Tag Archives: Military Aid

US sending another $400 million in military aid for Ukraine

Anthony Blinken

Revelations 6:3-4 “when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” 4 And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.

Important Takeaways:

  • US announces $400 million military aid package for Ukraine
  • The Biden administration announced its newest military aid package for Ukraine on Friday worth an estimated $400 million and mainly consisting of ammunition for the weapons it has already provided.
  • “This military assistance package includes more ammunition for U.S.-provided HIMARS and howitzers, which Ukraine is using so effectively to defend itself, as well as ammunition for Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges, demolitions munitions and equipment, and other maintenance, training, and support,” he added.

Read the original article by clicking here.

Ukraine president says Trump didn’t seek to blackmail him

By Natalia Zinets and Pavel Polityuk

KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump did not seek to blackmail him during a phone call in July or a meeting in September.

Zelenskiy said he had not known that U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been blocked at the time of the call. Having been made aware of this by his defense minister later, he raised the issue during a separate meeting in September in Poland with Vice President Mike Pence.

The U.S. House of Representatives has launched an impeachment inquiry against Trump, focused on whether he used congressionally approved aid to Ukraine as leverage to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump’s main Democratic rivals as he seeks re-election in 2020.

Trump has made allegations, without evidence, that Biden engaged in improper dealings in Ukraine. Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Zelenskiy told reporters that his aim in having a phone call with Trump was to arrange a subsequent meeting and that he had asked the White House to change its rhetoric on Ukraine.

He said Kiev was open to a joint investigation into Biden but added that Ukraine was an independent country with independent law enforcement agencies that he could not influence.

“There was no blackmail. This was not the subject of our conversation,” Zelenskiy said about his call with Trump, speaking to reporters in a day-long series of televised briefings with the press, held at a Kiev food court.

Zelenskiy said there were no conditions attached to him meeting Trump, including whether he should investigate the activities of Hunter at Burisma.

The White House published its summary of the call between Zelenskiy and Trump in September. Asked whether the Ukrainian version matched up to the U.S. one, Zelenskiy said: “I didn’t even check, but I think that it matches completely.”

Biden for the first time on Wednesday made a direct call for Trump’s impeachment. Trump meanwhile continued to paint the probe as a partisan smear and accused the U.S. intelligence officer who filed the whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment row of having political motives.

Zelenskiy said he had no desire to interfere in the U.S. election.

Zelenskiy said he had been made aware by his defense minister that Washington had frozen military aid to Ukraine.

He raised the issue at a meeting with Pence in Warsaw when they met at a commemoration to mark the 80th anniversary of the start of the Second World War.

“I told him … please help to resolve it,” Zelenskiy recalls asking Pence. “And after our meeting America unblocked the aid.”

(Reporting by Pavel Polityuk, Natalia Zinets, Maria Tsvetkova and Matthias Williams; Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by John Stonestreet and Peter Graff)

Turkish army says Islamic State putting up ‘stiff resistance’ in Syria

A Turkey military vehicle near an ISIS stronghold

ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Islamic State militants in northern Syria are putting up “stiff resistance” to attacks by Turkish-backed rebel fighters, Turkey’s military said on Wednesday, almost two months after it launched an incursion to drive them away from its border.

Supported by Turkish tanks and air strikes, the rebels have been pushing toward the Islamic State stronghold of Dabiq. Clashes and air strikes over the past 24 hours have killed 47 jihadists, the military said in a statement.

“Due to stiff resistance of the Daesh (Islamic State) terror group, progress could not be achieved in an attack launched to take four settlements,” it said, naming the areas east of the town of Azaz as Kafrah, Suran, Ihtimalat and Duvaybik.

However, the operation to drive the jihadists away from the Turkish border, dubbed “Euphrates Shield”, has allowed Turkish-backed rebels to take control of about 1,100 square km (425 square miles) of territory, the military said.

A Syrian rebel commander told Reuters the rebels were about 4 km (2.5 miles) from Dabiq. He said capturing Dabiq and the nearby town of Suran would spell the end of Islamic State’s presence in the northern Aleppo countryside.

A planned major offensive on the Islamic State-held city of al-Bab, southeast of Dabiq and an important strategic target, depended on how quickly rebels could take control of the roughly 35 km (22 miles) in between the two cities, he said.

Al-Bab is also a strategic target for the Kurdish YPG militia, which, like the rebels, is battling Islamic State in northern Syria but is viewed as a hostile force by Turkey.

In a daily round-up on Euphrates Shield’s 50th day, the Turkish army said 19 Islamic State fighters had been “neutralized” in clashes and eight rebels were killed. Twenty-two rebels were wounded and Turkish forces suffered no losses.

Turkish warplanes destroyed five buildings used by Islamic State fighters, while U.S.-led coalition jets “neutralized” 28 of the jihadists and destroyed three buildings, it said.

(Additional reporting by Tom Perry in Beirut; Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Nick Tattersall and Louise Ireland)

Philippines’ defense minister says military can cope without U.S. aid

U.S. military forces cross a flooded area near the shore during the annual Philippines-US amphibious landing exercise (PHIBLEX) at San Antonio, Zambales province, Philippines

MANILA (Reuters) – U.S.-Philippines ties are going through “bumps on the road” and the Philippine military could manage if treaty ally the United States were to withdraw aid, the defense minister said on Friday.

The Philippines intended to buy arms from China and Russia and there had been no adverse reaction from within the military to President Rodrigo Duterte’s vows to scale back defense ties with the United States, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said.

Lorenzana’s remarks suggested he was following other top officials in Duterte’s administration in rallying behind the maverick president’s tough anti-U.S. agenda after weeks of scrambling to manage the fallout from his outbursts and threats to downgrade the alliance.

Lorenzana had on Wednesday set a conciliatory tone, saying Duterte may have been misinformed when he said U.S.-Philippine military exercises were no benefit to his country.

But on Friday Lorenzana said the value of U.S. military aid to the Philippines was “not that much”, and the military could ask Congress to make up for a shortfall of some $50 million-$100 million a year in U.S. military aid.

“We can live without (that),” Lorenzana told a foreign correspondents’ forum.

Duterte, well known for a ruthless stand against crime from his years as mayor of a southern city, won election in May on a promise to wipe out drugs and drug dealers.

Some 3,600 people have been killed in his anti-drugs drive and he has been enraged by questions about human rights, from the United States and others, that the bloodshed has raised.

Duterte said on Thursday if the United States and European Union objected to his drugs war and wished to withdraw aid, they should do so, and the Philippines would not beg.

U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby responded to that saying total U.S. assistance to the Philippines in the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 was $180 million “and we’re committed” to delivering that.

‘NOT TOO DEPENDENT’

Lorenzana said he believed Duterte’s objective was to diversify Philippines’ foreign ties and cut dependency on former colonial ruler the United States.

“The president is trying to develop a relationship with the U.S. that is not too dependent on one country,” he said.

Duterte has caused a diplomatic storm by declaring that joint U.S.-Philippines military exercises would cease, a defense agreement would be reviewed and, at an undisclosed time, he might “break up” with the United States.

On Monday, Duterte said U.S. President Barack Obama should “go to hell”.

Lorenzana said there had been no official directive to scrap a two-year-old Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. He said the uncertainty in the U.S.-Philippines relationship was “just going through these bumps on the road”.

“Maybe we should re-assess (the relationship),” he said. “Are we benefiting, are we getting what we should be getting from alliance? It is part of this growing up.”

He said Duterte was sensitive to concerns about his drugs war and it was likely the president would dial down his rhetoric if questions from the West about human rights stopped.

Asked how changes in the security relationship could impact a strategic U.S. “rebalance” to Asia, he said: “They are not lacking of any place to park their ships if they are no longer allowed to park their ships here.”

He said there may be some issues of compatibility with defense procurements from Russia and China, which were willing to sell to the Philippines.

A Philippine dispute with China over sovereignty in the South China Sea would not impede defense procurements, he said, adding there had been no discussion of the two countries working together militarily.

“All we are thinking now is buying equipment,” he said. “No talks yet about military alliance. Just simple transaction of buying equipment.”

Lorenzana’s show of accord with Duterte’s anti-U.S. stand follows a similar tough line from Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay who said this week Duterte wanted to liberate the country from a “shackling dependency” on the United States.

Yasay said the president was “compelled to realign” Philippine foreign policy and not submit to U.S. demands and interests.

(Reporting by Neil Jerome Morales; Writing by Martin Petty; Editing by Robert Birsel)

U.S., Israel narrow differences for new talks on defense aid

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

By Patricia Zengerle and Dan Williams

WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The United States and Israel have narrowed their differences over what could be decisive negotiations this week to seal a multibillion-dollar military aid package for Washington’s top Middle East ally, officials said on Monday.

Raising hopes for removal of a key sticking point, Israel has signaled it may accept the Obama administration’s demand that U.S. military funds, until now spent partly on Israeli arms, will eventually be spent entirely on U.S.-made weapons, according to congressional sources.

It would mark a major concession by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after months of tense negotiations over the 10-year aid pact.

But Netanyahu, who has had a fraught relationship with President Barack Obama, has apparently decided it would be best to forge a deal with him rather than hoping for better terms from the next U.S. president, according to officials on both sides. Obama leaves office in January.

Differences on the package have underscored continuing friction over last year’s U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s regional archfoe. The United States and Israel have also been at odds over the Palestinians. The State Department last week criticized Israel for planned Jewish settlement expansion on occupied land.

Netanyahu sent Jacob Nagel, acting head of Israel’s national security council, to Washington on Monday to lead three days of talks. A person briefed by Netanyahu said the prime minister expressed hope that Nagel would be able to “finalize” negotiations on a new memorandum of understanding and that it would mean increased funding.

A senior U.S. official reiterated the Obama administration’s pledge to sign a new MOU that would “constitute the largest single pledge of military assistance to any country in U.S. history.”

The current pact, signed in 2007 and due to expire in 2018, gave Israel around $30 billion in so-called foreign military financing.

U.S. negotiators are believed to have stuck to a previous offer of $3.5 billion to $3.7 billion annually for Israel under the new MOU, substantially less than the $4 billion a year Netanyahu has sought but still a substantial increase.

EASING OF DISAGREEMENT

A key disagreement has been over Washington’s insistence on ending a special arrangement that has allowed Israel to spend 26.3 percent of its U.S. defense aid on its own military industries rather than on American products.

Israeli officials argue that the provision, which is given to no other country receiving U.S. military assistance, was needed to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” against sometimes hostile neighbors such as Iran, and that its removal would mean the loss of thousands of Israeli defense jobs.

But a congressional source briefed by the Obama administration said Israel had signaled its willingness to phase out the provision. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects.

Another sticking point has been Washington’s desire to end a provision allowing Israel to spend around $400 million annually from the package on military fuels.

The congressional source said Nagel was expected to try to work out final details but not actually sign an agreement.

U.S. officials said progress was likely, but were reluctant to predict a breakthrough.

The Obama administration wants a new deal before the president leaves office. Republican critics accuse him of not being attentive enough to Israel’s security, which the White House strongly denies.

Netanyahu angered the White House in February when he suggested the agreement could wait for the next president.

But officials on both sides believe he prefers to get the deal before Obama leaves office. They see Netanyahu seeking to avoid uncertainties surrounding the policies of the next president, whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump, and wanting to give Israel’s defense establishment the ability to plan ahead.

(Additional reporting and writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Lebanese military gets U.S., British aid for defending border with Syria

US Helicopters in Lebanon

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Lebanon’s armed forces acquired three U.S. helicopters worth $26 million on Thursday to help in efforts to stop Syria’s civil war spilling over its border, along with almost $29 million of British aid as EU countries also step up their support.

The Lebanese armed forces have now received a total of nine Huey II multi-mission helicopters from the United States as part of $1.3 billion in security assistance given since 2004, U.S. interim Ambassador Richard H. Jones said.

“We have no plans to slow down or alter that level of support,” Jones said at Beirut’s military air base.

Fighting between Islamic State and al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front militants often overlaps Lebanon’s mountainous northern border with Syria, where a civil war is now in its fifth year.

Fighters briefly overran the northern Lebanese town of Arsal in 2014 before withdrawing to the hills after clashes with the army. Fighting in the border area killed at least 32 Nusra and Islamic State fighters this week.

The helicopters will improve the army’s ability to quickly reinforce “remote areas of tension along the border in support of the army’s fight against terrorists”, Jones said.

Lebanon has a weak government and a number of nations support its armed forces, concerned that regional conflict and a power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia could again destabilise a country which emerged from its own civil war 26 years ago.

On a visit to Lebanon on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond announced a further $22 million for border guard training through to 2019 and $6.5 million for general training of 5,000 Lebanese troops. “Lebanon is an important part of the front line against terrorism,” Hammond said.

“We are delighted by the way the UK support is being translated into strengthened border security and is enabling the armed forces to take the fight to Daesh and keep Lebanon safe from the incursions of Daesh,” he said, referring to Islamic State.

EU foreign policy head Federica Mogherini, who visited Lebanon last week, said that Lebanon’s security was important for Europe’s safety too and the EU was willing to expand its support for the Lebanese armed forces.

In February Saudi Arabia suspended a $3 billion aid package for the Lebanese army in what an official called a response to Beirut’s failure to condemn attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran.

Lebanon’s Iranian-backed group Hezbollah is also a significant military presence in the country, with extensive combat experience. It fought Israel in an inconclusive 2006 war and is supporting President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria.

(Reporting by Lisa Barrington and Issam Abdallah; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

President Reportedly Offers Israel Military Aid

In what one media outlet termed an attempt to “soften the blow of the Iran nuclear deal”, sources in the White House say President Obama has offered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an increase in U.S. military aid.

The reports say that President Obama called Netanyahu after the announcement of the Iran deal and said he wanted to hold “intensive discussions” on what more could be done by the U.S. to help bolster Israel’s defenses.  No specifics were being mentioned by the President.

A White House aide suggested in a phone call with Jewish and pro-Israel groups Netanyahu refused to discuss the possibility with the President because he did not want to be seen as blessing the nuclear deal in any way, according to the New York Times.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is scheduled to visit Israel next week in an attempt to reinforce the relationship between the two nations.  However, no negotiations on additional aid are expected to take place during the visit.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Israel would not accept any nuclear deal in a discussion with the British Parliament.

“The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran,” Hammond told lawmakers. “Israel wants a permanent state of standoff, and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region. I don’t believe it’s in our interest.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu almost immediately responded by saying the British F.M. had no idea what the Israeli government would accept.

“[We would accept a deal that would] compel Iran to choose between a path to the bomb and sanctions relief.   That’s the kind of deal that would be welcomed in Tel Aviv and here in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said.

“The alternative to this bad deal is not war,” Netanyahu went on to say, alluding to remarks by President Barack Obama on Wednesday. “The alternative is a better deal that would roll back Iran’s military nuclear program and tie the easing of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to changes in Iran’s behavior.”