US easing sanctions on Turkish defense sector
The US is relaxing sanctions on Türkiye's defense industry and has approved a major arms deal, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced.
In 2020, Washington imposed restrictions on Ankara under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) in response to Türkiye's purchase of Russia's S-400 air defense missile system. Ankara repeatedly rejected calls to abandon the deal with Moscow, insisting on its sovereign right to choose its weapons suppliers.
'We can safely say that CAATSA sanctions are being eased,' Erdogan told reporters on Saturday, after returning from the European Political Community summit in Albania. He added that he had spoken with the new American ambassador to Türkiye, Tom Barrack.
'With my friend Trump taking office, we reached a more open, more constructive, more sincere communication,' he said.
The easing of restrictions coincides with US approval of a potential missile sale worth over $300 million — a move Erdogan described as a step toward removing remaining barriers between the two NATO allies. 'As two major NATO allies, there should be no defense restrictions,' he said.
During a phone call in March, Erdogan urged Trump to lift the sanctions, finalize a $23 billion deal for 40 F-16 fighter jets, and reinstate Türkiye in the F-35 fighter jet program. Ankara was removed from the project in 2019 over concerns that the Russian-made S-400 system could compromise the jet's security. Trump is reportedly open to Türkiye's return, provided the S-400 system is dismantled or relocated to a US-controlled base.
Erdogan and Trump recently held another call, during which they discussed Syria, Gaza, and efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. Trump, who previously described his relationship with Erdogan as 'excellent,' called the conversation 'very good and productive.'
Türkiye hosted the first direct Russia-Ukraine negotiations in three years on Friday in Istanbul, during which the two sides agreed to a large prisoner swap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine has gone over budget for its military
Ukraine does not have enough money to fund its military and will have to overhaul this year's budget in order to close the gap, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko has admitted. The shortfall stems from changes in the amount of Western aid and the evolving situation on the battlefield, he added. Addressing legislators on Thursday, Marchenko said, as cited by Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, that the 'funding for the Armed Forces is currently not sufficient due to many factors, so we will proceed with a budget revision in the near future.' Marchenko said the reasons included changes in military technology, adjustments in arms deliveries from Kiev's suppliers, and heightened battlefield activity. He also acknowledged that the government had failed to anticipate the conditions Ukraine would face in 2025 when it was drafting the budget late last year. 'You cannot forecast this situation linearly. Sometimes the situation requires rather complex, asymmetric decisions,' the minister explained. In mid-May, Zhelezniak estimated the military budget shortfall at 200 billion hryvnia ($4.8 billion), but later raised his assessment to between 400 and 500 billion hryvnia ($9.6-12 billion). In April, Ukrainian outlet Ekonomicheskaya Pravda reported that funds originally allocated for military salaries in the final months of 2025 had already been spent to purchase drones, ammunition, and other weapons. Ukraine already had to contend with a budget deficit in 2023 and 2024, but managed to bridge the gap by raising taxes. According to Zhelezniak, however, this time such measures won't be required as the government intends to cover the gap through increased domestic borrowing and higher-than-expected tax revenues. Kiev continues to rely heavily on Western aid and loans – which officials say Ukraine won't be able to repay in the next 30 years – to compensate for the economic slump caused by the conflict. As of February 2025, European nations have provided Ukraine with $138 billion of assistance of various types, while the US has given $115 billion. In 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine would not be able not survive for more than 'a week' if its Western military and financial aid dried up.
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine's most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?
While Western headlines celebrated Operation Spider's Web as a daring feat of Ukrainian ingenuity, a closer look reveals something far more calculated – and far less Ukrainian. This wasn't just a strike on Russian airfields. It was a test – one that blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world's most advanced intelligence networks can deliver. And it begs the question: who was really pulling the strings? Let's be honest. Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence didn't act alone. It couldn't have. Even if no Western agency was directly involved in the operation itself, the broader picture is clear: Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence, its military, and even its top political leadership rely heavily on Western intelligence feeds. Ukraine is deeply embedded within NATO's intelligence-sharing architecture. The idea of a self-contained Ukrainian intel ecosystem is largely a thing of the past. These days, Kiev draws primarily on NATO-provided data, supplementing it with its own domestic sources where it can. That's the backdrop – a hybrid model that's become standard over the past two years. Now, let's look more closely at Operation Spider's Web itself. We know the planning took roughly 18 months and involved moving drones covertly into Russian territory, hiding them, and then orchestrating coordinated attacks on key airfields. So how likely is it that Western intelligence agencies had a hand in such a complex operation? Start with logistics. It's been reported that 117 drones were prepped for launch inside Russia. Given that numerous private companies in Russia currently manufacture drones for the war effort, it wouldn't have been difficult to assemble the necessary devices under that cover. That's almost certainly what happened. Components were likely purchased domestically under the guise of supplying the 'Special Military Operation.' Still, it's hard to believe Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence could have pulled off this mass procurement and assembly alone. It's highly likely Western intelligence agencies played a quiet but crucial role – especially in securing specialized components. Then there's the explosives. If the operation's command center was located in the Ural region, as some suggest, it's plausible that explosives or components were smuggled in via neighboring CIS countries. That kind of border-hopping precision doesn't happen without outside help. In fact, it mirrors tactics long perfected by intelligence services in both the US and Western Europe. Because make no mistake: this wasn't just the CIA's playground. European services – particularly those in the UK, France, and Germany – possess the same capabilities to execute and conceal such an operation. The NATO intelligence community may have different national flags, but it speaks with one voice in the field. The real giveaway, however, lies in the timing of the strikes. These weren't blind attacks on static targets. Russia's strategic bombers frequently rotate bases. Commercial satellite imagery – updated every few days at best – simply can't track aircraft on the move. And yet these drones struck with exquisite timing. That points to a steady flow of real-time surveillance, likely derived from signals intelligence, radar tracking, and live satellite feeds – all tools in the Western intelligence toolbox. Could Ukraine, on its own, have mustered that kind of persistent, multidomain awareness? Not a chance. That level of situational intelligence is the domain of NATO's most capable agencies – particularly those tasked with monitoring Russian military infrastructure as part of their day job. For years now, Ukraine has been described in Western media as a plucky underdog using low-cost tactics to take on a larger foe. But beneath the David vs. Goliath narrative lies a more uncomfortable truth: Ukraine's intelligence ecosystem is now deeply embedded within NATO's operational architecture. Real-time feeds from US and European satellites, intercepts from British SIGINT stations, operational planning consultations with Western handlers – this is the new normal. Ukraine still has its own sources, but it's no longer running a self-contained intelligence operation. That era ended with the first HIMARS launch. Western officials, of course, deny direct involvement. But Russian investigators are already analyzing mobile traffic around the impact sites. If it turns out that these drones weren't connected to commercial mobile networks – if, instead, they were guided through encrypted, military-grade links – it will be damning. Not only would that confirm foreign operational input, it would expose the full extent of how Western assets operated inside Russia without detection. At that point, no amount of plausible deniability will cover the truth. The question will no longer be whether NATO participated – but how deep that participation ran.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump-Musk Big Bro bust-up: Ignore the noise, focus on the signal
Two very rich and very powerful and very big American egos have had a very public and very loud cat fight. US President Donald Trump, arguably the single most powerful politician in the world, and his now former 'buddy-in-chief' Elon Musk, certifiably the single richest oligarch on (for now) this planet, have 'torched' (Wall Street Journal) their occasionally exuberant bromance of almost a year in a 'stunning' (Bloomberg) and 'spectacular' (New York Times) finale of fiery mutual recrimination. Say what you will about oligarchic techno-capitalism, but it can be entertaining. Using their own social media platforms, Musk and Trump have gone after each other with brutal reputational attacks, griping of the 'You owe me!' – 'No, you me!' variant, and high-value threats to do each other economic and political damage. The key trigger for the blow-up was what Trump calls his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which is currently making its way through Congress. For, Musk – despite his lucrative government contracts a deficit hawk, whose own DOGE cost-cutting effort has just frustratingly failed – the same tax bill is a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk claims that he is greatly concerned over America's exploding and unsustainable national debt. Since Trump's Republican majority in the Senate is small, Musk's open support for the bill's vocal opponents there is a real political embarrassment for the White House at least, if not even a serious threat. US sovereign debt, moreover, is a real and very serious problem with dire economic and geopolitical implications; and estimates put the costs of Trump's bill at 3.3 trillion additional debt over the next ten years: Musk has a factual point. Yet there also is the fact that Trump's Big Beautiful Bill foresees cutting subsidies for buying Musk's Tesla cars (among other EVs), amounting to an estimated loss of $1.2 billion for Tesla. It can be complicated in that place between conservative ideology, pure and simple, and the unrelenting will to milk the public for yourself and your shareholders. Musk also 'revealed' – if that is the word – that Donald Trump features on the client list of the sinister financier, pedophile, mass sex criminal, and most likely intelligence-connected elite blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein, who conveniently committed suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019. To make it count, Musk, as if returning to his former Centrist political self, suggested impeaching Trump and founding a new party to contest the great blusterer's grip on 'the 80% in the middle.' Liberal Tesla drivers: Maybe you can love your car again. Even if the share prices of its manufacturer are tanking. Trump shot back by warning Musk that his 'billions' in government contracts could melt away like the snows of yesteryear, which made Musk threaten to stop carrying US astronauts into orbit, that is, in effect – since the volatile oligarch is America's de facto monopolist – shut down space for the US. That, according to the Washington Post, constituted a 'serious threat to NASA and Pentagon programs.' Slow claps, Washington, for letting 'the Market' handle national security. All in all, quite a reality show: noisy, no holds barred, and pretty indecorous. A dignified display of manly self-control and mature gravity at the empire's top this was not. But, then again, it's the US late-imperial 'elite,' so the bar of the truly sensational is really high – or low, depending on how you look at it. The whole battle-not-so-royal may or may not blow over. Both Trump and Musk clearly have much to lose from a prolonged war against each other, financially and politically, and both are not only card-carrying egomaniacs but also ruthless, selfish pragmatists. There are already signals that Musk, for one, may want to wind down the confrontation again: he has relented regarding the astronauts and made some semi-conciliatory noises. Between the president's growing reputation for 'TACO' (Trump always chickens out) and Musk's proven ability to knuckle under when the price is right (in Brazil and toward Israel-while-committing-genocide, for instance), the two would-be alpha males might still find a way to share. Yet things will never be as before. For one thing, by losing their cool, Musk and Trump have ended up showing each other three things that neither of them will forget: Just how volatile they both are (I know: surprise, surprise…); that Elon is no sacrosanct exception for Donald and Donald isn't one for Elon either: everyone can always end up on the menu; and, finally, that both can think quickly – really as if they had been doing so for quite a while already – of the nastiest way to hurt the other. If Musk and Trump do make up, think of it as a movie star marriage sticking together after both spouses have badly, publicly cheated and also tried to ruin each other, financially, career-wise, and reputationally. And now let's take a step back. For, ultimately, the Big Bro Bust-Up is most interesting if we look at it as if we were historians a few hundred years from now in the future: What does this quarrel tell us more generally about America at this stage? First of all, it simply confirms what we all know already: The US is not a democracy by any stretch of the (reasonable) imagination but an oligarchy and plutocracy. Votes count much less than money because money produces the votes. Musk has been commendably explicit about his belief that it was his massive financial support that made Trump win; and one of Trump's worries in the whole rumble is that Musk might not only withdraw future funds from his camp – already promised but not yet paid out – but also invest them elsewhere. Second, as of now at least, the American oligarchy/plutocracy is not under pressure 'from below.' Objectively – to use a term long beloved by Marxists – Americans have every reason to rebel and shake off both Trump and Musk and then some. But, sadly, tension and conflict are generated inside the elite, not by 'the masses.' And third, the US elite is and remains absolutely, ruthlessly amoral and immoral, indeed quite evil: Here is a major falling out between the biggest oligarch and the president, and it's about taxes, the deficit, profits, ego, and personal advantages. Not about, for instance, the fact that the US has, according to Israel, by now delivered 90,000 tons of arms and ammunitions to the Israeli apartheid state while the latter has been committing the Gaza genocide. Indeed, Musk has never withdrawn his support for Israel, while Trump has reached the same level of complicit depravity as his predecessor Joe Biden. America: The world sees your priorities. And it won't forget.
