Active service members and veterans have described in harrowing detail the carnage and death they witnessed during the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Former US Marine Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews was among those giving evidence to the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee examing the handling of the withdrawal.
Mr Vargas-Andrews broke down in tears as he told of the deadliest moment in the August 2021 US evacuation – a suicide bombing in Kabul airport that killed 170 Afghans and 13 US servicemen and women.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:48
Afghan withdrawal ‘a catastrophe’
He told of the stench of human flesh under a large plume of smoke as the screams of children, women and men filled the space around the airport after two suicide bombers attacked crowds of Afghans hoping to escape the country on a plane.
He said Marines and others aiding in the evacuation operation were given descriptions of men believed to be plotting an attack before it happened.
Image: Mr Vargas-Andrews lost an arm and a leg in the suicide attack at Kabul airport. Pic: AP
Mr Vargas-Andrews, whose right arm and right leg had to be amputated as a result of the bombing, said he and others spotted two men matching the descriptions and behaving suspiciously, and eventually had them in aim, but never received a response about whether to take action.
“No one was held accountable,” Mr Vargas-Andrews told the committee. “No one was, and no one is, to this day.”
“The withdrawal was a catastrophe in my opinion.”
Image: This image from a video released by the US Defence Department shows US Marines around the scene at Abbey Gate outside Kabul airport on August 26, 2021 after a suicide bombing
The withdrawal brought an end to America’s longest war – a 20-year campaign that saw tens of thousands of Afghans die and more than 2,400 Americans.
Advertisement
Thousands of Afghans rushed to Kabul airport in August 2021 in the hope of escaping the new Taliban regime which had seized the capital far more quickly than US intelligence had foreseen.
Witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing recalled seeing mothers carrying dead babies and the Taliban shooting and brutally beating people at the airport. They depicted the US’s desperate attempt to rescue American citizens and Afghan allies, blaming inadequate planning and support.
“I see the faces of all of those we could not save, those we left behind,” said Aidan Gunderson, an Army medic who was stationed at Abbey Gate, the area of the airport where the bomb exploded.
“I wonder if our Afghan allies fled to safety or they were killed by the Taliban.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:26
August 2021: Desperate attempts to flee Kabul airport
President Biden followed through on Donald Trump’s pledge to leave Afghanistan – despite the fall of the Afghan capital.
Witnesses called for action to help the many thousands of Afghan allies who worked alongside US soldiers and who are now in limbo in the US or back in Afghanistan.
“Our veterans know something else that this committee might do well to consider: we might be done with Afghanistan, but it’s not done with us,” retired Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann told the committee.
The Republican-led hearing is the first of what is expected to be a series examining the withdrawal.
Defence Department spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rob Lodewick said on Wednesday that the Pentagon’s earlier review of the airport attack resulted in no advance identification of a possible attacker nor any requests for “an escalation to existing rules of engagement” governing use of force by US troops.
Last month, a report by US inspector-general for Afghanistan John Sopko found actions taken by both the Trump and Biden administrations were key to the sudden collapse of the Afghan government and military.
The report blamed all US administrations since American forces invaded in 2001 for failing to build a capable, sustainable Afghan military before completing the withdrawal of US troops in August 2021.
Donald Trump has said American troops will not be sent to Ukraine, but the US may provide air support as part of a peace deal with Russia.
A day after his extraordinary White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of Kyiv’s European allies, the US president told Fox News “when it comes to security, [Europeans] are willing to put people on the ground. We’re willing to help them with things, especially, probably, by air”.
Mr Trump did not elaborate, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters US air support was “an option and a possibility”.
She said the US president “has definitively stated US boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies”.
Air support could take many forms, including missile defence systems or fighter jets enforcing a no-fly zone – and it’s not clear what role the US would play under any proposed peace deal.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:14
What security guarantees could work?
Zelenskyy-Putin summit
It comes as planning for a possible Zelenskyy-Putin summit get under way. Talks between the Ukrainian and Russian president are seen by Mr Trump as vital to ending the war.
Sky News understands a meeting could happen before the end of the month, with Geneva, Vienna, Rome, Budapest, and Doha among the venues being considered.
Geneva, Switzerland, is considered the best option, with Rome or the Vatican disliked by the Russians and Budapest, Hungary, not favoured by the Ukrainians.
European allies are understood to want security guarantees to be defined before the meeting.
A NATO-like treaty, guaranteeing Ukraine’s allies would come to its defence in case of any future Russian attack, is being worked on and could be completed by next week.
Like the US, Sky News understands Italy is opposed to putting boots on the ground in Ukraine.
But EU diplomats are confident this is the best chance yet to stop the war, and allies could return to Washington in early September to celebrate any deal being struck.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:57
Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0
Trump still has doubts about Putin
Despite the renewed optimism about a peace deal following Monday’s White House summit, Mr Trump has admitted Vladimir Putin might not be sincere about wanting to end the war.
“We’re going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks,” he told Fox News.
He’s previously threatened to put more sanctions on Russia if a peace deal isn’t reached, though previously set deadlines have been and gone.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, 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 Spotify 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 Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Russia launched its biggest air assault on Ukraine in more than a month on Monday night, sending 270 drones and 10 missiles, the Ukrainian air force said.
Ukraine’s European allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing, an initiative spearheaded by Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, discussed additional sanctions to place on Russia on Tuesday.
Image: Boris Yeltsin (2L) and Bill Clinton (C) sign the 1994 Budapest Memorandum
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:14
What security guarantees could work?
The Trump administration’s contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here.
MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind.
“Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?”
For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:46
Ukrainian drone strikes Russian fuel train
In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers.
They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia’s side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago.
We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s.
Image: Veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko helped lead the Budapest Memorandum negotiations
He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, 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 Spotify 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 Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
“It’s not true, it’s not true, Russia never, never, it’s my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake.”
Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade.
But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions.
Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path.
Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing.
While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable.
Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front.
If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he’s showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.
Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days.
Image: Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday. Pic: AP
What has been said so far?
Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end.
Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European ‘coalition of the willing’ and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing.
The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement – until now.
He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US “could offer Article-5 like protection”, which he described as “game-changing”. Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.
Image: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Pic: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque
This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had “discussed security guarantees”, which would be “provided by the various European countries” – “with coordination with the United States of America”.
Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the “concrete content” of the security agreement would be “formalised on paper within the next 10 days”.
US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:57
Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0
What would security guarantees look like?
Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings.
Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to “frontload” the security agreement with soldiers.
“They want to have boots on the ground”, he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular.
He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: “You have my assurance and I’m president.”
Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is “preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force” in the event of “hostilities ending”.
This was the original basis for the coalition – soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron in Washington on Monday. Pic: AP
But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says.
“This is all about credibility and I don’t think boots on the ground is a credible answer,” he tells Sky News.
Stationing soldiers along Ukraine’s 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total.
Image: A map of the Ukrainian-Russian border
The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says.
Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression.
“You’re not even close to getting the numbers you need,” Bell adds. “And even if you could, putting all of NATO’s frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous – and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted.”
History of failed security agreements in Ukraine
Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first.
In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia.
The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region.
Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war.
Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace.
‘Article 5-like protection’
When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as “Article 5-like” or “NATO-style”.
Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.
It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 – by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022.
NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative “Article 5-type” arrangement could be viable.
The alliance’s military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, 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 Spotify 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 Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But he stresses they are both key in providing the “flesh on the bones” to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far.
“It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring,” Bell adds.
US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military
Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies.
Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would “play to NATO’s strengths” – as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia’s, Bell says.
Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a “massive strength” to any potential deterrence force, he adds.
Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week.
And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says.
“At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability.
“Because while there’s a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years’ time, there will be different governments and different priorities – so that has to endure.”