US, NATO developing novel funding mechanism for Ukraine weapons transfers
The renewed transatlantic cooperation on Ukraine comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed frustration with Moscow's ongoing attacks on its neighbor. Trump, who initially took a more conciliatory tone toward Russia as he tried to end the more than three-year war in Ukraine, has threatened to start imposing tariffs and other measures if Moscow shows no progress toward ending the conflict by August 8.
The president said last month the U.S. would supply weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but did not indicate how this would be done.
NATO countries, Ukraine, and the United States are developing a new mechanism that will focus on getting U.S. weapons to Ukraine from the Priority Ukraine Requirements List, known under the acronym PURL, the sources said.
Ukraine would prioritize the weapons it needs in tranches of roughly $500 million, and NATO allies - coordinated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte - would then negotiate among themselves who would donate or pay for items on the list.
Through this approach, NATO allies hope to provide $10 billion in arms for Ukraine, said a European official, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was unclear over what timeframe they hope to supply the arms.
"That is the starting point, and it's an ambitious target that we're working towards. We're currently on that trajectory. We support the ambition. We need that sort of volume," the European official said.
NATO declined to comment. The White House, Pentagon, and Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
Russian forces are gradually advancing against Ukraine, and control one-fifth of Ukraine's territory.
If a NATO country decides to donate weapons to Ukraine, the mechanism would allow that country to effectively bypass lengthy U.S. arms sales procedures to replenish its own stocks, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But the NATO country would have to pay the U.S. up front for the speedier replenishment. The money would be paid into a U.S.-held account, possibly at the U.S. Treasury Department, or to an escrow fund, although the exact structure remains unclear, the official said.
NATO countries also have the option of simply paying the United States to send weapons directly to Ukraine. In that case, the payment could be made via NATO or directly to the U.S. Department of Defense, said a second source, speaking on condition of anonymity.
This would be in addition to the United States' own effort to identify arms from U.S. stockpiles to send to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to draw from current weapons stocks to help allies in an emergency.
At least one tranche of weapons for Ukraine is currently being negotiated under the new mechanism, two sources said, though it was unclear if any money has yet been transferred.
Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation, known as the PEACE Act, that aims to create a fund at the U.S. Treasury in which allies can deposit money that would pay to replenish U.S. military equipment donated to Ukraine.
Ukraine's needs remain consistent with previous months - air defenses, interceptors, systems, rockets, and artillery. The last statement of need from Ukraine came at the July 21 Ramstein conference led by EU allies, including Britain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump steps up attacks on Fed's independence amid interest rates row
Donald Trump called on top Federal Reserve officials to seize control from its chair, Jerome Powell, if he fails to cut interest rates, stepping up his extraordinary attacks on the central bank's independence. The US president called Powell 'a stubborn MORON' in a series of critical social media posts on Friday, days after the Fed held rates steady for the fifth consecutive time. It comes as Trump faces heightened questions over the impact of his aggressive economic policy, and the White House presses forward with plans for a fresh wave of tariffs next week. Hours before the federal government released data which underlined a significant deterioration in the jobs market, Trump again broke with precedent to pin blame on the Fed – and urge it to change course. 'Jerome 'Too Late' Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social network. 'IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!' The Fed chair does not unilaterally set interest rates, which are decided by its rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee. Presidents typically respect its independence, leaving the central bank to make an objective decision – without political interference – about the best policy on interest rates for the US economy. 'Too Little, Too Late. Jerome 'Too Late' Powell is a disaster,' Trump wrote, minutes after Friday's lackluster jobs report. 'DROP THE RATE! The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Powell has repeatedly argued that the best approach for the Fed right now is to wait and see the impact of Trump's aggressive tariff strategy before cutting rates. But Trump has increasingly used the Powell, whom he appointed during his first term, as something of a piñata – repeatedly accusing him of damaging the US economy. Two members of the Fed's rate-setting committee dissented from its other policymakers' call to hold rates steady this week, and – to the president's delight – published their reasons on Friday. 'STRONG DISSENTS ON FED BOARD,' Trump wrote, claiming: 'IT WILL ONLY GET STRONGER!' By Friday evening, however, Trump's tone appeared to have changed as he told Newsmax during an interview that Powell will 'most likely' stay in his position. Trump said he would remove Powell 'in a heartbeat' and said the Fed's interest rate was too high but added that others have said Powell's removal would 'disturb the market'. 'He gets out in seven or eight months and I'll put somebody else in,' Trump said. On Friday afternoon, another member of the committee abruptly resigned. Adriana D Kugler, whose term was set to expire in January, announced she would step down next week. She did not provide a reason for the move, and will return to Georgetown University as a professor in the fall. 'I am especially honored to have served during a critical time in achieving our dual mandate of bringing down prices and keeping a strong and resilient labor market,' Kugler said in a statement. Her resignation creates a vacancy for the White House to fill. Reuters contributed reporting
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Are YOU a pension planner, putting it off - or relying on your partner? Take our quiz
Nearly half of adults believe they are 'pension planners' who are on top of contributions and what they need for a decent retirement, new research reveals. Some 44 per cent of people feel confident enough to describe themselves this way, but 22 per cent admit to burying their heads in the sand and being unsure where to begin. The rest fall in the middle and declare themselves neither a 'planner' nor a 'procrastinator' when it comes to sorting out their finances to be prepared for retirement. Men are more likely to think of themselves as a 'planner', with 54 per cent identifying with this role compared with 35 per cent of women, according to Aviva which carried out the research. 'While this might suggest a confidence or engagement gap, it's also possible that men are more likely to say they are financially knowledgeable, or that women are simply more candid about their uncertainties,' says the pension firm. Aviva also says income is a factor in shaping people's habits, with 33 per cent of people earning £35,000 or less a year saying they are pension planners. But that rises to 66 per cent of those earning between £75,000 and £100,000 and reaches as high as 80 per cent at the top end of the income scale. Less prevalent confidence among lower earners could reflect affordability concerns or a sense of disengagement, while higher earners feel more able to take control of their finances, suggests Aviva. Meanwhile, among 45 to 54-year-olds - a key age when preparing for retirement - 32 per cent called themselves 'planners', 29 per cent said they were 'procrastinators' and the rest said neither. Aviva surveyed more than 2,000 adults, of whom around 1,370 were dating, living together, married or in a civil partnership. In this group, 22 per cent said their partner was a planner, 12 per cent called them more of a procrastinator, 28 per cent said they were neither, 26 per cent said both of them were clued up on pensions and 13 per cent said neither were on top of matters. The results suggest a gap in communication and self-awareness in couples, which means there is room for more collaborative conversations, according to Aviva. How to sort out your pension: A five step guide 1) Add up what you have saved so far If you are worried about whether you will have saved enough, investigate your existing pensions . Broadly speaking, you need to ask work schemes the following questions. - The current fund value. - The current transfer value - because there might be a penalty to move. - Whether the pension is in a final salary or defined contribution scheme. Defined contribution pensions take contributions from both employer and employee and invest them to provide a pot of money at retirement. Unless you work in the public sector, they have now mostly replaced more generous gold-plated defined benefit - career average or final salary - pensions, which provide a guaranteed income after retirement until you die. Defined contribution pensions are stingier and savers bear the investment risk, rather than employers. - If there are any guarantees - for instance, a guaranteed annuity rate - and if you would lose them if you moved the fund. - The pension projection at retirement age. You can use a pension calculator to see if you will have enough - check ours below. Pension calculator: When can you afford to retire? When can you afford to retire and how much do you need to get the lifestyle you want? This is Money's pension calculator, powered by Jarvis, uses benchmark PLSA Retirement Living Standards amounts to help you work out what your retirement could look like - and what you need to save. 2) Check what you will get in state pension You should add the forecast figures to what you anticipate getting in state pension, which is currently £230.25 a week or nearly £12,000 a year if you qualify for the full rate. Get a state pension forecast here. 3) Work out whether this will be enough You can use a pension industry-devised standard for a minimum, moderate and comfortable retirement to see how close you will get. This year's figures are £21,600, £43,900 or £60,600 a year respectively for a couple, with the first one doable if you have two full state pensions coming in. However, they do not include income tax, housing costs if you are still paying a mortgage or rent, and potentially care costs in later life. Others in the finance industry suggest a different approach which is to think about what you earn now and what proportion of that income - the target replacement rate - you want to aim for in retirement. You need to bear in mind that you will no longer have work-related costs such as travel, clothes and lunches, but you are likely to spend more on hobbies, socialising and holidays. 4) Think about tidying up your pensions Savers often collect a number of pension pots during their working lives as they move jobs but many never bother combining them. Doing this can save on paperwork and costs. But merging pensions is not always advisable because you can risk losing valuable benefits attached to employer schemes. Read our guide to merging pensions to ensure you won't be penalised. 4) Find any lost pots If you have lost track of old pots, the Government's free pension tracing service is here. Take care if you do an online search for the Pension Tracing Service as many companies using similar names will pop up in the results. These will also offer to look for your pension, but try to charge or flog you other services, and could be fraudulent. Here's our guide to finding lost pensions.
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's hopes of a building boom are fading
The Government's entire economic strategy can be summed up in one phrase: planning reform. This is front and centre of every response to poor GDP figures, in every speech on the economy and high up in any list of government 'achievements'. It doesn't seem to matter that taxes on business have gone up massively and employment regulation is about to do the same. That is all fine because of planning reform. In her Spring Statement for instance, the Chancellor stated that these reforms would mean the Government was now 'within touching distance of delivering our manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament'. The result of all this housebuilding would be, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), an increase in GDP worth 'an additional £3.4bn' by 2029/30. Delivering this level of housebuilding is therefore crucial to the Government's economic and political success. The early signs are not good, and this should be a major cause for concern in the Treasury. First, the OBR's assumptions for this economic impact are nothing short of heroic. They state that net additions to the housing stock will increase from 192,000 this year to 305,000 by 2029/30. A near-60pc increase and a 40-year high in terms of net additions. They are also forecasting a booming property market with transactions rising from 1m in 2023 to 1.472m in 2029. Turnover rate in the housing market will apparently rise to 4.58pc by 2029. Other than the Covid market surge in 2021 – when stamp duty was eased – that would be the highest annual turnover rate in 20 years. No one in the industry thinks these forecasts are realistic. And for good reason. The Home Builders Federation's recent housing pipeline report shows that the number of residential planning approvals actually fell by 37pc during the first quarter of 2025. The 50,610 units that these approvals will deliver was the lowest quarterly figure in nearly 12 years. In certain key regions things are even worse. Data from Molior shows that in London, where Labour has been in charge for years, just over 2,000 private homes began construction during the first half of this year. That is just 4.9pc of the Government's 44,000 half-year target. It could be fairly argued that the Government's planning reforms have yet to kick in. The OBR says most of the increase will happen from 2026/27. But things do not look good on that front either. Molior is forecasting that London will deliver just over 5pc of the 176,000 homes that the Mayor is targeting over the next two years. And if that were replicated across the country it would be nothing short of disastrous. If things continue along at the sort of rate we've seen since Labour came to power, rather than that which is currently in the OBR forecast, it will only be a matter of time before they look again at the numbers. They do in fact warn that their projections for housebuilding contain 'several significant uncertainties' including constraints within the sector and local opposition to the reforms. To that they should add other government policies because since these reforms were announced ministers have done everything they can to hamper them. They've already watered down some of their plans in the face of backbench opposition so environmental and nature campaigners will still be able to easily block new developments. Any hope that Government backed affordable housing would help reach the target have been ended after the Spring Statement confirmed most of the £39bn trumpeted for this programme is back loaded into the next parliament. There's actually less money for affordable housing in the next crucial few years. Added to all of this, the Government is actively making it more expensive to build new homes. New levies, inherited from the previous Government, will add a few thousand pounds to the cost of each new home. And Treasury officials have managed to slip through a massive increase to the landfill tax, something the previous government rejected, that will halt many brownfield developments in their tracks. So unless we see some new, additional and radical planning reforms for the OBR to take into account, at some point they will revise down the number of net additions they are currently forecasting. At which point the Government won't have an economic strategy left. The minor planning reforms they have half implemented will count for nothing. Instead of a housebuilding boom that delivers the economic growth that the Chancellor has promised, we are going to see the sector limp along like the rest of the economy because this Government simply doesn't understand that tax and regulation matter.
