Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak pledged the UK government’s continued commitment to Ukraine during his speech at the Conservative Party conference.

Joe Biden has also reaffirmed US support for “as long as it takes”.

However, beyond the political rhetoric, public support for the conflict is waning, and democratic elections will – inevitably – impact Western support.

Is this the beginning of the end for Ukraine, and will Vladimir Putin’s aggression ultimately be rewarded?

Western military support for Ukraine is vital, not only material, but also moral.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM tells Zelenskyy: ‘You belong here’

However, as the war drags towards its second anniversary, the West’s ability – and enthusiasm – to maintain current levels of military aid are under growing pressure.

Notwithstanding the regular and fulsome Western political support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for how long can that rhetoric translate into vital military equipment, ammunition and financial aid?

More on Russia

Although there remains widespread Western sympathy for Ukraine’s plight, in the post-pandemic era with cost of living issues and high energy costs, choices need to be made.

Continued support for Ukraine has impacted adversely on the economies of Western nations and evidence suggests that public opinion is drifting inexorably towards domestic priorities.

The recent election of a pro-Kremlin leader as prime minister of Slovakia – a NATO country – was built on an election promise to cease Slovakian aid to Ukraine.

Robert Fico
Image:
Slovakia’s Robert Fico has vowed to stop military aid to Ukraine


And this is not an isolated case.

Poland is also facing crucial elections, which has led to increased tensions with Ukraine.

US presidential and UK parliamentary elections are likely next year, and with a recent US poll suggesting that most Americans do not support continued aid to Ukraine, Western “war fatigue” is mounting.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Biden tells Zelenskyy: ‘We’re with you’

West’s primary objective has been achieved, but is a protracted war supportable?

Although President Zelenskyy remains – understandably – committed to liberating every corner of Russian-occupied Ukraine, is that achievable?

This year the West has provided an extensive array of weapons, ammunition, military training and financial support.

However, four months into Ukraine’s “spring” offensive, and despite huge casualties for both sides, the frontlines remain largely static.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Aftermath of missile strikes on Ukraine

If Ukraine was unable to make progress this summer when arguably it was as well-prepared as it could ever be, would continued Western military support simply lead to a protracted, costly and largely static conflict.

Is that supportable?

From the West’s perspective, a key motivation for supporting Ukraine – not a member of NATO – was to avoid Russian aggression threatening the rest of Europe.

Russia’s military capability has been badly damaged by the invasion of Ukraine.

Russia has lost more than 2,000 of its most capable tanks – so it looks unlikely that it will have the military capability to threaten Europe again for at least a decade.

The West’s primary objective has been achieved.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

US supplies Ukraine with ammunition

Read more:
Why is Ukraine so successful in attacking key Russian military facilities?
As Ukraine effectively targets Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – is bigger still better in the military?

Supplying weapons is not sustainable

But even if public support was sustained, the supply of weapons is not sustainable.

Western military aid to Ukraine has focused on high-tech weapons to enable precision strike at range, with low collateral damage; this capability has been a vital component of Ukraine’s battlefield successes this past year.

But, modern weapons are expensive – so produced in limited numbers – and once acquired the production line closes.

A Polish soldier walks next to the Leopard 2 tanks during a training at a military base and test range in Swietoszow, Poland, Monday, Feb. 13, 2023. The training is part of the European Union's military assistance to Ukraine. (AP Photo/Michal Dyjuk)
Image:
Leopard 2 tanks during training in Poland, part of the EU’s military assistance to Ukraine. Pic: AP

So, stocks cannot be replaced swiftly. National stockpiles can be reduced, but only by taking increasing national security risks, and that is not something that can be continued ad infinitum.

The chairman of the NATO military committee has warned that Western weapon stocks are low, and there is little prospect of them being replenished in the near-term.

Western public support for the war is waning, and stockpiles of weapons are limited.

Click to subscribe to Ukraine War Diaries wherever you get your podcasts

Writing is on the wall

Ultimately, it is President Zelenskyy’s decision as to what next, but since all conflicts either end when one side is defeated – unlikely in this war – or a compromise is reached, the writing is on the wall.

Even if a compromise would be seen by many as a success for Putin, some might venture that it is better to “learn the wisdom of compromise, for it is better to bend a little than to break”.

However, that might prove a short-term palliative for a war-weary West.

But would such a decision deter Putin from future expansionist ambitions, and how would a compromise impact China’s calculus when considering its options over Taiwan?

As James Russell Lowell once opined, “compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof”.

Continue Reading

World

Trump warns Hamas – and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Published

on

By

Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain

In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.

For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.

The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?

At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”

The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”

The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.

We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.

Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.

We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.

If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.

It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.

Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.

Continue Reading

World

Women’s Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

Published

on

By

Women's Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.

Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.

Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.

Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.

Players take a drink during a training session of Spain soccer team at the Euro 2025, in Lausanne, Switzerland Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Pic: AP
Image:
The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP

It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.

FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.

There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.

More on Football

FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.

“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”

Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.

Chloe Kelly celebrates with Beth Mead, right, after scoring her side's sixth goal at Wembley Stadium, in London, Friday, May 30, 2025. AP
Image:
England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP

While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.

There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.

FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.

FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.

Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.

This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.

Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup in the US. Pic: AP
Image:
Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP

The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.

There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.

And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.

Read more:
Ex-England boss receives knighthood
Football star mural unveiled

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave

FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.

“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.

“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.

“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”

Continue Reading

World

Trump’s USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Published

on

By

Trump's USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.

Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.

Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.

“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya

USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.

The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.

Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.

USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts

Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.

But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.

Read more:
USAID explained
USAID ‘a bowl of worms’ – Musk

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What is USAID?

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.

The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.

Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.

The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.

Continue Reading

Trending