 |
|
The article delves into the uncertainty surrounding a promised weapons package from former US President Donald Trump to Ukraine. Amidst ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine is eagerly awaiting further details on the “billions of dollars” worth of military equipment that Trump pledged. The initial announcement has been met with a degree of confusion, particularly regarding the specifics of the aid, most notably the number of Patriot air defense systems that are expected to be provided. This ambiguity highlights the complex and often unpredictable nature of international relations and military assistance, especially in the context of a protracted and high-stakes conflict.
The heart of the matter lies in the ambiguity surrounding the number of Patriot missile systems that might be transferred. During a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump stated that an unnamed country was poised to immediately furnish “17 Patriots.” He further indicated that a “very big deal” had been struck, enabling European allies to procure weaponry from the United States and subsequently dispatch them to Ukraine. Currently, Ukraine is believed to possess only six functioning Patriot air defense batteries, which are essential for intercepting fast-moving Russian cruise and ballistic missiles. This discrepancy between the promised number and Ukraine's existing capabilities underscores the importance of clarity and precision in international commitments, particularly those related to defense and security.
Major General Vadym Skibitskyi, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency (HUR), voiced uncertainty about the precise meaning of Trump’s statement. While expressing gratitude for the anticipated assistance and acknowledging a “positive” reaction to the White House’s announcement, Skibitskyi emphasized the lack of clarity surrounding the details. He pointed out that Trump's comments on Patriots could refer to various components, including interceptor missiles, launching stations, or complete batteries encompassing multiple launchers, radar systems, and control mechanisms. Each of these components has vastly different costs, with an entire Patriot battery potentially costing over a billion dollars. Skibitskyi elaborated that “Seventeen is a huge number if we are talking about batteries. If it’s launchers, that’s possible,” illustrating the wide range of possibilities and the potential impact on Ukraine's defense capabilities.
To provide context, each Patriot system typically includes six launchers. Germany has pledged to provide two Patriot systems, while the Netherlands has committed to donating a third. According to Skibitskyi, “That would be 18 launchers for three batteries, which is close to 17. The US administration and the Pentagon will give us further details.” This comparison underscores the significance of understanding the composition of the promised aid. While a large number of launchers could enhance Ukraine's interception capabilities, the provision of complete batteries would represent a far more substantial boost to its air defense infrastructure. The precise composition of the aid package will ultimately determine its effectiveness in countering Russian missile attacks.
The article further reveals that Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy discussed the potential for the US to provide long-range Tomahawk missiles during a call earlier in July. However, no agreement was reached on this matter. The provision of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine carries significant implications, as these precision cruise missiles have a range of 1,600 kilometers and are capable of striking targets within Russia, including Moscow. Such a capability would undoubtedly escalate tensions between Russia and the West, potentially leading to unpredictable consequences.
Skibitskyi noted that Trump’s comments on Patriots could have been referring to interceptor missiles, launching stations or entire batteries comprising multiple launchers and radar and control systems. He emphasized the cost implications, stating that a full battery can cost over a billion dollars each, demonstrating the potential scale of assistance. “Seventeen is a huge number if we are talking about batteries. If it’s launchers, that’s possible,” he said, highlighting the uncertainty and possible interpretations.
The possibility of the US providing long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, as discussed by Trump and Zelenskyy this month, is likely to enrage Vladimir Putin. These missiles could reach Moscow and have a range of 1,600km. The Biden administration had previously rejected Ukrainian requests for Tomahawks, likely due to concerns about escalating the conflict and provoking a strong Russian reaction. Trump's potential willingness to consider providing these missiles represents a significant shift in policy that could dramatically alter the strategic landscape.
The article touches upon the sensitive issue of Ukraine's potential use of US-supplied weapons against targets within Russia. During a call on July 4, Trump reportedly asked Zelenskyy if he could strike the Russian capital and St. Petersburg. Zelenskyy responded affirmatively, stating, “Yes, absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.” However, Trump has subsequently stated that Ukraine should not target Moscow. This exchange underscores the delicate balance between providing Ukraine with the means to defend itself and avoiding actions that could be perceived as escalatory or provocative by Russia.
While the Trump administration has not yet agreed to send Tomahawks, Skibitskyi acknowledged that Ukraine would face challenges in deploying them. “They are not easy to use. The main launchers are combat ships or strategic bombers. We don’t have any strategic bomber aircraft,” he recognized. This logistical hurdle highlights the complexities of integrating advanced weaponry into an existing military structure and the need for comprehensive training and support.
Despite the challenges, Skibitskyi emphasized the importance of Ukraine possessing the ability to conduct “kinetic” strikes deep inside Russia against high-value military targets. Discussions are ongoing with Washington regarding the lifting of restrictions on the use of ATACMS, US-provided missiles with a 300km range. Currently, these missiles can only be fired into Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine and not on Russian territory. The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration was likely to allow ATACMS to be used inside Russia at their full range and was considering sending additional missiles. This potential change in policy would provide Ukraine with a significantly enhanced capability to target Russian military assets.
According to Skibitskyi, the Kremlin has already moved its strategic military bases more than 500km from its border with Ukraine. Kyiv has only been able to target them using unmanned kamikaze drones, which can carry 50kg of explosives. In contrast, ATACMS have a 500kg payload and can cause greater destruction. This comparison highlights the limitations of existing Ukrainian capabilities and the potential impact of providing longer-range and more destructive weaponry. “It’s very important for us to get approval from the US to use long-range missiles,” Skibitskyi said. “We want to destroy and to disrupt, in accordance with Nato procedure.”
Following Monday’s announcement of a potential weapons package, Zelenskyy said he had a “really good conversation” with Trump. He said he discussed with the US president how to achieve “a lasting and just peace” and to stop Russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities, which have been hit in recent weeks by hundreds of drones and missiles. This dialogue underscores the importance of ongoing communication between the two leaders and the shared goal of achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Other European nations, including Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, have expressed interest in participating in Trump’s plan for Europe to buy US weapons for Ukraine. This support highlights the broader international commitment to assisting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression and the desire to coordinate efforts to maximize the impact of aid.
Within Kyiv, politicians have generally welcomed the improved relations with the US following a difficult meeting with Trump in February. However, there has also been frustration over the postponement of US tariffs and secondary sanctions on Russia, with Trump setting a deadline of 50 days. This highlights the complexities of balancing support for Ukraine with other strategic and economic considerations.
Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Gen Keith Kellogg, is currently in Kyiv on a week-long visit. During his visit, he has met with key Ukrainian leaders, including Zelenskyy, Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, Kyrylo Budanov, and Skibitskyi. Kellogg was briefed on Russian plans for a summer offensive and on the latest from the frontline in the east, where Russian troops are advancing. This high-level engagement demonstrates the ongoing commitment of the US to understanding the situation on the ground and tailoring its support to meet Ukraine's evolving needs.
Russian officials have dismissed Trump’s threat as “hot air,” with Dmitry Medvedev calling it a “theatrical ultimatum.” Trump himself has said he is “disappointed, but not done” with Putin. This dismissive reaction from Russia underscores the challenges of deterring Russian aggression and the need for a unified and consistent international response.
Skibitskyi concluded by noting that Trump has “more experienced” people around him than in his first presidential term and did not behave like a “classical” politician. “He’s more of a businessman. It isn’t easy to understand Mr Trump,” Skibitskyi added. This observation highlights the unique challenges of navigating the complexities of international relations with a leader who often defies conventional diplomatic norms.
Source: Ukraine awaiting details on ‘billions of dollars’ worth of weapons promised by Trump