Ukraine Is Making More Weapons Than Ever—but Still Can't Fight Russia Alone
In the first years of Russia's invasion, Ukraine relied heavily on a host of Western weapons to equip its forces. Now, out of the crucible of war, Kyiv's own defense industry is producing more arms than ever.
Ukraine had only a single prototype of its domestically produced Bohdana howitzer when Russia invaded. Last year, Kyiv said it produced more artillery guns than all the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries combined.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sheffield howitzer factory to be ‘home of UK artillery production'
A new £25m howitzer factory in Sheffield will become the home of Britain's defence manufacturing push as the country prepares for a weapons spending blitz. On Thursday, the Government said the state-of-the-art site, run by BAE Systems, will become the hub of Britain's defence manufacturing push after it opened this week to initially increase production of M777 towed howitzers. BAE's revamped facility, which has created 200 new jobs, has been hailed as a crucial part of UK efforts to support Ukrainian forces in their battle against Russia. Revived demand for arms during the Ukraine conflict prompted BAE to announce it was reopening the Sheffield facility, reversing its decision in 2023 to wind down production of the M777 howitzers in the UK. Kyiv has previously received several M777 howitzers, which are able to hit targets up to 30km away and are lightweight for artillery at 4.5 tonnes. However, many of those are in need of refurbishment or repair. John Healy, the Defence Secretary, said the new Sheffield factory marked a 'significant step forward in strengthening our British defence industrial base'. The announcement comes as the Government pushes ahead with efforts to drive up defence spending. Earlier this week, the Chancellor committed to increase spending on defence to 2.6pc of GDP by April 2027, from 2.3pc currently. In her spending review on Wednesday, Rachel Reeves said: 'A new era in the threats we face demands a new era for defence and security.' Labour has said it will go further on its military budget. Sir Keir Starmer promised to get defence spending to 3pc of GDP by the end of the next parliament. This includes a commitment to funnel £6bn into munitions production during the course of this parliament, to cover spending at least six new factories. However, the pledge still remains short of demands from Nato, with the military alliance expected to require members to lift defence spending to 3.5pc of GDP in the coming years. Nato is also expected to require allies to spend a further 1.5pc of GDP on related infrastructure, such as railways and highways used to transport military hardware. It follows complaints from Donald Trump that Europe is relying too heavily on America for defence. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, told The Telegraph this month that people in Britain had 'better learn to speak Russian' if the Government did not increase its defence spending to 5pc of GDP. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson said Labour's spending pledges on defence had been 'feeble', adding: 'My view is that this Government is completely failing to show the leadership that is needed to defend Britain and defend Europe.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Germany announces new 1.9B euro Ukraine aid boost
Germany's defense minister on Thursday pledged a new military aid package for Ukraine worth 1.9 billion euros, as European and NATO officials met in Rome to discuss bolstering the bloc's defense and security spending amid rising risks of Russian aggression. Berlin's pledge will likely bring relief to Kyiv after Washington signaled a reduction in next year's budget for military aid to Ukraine. Germany is Ukraine's second-largest backer, and along with other European nations has been under increasing pressure to make up for the Trump administration's retreat from supporting Ukraine's military operation. Russia has stepped up strikes on Ukrainian urban centers in recent days, and despite Washington urging negotiations, both sides seem as far as ever from progress toward a peace deal, analysts said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - A federal solution: The United States of Palestine
As French President Emmanuel Macron tries to revive the same solution that has failed time and time again, the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. With with no lasting solution in sight, it may be time to revisit a concept both deeply historical and radically pragmatic: the idea that Jordan — long tied to the Palestinian people by geography, identity, governance and religion — should take the lead in shaping a new federal solution for Palestinian self-determination. Few remember today that Jordan was, and in many ways still is, part of historic Palestine. Before the 1921 creation of Transjordan under British supervision, the territory we now call Jordan was understood as part of the larger Palestinian entity — the land between the Mediterranean and the Iraqi desert. Though carved out and handed to a Hashemite emir from the Saudi Hejaz, Jordan has always remained tethered to the Palestinian cause, demographically and spiritually. Today, more than 70 percent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin. These Jordanian-Palestinians see themselves not as outsiders but as integrated citizens of the Hashemite state. Their presence has not weakened Jordan's identity — it has enriched it. From Nablus merchants to Jerusalem-born educators, the Palestinian community in Jordan is a cornerstone of the kingdom's civic and economic life. Jordan also has a unique religious and political legitimacy in the region. From 1948 to 1967, it ruled the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to serve as custodian of the Muslim holy sites there, by international agreement. No other government — not the Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas, nor any regional actor — holds that trust. Unlike the divided and often dysfunctional Palestinian political bodies in Gaza and the West Bank, the Hashemite Kingdom has maintained 100 years of strong, stable governance. It has proven its ability to rule justly, suppress extremism and maintain strategic alignment with Western interests. Amman is a loyal U.S. and NATO partner. It has withstood the storms of Arab nationalism, Islamist extremism, regional war and refugee crises — all while keeping its institutions intact and its society relatively moderate and open. In contrast, every attempt at Palestinian self-rule — from the Palestine Liberation Organization's early years through the current Hamas-Fatah split — has ended in disappointment. Palestinian leadership has, at various times, aligned with morally and strategically disastrous actors: the Nazis during World War II, the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, and Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. Internal corruption, repression and a reckless embrace of violence have robbed generations of Palestinians of the chance to live in peace and dignity. It is time to imagine something better: a federal model in which Jordan assumes sovereign oversight of the United States of Palestine. Under this model, Jordan would recognize and integrate several Palestinian states or provinces into a federated structure. Inside current Jordanian borders, three to four states would be formed, each with local state control and democratic representation. The Palestinian-ruled areas in the West Bank would become another state. Gaza, currently caught between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces, would form yet another. All of these would retain autonomy over education, internal policing and local governance, while reporting back to a federal authority in Amman — itself restructured to reflect shared governance between the different states. This model may sound unprecedented in the Middle East, but it is not so different from the federal system of the United Arab Emirates or that of the United States. Just as Alaska and Hawaii — non-contiguous and culturally distinct — are integral parts of the American union, so too could a Palestinian West Bank and Gaza remain part of a wider Jordanian federation. Amman would act as the political capital, whilst managing Jerusalem's Islamic holy sites on behalf of all Muslims — a responsibility it already holds with international consent. The Hashemite family would remain the ruling monarchy but the prime minister would be chosen by popular vote by the states. This is almost identical to the United Kingdom, in which the Windsor family are the ruling monarchy but the prime minister is chosen by popular vote by the citizens of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. The benefits could be profound. First, dissent within Jordan would be channeled into structured political representation. Palestinian-Jordanians would no longer be torn between their heritage and their passports — they would be empowered stakeholders in a shared, sovereign future. Second, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would gain credible, experienced governance. Jordan's bureaucracy, civil service and military are among the most respected in the Arab world. Corruption would fall; investor confidence would rise. With Jordanian oversight, Palestinian autonomy would no longer mean instability and isolation. Third, Israel would gain a reliable partner on its eastern and southern borders — one that has a proven record of rejecting terrorism, maintaining peace agreements, and safeguarding regional stability. This would allow Israel to manage its borders securely while supporting genuine Palestinian self-rule under a legitimate and moderate umbrella. Finally, the broader region and the West — especially the United States — would benefit from an end to one of the world's most polarizing and destabilizing conflicts. Domestic political pressures would ease. Radical groups would lose their most powerful propaganda tool. And a long-elusive dream — a real solution for the Palestinians — would finally emerge. Of course, such a vision would require bold diplomacy, careful constitutional design, and broad popular buy-in from Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis alike. But the alternative — endless stalemate, fractured governance and cycles of violence — is far worse. A century after the fall of Ottoman rule, the time has come for an old-new vision of federal statehood — one rooted not in slogans or fantasies but in history, practicality and hope. Terry Newman is an entrepreneur and investor who works throughout the Middle East. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
