After two days of diplomacy and negotiations, NATO’s meeting broke up with lots of ideas, but no deal to send fighter jets to Ukraine.
Despite the smiles and bonhomie of Ukraine’s Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, NATO’s resolve didn’t buckle.
The question of supplying planes remains “under discussion”, we are told, but other things took precedence. For one, the more prosaic question of ammunition.
NATO’s assessment is that Russia is initiating an offensive that will be focused on creating a long, attritional ground war.
Russia’s advantage is that it has a lot of people, a willingness to accept a high casualty rate, and big stockpiles of munitions.
It’s not the sort of war that most nations had predicted, or would choose.
More on Ukraine
Related Topics:
The frontlines of this conflict are now lined with trenches that would not look out of place in the First World War. But NATO, its members and its wider allies are all having to adapt to that reality.
So the alliance has agreed to step up its production of the ammunition that Ukraine will need, even though the likelihood is that Ukraine will use up supplies quicker than they can presently be made.
Advertisement
And no nation will want to send all its ammunition to Ukraine only to leave itself empty-handed.
As US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin put it: “Even as we rush to support Ukraine, and build up our industrial capacity, we must replenish our own stockpiles.”
None of this will happen overnight
Alongside that, of course, are heavy weapons, including tanks, that have been promised by various nations, including the UK.
Ukrainian soldiers will need training on their use and maintenance, and spares are going to have to be delivered as well.
None of this will happen overnight. For one thing, NATO will need to work on how to deliver all those resources to the right place – sending an army’s worth of equipment into a warzone is no easy job.
And no cheap matter, either.
The cost of sustaining Ukraine’s war runs into many, many billions of pounds for NATO countries, predominantly borne by the United States.
America keen to start conversation on how other NATO members could spend more
And, not for the first time, America is keen to start a conversation about how other NATO members could spend more of their budget.
NATO presently demands that member states spend 2% of their national turnover on defence. Now, the organisation wants that to become a minimum, rather than a target.
“It is obvious that we need to spend more,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “We should go from viewing 2% as a ceiling to seeing it as a floor. It should be obvious that 2% is a minimum.”
The topic will be discussed when NATO holds a meeting in July for heads of state.
By then, both Finland and Sweden may have become full members, if Turkey and Hungary have finally been persuaded to drop their objections.
Mr Stoltenberg has made it clear that he thinks both should be members by now, and will fly to Turkey to hold further discussions.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:22
‘Are fighter jets top of your wish list?’
Ukrainian defence minister brandishes fighter jet handkerchief
As for the fighter jets, Ukraine has made it clear that it wants them, as well as more air-defence systems.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy beat that drum during his whistle-stop tour of Europe, and it was a message repeated by Mr Reznikov when he came to Brussels showing off a handkerchief designed with the blueprint of a fighter jet.
It didn’t matter that the plane in question was actually a Russian Su-30. His message was clear, but so far not heeded.
The problem with supplying jets remains the same – it takes a long time to train pilots to use them and they require burdensome specialist maintenance. And if Russia is launching missiles from its own territory, their use may be limited.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
‘Ukraine has window of opportunity to tip the balance’
That’s why, for the moment at least, NATO nations prefer to concentrate on shells, ammunition, heavy weapons, training and supply chains.
The ingredients, so they believe, to hold Russia back and enable Ukraine to launch a counter-offensive in the spring.
Russian air defences may have shot down an Azerbaijan Airlines flight after misidentifying it, according to US military sources.
Two unnamed officials who spoke to Sky News’ US partner NBC News said America had intelligence indicating Russia may have believed the flight was a drone and engaged its air defences.
It added that this was down, in part, due to the plane’s irregular flight pattern and altitude.
The report comes after US national security spokesperson John Kirby said on Friday that Washington had “seen some early indications that would certainly point to the possibility that this jet was brought down by Russian air defence systems”.
He refused to elaborate, citing an ongoing investigation.
The plane had been flying from Azerbaijan’s capital Baku to Grozny, the regional capital of the Russian republic of Chechnya, on Christmas Day.
During its flight, it turned toward Kazakhstan and later crashed around two miles from Aktau while making an attempt to land after flying east across the Caspian Sea.
More on Azerbaijan
Related Topics:
The crash killed 38 people and left all of the 29 survivors injured.
Azerbaijan’s transport minister Rashad Nabiyev told the country’s media that “preliminary conclusions by experts point at external impact” and witness testimony did as well.
He added: “The type of weapon used in the impact will be determined during the probe.”
Azerbaijan Airlines has since suspended flights to a number of Russian cities.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
Video shows inside plane before crash
A spokesperson for the Kremlin declined to comment on the crash, saying it would be up to investigators to determine the cause.
Dmitry Peskov said: “The air incident is being investigated, and we don’t believe we have the right to make any assessments until the conclusions are made as a result of the investigation.”
The crash was said to have taken place during a Ukrainian drone attack.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blamed Russia in a post on social media.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Passengers and crew who survived the crash told Azerbaijani media that they heard loud noises as the aircraft was circling over Grozny.
Aydan Rahimli, a flight attendant, said that after one noise oxygen masks were automatically released and she went to perform first aid on a colleague, Zulfugar Asadov, and then heard another bang.
Mr Asadov said the noises sounded like something hitting the plane from outside.
Shortly afterwards, he sustained a sudden injury like a “deep wound, the arm was lacerated as if someone hit me in the arm with an axe,” he said.
Two other survivors described their experiences on the flight.
Jerova Salihat told Azerbaijani television that “something exploded” near her leg and Vafa Shabanova said there had been “two explosions in the sky, and an hour and a half later the plane crashed to the ground.”
If proven the plane crashed after being hit by Russian air defences, it would be the second deadly aviation incident linked to the Kremlin’s conflict with Ukraine.
Just look at the Asachyovs. Vera and her husband Timofey have eight children – from 18-year-old Sofiya to 18-month-old Marusya – and they’ve just been crowned Moscow Family of the Year.
“It’s a great honour and joy,” Vera Asachyova told Sky News when asked how it felt to win.
“It brings pride to our family, not only my husband and I but for the children and their grandmothers and grandfathers.”
And that’s not their only award.
Having had so many children, they’ve also been honoured with the prestigious Order of Parental Glory, which Vera proudly wears pinned to her chest.
The family’s beaming faces are even on billboards around town.
They’re portrayed as the model family doing their patriotic duty.
That’s because Russia’s birth rate is at a quarter-of-a-century low and the state wants others to follow the Asachyovs’ lead.
Official data shows 599,600 children were born in Russia in the first half of 2024, which is 16,000 fewer than in the same period in 2023 and the lowest since 1999.
The Kremlin called the figure “catastrophic” and is desperate to boost it.
The latest attempt is a ban on “childfree propaganda”, which was passed unanimously by Russia’s lower house of parliament last month.
It’s supposedly the promotion of life without children, and anyone caught spreading it can now be fined.
But does this propaganda really exist? Even if it does, surely there are more pressing reasons why a woman might not want to have children?
For example the costs involved, or perhaps because their partner is away fighting in Ukraine, or worse, has been killed there.
I put that to Tatiana Butskaya, an MP for Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, who sits on the parliamentary committee for Family Protection.
“This is an ideology against life on earth,” she replied, referring to the so-called propaganda.
“If [our parents] had adhered to this ideology, none of us would be at this press conference today. Perhaps it would’ve been other people here, and maybe even robots.”
Vladimir Putin has previously encouraged women to have at least three children, to secure Russia’s future.
In the same vein, Ms Butskaya went on to criticise families with only one child, calling them “strange”.
“If this family has lived together for a long time, you think, ‘Well, maybe they have illnesses? Maybe something is wrong in the family’. Right?
“They’ve lived together for 30 years and only given birth to only one child. There’s something wrong there.”
According to the authorities, childfree propaganda is everywhere – in films, on the internet and throughout the media. But that’s not how it feels walking around Moscow.
Pretty much everywhere you look there are huge billboards promoting family and motherhood. The message on one reads “we have room to grow” in Russian.
Russia insists women still have the right not to have children, but feminist activists like Zalina Marshenkulova believe that’s no longer true.
The prominent blogger left Russia soon after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and was charged in absentia with “justifying terrorism” by a Russian court earlier this year.
“It’s reproductive violence,” she told Sky News, referring to the ban on childfree propaganda. “It’s another repressive law they needed to turn all women into mechanisms for reproducing slaves.
“If you’re smart, if you love freedom, if you respect yourself, you can’t live in Russia. That’s what they try to say to us by this stupid law.”
Weavers of Ireland’s famous Donegal tweed have called for a special protected status for their product, as the craft industry battles a raft of cheaper imitations branding themselves as “Donegals”.
Urgent efforts are under way to take advantage of a change in EU policy, which could see non-food and drink products receive the same protected designation as champagne or parma ham.
Currently, a textile manufacturer anywhere in the world can produce fabric and call it Donegal tweed, often vastly undercutting the genuine producers.
“It’s not great,” says Kieran Molloy, a sixth-generation weaver at Molloy & Sons.
He says the unrestricted use of the term Donegal “is making people think it’s a craft product, when in fact maybe it’s coming from an enormous mill in the UK or in China or Italy”.
“When people maybe think of Donegal, and they’re thinking of mountains and sheep and the craft, a lot of the time that’s not what they’re getting.”
Donegal tweed is a woollen fabric with neps – or flecks – of distinctive colours spun into the yarn as its main characteristic.
The industry hopes to be awarded a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) following a 2022 decision by the European Commission to widen the categories of goods that could be protected. This would mean only fabric produced in Co Donegal could be described as a Donegal tweed.
Patrick Temple is CEO of Donegal’s largest tweed producer, Magee Weaving, and also chair of the Donegal Tweed Association.
He says the glut of foreign imposters “does detract from the business,” adding: “It also creates a mixed message for the consumer.
“The wonderful thing about a PGI, if we’re lucky enough to obtain it, is that it creates a pure message to the consumer and they know they’re buying a genuine fabric woven in Donegal.”
Magee has celebrity fans like Sex And The City actor Sarah Jessica Parker, a regular visitor to Co Donegal.
In some ways, the tweed is a victim of its own popularity, which means larger international brands can put reproductions on the market for far lower prices than the Donegal producers.
Marks & Spencer has a range of men’s wool clothing marketed with the word “Donegal”, which features small flecks of colour.
A blazer, with the fabric woven in England and constructed in Cambodia, retails for €205 in Ireland, less than half the price of many of Magee’s authentic Donegal tweed blazers.
Mr Temple examined the M&S jacket for Sky News. “It’s a pleasant blazer, in a natural wool,” he says.
“It’s emulating, trying to be a Donegal. But unfortunately, it’s not woven in Donegal, there’s a small fleck there but we can’t call it a Donegal tweed.”
“It undercuts our position in the region of Donegal, as the genuine weavers of Donegal tweed,” he adds.
Marks & Spencer stops short of describing its clothing as “Donegal tweed”, and does not claim the fabric is made in Ireland, but did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The Donegal weavers have enlisted the expertise of colleagues in Scotland, where the famous Harris tweed has enjoyed protection from an act of parliament passed in 1993.
The legislation means that only wool handwoven on the Outer Hebrides can be described as Harris tweed within the UK.
Lorna Macaulay, the outgoing CEO of the Harris Tweed Authority, has held several meetings with the Donegal weavers, and says the geographic protection is vital.
Without the “absolutely pivotal” 1993 law, she says “we have no doubt that this [Harris tweed] industry would not have survived… it simply couldn’t have”.
“The protection it has brought has forever secured the definition of Harris tweed.”
Ms Macaulay says an appreciation of the shared culture has led to close cooperation between the weavers in Scotland and Ireland.
“When the Donegal people approached us, we didn’t consider ourselves as rivals or competitors, and in fact a really strong handwoven sector lifts all boats. There is a real will to work together,” she adds.
The Donegal weavers hope the Scottish input will strengthen their campaign. They want the incoming Irish government to help press Brussels for the coveted protected status.
It could take 12 to 18 months, admits Mr Temple, “but it’s really gaining momentum, and we hope it’ll be sooner rather than later”.