
Germany, Ukraine's second biggest backer, is ready to play a larger role
On 30 June, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul travelled to Kyiv to reiterate Germany's military, financial, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine. 'In Ukraine, it will be decided whether our Europe remains a place where freedom and human dignity hold sway, or becomes a continent on which violence can be used to redraw borders,' said Mr. Wadephul.
This follows visits by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Berlin in May and German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius to Kyiv in mid-June. Mr. Pistorius announced a total German military aid worth €9 billion for 2025.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Bundestag on July 9 said that all diplomatic means to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war had been exhausted. 'When a criminal regime openly questions another country's right to exist with military force and sets out to destroy the political order of freedom on the entire European continent, the federal government I lead will do everything in its power to prevent this,' said Mr. Merz.
Patrick Keller, the head of the Centre for Security and Defence at the Berlin-based German Society for Foreign Relations (DGAP), notes that Germany has been at the forefront in supporting Ukraine since 2022. However, he acknowledges that in the light of the increased Russian aggression, these efforts look insufficient.
'We have to continue to increase our efforts. With the change in the German government, there has been a new focus on defence and security policy overall. It is understood that the Ukrainian effort also serves as a deterrent for Europe in the era of an aggressive Russia,' said Mr. Keller.
Niklas Balbon, Research Fellow with the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi), a Berlin-based think tank, noted that while Germany has promised financial aid to Ukraine, the challenge is how soon Ukraine's weapons production can be scaled up.
Trump's flip-flop
Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump's infamous White House meeting with Ukraine's Mr. Zelenskyy in February this year, Europe has been on tenterhooks. The U.S. remains one of the largest members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), but Mr. Trump has made it clear that European countries must increase their defence spending. Mr. Trump's views on Russian President Vladimir Putin have also gone from being positive following some 'respectful conversations' earlier this year to outright criticism in the last month.
Mr. Keller notes that one cannot change the fundamental attitude of the current state of affairs with the U.S. government, but can make the most of it.
'In the current situation, Mr. Trump is getting increasingly critical of Mr. Putin and is willing to support Ukraine in innovative ways. Europe has to jump at this opportunity. We really need to get going with increased capacity in Ukraine and helping them to produce weapons on their own. The German defence industry is more than ready to build in Ukraine and help them scale and build weapons-making factories,' said Mr. Keller.
Ukraine does produce close to 40% of the weapons it uses in the war at home, as of mid-2025, and U.S. support covers 30%. There are plans to increase domestic weapons production to 50% within the next six months, as per Mr. Zelenskyy. This is where Germany is expected to help out. In 2024, drones manufactured in Ukraine made up 96% of all unmanned aerial vehicles used in combat. Ukraine is approaching a capacity to make 4 million drones annually by this year.
Mr. Balbon notes that even though Europe would like to be more independent from the U.S., it does not have the capabilities to be more autonomous or produce the weapons needed in Ukraine quickly enough.
'European decision makers are thinking about how to game the U.S. administration to support Ukraine, while also allowing Mr. Trump to sell it as a victory to his voter base. The NATO countries buying weapons from the U.S. to donate to Ukraine is one such way,' said Mr. Balbon.
As per NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Britain, the Netherlands, and Canada are ready to buy weapons from the U.S. to be donated to Ukraine. The weapons include Patriot missile batteries and air defence systems, F-16 fighter jets, Howitzer artillery systems and more. Patriot is the world's most advanced air-defence system.
In May, Mr. Merz had said that there would be no range restrictions for weapons that would be delivered to Ukraine. However, Defence Minister Mr. Pistorius has said that Germany won't be providing Kyiv with the long-range Taurus cruise missiles that can strike targets that are 500 km away.
'If one looks at the Patriot systems, the U.S. has 60 ready, whereas Germany just has 4-6. It is a question of scale and timing, as it takes months to build them. If Ukraine needs these systems now, the most effective way is to buy them from the U.S.,' said Mr. Keller, noting that despite all the challenges posed by the Trump government, Europe cannot give the impression that it wants the U.S. out – it's in no one's interest.
Modern warfare
While Germany has announced billions in aid for helping Ukraine build weapons, experts say that investments have to be made in the right capabilities, keeping in mind the nature of future warfare.
'The warfare of the future will rely a lot on unmanned drones, AI technology, space-based systems and so on, so you would need a smart combination of various factors to succeed,' said Mr. Keller, noting that a large part of defence spending has to go to nimble industries and startups over large defence contractors.
German defence startups such as Helsing, Quantum Systems, Stark Defense have been at the forefront of providing drones to Ukraine alongside large defence players like Rheinmetall.
'It is important to keep in mind that the biggest innovator and driver in drone warfare is Ukraine. NATO countries are learning from this and playing catch-up. German military is also learning how Ukrainians are using drones, so there is a flow of knowledge in both directions,' said Mr. Balbon.
Political challenges
Even before the new government led by the coalition between the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) assumed office, Germany had agreed on a €500 billion budget to be spent on civilian, climate, economic and defence needs. This special budget is over and above Germany's annual budget. For sectors like infrastructure and defence spending, Germany also exempted the conservative 'debt brake' that only allowed it to borrow 0.35% of its GDP.
'The lifting of the debt brake allows the German government to balance defence spending with other forms of spending when it comes to lifting the economy, improving domestic infrastructure and so on. In the ruling coalition, the CDU also wants to reform social spending and lower expenditure, as they argue that the German government is spending too much money. For Social Democrats, that's not in their interest. This is the key tension,' said Mr. Balbon.
'The increased defence spending isn't just key for Germany, but also largely for Europe, as it is a deterrence against Russia in the mid-term. The capabilities that are being acquired with this money, in theory and practice, can be sent to Ukraine as well,' said Mr. Keller.
But it does come with some political backlash from the far right and far left parties within Germany. According to Mr. Balbon, the far left parties are opposed to military spending in general, as they don't want Germany to invest in armed forces. 'The far right (namely, Alternative for Germany or AfD) are more interested and aligned ideologically with Russia. But there's a paradox – they want Germany to stop supporting Ukraine, but they also want a stronger German military whilst negating the very reason there is a need for larger German defence spending - namely, Russian aggression,' said Mr. Balbon.
'Given German history, there's an inherent criticism of militarisation and spending on military purposes as opposed to spending on social benefits, childcare, rent and so on. It will be important for defence planners and the industry representatives to get this mix right,' said Mr. Keller.
Neighbours perception
Given Germany's history, especially in the Second World War, it is generally wary of taking any leadership position within Europe. When it comes to Ukraine, Germany has been the second-largest supporter, after the US, in terms of weapons and aid. Germany's increased spending isn't scaring its neighbours but is being welcomed, noted Mr. Keller.
'Historically difficult neighbours, such as the Baltic countries, Poland, and the Czech Republic, feel that Germany is finally living up to its responsibility. It has prompted other wealthy EU countries, such as France, to increase their own defence spending,' said Mr. Keller.
Mr. Balbon concurs. 'The predominant fear in Europe and Germany is that at some point in the future, Russia will attack the Baltic countries. It's not so much a fear of massive on-ground invasion, but that Russia will try out some smaller level attack to see how NATO responds – whether it will trigger Article 5 or which members will come to help,' said Mr. Balbon.
Article 5 is a cornerstone of NATO, which states that an armed attack against any one NATO member is an attack against all. Meaning if any NATO member is attacked, other members are obligated to assist by 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force'.
At the recent NATO Summit in The Hague on June 24-25, all 32 member countries agreed to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP by 2035. Germany now has a permanent brigade (to have 5,000 troops by 2027) in Lithuania, which is one of the three Baltic countries bordering Russia. Estonia and Latvia are also expected to get a European multinational battlegroup presence.
Mr. Keller notes that there are no guarantees that all NATO members would fulfil the 5% target, given past record when many countries failed to fulfil the 2% target.
'Domestic political pressure and economic reasons may cause individual countries to lag behind. That should not happen, and it is the responsibility of wealthy countries to lead by example. This is why it is important for Germany to fulfil its obligations. There is a shared perception among the NATO members that they are stronger united,' said Mr. Keller.
(Nimish Sawant is an independent journalist based in Berlin)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Jennifer Welch has had it with Trump supporters who eat at Indian restaurants: ‘Take your a** to Cracker Barrel'
Jennifer Welch has slammed Trump supporters who continue to frequent businesses owned by those targeted by his anti-immigration and anti-diversity policies. In the latest episode of her I've Had It podcast, Welch ranted against Donald Trump voters who eat at Mexican, Chinese or Indian restaurants while simultaneously advocating for the deportation of immigrants. Podcast host Jennifer Welch takes aim at Trump supporters in foul-mouthed rant. She addressed supporters of the US president who embrace his anti-immigration, anti-diversity and anti-LGBTQ+ stances while, accusing them of being hypocritical when they patronise businesses run by the very communities his policies target. 'I've had it with White people' 'I've had it with White people that triple Trumped, that have the nerve and the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Indian restaurant, go to a gay hairdresser,' said Welch. 'I don't think you should be able to enjoy anything but Cracker Barrel. 'If you want to triple Trump. If you want to brow beat DEI, if you want to brow beat gay people, you want to brow beat Black people as you have been doing for hundreds of years… White people that triple Trumped should be banned from enjoying the best thing that America has to offer, which is multiculturalism,' Welch said in her vehement and expletive-laden rant on the podcast. 'Get your fat a*ses out of the Mexican restaurant. Get your fat a*ses over at a Cracker Barrel,' she said. You can watch the segment here. (Disclaimer: Video contains language that may not be suitable for children. Viewer discretion advised). The podcast has proved deeply divisive on social media, where Welch faced hate from MAGA supporters but found common ground with Trump detractors.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Russia, Ukraine firm on demands ahead of planned Putin-Trump summit
The threats, pressure and ultimatums have come and gone, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained Moscow's uncompromising demands in the war in Ukraine, raising fears he could use a planned summit with US President Donald Trump in Alaska to coerce Kyiv into accepting an unfavourable deal. The maximalist demands reflect Putin's determination to reach the goals he set when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Putin sees a possible meeting with Trump as a chance to negotiate a broad deal that would not only cement Russia's territorial gains but also keep Ukraine from joining Nato and hosting any Western troops, allowing Moscow to gradually pull the country back into its orbit. The Kremlin leader believes time is on his side as the exhausted and outgunned Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances in many sectors of the over 1,000-kilometre front line while swarms of Russian missiles and drones batter Ukrainian cities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also has stood firm in his positions, agreeing to a ceasefire proposed by Trump while reaffirming the country's refusal to abandon seeking Nato membership and rejecting acknowledgment of Russia's annexation of any of its regions. A look at Russian and Ukrainian visions of a peace deal and how a Putin-Trump summit could evolve: Russia's position In a memorandum presented at talks in Istanbul in June, Russia offered Ukraine two options for establishing a 30-day ceasefire. One demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson the four regions Moscow illegally annexed in September 2022 but never fully captured. As an alternate condition for a ceasefire, Russia made a package proposal for Ukraine to halt mobilization efforts, freeze Western arms deliveries and ban any third-country forces on its soil. Moscow also suggested Ukraine end martial law and hold elections, after which the countries could sign a comprehensive peace treaty. Once there's a truce, Moscow wants a deal to include the international legal recognition of its annexations of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the four regions in 2022. Russia says a peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, abandon its bid to join Nato, limit the size of its armed forces and recognise Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian - conditions reflecting Putin's earliest goals. It also demands Ukraine ban the glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism and dissolve nationalist groups. Since the war began, Putin has falsely alleged that neo-Nazi groups were shaping Ukrainian politics under Zelenskyy, who is Jewish. They were fiercely dismissed by Kyiv and its Western allies. In Russia's view, a comprehensive peace treaty should see both countries lift all sanctions and restrictions, abandon any claims to compensation for wartime damage, resume trade and communications, and reestablish diplomatic ties. Asked Thursday whether Moscow has signalled any willingness to compromise to make a meeting with Trump possible, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov responded that there haven't been any shifts in the Russian position. Ukraine's position The memorandum that Ukraine presented to Moscow in Istanbul emphasised the need for a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire to set stage for peace negotiations. It reaffirmed Ukraine's consistent rejection of Russian demands for neutral status as an attack on its sovereignty, declaring it is free to choose its alliances and adding that its Nato membership will depend on consensus with the alliance. It emphasised Kyiv's rejection of any restrictions on the size and other parameters of its armed forces, as well as curbs on the presence of foreign troops on its soil. Ukraine's memorandum also opposed recognising any Russian territorial gains, while describing the current line of contact as a starting point in negotiations. The document noted the need for international security guarantees to ensure the implementation of peace agreements and prevent further aggression. Kyiv's peace proposal also demanded the return of all deported and illegally displaced children and a total prisoner exchange. It held the door open to gradual lifting of some of the sanctions against Russia if it abides by the agreement. Trump's positions Trump has often spoken admiringly of Putin and even echoed his talking points on the war. He had a harsh confrontation with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28, but later warmed his tone. As Putin resisted a ceasefire and continued his aerial bombardments, Trump showed exasperation with the Kremlin leader, threatening Moscow with new sanctions. Although Trump expressed disappointment with Putin, his agreement to meet him without Zelenskyy at the table raised worries in Ukraine and its European allies, who fear it could allow the Russian to get Trump on his side and strong-arm Ukraine into concessions. Trump said without giving details that there'll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both Russia and Ukraine as part of any peace deal that he will discuss with Putin when they meet Friday. Putin repeatedly warned Ukraine will face tougher conditions for peace if it doesn't accept Moscow's demands as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a buffer zone. Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for the territories of the four annexed by Moscow still under Ukrainian control. That is potentially a situation that gives Putin a tremendous amount of leeway as long as he can use that leverage to force the Ukrainians into a deal that they may not like and to sideline the Europeans effectively, Sam Greene of King's College London said. The question is, will Trump sign up to that and will he actually have the leverage to force the Ukrainians and the Europeans to accept it? Putin could accept a temporary truce to win Trump's sympathy as he seeks to achieve broader goals, Greene said. He could accept a ceasefire so long as it's one that leaves him in control, in which there's no real deterrence against renewed aggression somewhere down the line, he said. He understands that his only route to getting there runs via Trump." In a possible indication he thinks a ceasefire or peace deal could be close, Putin called the leaders of China, India, South Africa and several ex-Soviet nations in an apparent effort to inform these allies about prospective agreements. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
30 minutes ago
- First Post
IMF reveals strength of India's economy amid Trump's tariffs
Is India's relative economic vulnerability the reason why Trump is targeting India and not China? Trump may be making a serious mistake read more At a recent press conference in the White House, US President Donald Trump was asked why he was singling out India by imposing a 25 per cent 'punishment tariff' when China buys more Russian oil than India. Cornered, Trump mumbled incoherently before moving quickly to the next question. Is India's relative economic vulnerability the reason why Trump is targeting India and not China? Trump may be making a serious mistake. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India is the world's fifth largest economy and will soon be the fourth largest with a GDP of $4.19 trillion. But that's only part of the story. By purchasing power parity (PPP), IMF data places India as the world's third largest economy with a GDP of $14.59 trillion. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD How can these two sets of figures be reconciled? PPP is increasingly being regarded as a more accurate measure of both GDP and per capita income. The Economist's 'Big Mac index' regularly adjusts per capita income of different countries to take into account living costs. The same theory guides purchasing power parity-based computations. The IMF explained the logic behind PPP in ranking countries across geographies: 'How fast is the global economy growing? Is China contributing more to global growth than the United States? To answer the questions, one must compare the value of the output from different countries. But each country reports its data in its own currency. 'One of the two main methods of conversion uses market exchange rates—the rate prevailing in the foreign exchange market (using either the rate at the end of the period or an average over the period). The other approach uses the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate—the rate at which the currency of one country would have to be converted into that of another country to buy the same amount of goods and services in each country.' Which method is better? Market rates or PPP? According to the IMF, 'International organisations use different approaches. The World Bank uses market-based rates to determine the weights in its regional and global aggregations of real GDP, whereas the IMF and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) use weights based on PPP rates. Each methodology has its advantages and disadvantages. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'PPP exchange rates are relatively stable over time. By contrast, market rates are more volatile, and using them could produce quite large swings in aggregate measures of growth even when growth rates in individual countries are stable. Another drawback of market-based rates is that they are relevant only for internationally traded goods. Nontraded goods and services tend to be cheaper in low-income than in high-income countries. A haircut in New York is more expensive than in Lima; the price of a taxi ride of the same distance is higher in Paris than in Tunis; and a ticket to a cricket game costs more in London than in Lahore. 'Indeed, because wages tend to be lower in poorer countries, and services are often relatively labour intensive, the price of a haircut in Lima is likely to be cheaper than in New York even when the cost of making tradable goods, such as machinery, is the same in both countries. Any analysis that fails to take into account these differences in the prices of nontraded goods across countries will underestimate the purchasing power of consumers in emerging market and developing countries and, consequently, their overall welfare. For this reason, PPP is generally regarded as a better measure of overall well-being.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's GDP (PPP) was $14.59 trillion in 2024-25 as per IMF. China leads the table with a GDP (PPP) of $35.29 trillion, followed in second place by the United States with a GDP (PPP) of $28.78 trillion. Japan ($6.72 trillion) and Germany ($5.69 trillion) make up the world's five largest economies by purchasing power parity. The GDP gap between the US and India at market rates is 7:1 ($29 trillion vs $4.19 trillion). But by PPP, the GDP gap falls to 2:1 ($28.78 trillion vs $14.59 trillion) At the relative growth rates of the two countries' economies, how soon will the GDP (PPP) gap between the US and India close? India's average annual economic growth is projected at between 6 and 8 per cent. A reasonable annual average growth rate over the next 15 years is 7 per cent. The annual average growth rate of the US economy is meanwhile projected at 2 per cent in line with its average growth rate over the past 15 years. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, India's GDP (PPP), growing at 7 per cent per year, would double every 10 years and quadruple in 20 years. Using the current IMF GDP base of $14.59 trillion, India's GDP (PPP) would be around $58 trillion in 2045. How about the US economy? Again, using the current IMF GDP base of $28.78 trillion, US GDP (PPP), growing at an average of 2 per cent per year, would be around $42 trillion in 2045 against India's $56 trillion in the same year. Clearly the point where Indian GDP (PPP) overtakes US GDP (PPP) will lie at some point between 2035 and 2045, possibly around 2040. Fifteen years from now is a blink in the eye in historical terms. What about per capita income? According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook published in October 2024, India's per capita income (PPP) is $11,940. This compares to India's per capita income at market rates of around $3,000. The per capita income of the US (PPP), again according to the IMF, is $89,105. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At current growth rates and with the population of both India and the US projected to rise by around 8-10 per cent over the next 20 years, Indian per capita income (PPP) of $11,940, growing at 7 per cent a year, could quadruple to $48,000 in 2045. US per capita income (PPP) would over the same 20 years, growing at 2 per cent a year, rise to $1,30,000 in 2045. Thus, the US in 20 years will still be thrice as wealthy as India in 2045 (compared to eight times as wealthy by PPP in 2025) but India's economy (PPP) will be larger than America's. As India negotiates tariffs with the US, both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be aware that the decisive shift in global economic power these numbers demonstrate is well under way. The writer is an editor, author and publisher. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD