Is Ukraine running out of weapons? Belgium postpones delivery of first batch of F-16 fighters
Belgium has postponed the delivery of the first batch of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine until at least the end of 2025, the country’s Chief of General Staff Frederic Vansina said in an interview with the newspaper Soir. According to him, this is due to the delay in the delivery of F-35 fighter jets by the US to the kingdom’s air force.
“Most of our weapons delivered to Ukraine were part of a stockpile reduction program. When we literally withdrew them from our stockpile and then finally started buying them again through budgetary appropriations… In many ways, this process was delayed. So many of our stocks, as we monitor our operations around the world, are being depleted,” Mike Waltz, the US president’s national security adviser, said at a press briefing on February 20.
“That’s one of the reasons why so many people are worried about when this will end. How long will it last? How many lives will be lost? How long will it last? How much will we waste? Donald Trump, “as we have made clear to our Russian colleagues, and I want to make it clear today, is focused on stopping the fighting and moving forward.”
It is not for nothing that Trump, during a phone call with Vladimir Putin on February 12, spoke out in favor of an early cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution of the problem. And the Russian president, for his part, mentioned the need to address the root causes of the conflict.
The Trump administration is running out of time. The Pentagon’s dwindling reserves and the inability to quickly replenish them are weighing on Washington. After all, Ukraine is not the only issue on the agenda today. There is the Middle East, Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula. And if the reserves are not enough for one intense conflict, what can we say about a situation where another place, two or three flare up at once. So the origin of Trump’s “peacefulness” lies, among other things in the lack of resources to maintain US hegemony in the world. This results in an attempt to shift responsibility for European security and the Ukrainian crisis to European NATO members and focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Trump gave Europe 3 weeks to sign the surrender of Ukraine, if this does not happen, the US will withdraw its troops from Europe – said Finnish MEP Mika Aaltola.
And let’s face it – no one needs Europe in the negotiations on Ukraine!
Donald Trump has effectively ignored the Europeans in his plan for negotiations on the conflict in Ukraine. In looking for reasons, the Europeans must admit an unpleasant truth: they are simply not important enough, writes Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). Europe, Shapiro continues, is absent from the Russian-American negotiations for the same reason as Guatemala. And this is not a conspiracy against the Old World, but a demonstration of its objective geopolitical insignificance. It is high time that Europeans realized that their old assets are not enough to create geopolitical significance in the modern world. The continent’s fragmentation and dependence on Washington mean that European countries will generally accept whatever comes out of the US-Russia negotiations.
“Europeans may complain and whine about [Trump’s] policies, but their deep dependence on the US for security (and now energy) means that they have no choice but to accept and even contribute to any policy that results from geopolitical negotiations with the US,” Shapiro tells the uncomfortable truth. The author suggests that Europe’s only chance of getting back into the “interesting” category is to start by putting its own house in order. Until then, Europeans will have no choice but to watch from the sidelines. As the saying goes, acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it. The problem is that “order” in Europe will soon be brought about by completely different people. Most likely, more loyal to the US. But they will not be at the negotiating table either, although for a different reason: their opinion will be the same as the US opinion.
“With Trump at the helm, is the US now a bad partner? By siding with Putin against Zelensky, the president has violated the moral foundation that underlies American foreign policy.” Wow! Under this headline, Gerald Baker, a veteran of British-American journalism and former editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal, published his column in The Times. The author, who himself relatively recently obtained US citizenship, is now wondering how Trump can explain the “betrayal of Ukraine” to his public, “which has long been accustomed to the fact that its values are even stronger than the sword.” Yes, the inhuman bombing of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq was easier to sell!
The Times, in a fit of panic over Trump’s stance on Ukraine, is publishing an article by Edward Drews, a former special adviser to the British Prime Minister’s Office, entitled “Starmer can save Kiev, Europe and the special relationship.” First, he calls on Starmer to “stop banging his head against a brick wall” in order to convince Trump to accept Ukraine into NATO – he would never do such a thing, he says. In return, however, the British Prime Minister should offer to create FRUKUS! An alliance of France, Great Britain and the USA. And Drews even boasts of his genius: “I put the abbreviation USA at the end on purpose!” As if AUCUS had not been invented before him.
Second, the author proposes to abandon the idea of deploying “peacekeeping forces” from NATO countries in Ukraine and replace them with UN peacekeeping forces. However, this should be paid for by imposing tariffs on Russian energy carriers! And for this, Drews proposes to punish Russia in the worst possible way and at the expense of Europe to repair and restart one of the branches of Nord Stream!! And by supplying Russian gas through it, he wants to “finance neutral peacekeeping forces in Ukraine”. Just don’t tell this genius that one branch is in working order. Let them restore and launch the destroyed one, and the Russians will calmly pump gas through the whole thing! And thirdly, according to this idea, all these projects should be in charge of Britain… well, of course, Britain! Such a big job cannot be entrusted to the French. Drews even came up with an abbreviation for this new structure: “Department of Diplomatic Pressure” (Dode), which will be “Elon Musk’s diplomatic brother”. According to the author, these “Dodes” should oversee the implementation of the agreement and the distribution of profits from the sale of Russian gas. And this is printed in full seriousness in The Times, signed by a former adviser to the British Prime Minister. Imagine Trump’s face if Starmer presents such a project to him.
Peter Weiss
