VIENNA — The United Nations atomic watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution on Thursday again ordering Iran to urgently improve cooperation with the agency and requesting a “comprehensive” report aimed at pressuring Iran into fresh nuclear talks. 

Britain, France, Germany and the United States, which proposed the resolution, dismissed as insufficient and insincere a last-minute Iranian move to cap its stock of uranium that is close to weapons-grade. Diplomats said Iran’s move was conditional on scrapping the resolution. 

Iran tends to bristle at such resolutions and has said it would respond in kind to this one. After previous criticism at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board, it has stepped up its nuclear activities and reduced IAEA oversight. 

China, Russia and Burkina Faso voted against the text, diplomats in the meeting said. Nineteen countries voted in favor and 12 abstained. 

Standoffs

The IAEA and Iran have long been locked in standoffs on a range of issues, including Tehran’s failure to explain uranium traces found at undeclared sites, its barring last year of most of the agency’s top uranium-enrichment experts on the Iran inspection team, and its refusal to expand IAEA monitoring. 

The resolution seen by Reuters repeated wording from a November 2022 resolution that it was “essential and urgent” for Iran to explain the uranium traces and let the IAEA take samples as necessary. The resolution in June of this year did the same. 

The new text asked the IAEA to issue “a comprehensive and updated assessment on the possible presence or use of undeclared nuclear material in connection with past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program, including a full account of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA on these issues.” 

Western powers hope that report, due by spring 2025, will pressure Iran into negotiations on fresh restrictions on its nuclear activities, albeit less far-reaching ones than in a 2015 deal with major powers that unraveled after then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it in 2018. 

With Trump set to return to office in January and Iran having taken its uranium enrichment far beyond the deal’s limits, it is far from clear whether Trump would back negotiations aimed at setting new limits before those of the 2015 deal are lifted on “termination day” in October of next year. 

If no new limits are agreed before then, the report could be used to strengthen the case for so-called “snapback,” a process under the 2015 deal where the issue is sent to the U.N. Security Council and sanctions lifted under the deal can be re-imposed.  

Iranian reaction

Last week IAEA chief Rafael Grossi visited Tehran, hoping to persuade new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who is seen as relatively moderate, to improve Iran’s cooperation with the agency.

Grossi formally reported to member states on Tuesday that “the possibility of Iran not further expanding its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U-235 was discussed” in his meetings with Iranian officials, and that the IAEA had verified Iran had “begun implementation of preparatory measures.” 

Iran already has enough material enriched to that level — close to the roughly 90% purity that is weapons grade — for four nuclear weapons if enriched further, according to an IAEA yardstick. It has enough material enriched to lower levels for more bombs, but Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons. 

Grossi said on Wednesday he had asked Iran to cap that stock of 60% material and Iran had accepted his request.  

He said at a news conference that day that it was “a concrete step in the right direction,” suggesting that he felt a resolution could undermine that progress. 

With the resolution passed, Iran is likely to respond. 

Moments after the vote, Iranian state media cited a joint statement by the foreign ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran saying Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami has issued orders for measures like activating various new and advanced centrifuges, machines that enrich uranium. 

“If there is a resolution, it [Iran] will either increase its activities or reduce the agency’s access,” a senior diplomat said before the vote. 
…

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s next foreign policy chief, is already sending signals that she will take a tough stance on Russia and China and be an advocate for a strong alliance between Europe and America.

Kallas spoke to the European Parliament for the first time in her new role at a hearing on November 12, where she stressed that the EU will be steadfast in its commitment to support Ukraine against Russian aggression.

She begins her five-year term as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on December 1.

The former Estonian prime minister warned that Russia, Iran, North Korea and — more covertly — China want to change the rules-based world order. She called on the EU to respond to this threat alongside its closest allies and partners “without losing an inch of who we are.”

Elze Pinelyte, an expert at the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) with a focus on Sino-EU relations, told VOA Mandarin that Kallas’ policies “remain firmly supporting Ukraine’s victory.”

In response to worries that the incoming Trump administration may reduce U.S. support for Ukraine, Kallas stressed that the United States’ strategic interests in China are inseparable from the outcome of the war on Ukraine.

“If the U.S. is worried about China and other actors, they should also be worried about how we respond to Russia against Ukraine,” Kallas said during the November 12 hearing.

Ivan U. Kłyszcz, a researcher at the Estonian International Defense and Security Center, told VOA Mandarin, that Kallas “reflects the view that Europe needs to do more for its own defense and security, and this is not inconsistent with NATO and the European and American alliance.”

As for whether the second Trump administration will change Brussels’ considerations, he said, “there are still too many unknowns.”

Tougher policy toward China

Kallas’ tough stance toward China was first seen during her tenure as prime minister of Estonia, when her government advocated that Estonia’s China policy should be promoted within the framework of EU-China relations.

In 2022, Estonia announced its withdrawal from the Beijing-led “Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries,” the so-called “16+1” mechanism.

After the European Parliament elections this year, Kallas was nominated as the candidate for new foreign policy chief. She then resigned as prime minister of Estonia.

Some experts say Kallas will take a tougher policy toward China than her predecessor Josep Borrell.

Pinelyte agreed and added that Kallas likely will “seek support to limit China’s ability to fight Russia’s war.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU has condemned Beijing’s support for Moscow. Kallas said that without China’s support, “Russia cannot maintain the war with the same intensity.”

China should face “a higher cost” for supporting Russia in the war against Ukraine, Kallas said, hinting at more deterrent sanctions.

In October, Kallas wrote to the European Parliament that during her tenure as EU high representative on foreign policy, she would be committed to countering Russia’s “imperialist dream” and China’s “unfair competition.”

A trade dispute between the EU and China over products such as electric vehicles has lasted for more than a year, and negotiations are still ongoing. The EU said China’s large subsidies for electric vehicles constitute unfair competition.

Unpredictable alliance

It is not clear whether the Trump administration will continue to provide security guarantees and support to Ukraine, and whether it will impose higher tariffs on the European Union.

Given the United States’ greater focus on the Indo-Pacific region and its strategic competition with China, many European leaders are calling on the EU to reduce its security dependence on the United States.

Pinelyte at EESC said “Kallas seems to have taken office at a time when the idea of an alliance with the United States is outdated.”

Abigael Vasselier, director of policy and European affairs at the German Mercator Institute for China Studies, told VOA that the EU needs to avoid the state of panic it fell into with the first Trump administration.

Instead, she said, it must seek to coordinate with the second Trump administration, including “making recommendations” on China issues.

“The EU needs to be prepared because the Trump and Biden administrations will have completely different approaches to China,” she said.
…

Washington — Several of Beijing’s leading trading partners are urging Chinese President Xi Jinping to do more to pressure North Korea to stop or reverse its deployment of troops to Russia, where more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers have joined the front lines in the war against Ukraine. 

The appeals at the past week’s twin summits in Brazil and Peru reflect the awkward position in which the Chinese leader finds himself as he attempts a delicate balancing act between Russia and the West.  

At a joint press conference with Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva in Brasilia on Thursday, Xi called for bringing together “more voices of peace” in Ukraine. He pushed for a six-point consensus on Ukraine first put forward by China and Brazil in May that stresses dialogue and negotiations leading to a political settlement.  

Before his bilateral meeting in the Brazilian capital, Xi was told by world leaders on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro and the APEC summit in Lima, Peru, that Beijing needs to persuade North Korea to stop sending more troops to fight for Russia.  

German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz warned Xi on Tuesday at the G20 that the deployment of North Korea troops to fight against Ukraine amounted to an escalation of the war. 

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol asked Xi last week at APEC to play a “constructive” role on North Korea’s deepening ties with Russia. Yoon used the global gatherings as an opportunity to consolidate the West’s condemnation of Pyongyang-Moscow military ties. 

U.S. President Joe Biden also told Xi at APEC that Beijing has influence and capacity to prevent the conflict in Ukraine from expanding through the presence of more North Korean troops, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said at a press briefing Sunday. 

Biden pointed out China’s position calling for the de-escalation of the conflict and said the presence of North Korean troops runs counter to that stance.  

Balancing act 

China has been reluctant to call out North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for providing troops and munitions to help Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war efforts.  

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned Tuesday that North Korea could deploy up to 100,000 soldiers, and the U.S. estimates that about 11,000 North Korean troops have been mobilized in the Russian border region of Kursk. 

“Beijing currently finds itself in a tricky situation,” said Patricia Kim, a fellow at Brookings Institution where she leads the Global China Project.  

“It is uncomfortable with North Korea’s growing military cooperation with Russia that has extended into the Ukrainian battlefield. Putin is now indebted to Kim, and this may embolden Pyongyang to engage in risky behavior at home that can have blowback effects on China,” she told VOA. 

“At the same time, Beijing believes it cannot afford to alienate Pyongyang or Moscow, especially as the potential for a U.S.-China confrontation grows with [President-elect Donald Trump’s] return to office,” she said. 

Despite the discomfort, it is unlikely that Xi will confront Moscow or Pyongyang about sending more North Korean troops, said Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the Indo-Pacific program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. 

Glaser suggested that China is less concerned about the North Korean troops in Russia than about responses by the U.S., Japan and South Korea that could “negatively impact Chinese interests.” 

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, told VOA on Wednesday that China’s position on both Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula remains “consistent,” and that Beijing has been “making efforts toward de-escalation of the situation” in Ukraine. 

While being silent on North Korean troops, China is accused of providing dual-use goods that Russia needs to produce weapons. The European Union has also warned Beijing that the attack drones that Russia is producing in China’s Xinjiang Province would have consequences. 

China has been trying to support Russia’s war in Ukraine without angering the West out of concern over any economic backlash it could trigger — including trade restrictions and sanctions that could further cripple its struggling economy, analysts said.  

“China is skilled at playing this role” of ambiguity, “given its history of nonalignment, while knowing its economy relies on good trade relations with the U.S. and the EU,” said Joseph DeTrani, who served as the special envoy for six-party denuclearization talks that included North Korea and China, from 2003 to 2006.  

“China appears reluctant to use its limited leverage with North Korea due, in part, to the tension in the U.S.-China relations,” he said.  

At the same time, DeTrani said, the Chinese president will not openly support Russia’s war for fear that would undermine his government’s credibility with the Global South, where Xi is trying “to prove that China’s system of governance is far superior to the liberal democracy in the U.S.” 

In October, the U.S. sanctioned Chinese companies for directly helping Russia build long-range attack drones. In response, China’s Foreign Ministry urged the U.S. to stop using the Ukraine issue to “smear or put pressure” on China.

Aligned against US 

Richard Weitz, senior fellow and director at the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, said China views its partnership with Russia as more important than any differences it has over North Korea.  

China does not “want to antagonize Russia” over North Korea,” he said. 

“Despite their differences on particular issues,” including North Korea, “they are fundamentally aligned globally against the U.S. and the Western order. So, they’re not going to let these specific differences over narrower issues interfere with that global alignment,” said Weitz. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brazil on Monday that Beijing is ready to cooperate closely with Russia within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, according to Russian news agency TASS. 

They also stressed the importance of strengthening foreign policy coordination between Moscow and Beijing at international venues, including the U.N., BRICS and the G20, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday. 

“By failing to condemn Russian aggression, China threw away any claim to neutrality,” said John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.  

“It is unlikely, however, that Beijing believes Russia-DPRK [North Korea] military cooperation to be in its interest. If China has objected to the partnership, it does not seem to have produced much of an effect on Putin or Kim,” said Erath.
…

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned Russia’s use of a fast, powerful new missile to attack the city of Dnipro on Thursday, calling it a “nuclear adventure” and a stark escalation in the war.

The attack has ignited fears of a dangerous new phase in the war. In a nationwide address, Russian President Vladimir Putin later confirmed the use of a medium-range ballistic missile in the strike.

Zelenskyy pointed to the strike as a sign of Moscow’s broader strategy, stating, “It is obvious that Putin is using Ukraine as a testing ground for weapons that threaten the world.”

His remarks underscored the growing alarm in Kyiv over the deployment of advanced Russian missile systems against civilian targets.

In his address, Putin framed the use of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile as a routine test within the conflict.

“The Russian Federation tested a medium-range ballistic missile, known as Oreshnik, during its operation in Ukraine,” he said.

While he offered few technical details, analysts said the use of the missile and Putin’s acknowledgment appears intended to showcase Russia’s military capabilities to NATO and the United States.

Putin’s announcement marks the first time Russia has openly acknowledged using such a missile during the war.

In Washington, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said the missile used was based on Russia’s RS 26 rubes intercontinental ballistic missile model.” In terms of notifications to the United States, the United States was pre notified briefly before the launch through Nuclear Risk Reduction channels,” she said.

Strategic escalation

Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s former ambassador to the U.S., described the attack as a “new stage” in Russia’s aggression. Speaking to VOA, he emphasized that the strike was not just a challenge to Ukraine but also to its Western allies.

“This isn’t just about Ukraine,” Chaly said. “It’s a challenge to the European security system and the United States. Moscow is signaling its readiness to escalate dramatically to influence the West.”

He said that the response to the attack “must be clear, united, and decisive — anything less risks emboldening Russia and jeopardizing global security.”

Western leaders quickly condemned the strike. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer labeled it “reckless and dangerous,” while EU foreign affairs spokesperson Peter Stano described it as a “qualitative escalation” in Russia’s tactics.

Dnipro attack

The missile targeted industrial facilities in Dnipro, injuring two people and causing significant damage. Ukrainian officials initially suggested the use of an ICBM, or intercontinental ballistic missile, citing the weapon’s speed and trajectory. Some analysts, including those in the U.S., believed it was more likely a medium- or intermediate-range ballistic missile, consistent with Putin’s confirmation.

Dnipro residents, accustomed to regular air-raid sirens and missile attacks, reported that this strike felt uniquely different.

Oleksiy Poltorazky, a local resident, recounted: “We’ve learned to recognize the sounds of different missile types. This one was different — it hit almost immediately after the siren. Many here believe it was a ballistic missile because there was no usual warning sound.”

The speed and power of the strike left many shaken.

Poltorazky, however, remained resolute. “There’s no panic, no apocalypse as everyone says. We have to live through this, raise our kids, protect our families and work. We have to fight and do everything possible for our country,” he told VOA.

George Barros, an expert on the Russia team at the Institute for the Study of War, told VOA that Ukrainians should try not to overreact to the attack.

“It seems that the Russians targeted the city with an R-26 IRBM,” Barros said, referring to a Soviet-era intermediate-range missile. “The main thing is to not panic. There’s no reason to think that Putin’s likelihood to use a nuclear weapon or a weapon of mass destruction is any higher than at other points in the war.

“This is not the first time that Russia has used nuclear-capable weapon systems against Ukraine,” he said. “Russia regularly uses Iskander nuclear-capable weapons, and this appears to be a signaling effort designed to deter further Western support for Ukraine.”

Strategic ambiguity

While Putin confirmed the missile test, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova provided limited details about the strike. Zakharova was reportedly instructed not to address the attack at all during a Thursday press conference.

The calculated reticence deepens global unease, as Moscow oscillates between overt warnings and veiled threats, said some analysts, suggesting the ambiguity is part of a broader strategy to keep Western nations uncertain about Russia’s next moves.
…

The U.S. Treasury Department announced Thursday a new set of sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector and its ability to fund its war with Ukraine, hitting Gazprombank as well as many other internationally connected financial institutions, entities and individuals.

In a statement posted to its website, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said the sanctions designate Gazprombank — Russia’s largest remaining unsanctioned bank — plus more than 50 other Russian banks, more than 40 Russian securities registrars and 15 Russian finance officials.

The Treasury department said Gazprombank is a conduit for Russia to purchase military equipment for its war against Ukraine and the Russian government also uses the bank to pay its soldiers.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain have previously sanctioned Gazprombank.

The sanctions mean that all property and interests of the institutions, entities or individuals targeted by the sanctions are blocked.

In the statement, U.S. Treasury Secretary said the sanctions “will further diminish and degrade Russia’s war machine. This sweeping action will make it harder for the Kremlin to evade U.S. sanctions and fund and equip its military.”

In a statement posted to the White House website, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the new sanctions are part of a pledge made by President Joe Biden in September to provide additional assistance and actions to “help Ukraine as it continues to resist Russia’s aggression.”

The Biden administration is expected to step up assistance to Ukraine before the president leaves office. President-elect Donald Trump and leading Republicans have suggested they will reduce funding for Ukraine once Trump takes office on January 20.
…

Washington — A new survey of public opinion in Ukraine indicates that for the first time a slight majority of Ukrainians say they are ready to concede their lands for peace; however, other recent polls indicate opinions may be more complicated.

The Gallup polls released Tuesday, conducted in August and October, found that 52 percent of Ukrainians want their country to negotiate a quick end to the war, while 38 percent want to keep fighting until victory.

Although media reports about the survey said it reflects a shift in popular opinion from the outset of the war, when most Ukrainians wanted to fight until victory, other surveys have reported less support for a quick resolution.

In September and October of this year, the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) Center for Insights in Survey Research (CISR) found that “strong majorities believe that Ukraine will defeat Russia in the current war and support recapturing all lost territory.”

According to this survey, released November 12 and conducted by computer-assisted telephone interviews in the Kyiv-controlled territories in late September and early October, 88% of Ukrainians believe that Ukraine will win the war. This number is lower than 98% in June 2022 but has not changed since February 2024.

Similar results came from surveys conducted by Ukrainian pollsters. A study from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted in September-October 2024 found that 81% of Ukrainians believe Ukraine can succeed if the West provides adequate support. Only 14% believe Russia is too strong (up from 7% in December 2023).

Similarly, a national survey conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Foundation “Democratic Initiatives” with the sociological service of the Razumkov Center in August reported that Ukrainians are not ready to capitulate to Russia’s territorial demands.

Only 9% of Ukrainians said they would agree to recognize the occupied territories as part of the Russian Federation in exchange for peace (up from 5% in August 2023), and 81% consider it unacceptable (down from 90% in August 2023).

Pollsters attribute the differences in their results to different methodologies.

Benedict Vigers, the author of the Gallup report, says while they asked questions by phone, the Razumkov survey asked questions in person. There are also some differences in sample coverage. For instance, the IRI survey did not get data from in Donetsk or Kherson.

In a written response to VOA, Vigers explained that a desire to end the war as soon as possible does not equal a willingness to give away territories. He points out that only half of those who want to negotiate peace are open to unspecified territorial concessions.

“Of the 52% who think Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible, around half (52%) are open to making some territorial concessions to achieve peace with Russia. Another 38% are not open to these concessions,” he wrote.

That means that only a quarter of Ukraine’s polled population is open to territorial concessions in exchange for peace.

“There is still a significant chunk of society that wants to keep fighting until victory, and for most of these people, victory means taking back all land lost since 2014, including Crimea,” Vigers said.

Mykhailo Mishchenko, deputy director of the Ukrainian Razumkov Center Sociological Service, showed how a slight difference in the question’s wording can alter the results.

“When you ask the question, ‘Do you agree that Ukraine should be open to making some territorial concessions as a part of a peace deal to end the war?’ you get a different answer. It does not mean that all 52% of those who said ‘yes’ in the Gallup poll agree to the territorial concessions. They may be open to considering this question,” Mishchenko told VOA.

He said that Ukrainian society is tired of war after 2.5 years, and the number of people who support negotiations has grown. They also can observe the change of rhetoric from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who said that Russia should be invited to the next peace summit. But Mishchenko cautions against interpreting the polls’ results as a desire of Ukrainians to surrender.

In one of his previous interviews, Mishchenko pointed out that many Ukrainians do not believe that territorial concessions would end the war.

“Among those who are ready to make concessions, 26% answered that Russia’s goal is genocide and the physical destruction of the majority of Ukrainians. Another 20% of this category indicated that Russia’s goal is the destruction of the Ukrainian nation. In total, it is 46%. And only 15% of those who are ready to make concessions answered that Russia’s goal is to keep the already occupied territory without claims to the rest of the territory of Ukraine,” he said in an interview with an independent Russian newspaper.

Mishchenko points out that Russian polls indicate a greater willingness of Russian society to return lands they occupied to Ukrainians in order to end the war. One such poll was conducted in September 2024 by the Levada Center, a Russian independent pollster.

“They asked respondents if they thought ‘it was necessary to continue military operations or start peace negotiations,’ ” Michshenko said.

“The majority (54%) of the surveyed Russians were in favor of peace negotiations, and the minority (39%) were in favor of the continuation of hostilities. In September 2022, 48% of Russians supported negotiations, and 44% supported the continuation of hostilities,” he said.
…

London — British Defense Secretary John Healey is expected to face lawmakers’ questions Thursday on media reports Ukraine used British-donated Storm Shadow missiles on targets deep inside Russia for the first time Wednesday.

Healey is to appear before the parliamentary Defense Committee Thursday morning. The hearing was scheduled before Wednesday’s reported attack.

Both the British and Ukrainian governments have refused to confirm or deny reports that Ukrainian forces fired up to 10 Storm Shadow missiles at targets in Maryino, a village in Russia’s Kursk border region. Social media images purport to show Storm Shadow missile fragments in the vicinity.

The reports follow U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision this week to approve the use of American ATACMS missiles on targets far inside Russia. Ukraine fired the American missiles into Russia within hours of Biden’s decision.

Moscow earlier warned Western nations that allowing Ukraine to attack its territory with long-range missiles would prompt a ’tangible’ response. Kyiv reported Thursday that Russia had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carrying a conventional warhead at the central city of Dnipro. Authorities said two people were injured.

Russia did not immediately respond to the Ukraine statement.

ICBMs are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads thousands of kilometers. The attack follows Moscow’s lowering of its threshold for the use of nuclear weapons earlier this week.

The British Storm Shadow missiles have already been used against Russian forces in occupied Ukraine, including in a September 2023 attack that destroyed Russia’s former Black Sea fleet headquarters in Crimea. France has also supplied Ukraine with its version of the Storm Shadow missiles, known as Scalp.

The European missiles differ from the American-supplied ATACMS, said Patrick Bury, a defense analyst at Britain’s University of Bath.

“They are air launch missiles. Generally, depending on the export variant, they’ve usually got a range of 250 kilometers, or 155 miles. The ATACMS has a longer range than that and isn’t air-launched – so therefore it’s harder to intercept – in theory, at least,” Bury told VOA.

Both weapons systems will open a range of new targets, according to James Nixey, who leads the Russia-Eurasia program at London’s Chatham House.

“The range of both missiles is enough to get behind Russian lines and into Russian infrastructure targets so that will cut their supplies to their front line. So, the actual range of each missile is not as significant as the fact that Ukraine needs them in great quantity – and very fast indeed.”

The weapons are unlikely to change the course of the war, Nixey added.

“No single new innovation into the Ukrainian battlefield will do the trick, although they are hoping it will do. They’re hoping that it will break the Russian spine and that the [Russian military] will fold, collapse and that will have a chain reaction back up into the Moscow. That seems relatively unlikely, I have to say. But the Ukrainians are desperate and they will do all that they possibly can with however little that they have,” Nixey told Reuters.

Ukraine will have to select its targets carefully, said Bury.

“It will slow down the rate of advance, but will it have a strategic impact? Would it change the course of the war? If you’re giving them clearance to fire inside Russia, are you going to allow them to actually up the ante and start hitting energy infrastructure, you know, military infrastructure, oil refineries, etcetera, stuff that would really start to hurt the Russian economy? That’s the question,” Bury said.

Meanwhile Germany, Ukraine’s second-biggest supplier of arms after the United States, this week again ruled out giving Kyiv its long-range Taurus cruise missiles, something Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has long desired.

Berlin fears being dragged into the war. “Nothing has changed for us, the situation, the circumstances are the same. And Taurus is Taurus – and not ATACMS or Storm Shadow – so our perspective on that issue is the same,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters Tuesday.

Germany’s main opposition, the Christian Democrats, support giving Ukraine the Taurus missiles. The party is ahead in the polls, with a general election scheduled in February.

However, the future of Western military aid to Kyiv remains uncertain following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election. Trump has pledged to end the war on his first day in office, although he has not provided any details on how he would achieve that goal.

Ukraine fears U.S. support may be cut under Donald Trump. Britain and France could opt to continue supplying Ukraine with missiles, Bury said. “They’re both nuclear powers, they can take that risk if they want to. I think you might find a divergence between European NATO and U.S. NATO on some policy issues around Ukraine,” he told VOA.
…

HELSINKI, Finland — Finnish authorities said Wednesday they have opened an investigation into the rupture of a data cable under the Baltic Sea, adding to a Swedish probe into the possible sabotage of that link and another cable.

The C-Lion1 cable, which runs between Finland and Germany was damaged on Monday, the day after similar damage to a cable that crosses the Baltic between Lithuania and Sweden, with the incidents occurring off the Swedish islands of Oland and Gotland respectively. Germany’s defense minister said Tuesday that the damage appeared to have been caused by sabotage, though there is no proof at present.

Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation said it opened a criminal investigation into the rupture of the C-Lion1 cable on suspicion of “aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications.”

Swedish police already opened a preliminary investigation Tuesday into suspected sabotage regarding the two cable breaches, and said Wednesday that “Swedish police and prosecutors are also interested in a ship that has been seen at the locations in question.”

They didn’t give any details or identify the vessel but said that “it is not currently in Swedish waters.”

The official investigations came as news reports said a Chinese-flagged vessel, the Yi Peng 3, had been in the area at the time of the ruptures.

Vessel tracking information from the Marine Traffic website showed the 225-meter (738-foot) long bulk carrier not moving Wednesday afternoon off the coast of Denmark in the Baltic.

The Royal Danish Navy did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from The Associated Press.
…

It’s reported that Ukraine has fired British-supplied Storm Shadow long-range missiles into Russia for the first time. It follows U.S. President Joe Biden’s reported decision earlier this week to approve the use of American longer-range missiles on targets deep inside Russia. Henry Ridgwell reports from London.
…

Some U.S. weapons deliveries to Ukraine may take place after President Joe Biden’s term ends in January, Pentagon officials tell VOA, noting it will take time for certain capabilities to arrive in Ukraine.

“As you know, some equipment and some systems can get to Ukraine very quickly, and you’ve seen that happen within days or weeks. Sometimes, it does take longer … and that could be longer than weeks; that could be months,” Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said November 14 in response to a question from VOA.

Singh noted that under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, or USAI, weapon deliveries could take years.

“The long and short of it is, is that some equipment does get to Ukraine exceptionally quickly. But then there are some that take longer,” she said.

The United States has remaining funds for two main programs supporting Ukraine’s defense — PDA, or Presidential Drawdown Authority, and USAI. The first program allows weapons to be provided from existing U.S. stockpiles, ensuring faster delivery. The second program involves purchasing weapons from industry, a process that can take longer.

As of November, the U.S. has around $9 billion left for military assistance for Ukraine, the Pentagon has reported. Of this, approximately $7 billion is available under the PDA program, including around $4 billion approved by Congress in April and an additional $2.8 billion made available after accounting adjustments by the Department of Defense. Some $2.2 billion is available through the USAI program.

On November 20, the U.S. announced an additional security assistance package for Ukraine valued at $275 million. It included munitions for rocket systems, artillery rounds and anti-tank weapons.

Pentagon officials have confirmed to VOA that the Department of Defense is committed to allocating all remaining PDA funds authorized by Congress before January 20 and additional funds made available due to recalculations. The exact total will depend on ongoing assessments of Ukraine’s defense needs and the logistics of assistance delivery.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has said that some weapons deliveries to Ukraine could take time.

“Everything won’t be delivered immediately,” he told reporters during a visit to Italy in October. “Things that we’re purchasing now, for example, may wind up showing up a couple of months later.”

The secretary added that some materiel from U.S. stocks is refurbished before being delivered to Ukraine. “And again, it’s not instantaneous, it may take weeks or in some cases, a couple of months,” he said.

Austin underscored that the Pentagon has provided a plan to the Ukrainians and is confident that weapon deliveries will proceed according to the expected schedule.

If the incoming Trump administration decided to stop some remaining deliveries, they could do so. In this case, however, they would have to de-obligate aid that was previously obligated by the Biden administration, Austin said last month in Italy.

On November 12, Pentagon spokesperson Major General Pat Ryder said that between the passage of the supplemental funding by Congress in April and the middle of October, the U.S. has delivered 83% of committed munitions from its stockpiles, 67% of other critical air defense commitments and 60% of artillery and close air support capabilities.

“Since the passage of the supplemental, we’ve delivered hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of armored vehicles, thousands of munitions for HIMARS and antitank weapons, dozens of artillery systems, significant air defense capabilities, including a Patriot battery, hundreds of interceptors and dozens of other systems,” Ryder said.

“And together with our allies and partners, the deliveries of the strategic air defense system we committed to providing at the NATO summit are nearly completed,” he said.
…

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday named Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general from his first presidency, as the U.S. ambassador to NATO, the cornerstone Western military alliance whose member countries Trump has criticized for not spending enough money on defense.

In a statement, Trump described Whitaker, 55, as “a strong warrior and loyal patriot” who “will ensure the United States’ interests are advanced and defended” and “strengthen relationships with our NATO allies and stand firm in the face of threats to peace and stability.”

As with several of Trump’s choices for positions in his new administration, the nomination of Whitaker to the 32-country North Atlantic Treaty Organization based in Brussels is unusual in that his professional background does not match the job to which he is being named. Whitaker has a long career as a lawyer but is not steeped in foreign or military policy.

Whitaker, like numerous other Trump appointees, has been an ardent Trump loyalist. Whitaker has been a vocal critic of the two federal criminal cases brought against Trump that are now likely to be erased as he assumes power again on January 20.

During his first administration, Trump goaded other NATO countries that did not meet the alliance’s military spending goal: 2% of their national economic output. As he left office in 2021, six of the NATO countries were spending that much on defense. But 23 of the 32 do now as the threat of Russian aggression against nearby NATO countries mounted after Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which is not a NATO country but wants to join.

During his presidency, Trump assailed the countries who were not spending enough on defense, saying they were in arrears in their “dues” to NATO.

“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a political rally earlier this year. “I said, ‘Everybody’s going to pay.’”

Trump said that “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the U.S. would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled saying to that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

Under the NATO treaty, member nations are obligated to protect each other militarily if they are attacked. The obligation has been invoked only once in the 75-year history of the alliance that was formed in the aftermath of World War II. That was when other NATO countries joined the United States in fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan after the terrorist group attacked the U.S. in 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor in the Midwestern state of Iowa, served as acting attorney general between November 2018 and February 2019, as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was ending.

Before then, Whitaker was chief of staff to Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, before being picked to replace his boss after Sessions was fired amid Trump’s lingering outrage over his decision to withdraw from the Russia investigation. Whitaker held the acting attorney general position for several months without Senate confirmation, until William Barr was confirmed as attorney general in February 2019.

Other appointments

Trump has been making new top appointments to his nascent administration on an almost daily basis.

Late Tuesday, he named Linda McMahon as his nominee to lead the Education Department, even though Trump and some Republican lawmakers want to abolish the agency and hand over most education policy decisions and much of the current federal funding to state and local control.

McMahon served as the head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s previous term in office and is well known for her decadeslong role, along with her husband, in helping lead World Wrestling Entertainment.

“Linda will use her decades of leadership experience, and deep understanding of both education and business, to empower the next generation of American students and workers and make America number one in education in the world,” Trump said in a statement. “We will send education back to the states, and Linda will spearhead that effort.”

Also on Tuesday, Trump announced he’d nominate Wall Street financier Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary in his new administration.

Additionally, the president-elect picked Dr. Mehmet Oz, a longtime television show host, as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that oversees the government’s two key health insurance programs for older Americans and impoverished people. Trump backed Oz’s failed attempt to win a Senate seat in Pennsylvania in 2022.
…