Germany will stop reporting arms deliveries to Ukraine, Merz says
Sources with knowledge of the matter had earlier told Reuters that public information about the delivery of weapons systems to Ukraine was to be reduced to achieve "strategic ambiguity" and prevent Russia gaining any strategic advantages.
"Under my leadership, the debate about arms deliveries, caliber, weapons systems and so on will be taken out of the public eye," Merz told RTL/ntv broadcasters in Kyiv.
Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Germany's government initially reported sporadically on military aid to Kyiv. Under pressure from parliamentarians and media, it later started publishing an updated list of systems and goods supplied.
Merz, who took office on Tuesday, said Germany's commitment to supporting Ukraine in the fight against Russia's invasion would not change.
"Germany will continue to expand its financial support. I am counting on you (...) to do the same with us," Merz said, addressing other European leaders at a meeting in Kyiv.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What's next for Ukraine-Russia peace talks? 5 questions to ask heading into a potential trilateral
President Donald Trump has spent the past several days on a diplomatic sprint, setting the groundwork for a potential trilateral meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss pathways to end the yearslong war. But despite the back-to-back meetings with delegations from both countries, along with a contingent of European leaders, daylight still remains between Putin's long-standing demands and the conditions outlined by Zelenskyy and his European allies. Nevertheless, after official talks with Zelenskyy and the European leaders came to a close Monday — but while the heads of state were all still gathered for dinner at the White House — Trump declared on social media that he was arranging a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, to be followed by a trilateral conference that Trump would attend. While trilateral talks could mean the start of serious negotiations to end the yearslong war, something Trump has vowed to do since entering office in January, he still has several steps ahead of him to successfully orchestrate such a conference — starting with getting both leaders to the negotiating table. Here are five questions we're asking as the White House prepares for a possible trilateral: Will Putin actually agree to meet Zelenskyy? Trump's big plan for a direct meeting between the warring leaders hinges on Putin's willingness to meet his Ukrainian counterpart face-to-face. It's not a likelihood to count on. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday told Russian state media that any meeting would have to take place "step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary stages" — a similar line the Kremlin has used to stall during previous attempts to get the two leaders in the same room. But Lavrov didn't rule out a meeting altogether, saying Putin wouldn't necessarily decline attending either a bilateral or trilateral summit. It's not the first time the Kremlin has dangled the possibility of a Putin-Zelenskyy conference to delay serious peace talks while Russia continues attacking Ukraine. Despite suggesting a meeting with Zelenskyy in May, Putin sent a delegation rather than attending the summit himself after Zelenskyy demanded a ceasefire as a precursor for negotiations. What's the breakdown of the security commitments between Europe and U.S.? According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the key 'breakthrough' coming out of Monday's summit was Trump's willingness to commit to security guarantees for Ukraine, for which Putin expressed openness during Friday's Alaska summit. But it's unclear what exactly the U.S.'s participation could look like. During a call with 'Fox and Friends' Tuesday, Trump said European allies would 'front load' security commitments, and gave his 'assurance' that the U.S. wouldn't put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Instead, Trump said, 'a couple countries,' namely France, Germany and the United Kingdom, were likely to provide troops. But the U.S. could still contribute in other ways — including air support, which Trump also floated to Fox on Tuesday. A senior official told POLITICO this week that 'I don't think there's a red line' for the U.S.'s potential role in long-term peace-keeping efforts. Where would the potential meeting take place? The White House is in the process of selecting a location for the potential trilateral — should it come to fruition. The list of possibilities isn't long. Due to the International Criminal Court's active warrant for Putin's arrest over his alleged role in abducting children in Ukraine during the war, the Russian leader is limited in the number of countries he's able to visit without facing possible apprehension. Switzerland would grant Putin 'immunity' if he were to visit the country for peace talks, the Swiss foreign minister said Tuesday. But while French President Emmanuel Macron suggested Geneva as a possible gathering place — and Putin pushed to host in Moscow — another location has emerged atop the White House's list of preferences. The U.S. Secret Service is making plans for the meeting to take place in Budapest, Hungary, POLITICO reported on Tuesday, though plans are yet to be finalized. A Budapest summit would make Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a Trump ally, the host for the pivotal gathering. It would also set up a potentially painful historical echo for Ukraine. After allies promised to protect the country's territorial integrity in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its nuclear weapons with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, their commitment proved meaningless when Ukraine's partners failed to provide military support in the face of Russia's 2014 attack. Are territorial concessions still on the table for Trump? Perhaps the biggest obstacle in the way of a potential trilateral: Putin's demands for territorial concessions from Ukraine. Trump has indicated openness for what he has termed 'land swapping' — which would involve Russia relinquishing some of the Ukrainian territory it has occupied during its war, but retaining other swaths of land, including parts of the Donbas region that Russia doesn't currently hold. Putin has made clear that he won't even consider ending his war on Ukraine without a successful territorial grab. But Zelenskyy has no intention of trading land for a peace deal. According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who joined Monday's White House summit, the subject of territory didn't come up in the day's talks, essentially postponing discussions until Zelenskyy and Putin meet face-to-face. But any condition of territorial concession heading into a hypothetical trilateral would likely quash a guarantee of Zelenskyy's participation. Will Trump alternate his allegiance again? Trump's Monday visit with Zelenskyy and a coterie of European leaders seemed to place the U.S. president back in Ukraine's corner. But there's no guarantee he'll stay there. Trump spent the better part of his administration thus far lauding Putin, publicly berating Zelenskyy, and stopping and restarting weapons shipments to the war-torn country — before finally tiring of his Russian counterpart's lack of serious engagement in peace talks and expressing distrust in his intentions. But the U.S. president was swayed by Putin again after their meeting on Friday — for which he rolled out the red carpet — echoing Putin's demands to do away with talk of a ceasefire agreement in favor of longer-term peace negotiations, as well as the Kremlin's long-standing condition that Ukraine must never join NATO. While Trump's support for Ukraine appeared to be back on after Monday's summit, Putin could pull Trump back into the Kremlin's orbit once again, potentially leaving Europe and Ukraine out in the cold. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Has Trump really ended ‘seven' wars?
While sitting beside Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Donald Trump once again boasted of ending 'six wars' in as many months – without negotiating a single ceasefire. 'If you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn't do any ceasefires,' Trump said before turning to Zelensky, adding: 'I don't think you need a ceasefire.' Since his trip to Scotland last month, Trump has repeated multiple times a version of his claim that he's ended wars 'at about one a month,' according to PolitiFact. Earlier Monday, the president posted on Truth Social that in one case, he had averted a 'possible unclear disaster.' By Tuesday morning, Trump told Fox & Friends that his administration had 'solved seven wars,' though the president did not elaborate on which conflict he was now including in his list. The White House told The Independent that Trump was citing conflicts from both his first and second terms. The White House previously lauded Trump as the 'peacemaker-in-chief,' and the president has styled himself as the 'president of peace.' Meanwhile, the commander-in-chief has openly signalled his ambitions of winning a Nobel Peace Prize despite campaigning on a largely non-interventionist platform. Are Trump's claims of halting hostilities credible or an embellishment of the truth? The Independent takes a closer look at the president's peacemaking record. Israel and Iran Approximately three days after launching Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump told NATO leaders that his administration 'just ended a war in 12 days that was simmering for 30 years.' On June 23, the major Iranian uranium enrichment sites, Fordow and Natanz, and the research base of Isfahan faced a wave of U.S. bunker buster bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which Trump claimed left the facilities 'obliterated.' The U.S. intervened in the conflict on June 21 after Israel launched a surprise attack eight days earlier on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile strikes, and military infrastructure. Iran responded with a wave of missile and drone strikes at Israeli army bases and cities. On June 23, Trump declared on Truth Social that Israel and Iran had reached a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE,' which was mediated by the U.S. While Trump's actions against Iran's nuclear program may have curtailed immediate strikes, it is not possible to claim to have secured lasting peace, with tensions in the region remaining high. India and Pakistan The brief but deadly military exchange between India and Pakistan that began on May 7 reignited long-standing tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir. It drew a surprise offer of mediation from Trump, who said he could help find a 'solution' to the Himalayan region that is claimed by both nations. 'We also appreciate President Trump's expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,' said the Pakistani government. By contrast, India remained publicly silent while reinforcing its view that Kashmir is an internal matter. Major General Rameshwar Roy, a retired Indian Army officer, dismissed Trump's offer outright, calling it irrelevant and intrusive and telling The Independent in May that it was a 'bilateral agreement' reached without U.S. involvement. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri doubled down in June that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Trump there was 'no U.S. mediation between India and Pakistan.' Thailand and Cambodia On July 26, Trump said he was calling the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia to urge a ceasefire after three days of intense border fighting. A truce between the nations, brokered by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, was reached on 28 July after Trump said he had spoken to the leaders. Trump leveraged his most powerful economic weapon: tariffs. He said he threatened to derail existing trade deals that had been brokered with the two countries if the fighting persisted. Just days later, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, lauding his 'extraordinary statesmanship' in halting the border conflict with its neighbor. However, foreign policy experts caution that there is no evidence that the president personally negotiated or directly brokered a ceasefire between the two countries. Reports indicate that the fragile truce has been violated multiple times, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo On June 27, foreign ministers of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo flew to Washington, D.C., to sign a controversial peace deal brokered by the U.S. to end fighting in eastern DRC. The agreement also allows for U.S. investment in eastern DRC's critical mineral reserves, including gold, copper, and lithium. Flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from both nations in the Oval Office, Trump called the peace treaty 'a glorious triumph.' Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi, however, claimed the 'diplomatic success' as his own. Foreign policy experts said the agreement is significant but part of a broader picture of broken contracts between the countries. A week earlier, Trump teed up the treaty he said he and Rubio arranged in a bid to put an end to the decades-long war between the two nations. 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this,' he wrote on Truth Social on June 20. In his meandering post, Trump also noted that he wouldn't be awarded the prize for 'stopping' wars between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, and for 'doing' the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!,' he said. Armenia and Azerbaijan On August 8, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement during a meeting with Trump in the White House, bringing an end to decades of conflict. If it holds, the deal between the South Caucasus rivals would reopen key transportation routes while allowing the U.S. to seize on Russia's declining influence in the region. A major transit corridor linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan is set to open, with the U.S. owning the development rights to the corridor. It was to be named the 'Trump Route,' the White House said, which the president called a 'great honor.' 'It's a long time – 35 years – they fought and now they're friends, and they're going to be friends for a long time,' Trump said, besides the leaders of the two nations at the signing ceremony. Egypt and Ethiopia After 12 years, Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said on June 29 that talks with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the River Nile had ground to a halt. Days later, Ethiopia said its GERD was complete. While a full-scale conflict did not erupt, Egyptians remained wary that the mega dam could restrict the flow of the Nile, which provides 90 percent of the country's total water supply. In a White House meeting on July 14, Trump appeared to side with Egypt, claiming that it would be 'pretty incredible' if its water source were to be taken away. He said that the U.S is 'going to have that solved very quickly.' President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Trump ally, said in a social media statement that the country appreciates Trump's 'keenness on reaching a just agreement' and supports the president's global 'vision of establishing just peace, security, and stability.' Ethiopian officials and experts warned that Trump's remarks risked aggravating the situation and undermining Ethiopia's right to utilize its natural resources. And any progress, they argued, is mainly attributable to ongoing multilateral negotiations, not Trump's intervention. Trump reportedly expressed hope for a quick resolution as Egypt and Ethiopia reached an agreement in 2018 during his first administration over how to share the waters of the Nile. Serbia and Kosovo At an Oval Office press conference on June 27, Trump declared that Serbia and Kosovo were on the brink of war – until, he said, his administration was 'able to stop it' by again threatening trade sanctions. Trump said he had a 'friend in Serbia' who alerted him that 'we're going to go to war again' with Kosovo, without providing further details. Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani said on July 10 that Trump prevented a potential escalation 'from Serbia.' Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić denied the claims of warmongering and said on July 12 that a conflict with Kosovo 'does not even occur to us.' After the breakup of Yugoslavia, tensions between the two nations peaked between 1998 and 1999 when the countries were at war, which ended with NATO intervention. Friction has persisted since Kosovo declared independence in 2008. In 2020, during Trump's first term, the U.S. brokered a pact between the two Balkan nations to normalize economic relations.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Roknifard: Trump Impatient to End Both Conflicts
After meeting separately with President Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart, Voldymyr Zelenskiy could be headed toward a pivotal face-to-face summit. President Trump is urging both leaders to show some "flexibility". Julia Roknifard, Senior Lecturer at the School of Law & Governance at Taylor's University Malaysia told Bloomberg's Chief Africa Correspondent Jennifer Zabasajja on Horizons Middle East and Africa on the push for Trump to get a deal not just in Ukraine but also in Gaza. (Source: Bloomberg)
