Could Ukraine hit Moscow? Report claims Trump asked Zelensky about long-range strikes
Details of the alleged conversation emerged a day after Trump pledged fresh weapons supplies to Kyiv that would be paid for by European allies. He also threatened to impose stiff economic penalties on Russia if it doesn't end the war on Ukraine within 50 days.
Zelensky said he and Trump agreed during their call to cooperate on air defences after Russia had unleashed one of the largest air attacks of the war on the Ukrainian capital. The US president quizzed him on whether Ukraine could hit Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to the Financial Times. 'Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons,' the newspaper reported Zelensky as saying.
The conversation followed Trump's call with Russian President Vladimir Putin a day earlier, after which the US leader said he was 'very disappointed' by the discussion.
The US shared with Zelensky a list of potential weapons that it could make available to Ukraine during a meeting in Rome last week, according to the Financial Times. The list included long-range strike systems, such as US-made ATACMS missiles, it said.
Trump's move to raise pressure on Putin came after months of unsuccessful diplomacy aimed at persuading Russia to halt its war on Ukraine and negotiate a peace deal. Russia has intensified its drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities in recent weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
30 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
10 billion euros nowhere near enough to rebuild Ukraine
Clearly angered by the intensification of Russia's air campaign against Ukraine, Donald Trump has pivoted from the suspension of US military assistance to Ukraine to promising its resumption. Russia's strikes on major cities killed more civilians in June than have died in any single previous month, according to UN figures. Over the past two weeks, the US president has made several disparaging comments about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, including on July 13 that the Russian president 'talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening.' Not only will the US resume delivery of long-promised Patriot air defense missiles, Trump is now also reported to be considering a whole new plan to arm Ukraine, including with offensive capabilities. And he has talked about imposing new sanctions on Putin's regime. This is the background against which the eighth Ukraine Recovery Conference took place in Rome on July 10 and 11. The event, attended by many Western leaders and senior business executives, was an important reminder that while the war against Ukraine will be decided on the battlefield, peace will only be won as the result of rebuilding Ukraine's economy and society. Ending the war anytime soon and on terms favourable to Kyiv will require an enormous effort by Ukrainians and their European allies. But the country's recovery afterwards will be no less challenging. According to the World Bank's latest assessment, at the end of 2024 Ukraine's recovery needs over the next decade stood at US$524 billion. And with every month the war continues, these needs are increasing. Ukraine's three hardest-hit sectors are housing, transport and energy infrastructure, which between them account for around 60% of all damage. At the same time, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided a relatively positive assessment of Ukraine's overall economic situation at the end of June, forecasting growth of between 2% and 3% for 2025 – likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But the IMF also cautioned that this trajectory – and the country's macroeconomic stability more generally – will remain heavily dependent on external support. Taking into account a new €2.3 billion package from the EU, consisting of €1.8 billion of loan guarantees and €580 million of grants, the cumulative pledge of over €10 billion (£8.7 billion) made by countries attending the Ukraine recovery conference is both encouraging and sobering. It is encouraging in the sense that Ukraine's international partners remain committed to the country's social and economic needs, not merely its ability to resist Russia on the battlefield. But it is also sobering that even these eye-watering sums of public money are still only a fraction of Ukraine's needs. Even if the EU manages to mobilise its overall target of €40 billion for Ukraine's recovery, by attracting additional contributions from other donors and the private sector, this would be less than 8% of Ukraine's projected recovery needs as of the end of 2024. As the war continues and more of the (diminishing) public funding is directed towards defence expenditure by Kyiv's western partners, this gap is likely to grow. Money is not the only challenge for Ukraine recovery efforts. Rebuilding the country is not simply about undoing the physical damage. The social impact of Russia's aggression is hard to overstate. Ukraine has been deeply traumatised as a society since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Generally reliable Ukrainian casualty counts – some 12,000 civilians and 43,000 troops killed since February 2022 – are still likely to underestimate the true number of people who have died as a direct consequence of the Russian aggression. And each of these will have left behind family members struggling to cope with their loss. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of war veterans. Even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there were nearly half a million veterans from the 'frozen' conflict that followed Russia's annexation of Crimea and incursion into eastern Ukraine. By the end of 2024, this number had more than doubled to around 1 million. Most of them have complex social, economic, medical and psychological needs that will have to be considered as part of a society-wide recovery effort. According to data from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), there are also some 7 million refugees from Ukraine and 3.7 million internally displaced people (IDPs). This is equivalent to one quarter of the country's population. The financial needs of UNHCR's operations in Ukraine are estimated at $800 million in 2025, of which only 27% was funded as of the end of April. Once the fighting in Ukraine ends, refugees are likely to return in greater numbers. Their return will provide a boost to the country's economic growth by strengthening its labour force and bringing with them skills and, potentially, investment. But like many IDPs and veterans, they may not be able to return to their places of origin, either because these are not inhabitable or remain under Russian occupation. Some returnees are likely to be viewed with suspicion or resentment by those Ukrainians who stayed behind and fought. Tensions with Ukrainians who survived the Russian occupation in areas that Kyiv may recover in a peace deal are also likely, given Ukraine's harsh anti-collaboration laws. As a consequence, reintegration – in the sense of rebuilding and sustaining the country's social cohesion – will be a massive challenge, requiring as much, if not more, of Ukraine's partners' attention and financial support as physical reconstruction and the transition from a war to a peace-time economy. Given the mismatch between what is needed and what has been provided for Ukraine's recovery, one may well be skeptical about the value of the annual Ukraine recovery conferences. But, to the credit of their organizers and attendees, they recognize that the foundations for post-war recovery need to be built before the war ends. The non-military challenges of war and peace must not fall by the wayside amid an exclusive focus on battlefield dynamics. Stefan Wolff is professor of international security, University of Birmingham This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
What Trump's pique with Putin means for Ukraine war
At face value, Donald Trump's announcement about his plans on Russia and Ukraine looks like a major policy change. Speaking from the Oval Office on July 14, where he had been meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the US president said he would send 'top-of-the-line-weapons' to help Kyiv and – unless a ceasefire deal is agreed within a 50-day time limit – the US would impose secondary sanctions on any countries dealing with Russia. But while this represents a significant departure from Trump's previous approach, it's more of a step back towards the policy approach of his predecessor, Joe Biden, than the U-turn that some commentators are claiming. For months, Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine, buoyed by the fact that neither the US Congress nor the White House has authorized any new military aid to Kyiv. Moscow would have been aware of this lack of US action and its missile and drone attacks against Ukraine have aimed to run down the stocks of air defense missiles supplied by Biden while paying lip service to the idea of peace negotiations. For Trump, the penny appears finally to have dropped as to what was happening. His frustration and disappointment in Putin is what has finally led to him calling this out. According to Trump, Putin 'fooled a lot of people – Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden – he didn't fool me. At a certain point talk doesn't talk, it's got to be action.' The decision to send new supplies of defensive – and potentially even longer-range offensive missiles – to Ukraine (even if the Europeans pay for them) is an important signal to Russia. But so too is the threat of tariffs of 100% on countries, such as India and China, that sustain the Russian economy by buying its oil and gas at knockdown prices. The US Senate, led by Lindsay Graham, the influential Republican senator for South Carolina, has been itching to pass these secondary sanctions for months. Now that the Trump administration appears to have adopted this plan it is a significant policy instrument to pile the pressure on Russia. The change in Trump's approach may also mean that the US$8 billion of frozen Russian assets in the US (and $223 billion in Europe) could be released to aid Ukraine, which would provide a ready means to pay for the US arms transfers. What has not changed, however, is the goal of Trump's policy towards the war in Ukraine. While the Biden administration called out the illegality of Putin's unprovoked aggression and called for the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump is merely calling for a ceasefire. Trump may say he is 'disappointed' with Putin, but he has not labelled him as the aggressor. In fact, at one point, he was blaming Ukraine for the invasion. And, significantly, he has not demanded that Russia give up the 20% of Ukraine that it currently illegally occupies. As of July 14, Russian troops occupy about 20% of Ukraine's sovereign territory. Institute for the Study of War The US president is also silent on what the US would commit to in terms of security and stability for Ukraine after the fighting stops. This is a much bigger question than Ukraine's NATO membership. America's European allies in NATO regard some sort of stability force on Ukrainian territory as necessary to deter any future Russian aggression. Whether or not US troops would be involved (and all the signs are that they would not), some sort of US security 'back-stop' or guarantee is still seen in Europe as key to its success – as would be US logistical and intelligence support for its operation. Another aspect of the change in Trump's policy is the long lead time that Russia has been given to come to the table. A lot of Ukrainian civilians are likely to die during this period if the intense bombardment continues. On the battlefield, 50 days would give the Russians an extended window during a renewed summer offensive to make further territorial gains inside the occupied provinces. So Trump's proposals have to be viewed through the prism of his propensity to set deadlines that are then pushed back multiple times – as with the on-again, off-again tariffs, which have given Trump the nickname Taco ('Trump always chickens out') on Wall Street. Russian senator, Konstantin Kosachev, was certainly taking this view when he told the BBC after Trump's announcement that, 'if this is all Trump had to say about Ukraine today, then so far it's been much ado about nothing'. This sentiment was shared by the Russian stock market, which rose 2.7% in the aftermath of Trump's announcement. Analysts had expected much worse, so the long delay in the prospect of anything actually happening was clearly seen as a long way off and potentially subject to change or cancellation. Trump is seen by many as both inconsistent in his threats and unpredictable as to where policy will eventually settle. The fact that Trump told BBC Washington correspondent Gary O'Donoghue that while he was 'disappointed' with Putin, he was 'not done with him' – and his clear reluctance to act quickly and decisively in sanctioning Russia – should be seen as an important counterpart to the apparent policy shift. Like so many things with the 47th US president, it's important not to react to the media appearances or the headlines they provoke without also paying attention to the policy actions of his administration. David Hastings Dunn is professor of international politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Ukraine installs anti-drone nets over roads to protect frontline supply routes
A ravaged car with its engine destroyed and doors riddled with shrapnel lay on the side of the road near Dobropillia, a sleepy town not far from the front line in eastern Ukraine. Hit by a small, remote-controlled drone, the mangled chassis was a stark reminder of why Ukraine is hurrying to mount netting over supply routes behind the sprawling front line to thwart Russian aerial attacks. As Russia's invasion grinds through its fourth year, Moscow and Kyiv are both menacing each other's armies with swarms of cheap drones, easily found on the market and rigged with deadly explosives. Agence France-Presse reporters saw Ukrainian soldiers installing green nets on four-metre (13-foot) poles spanning kilometres of road in the eastern Donetsk region, where some of the war's most intense fighting has taken place. A shop hit by a Russian FPV explosive drone in the town of Dobropillia, in the eastern Donetsk region, Ukraine. Photo: AFP 'When a drone hits the net, it short-circuits and it cannot target vehicles,' said 27-year-old engineering brigade commander Denis, working under the blazing sun.
