Who’s given Ukraine most aid – and does it have enough rare earth metals to ‘pay back’ US?
How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?
These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.
First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.
War latest: Ukraine agrees minerals deal with US – source
If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).
But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).
Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.
That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.
Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.
Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.
Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.
Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.
That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.
Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.
President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.
This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.
The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.
More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.
And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.
Read more:
What minerals does Ukraine have?
Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.
There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.
Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.
Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.
Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.
Foreign state investors would be allowed to hold stakes of up to 15% in British national newspapers, ministers are set to announce amid a two-year battle to resolve an impasse over The Daily Telegraph’s ownership.
Sky News has learnt that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could announce as soon as Thursday that the new limit is to be imposed following a consultation lasting several months.
The decision to set the ownership threshold at 15% follows an intensive lobbying campaign by newspaper industry executives concerned that a permanent outright ban could cut off a vital source of funding to an already-embattled industry.
It would mean that RedBird IMI, the Abu Dhabi state-backed fund which owns an option to take full ownership of the Telegraph titles, would be able to play a role in the newspapers’ future.
Money blog: £30 broadband rule explained
RedBird Capital, the US-based fund, has already said it is exploring the possibility of taking full control of the Telegraph, while IMI would have – if the status quo had been maintained – forced to relinquish any involvement in the right-leaning broadsheets.
One industry source said they had been told to expect a statement from Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, or another DCMS minister, this week, with the amendment potentially being made in the form of a statutory instrument.
Other than RedBird, a number of suitors for the Telegraph have expressed interest but struggled to raise the funding for a deal.
The most notable of these has been Dovid Efune, owner of The New York Sun, who has been trying for months to raise the £550m sought by RedBird IMI to recoup its outlay.
Another potential offer from Todd Boehly, the Chelsea Football Club co-owner, and media tycoon David Montgomery, has yet to materialise.
RedBird IMI paid £600m in 2023 to acquire a call option that was intended to convert into ownership of the Telegraph newspapers and The Spectator magazine.
That objective was thwarted by a change in media ownership laws – which banned any form of foreign state ownership – amid an outcry from parliamentarians.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The Spectator was then sold last year for £100m to Sir Paul Marshall, the hedge fund billionaire, who has installed Lord Gove, the former cabinet minister, as its editor.
The UAE-based IMI, which is controlled by the UAE’s deputy prime minister and ultimate owner of Manchester City Football Club, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, extended a further £600m to the Barclays to pay off a loan owed to Lloyds Banking Group, with the balance secured against other family-controlled assets.
Other bidders for the Telegraph had included Lord Saatchi, the former advertising mogul, who offered £350m, while Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail proprietor, pulled out of the bidding last summer amid concerns that he would be blocked on competition grounds.
The Telegraph’s ownership had been left in limbo by a decision taken by Lloyds Banking Group, the principal lender to the Barclay family, to force some of the newspapers’ related corporate entities into a form of insolvency proceedings.
The newspaper auction is being run by Raine Group and Robey Warshaw.
The DCMS declined to comment.
Burberry, the UK’s only global luxury brand, is to cut around 1,700 jobs worldwide over the next two years after reporting a steep financial loss.
The company lost £66m in pre-tax profit in the year ended in March as luxury goods sales fell across the world and the company weathered an “uncertain” environment and a “difficult macroeconomic backdrop”.
A year earlier, it recorded £383m in profit.
Money blog: £30 broadband rule explained
It’s suffered in recent years with the share price falling to such an extent the business was removed from the FTSE 100, the index of most valuable companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.
Despite the financial performance, the company was upbeat, with chief executive Joshua Schulman saying “I am more optimistic than ever that Burberry’s best days are ahead and that we will deliver sustainable profitable growth over time”.
What cuts are being made?
The retailer did not specify any shop closures – in the past year, it closed 26 and also opened 26 stores – but did highlight shift cuts and consolidations.
“We don’t have a store closing programme, per see,” Mr Schulman told investors
The night shift at Burberry’s Castleford factory will be cut, it proposed, saying the shift has resulted in overproduction.
“Significant” investment in the facility will be made, however, as the ambition is to scale up British production “over time”, Mr Schulman said.
Changes to the retail network across the world will be made with shop staff being scheduled around “peak traffic”.
Burberry will be “realigning” shop staff, he said, “so that we can offer the best service” at the busiest times.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
There will also be a “simplification” of Burberry’s regional structure and a “rebalancing” of central and regional responsibilities to reduce duplication and “accelerate decision making” through the retail network.
But the majority of changes will be made to “office space teams” around the world, the CEO said.
Commercial and creative teams have already been consolidated, Burberry’s annual results said.
What’s gone wrong?
Aside from the global slowdown in luxury goods sales over recession fears, additional headwinds have come in the form of President Trump’s tariffs.
“Clearly, the external environment has become more challenging since mid-February”, Mr Schulman told investors.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know
Tariff risks were higher than first planned, the annual results said.
It led the US market to be described by Mr Schulman as “choppy” since February when Mr Trump began announcing tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, as well as on goods such as steel and cars.
Sales also fell in the Asia Pacific region by 16%, the results showed.
Criticism was levelled at the 2021 British government decision to withdraw VAT refunds for overseas visitors, “which has made the UK the least competitive destination in Europe for tourist shopping”, the results read.
“Business in our UK home market continues to be seriously impacted” by the move.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway