition parties their legitimate rights. Second, Russia's diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime will certainly push other countries to follow suit. In that case, voices of dissent against Taliban's denial of fundamental rights to girls and women will be further suppressed. It will create a bad precedent and deprive the people of Afghanistan of their democratic rights. When political opportunism on the part of some countries leads to diplomatic recognition to the once outlawed Taliban regime, it means political repressive regimes of North Korea and Myanmar will also get diplomatic space. Finally, so far Taliban rulers have been able to convince the world that they different from those of their leaders who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Although, the Taliban regime is trying to argue that it is fighting the terrorist organisation IS-K, it doesn't mean that its links with TTP don't exist. Islamabad has repeatedly blamed the Afghan Taliban rulers for looking the other way as the TTP carries out terrorist activities inside Pakistan with Indian involvement. Henceforth, the Afghan Taliban's contradictory policy vis-à-vis Pakistan must not lead to Islamabad granting formal diplomatic recognition to Kabul. The only plausible solution to the Afghan predicament is to launch a political process leading to an inclusive mode of governance instead of granting diplomatic space to a regime which has violated Doha Accord and is in no mood to grant girls, women and opposition their legitimate rights.
