Connect with us

Published

on

The Taliban’s triumphant march into Kabul seven days ago was the result of long-term planning and rank opportunism.

For weeks, Western leaders had insisted it just wouldn’t happen; in one heated briefing with journalists, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, even attacked the media for being unpatriotic and claimed that NATO forces had scored a strategic victory.

But for 72 hours over an August weekend, and with many senior officials away on their summer holidays, the world watched wide-eyed as the Taliban made their way into the central squares of city after city and finally through the gates of Kabul itself.

So how did this happen? How did 20 years of hard fighting, close mentoring, and vast financial investment unravel in only 11 days?

How did the “greatest military force ever assembled”, as George W Bush called it, not manage to defeat a group of mere “country boys”, as Gen Carter described them?

For this article, Sky News has spoken to a series of serving and retired military commanders, intelligence officials, and politicians. Between them they have decades of experience in Afghanistan. They tell a story of abandonment that has “left a stain on the West”, political short-sightedness that “demonstrates an ignorance of history and culture” and a future that is “uncertain, unpredictable, and will almost certainly come back to bite”.

***

On 29 February 2020, weeks before the world was crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, America signed a peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.

From The White House briefing room in Washington DC, president Donald Trump described American forces as “the greatest fighters in the world”, but said “it’s time, after all these years, to bring our people home”.

Around the same time in Kabul, his defense secretary Mark Esper admitted “the road ahead won’t be easy”, while Afghanistan’s then-president Ashraf Ghani, standing next to the American but not a part of the talks, said his government was “ready to negotiate with the Taliban”.

From NATO to the UN, Berlin to London, the deal was welcomed with caution. Although many failed to share the American optimism, most knew the day had been long coming and accepted it.

“We went in together and we will leave together,” the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the time.

Britain’s defence secretary, initially a cautious supporter of the deal, has since described it as “rotten”, but too late. At the time Britain and other allies kept on message, afraid of angering Washington. On reflection, perhaps they should have spoken out sooner.

After the deaths of 2,400 US troops, 457 British troops and more than 60,000 Afghans, this was the beginning of the end – just not how anyone expected it.

British troops prepare to depart upon the end of operations for U.S. Marines and British combat troops in Helmand October 27, 2014
Image:
British troops departed upon the end of operations in Helmand in October 2014, although a small number remained

It isn’t possible to point to a precise moment when everything started to unravel. Instead a series of events culminated over a relatively short period that, in the words of a military commander with knowledge of the situation, “sapped the confidence of the Afghan forces and passed the initiative to the enemy”.

The departure of civilian contractors, many of them ex-military, removed the network of logistical and engineering support so vital to any war effort.

But it was perhaps the loss of allied air support that crippled the fighting power of the Afghan forces and left them so exposed on the battlefield.

“For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed,” one former RAF pilot told us.

“We trained them to fight like that.

“You suddenly remove this safety blanket and they’re on their own; they knew that, and even worse, so did the Taliban.

“The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.”

Although the US continued limited airstrikes against Taliban positions, they weren’t enough to halt the advance, and besides, the Pentagon had made clear that support would come to an end by September.

“(US President Joe) Biden and others can say what they like about the failings of the Afghan Security Forces in recent weeks, but they merely expose their lack of understanding of warfare – it is not about numbers, or even training or equipment. It is about morale, will and confidence,” is the blunt assessment of one former head of British forces in Helmand Province.

“The US and NATO’s abandonment left them floundering, devoid of belief and fighting spirit. By contrast it buoyed the Taliban, giving them an unwarranted sense of legitimacy. The result, while swifter than most informed people expected, was pretty much inevitable.”

Through July, as the Taliban advance grew momentum, Afghan forces withdrew from some of the rural areas to concentrate on major routes, border crossings and key cities. It was a deliberate strategy to protect the bits that mattered, but the strategy of an army already on the run.

In late July, I met the Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib on a visit to London. He tried to put a brave spin on events: “Losing districts means we can focus on other areas. It’s not as bad as the Taliban would have you believe – they are winning the media war but not the military one.”

But Mr Mohib, who has since fled Afghanistan, knew by then that things weren’t looking good.

“The Americans probably didn’t realise how dependent the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] were on our NATO partners. The withdrawal has had a devastating impact. The Taliban are like zombies: kill or be killed.”

Despite this downbeat assessment, Mr Mohib was still devising his national security strategy for the coming six months; if he had any inkling of what was coming, he never let on.

For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed…

The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.

Former RAF pilot

Through my many trips to Afghanistan perhaps one message was more consistent than any other, no more so than when I stood in the hills outside Kabul and watched new officer recruits tackling an assault course.

This “Sandhurst in the Sand” academy was supposed to be Britain’s legacy to Afghanistan, and I was repeatedly told how it was a “generational commitment” to train, mentor and nurture the commanding officers who would ensure stability and peace long after NATO left.

“We need to be here for years, possibly decades,” a British soldier told me at the time. “When an entire generation has passed through these gates and the head of the Afghan Armed Forces has been trained by us, here at this academy, then it will be ok to leave.”

That was only three years ago. The commitment will never be fulfilled.

On my last visit to Kabul, the city felt different to previous trips. Afghans oversaw security, manned checkpoints, and guarded major buildings. NATO forces sped across the capital in armoured vehicles but stayed largely behind the scenes. It was very clear there had been a deliberate shift in responsibilities.

The Taliban still launched attacks from rural strongholds, and although the attrition rate among Afghan soldiers was high – too high – they were just about holding the peace. As far as NATO commanders were concerned, it was a workable situation.

“The more we stepped back, the more they stood up, but international assistance in the background was vital,” one former commander of Task Force Helmand reflected.

“They have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.”

The US withdrawal cut this short.

President Biden inherited the Trump peace plan but didn’t change it. In fact he expediated it by a few months, eager to make good on a campaign promise to bring America’s longest war to an end.

In recent days Mr Biden has sought to justify his decision by arguing that remaining in the country for another “ten, fifteen years” would have made little difference. Maybe he’s right, we’ll never know, but few outside of government share that view.

The Afghan soldiers have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.

A former commander of Task Force Helmand

For one recently retired British general, with long operational experience in the Middle East, the politicians are to blame for what the country is going through now.

“As an Afghan, who do you trust more: the countryman who says he will kill you, or the foreigner who says he will protect you? When we lead, or fight alongside ‘native troops’, they will perform wonders, but their own commanders and political masters routinely betray them by corruption or refusal to accept responsibility.

“The US withdrawal and the inevitable collapse of the Afghan security forces means that every other aspect of our 20-year engagement (political, institutional, educational, social, health etc) has also collapsed.

“What was an ‘economy of force’ operation (very little blood, and relatively small amounts of treasure, given our overall investment in Afghanistan, rightly or wrongly) was needlessly and avoidably halted, with all the predictable consequences, so Joe Biden could meet a totally artificial deadline.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised

He is not alone in pointing the finger at Washington.

“Yes, exit was Trump’s policy,” tweeted the former British ambassador Tom Fletcher. “Yes, he would have communicated and executed it in an even clumsier, more crass way. But we expect empathy, strategy and wisdom from Biden. His messaging targeted Trump’s base, not the rest of world and not allies past or future.”

Others are angry at their own party.

One British Conservative MP texted to say: “I don’t really see the point of being in the Tory party anymore”, while another simply messaged three words: “Tragic. Unnecessary. Shameful.”

A few days before the collapse of Kabul, Britain’s Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, himself a former soldier, broke diplomatic cover to reveal that he had tried to persuade some fellow NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan once the US had left. He failed, and by then it was too late.

The appetite to operate without American backup just wasn’t there – this chaotic episode has exposed NATO’s weaknesses and shone a harsh light on years of defence cuts that have left the British Armed Forces either unable or unwilling to go it alone.

President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised. As a nation Afghans have paid a far, far higher toll than any other, but as the inevitable became clear, they deserted their posts and in some cases the country altogether.

On Saturday 14 August, the day before Kabul fell, 24 Afghan helicopters carrying almost 600 servicemen flew in secret to Uzbekistan.

Hundreds more crossed the Amu Darya river on Afghanistan’s northern border, but were detained by Uzbek border troops.

In this 2011 photo, Afghan children play on a destroyed Soviet - made armored tank in Panjshir north of Kabul, Afghanistan. Pic: AP
Image:
The rusting Soviet tanks in the Panjshir Valley are relics of a long history of resistance. Pic: AP

Others made for the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul in the Hindu Kush. The lush, mountainous region is still dotted with rusting tanks, destroyed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, relics of a long history of resistance. If an uprising against the Taliban is going to come from anywhere, it will be the Panjshir, the one corner of Afghanistan the Taliban doesn’t control.

By Sunday lunchtime it was all but over. By now the Taliban was inside the capital, and en route to the Presidential Palace.

Knowing the game was up, soldiers changed out of their combat fatigues and melted into the crowds, fearful of Taliban retribution.

Western capitals watched aghast. The few official statements that did come out were largely out of touch and outpaced by the fast-moving events on the ground.

Remarkably some still called for a “political solution”, but there was nothing left to negotiate. The Taliban had won.

The Taliban has been slowly gaining more territories, forcing thousands to flee into neighbouring Iran and Pakistan
Map shows Taliban gains in Afghanistan
Taliban gains in Afghanistan 15 August

NATO might have abandoned Afghanistan first, but the country’s president and senior leadership followed swiftly afterwards.

Ashraf Ghani fled with his family and close aides. Reports said he was denied entry to Turkmenistan; he eventually surfaced in the United Arab Emirates, vowing to return and fight but Mr Ghani, not hugely popular when in power, is even less so after deserting his country.

Echoing the thoughts of so many who deployed in service of their country, one officer, still serving at the top of the chain, wrote to say: “The abandonment of our Afghan partners is a stain on the West. It leaves those who sweated, fought, suffered (and continue to suffer) and grieved feeling horrified and betrayed.”

One intelligence source defended accusations they didn’t see it coming, saying: “We did.

“Ok, maybe the speed of the Taliban advance took us a bit by surprise, but a swift Taliban overthrow was one of the scenarios we put to politicians. The problem is, they either didn’t want to hear it, or didn’t know what to do with it.”

MI6 and the CIA could do nothing but stand back and watch as the Taliban ripped through.

“I felt like crying,” another British intelligence officer confided. “We’ve spent decades trying to understand the country, building networks and relationships to ultimately keep Britain safe. Within days it was all undone. We go back to the drawing board. Many of the assets, who risked their lives to help us, are now in grave danger.”

In 20 years of conflict and reconstruction, however, Afghanistan has been undeniably transformed.

Education attendance is up, especially among girls; women have been able to work and represent their country in government, sport and music; roads have been tarmacked, improving transport links; and access to medical services, especially maternity care is vastly better. When widows and injured veterans reasonably ask: “Was it all worth it?”, these are the improvements they can be rightly proud of.

Afghanistan residents cling to plane in desperate bid to leave Taliban-controlled Kabul.
Image:
Some Afghans were so desperate to escape the Taliban that they clung to a plane as it tried to take off from Kabul

But for all that, the enduring images that publishers will put on the front covers, when the historians write the final accounts of yet another failed intervention in this graveyard of empires, will be two moments in the dying days of this mission. One is the heartbreaking sight of babies being passed over barbed wire to helpless soldiers by mothers so desperate, that they can see no other way.

The other is a photograph of Afghan men, clinging to the side of a giant US C17 transport aircraft as it gathers pace down the runway of Kabul airport leaving Afghanistan behind, in the hands of the Taliban.

For 20 years, as the fighting raged and death toll increased, the Taliban waited, believing NATO would eventually run out of patience. It turns out, they were right.

Continue Reading

World

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries – despite increasing those on China to 125%

Published

on

By

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries - despite increasing those on China to 125%

Asian markets have reacted positively after Donald Trump paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on most of America’s trading partners for 90 days, despite the US president increasing those on China to 125%.

There have been fears of a global recession and stock markets around the world had plummeted after Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday 2 April.

However, Japan’s Nikkei share average was up 8.2% by 3.50am BST, while the broader Topix had risen 7.5%.

Similarly, the S&P 500 stock index had jumped 9.5% and global markets bounced back following Mr Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the increased tariffs on nearly all trading partners would now be paused.

Tariffs latest: Trump gives reasons for pausing some tariffs

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said the “90-day pause” was for the “more than 75 countries” who had not retaliated against his tariffs “in any way”.

He added that during this period they would still have to pay a “substantially lowered” 10% tariff, which is “effective immediately”.

It is lower than the 20% tariff that Mr Trump had set for goods from the European Union, 24% on imports from Japan and 25% on products from South Korea.

The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% tariff under the new system.

Mr Trump said the increased 125% tariff on imported goods from China was “effective immediately”.

He added: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the USA, and other countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”

What’s in Trump’s tariff pause?

Here’s what Donald Trump’s tariff pause entails:

‘Reciprocal’ tariffs on hold

• Higher tariffs that took effect today on 57 trading partners will be paused for 90 days

• These include the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which will face a baseline 10% duty instead

• Countries that already had a 10% levy imposed since last week – such as the UK – aren’t affected by the pause

China tariffs increased

• Trump imposed a higher 125% tariff on China

• That’s in addition to levies he imposed during his first term

• China had hit the US with 84% tariff earlier today, following tit-for-tat escalations

No change for Canada or Mexico

• Canadian and Mexican goods will remain subject to 25% fentanyl-related tariffs if they don’t comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s rules of origin

• Compliant goods are exempt

Car and metal tariffs remain

• Trump’s pause doesn’t apply to the 25% tariffs he levied on steel and aluminium in March and on cars (autos) on 3 April

• This 25% tariff on car parts does not come into effect until 3 May

Sectors at risk

• Copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals are expected to be subject to separate tariffs, in the same way autos are

Hours after Mr Trump announced the pause on tariffs for most countries, a White House official clarified that this did not apply to the 25% duties imposed on some US imports from Mexico and Canada.

The tariffs were first announced in February and Mexico and Canada were not included in the “Liberation Day” announcements.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Donald Trump says China ‘wants to make a deal’

Hours before the 125% tariff on China was revealed, Beijing said it was increasing tariffs on US goods by 50%.

It meant tariffs of 84% would be enforced on US goods – up from the 34% China had previously planned.

Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Mr Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office. Pic: Reuters

China ‘want to make a deal’

Asked why he posted “BE COOL” on Truth Social hours before announcing his tariff pause, Mr Trump told reporters at the White House: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line.”

“They were getting yippy, you know, were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” he added.

Mr Trump continued: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how to go about it.

“[They’re] quite the proud people, and President Xi is a proud man. I know him very well, and they don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.

“They’re in the process of figuring out, but they want to make a deal.”

Read more:
Why Trump finally blinked

Is there method to madness amid market chaos?
Who’s most likely to see pensions hurt

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the walk back was part of a grand negotiating strategy by Mr Trump.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” she said, adding that the news media “clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted Mr Trump had strengthened his hand through his tariffs.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” he said.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Mr Bessent said Mr Trump decided to raise tariffs on China because Beijing hadn’t reached out to the US and instead increased its own levies on US goods.

Downing Street said that the UK will “coolly and calmly” continue its negotiations with the US.

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “A trade war is in nobody’s interests. We don’t want any tariffs at all, so for jobs and livelihoods across the UK, we will coolly and calmly continue to negotiate in Britain’s interests.”

Continue Reading

World

Inside a NATO base in Poland – as residents bordering Russia say ‘scare tactic’ is needed

Published

on

By

Inside a NATO base in Poland - as residents bordering Russia say 'scare tactic' is needed

Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.

Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.

Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.

It doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory.

Between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.
Image:
This doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory

“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.

“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.

“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”

More on Nato

Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.

Border between EU and the Russian Federation
Image:
Border between EU and the Russian Federation

He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.

Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.

We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.

Missile launcher
Image:
Aegis Ashore Poland

Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.

They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.

The control room
Image:
The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland

And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.

“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”

Control room
Image:
The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.

NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.

Not the case, Captain Dwan says.

Missile launcher
Image:
Aegis Ashore Poland

Missile launcher
Image:
Aegis Ashore Poland

Read more from Sky News:
King and Queen meet Pope at the Vatican
British passports are about to get more expensive

“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.

“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”

With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.

But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.

They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.

Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.

On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.

But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.

“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.

Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.

Continue Reading

World

Defence secretary to urge coalition of the willing to increase pressure on Russia to end war

Published

on

By

Defence secretary to urge coalition of the willing to increase pressure on Russia to end war

The defence secretary will urge “coalition of the willing” nations to increase pressure on Russia to end its war in Ukraine as plans to support peace ramp up.

John Healey and French defence minister Sebastien Lecornu will lead about 30 defence ministers in Brussels on Thursday as they discuss operational plans for a multinational peacekeeping force in Ukraine as part of the “coalition of the willing”.

They will look at each nation’s capabilities and how they could be best used to support Ukraine’s long-term defence and security as part of what the Ministry of Defence called a “reassurance force”.

UK and French military chiefs discussed planning with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his military chiefs in Kyiv last weekend.

Peace negotiations are ongoing between the US and Russia, however, US officials appear to be growing increasingly impatient with the lack of progress after Donald Trump publicly suggested a month ago Vladimir Putin wants to end the war.

Read more: Who’s in and who’s out of the coalition of the willing?

Officials pose as part of the so-called "Coalition of the willing" summit at the Elysee Palace, Thursday, March 27, 2025 in Paris. (Ludovic Marin, Pool via AP)
Image:
Leaders of nations part of the coalition of the willing at a summit in Paris on 27 March. Pic: AP

Last Tuesday, the Kremlin described the latest US peace proposal as unacceptable in its current form because it does not solve the “root causes” of the conflict.

More from Politics

Mr Putin wants to dismantle Ukraine as an independent, functioning state and has demanded Kyiv recognise Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and other partly occupied areas and pull its forces out, as well as a pledge for Ukraine to never join NATO and to demilitarise.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday Mr Trump is not “going to fall into the trap of endless negotiations” with Moscow.

Read more:
Two Chinese citizens ‘fighting for Russia’ captured in Ukraine
Zelenskyy makes dig at US over response to Russian attack

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Children killed in Russian missile strike

Despite the apparent impasse in talks, the coalition of the willing – which does not include the US – is continuing with its plans for when peace is agreed.

Mr Healey is expected to tell his fellow defence ministers: “We cannot jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war, so we must put even more pressure on Putin and step up our support for Ukraine – both in today’s fight and the push for peace.

“Our commitment is to put Ukraine in the strongest position to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and deter future Russian aggression.”

On Friday, the defence secretary and his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, will chair the 27th meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels.

The group is an alliance of about 50 countries – all 32 NATO member states, including the US, and about 20 other countries – that has been supporting Ukraine by sending military equipment since Russia invaded in April 2022.

United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, left, Britain's Defense Secretary John Healey, center, Ukraine's Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, second left, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, right, attend a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact group at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Omar Havana)
Image:
A Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting – including the US defence secretary – in March. Pic: AP

Mr Healey and Mr Pistorius will “drive forward additional military support” as Russia continues to attack Ukraine.

The latest development in the war has seen Mr Zelenskyy say Ukraine has intelligence there are at least 155 Chinese citizens fighting for the Russian military.

On Tuesday, Mr Zelenskyy released a video of a Chinese soldier taken by Ukrainian forces, with another captured by Ukrainian forces, he said.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian denied claims there were “many more” Chinese citizens fighting alongside Russians in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

Trending