
Weapons going from US to Ukraine via NATO; ‘they are paying, 100%', says Trump
'We're sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, 100%,' Trump said in an interview with NBC News late Thursday. 'So what we're doing is, the weapons that are going out are going to NATO, and then NATO is going to be giving those weapons (to Ukraine), and NATO is paying for those weapons.'
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that some of the US-made weapons that Ukraine is seeking are deployed with NATO allies in Europe. Those weapons could be transferred to Ukraine, with European countries buying replacements from the US, he said.
'It's a lot faster to move something, for example, from Germany to Ukraine than it is to order it from a (US) factory and get it there,' Rubio told reporters during a visit to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Ukraine badly needs more US-made Patriot air defense systems to stop Russian ballistic and cruise missiles. The Trump administration has gone back and forth about providing more vital military aid to Ukraine more than three years into Russia's invasion.
After a brief pause in some weapons shipments, Trump said he would keep sending defensive weapons to Ukraine. US officials said this week that some were on their way.
NATO itself doesn't send weapons to Ukraine or otherwise own or handle arms — that is done by its 32 member nations — but it does coordinate the deliveries of weapons to a logistics hub in Poland, bordering Ukraine. The alliance itself ships items like medical supplies and fuel. 'Allies continue to work to ensure that Ukraine has the support they need to defend themselves against Russia's aggression,' NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said. 'This includes urgent efforts to procure key supplies from the United States, including air defense and ammunition.'
Germany, Spain and other European countries possess Patriot missile systems, and some have placed orders for more, Rubio said.
The US is encouraging its NATO allies to provide 'the defensive systems that Ukraine seeks … since they have them in their stocks, and then we can enter into financial agreements with them, with us, where they can purchase the replacements,' Rubio said. A senior NATO military official said Trump spoke to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte about the plan but noted that the details were 'still being worked out.'
US weapons already in Europe could be transferred to Ukraine under Trump's proposal, as could American-made weapons previously purchased by allies.
'NATO has effective mechanisms in place to make something like this possible,' the official said.A senior European defense official said it was their understanding that European nations would purchase U.S. weapons for Ukraine under the plan.The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
Russia has recently sought to overwhelm Ukraine's air defenses by launching major aerial attacks. This week, Russia fired more than 700 attack and decoy drones at Ukraine, topping previous barrages for the third time in two weeks.
Ukraine has asked other countries to supply it with an additional 10 Patriot systems and missiles, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday. Germany is ready to provide two systems, and Norway has agreed to supply one, he said.German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday that officials 'stand ready to acquire additional Patriot systems from the US and make them available to Ukraine.' Asked how many Patriot systems Germany is interested in buying, Merz didn't give a number. But he said he spoke to Trump a week ago 'and asked him to deliver these systems.'
In addition to the Patriots, the weaponry that could be sold to NATO members includes advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles, shorter-range missiles and Howitzer rounds, according to a person familiar with the internal White House debate. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment seeking more details.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been in touch with Trump in recent days, said it's in US national security interests to sell weapons to Ukraine, and 'Europe can pay for them.' 'We have the best weapons. They sure as hell know how to use them,' Graham said in an AP interview in Rome while attending a meeting on the sidelines of a Ukraine recovery conference.
Allies purchasing US weapons for Ukraine would get around a possible stalemate in funding for Kyiv once an aid package approved last year runs out. Even with broad support in Congress for backing Ukraine, it's unclear if more funding would be approved.
Trump's efforts to facilitate Ukraine's weapon supply come as he has signaled his displeasure with Russian President Vladimir Putin. At a Cabinet meeting this week, he said he was 'not happy' with Putin over a conflict that was 'killing a lot of people' on both sides.Russia's bigger army is pressing hard on parts of the 620-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line, where thousands of soldiers on both sides have died since the Kremlin ordered the invasion in February 2022.
Graham says Trump has given him the go-ahead to push forward with a bill he's co-sponsoring that calls, in part, for a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil. Trump said Tuesday that he's 'looking at it very strongly.'In the NBC News interview, Trump teased that he will make a major announcement on Russia next week.
The US president also has had a tumultuous relationship with Zelenskyy, which reached a low point during an Oval Office blowup in February when Trump berated him for being 'disrespectful.' The relationship has since shown signs of rebounding.The two leaders spoke by phone last week about Ukraine's air defenses. Zelenskyy said Thursday that talks with Trump have been 'very constructive.'
In the latest attacks, a Russian drone barrage targeted the center of Kharkiv just before dawn Friday, injuring nine people and damaging a maternity hospital in Ukraine's second-largest city, officials said.'There is no silence in Ukraine,' Zelenskyy said. A daytime drone attack on the southern city of Odesa also injured nine.
Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, has endured repeated and intensifying drone attacks in recent weeks, as have many other regions of the country, mostly at night.Zelenskyy urged Ukraine's Western partners to quickly follow through on pledges they made at the international meeting in Rome on Thursday. Ukraine needs more interceptor drones to bring down Russian-made Shahed drones, he said.
Authorities said Friday that they're establishing a comprehensive drone interception system under a project called Clear Sky. It includes a $6.2 million investment in interceptor drones, operator training and new mobile response units, the Kyiv Military Administration said.'We found a solution. … That's the key,' Zelenskyy said. 'We need financing. And then, we will intercept.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Two-thirds of the Department of Justice unit defending Trump's policies in court have quit
The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies - such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University - has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters. Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters. The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration. "Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?" by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Saidpur: 1 Trick to Reduce Belly Fat? Home Fitness Hack Shop Now Undo Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress. The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court . A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures. Live Events "Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President's policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an "unprecedented number of lawsuits" against Trump's agenda. "The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President's agenda to keep Americans safe," the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section. Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump's first term and Joe Biden's administration. HEADING FOR THE EXIT The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers. A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details. In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University. "We've never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs," said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department's Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush. "The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning." The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit. A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves. Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. "They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout," said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration's policies. People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump's order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday. FACING PRESSURE Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court. Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said. The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump's agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election." Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases. Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts. Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter. A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.


Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
The Air India catastrophe should catalyse deep structural reform in the country
Next Story Vikas Dimble , Prachi Mishra The aviation tragedy in Ahmedabad calls for economic introspection. India needs to ponder questions of public versus private ownership, market concentration versus competition and diversified versus focused conglomerates. Our take-off for Viksit Bharat may depend on getting the answers right. The Ahmedabad tragedy should serve as more than a moment of grief, it should catalyse the deeper structural reforms necessary for India's sustainable development. Gift this article The tragic Ahmedabad air crash shook the nation, but beyond the immediate grief lies a deeper call for introspection. This isn't about assigning blame, but rather about examining structural questions. The tragic Ahmedabad air crash shook the nation, but beyond the immediate grief lies a deeper call for introspection. This isn't about assigning blame, but rather about examining structural questions. The timing is significant—this accident occurred soon after Air India transitioned from public to private ownership, highlighting three fundamental challenges on India's runway toward developed nation status: How should we balance public and private sector roles? What is the optimal level of market concentration versus competition? And should India Inc embrace specialization or continue with diversified conglomerates that span multiple industries? These questions go beyond aviation, touching the very foundation of India's economic strategy. Yet, aviation provides a perfect case study for examining these broader challenges. Let us start with the public versus public ownership. Also Read: Digital twins of aircraft: A big leap for civil aviation? India is conspicuous with a disproportionately large public sector, compared to other emerging and advanced economies. India's stock market is heavily dominated by state-owned enterprises. But our aviation sector, which has undergone complete privatization, offers a contrast. Globally, aviation ownership models vary dramatically. West Asian carriers remain fully government-owned, Chinese airlines are government-dominated and some European carriers maintain partial government stakes—25% of British Airways' parent company, for instance, is owned by Qatar Airways. Meanwhile, the US mirrors India's approach of minimal government ownership. The privatization of Air India is considered one of the Indian government's most successful divestments. As the private sector takes control, the need for robust regulation becomes critical. The question is not a binary whether or not to privatize, but how to regulate businesses effectively, especially in industries where lives are at stake. The government's role must evolve from owner-operator to an ever more vigilant regulator in both public perception and reality. Also Read: A tale of two sectors: Aviation soars while railways crawl Coming to the dilemma of competition versus concentration, India's economy has long been marked by the outsized influence of family-owned business groups. Remarkably, several of the largest groups from the 1950s still dominate, with the composition of the top 25 largely unchanged since 2010. At their peak in 2012, these groups generated revenues equivalent to 20% of India's GDP. While their dominance has declined somewhat since then, in 2020 that figure was still over 15%—higher than in 2001. The aviation sector typifies these trends. In India, the combined market share of its top two airlines is larger than in other markets globally, far exceeding the share seen in the US, UK, China or Brazil. IndiGo and Air India, both privately owned, carried over 90% of air travellers last year. The US airline industry is also privately owned but its market has much more competition. While larger firms benefit from economies of scale and greater clout, extreme concentration can also stifle innovation and harm consumer interests. Indian policymakers have been on top of this challenge. The sector has been opened to fresh competition repeatedly, but the industry has shown high business mortality, with a long list of airlines declared bankrupt or close to it; Sahara, Jet Airways, SpiceJet, Kingfisher and Go First tell a sobering tale of a harsh market. Why has competition withered in this sector? Is market size the determining factor (America's air traffic is five times that of India), or are there policy or market failures? Cost and efficiency determine survival, but consumer choices matter. Notably, both Air India and IndiGo rank low in global service standards. The transition from a state monopoly to private oligopoly outlines a delicate balance. While India needs stronger regulation in critical sectors, the broader economic imperative often calls for less onerous regulation; theEconomic Survey highlighted calls for greater deregulation and for government to get 'out of the way." Coming to the third issue of specialization versus diversification, economic theory suggests that countries should specialize in industries where they have comparative advantage. We can illustrate this through Bollywood: If Shah Rukh Khan, an economics graduate, specialized in economics, he would have been a successful economist. But even if he were to become the world's best economist, his 'opportunity cost' of missing a career as an actor would be too high, given the low wages he would earn compared to his earnings from cinema. Even with an absolute advantage in economics, his comparative advantage would lie in cinema. Specialization versus diversification represents a distinct strategic choice from concentration versus competition. Firms can maintain high market concentration while remaining either specialized or diversified. The jury is certainly out on this. Global trends reveal fascinating patterns. While emerging-market conglomerates are increasingly diversifying, those in advanced economies, particularly the US, are moving towards specialization. Emerging-market giants like the Tata Group in India (spanning salt to aviation), Samsung in South Korea and Fosun in China have expanded their sectoral reach dramatically, often doubling or tripling their presence across industries. Conversely, developed-market leaders like General Electric, Siemens and Johnson & Johnson have undergone significant consolidation or strategic splits. Most now operate as publicly traded entities with focused business models. So what is the path forward? What does it imply for India's aviation landscape—a three-way combination of private ownership, extreme concentration and the diversified nature of controlling conglomerates? This combination makes the sector distinctive globally but also potentially vulnerable. The stakes couldn't be higher. Markets often face efficiency versus equity trade-offs. Beyond that, there are efficiency and public safety trade-offs, at least in perception. Ultimately, there are no concrete recipes for success. That said, these questions are pertinent. As India marches towards Viksit Bharat, we must find appropriate answers. Our aviation sector's future—and by extension our broader economic strategy—depends on getting many balances right. The Ahmedabad tragedy should serve as more than a moment of grief. It should catalyse the deeper structural reforms necessary for India's sustainable development. Only through such introspection can we build an economy that is both dynamic and safe, competitive and responsible. The authors are, respectively, operations director, Ashoka Isaac Center for Public Policy (ICPP); and professor of economics, and director of ICPP, Ashoka University. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.


Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump teases 'major statement' on Russia, Putin ahead of NATO meet
US President Donald Trump announced that he would have a 'major statement' on Russia on Monday. 'You'll be seeing things happen', Trump said, adding, 'I think I'll have a major statement to make on Russia on Monday.' US President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin shake hands before attending a joint press conference..(AFP File) Trump, who had initially pinned equal blame on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for continuing the conflict with Russia, seems to have turned his displeasure squarely towards Vladimir Putin. What could be in Trump's statement? Axios reported that Trump would announce an 'aggressive' weapons plan for Ukraine, while Bloomberg reported a few days back that the POTUS was mulling new sanctions on Russia. All of this comes ahead of the meeting with NATO chief Mark Rutte next week, with the latter doing his best to curry favour with Trump at the recent summit at The Hague. Patriot missiles for Ukraine, but US won't foot bill Trump, who was earlier averse to sending military equipment to Ukraine, said that the US was sending Patriot missiles but declined to comment on the number. The President, however, said that the US would not be paying for them since they would give the missiles to NATO, which would foot the bill, and in turn, help Ukraine defend itself against the Russian onslaught. What Trump said about Putin 'Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening,' a disgruntled Trump said, adding, 'I thought he [Putin] was somebody that meant what he said. And he talked so beautifully, but then he bombed everyone at night. We don't like that.' Earlier in the week, the firebrand president noted, 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless', as per CNN. Kremlin, meanwhile, on Friday said it awaited Trump's major statement, but didn't show signs of easing up on Ukraine, with Reuters reporting drone and missile attacks on western Ukraine that left two dead.