Germany in talks to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine after US pause
The US has paused shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine including 30 Patriot air defense missiles, sources told Reuters this week, due to low stockpiles, prompting warnings by Kyiv this would weaken its ability to defend itself.
'There are various ways to fill this Patriot gap,' the spokesperson told a news conference in Berlin, adding that one option being considered is buying the Patriot missile batteries in the United States and then sending them on to Kyiv.
'I can confirm that intensive discussions are indeed being held on this matter,' he said.
Germany has sent three of the US-made systems from its military stocks to Ukraine, and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius last month launched an initiative to chase down more of them at the Ramstein group of some 50 nations.
Pistorius will travel to Washington later this month for talks with his US counterpart about his initiative as well as production capacities, said a defense ministry spokesperson.
'Of course these issues will also be on the agenda,' said the spokesperson.
The US Embassy in Berlin was not immediately available for comment.
Pistorius has floated the idea of buying Patriot systems that could be freed up to bypass long industrial delivery times and ensure they get to Ukraine quickly.
Ukraine is increasingly desperate for the systems that it relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles.
Russia pummelled Kyiv with the largest drone attack of the war, injuring at least 23 people, just hours after US President Donald Trump spoke to Russia's Vladimir Putin on Thursday.
Germany, Ukraine's second largest donor after the United States, has sought to take on more of a leadership role in ensuring backing for Kyiv as US support has been thrown into question under Trump.
While Europe could sustain Ukraine's resistance without US military support, according to a senior German military official, the challenges would be immense.
Germany has provided a total of 38 billion euros ($43 billion) worth of military aid to Ukraine, including funds earmarked for the coming years, according to the defense ministry.
A Bloomberg News report on Friday said Germany is preparing a 25-billion-euro tank order to ramp up its NATO brigades. The defense ministry had no immediate comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Pentagon has undermined Trump's goal of Ukraine peace
The US Department of Defense halted deliveries of Patriot air defense systems and other precision weapons to Ukraine last week following an internal assessment of its own stockpiles. Some of these weapons were already in Poland waiting for final transfer. The news came as a shock. While the Trump administration has taken a more nuanced approach to Ukraine and Russia than its predecessor, it had continued the flow of weapons to Kyiv as leverage in its effort to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. The timing could not be worse. Russia has launched some of the most intense aerial bombardments in the history of its invasion, including night-time barrages of more than 400 drones and ballistic missiles at a time. For Ukraine, already stretched thin on ammunition and air defense capabilities, this freeze in support threatens to make a difficult situation even more dire. The decision also undermines President Donald Trump's stated goal of ending the war. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly emphasized the need to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement and made it a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But six months after he returned to the Oval Office, the war appears no closer to resolution than it was on his first day. There is no doubt the president has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. He has called for a ceasefire and for negotiations, and Ukraine has signaled its willingness to work with the White House. The Kremlin, however, has been far more reluctant. Trump has hinted at increasing pressure on Russia to engage more seriously in diplomacy. That's precisely why the Pentagon's decision to halt aid is so surprising — and damaging. Trump appeared to have geopolitical momentum on his side. His bold military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, an action many believed he would never take, restored a sense of American credibility abroad, especially after what many saw as the Biden administration's appeasement of Tehran. Then, at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump had a major win. He convinced European allies to commit to significantly increased defense spending, including a landmark pledge to reach 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — spending levels not seen even during the Cold War. At that same summit, a Ukrainian journalist asked Trump about the urgent need for air defense systems to protect civilians from Russian missile attacks. The president responded with genuine emotion. He said he would return to Washington and explore the possibility of sending more Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine. Days later, however, his own Department of Defense contradicted both his words and apparent intent. There is no doubt Trump has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. Luke Coffey This is not the first time the Pentagon has acted out of sync with the president. In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a temporary halt to military assistance to Ukraine without coordinating with the White House. That pause lasted only a few days, but it rattled allies and partners across Europe and sent shockwaves through Kyiv. At the time, the White House quietly aired its frustration. Now, it appears the Pentagon may be repeating the same mistake. This latest move underscores a deeper problem: an ideological struggle within the Trump administration over US foreign policy. On one side are the isolationists who believe America should retreat from global commitments and focus exclusively on domestic concerns. They see little value in supporting Ukraine or NATO, or even maintaining a robust defense budget, since their vision of America's role in the world is minimal at best. Opposing them are the so-called prioritizers, who believe the US should focus nearly all of its strategic energy and resources on Asia, and particularly on countering the growing threat from China. In this view, America must prepare for a potential conflict over Taiwan, even if doing so means deprioritizing Europe or the Middle East. Every dollar spent and every missile deployed must serve the Indo-Pacific theater first. Both factions, for different reasons, see Ukraine as a distraction, so when aid is withheld, both are satisfied. As long as this internal tug-of-war continues, behind closed doors and in public, the president will struggle to implement a coherent and effective foreign policy. Trump may be most comfortable dealing with issues such as trade, the economy, and border security, but the reality is that global leadership also requires strategic clarity on defense and diplomacy. To succeed, he needs a team aligned with his vision — not one that undermines it. Now is the time for Trump to reassert control and redouble efforts to end Russia's war in a way that promotes lasting European stability and delivers a fair, just outcome for Ukraine. Achieving this will probably be one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges of his presidency. But he cannot meet that challenge with a divided administration. He needs a unified front — particularly from his Department of Defense. The sooner Trump reverses the Pentagon's decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, the better the prospects for peace. Time is of the essence, and any further delay could cost lives — and squander the strategic gains he has worked hard to achieve.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
What We Are Reading Today: ‘State of Ridicule'
Author: Dan Sperrin Satire is a funny, aggressive, and largely oppositional literature which is typically created by people who refuse to participate in a given regime's perception of itself. Although satire has always been a primary literature of state affairs, and although it has always been used to intervene in ongoing discussions about political theory and practice, there has been no attempt to examine this fascinating and unusual literature across the full chronological horizon. In 'State of Ridicule,' Dan Sperrin provides the first ever longue durée history of political satire in British literature. He traces satire's many extended and discontinuous trajectories through time while also chronicling some of the most inflamed and challenging political contexts within which it has been written. Sperrin begins by describing the Roman foundations and substructures of British satire, paying particularly close attention to the core Roman canon: Horace, Persius, and Juvenal.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Why Europe can postpone climate justice no longer
After considerable delay, the European Commission has presented its legislative proposal to set a 90 percent target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, which will now be deliberated by the European Parliament and the Council. The bloc had already positioned itself as a climate leader, setting an ambitious 2030 emissions reduction goal that it is on track to meet. But with its new focus on regaining economic competitiveness and military might, the EU is grappling with a practical and moral question: will it continue to set the global standard for climate action? To be sure, the EU stands to benefit from adopting the 2040 target. Increasing its use of renewables would bolster energy security, reduce geopolitical risk, and stabilize its economy, owing to lower and more predictable power costs. But the bloc's commitment to decarbonization also has global implications. The clean energy transition offers the best chance of achieving broad based prosperity, and the world cannot afford for the EU to reverse course. Such leadership is especially important as countries finalize their updated climate action plans for the next five years, ahead of COP30 in Belem, Brazil, in November. What may seem like a technocratic exercise in emissions accounting affects countless lives and livelihoods, particularly in the Global South countries that have borne the brunt of a crisis largely created by the Global North. Communities across Africa are already suffering the devastating effects of climate change, including heat waves, crop failures, and coastal erosion. Last year, flash floods affected more than one million people in Nigeria. In Uganda, where I live, families are losing their homes and land to landslides triggered by heavy rains. Despite contributing the least to global warming, we are facing its most severe consequences, and falling deeper into poverty as a result. Moreover, many Global South governments are caught in a debt trap, with high interest payments limiting their ability to invest in climate adaptation and mitigation. Their inability to manage worsening climate conditions could result in up to 216 million people being internally displaced by 2050, including nearly 86 million internal climate-change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa. With cross-border climate induced migration also likely to increase, EU leaders must decide whether to confront the root causes of displacement or treat its symptoms by fortifying the bloc's borders — an undertaking that could prove more challenging and costly than decarbonization. Increasing its use of renewables would bolster EU energy security, reduce geopolitical risk, and stabilize its economy. Vanessa Nakate Failure to adopt the 2040 target would be a betrayal of the people and countries with the least influence and the most to lose. But I do not expect the bloc to choose between its own interests and those of the Global South, because this target benefits everyone. Cutting emissions by 90 percent by 2040 would save the EU more than €850 billion in fossil-fuel imports, eliminate its dependence on foreign gas supplies, and create two million new jobs in green industries. This is why many European businesses and investors support the target. It would also substantially reduce household energy bills and toxic air pollution, improving financial and human health across the continent. Maintaining an ambitious climate policy would also offer the EU an opportunity to rebuild trust with Global South governments, many of which have grown disillusioned with the Western liberal order after broken climate finance promises, foreign aid cuts, vaccine hoarding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and limited support for the newly operationalized loss and damage fund. African countries, in particular, are closely following the EU's actions, wondering whether years of lofty rhetoric about climate justice will finally translate into decisive action. The signs are not promising. France, despite playing a crucial role in the ratification of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, is now leading efforts to weaken the 2040 target. Instead of displaying climate vision and leadership when they are needed most, Emmanuel Macron's government has argued for 'outsourcing' up to 7 percent of the emissions reduction to non-EU countries by incorporating carbon credits into the target proposal. Such indifference has a high cost. If the EU fails to submit an ambitious plan, it risks undermining the global fight against climate change. Other countries may follow the bloc's example and water down their own commitments. The chance to set bold collective goals ahead of COP30 will be lost, and Europe's credibility, especially among climate-vulnerable countries, will take another hit. Climate justice cannot be postponed any longer. The EU's decision on the 2040 target will shape the outcome of COP30 and, by extension, the crucial next phase of climate action. The world is watching to see if Europe will take responsibility for its historic role in the climate crisis and invest in a safe and dignified future for everyone. Given a chance to draw a clear line between past and future — between cowardice and courage — the EU must make the right choice.
