Connect with us

Politics

U.S. Plans to Send Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, Officials Say

Published

on

U.S. Plans to Send Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — Reversing its longstanding resistance, the Biden administration plans to ship M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, U.S. officers mentioned on Tuesday, in what can be a serious step in arming Kyiv in its efforts to grab again its territory from Russia.

The White Home is predicted to announce a call as early as Wednesday, mentioned the officers, who spoke on the situation of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Two officers mentioned the variety of Abrams tanks could possibly be about 30.

Over the previous month, Pentagon officers had expressed misgivings about sending the Abrams, citing considerations about how Ukraine would keep the superior tanks, which require in depth coaching and servicing. And officers mentioned it might take years for them to really attain any Ukrainian battlefields.

However Protection Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has now come round to the view that committing to sending American tanks is important to spur Germany to comply with with its coveted Leopard 2 tanks. Officers on the State Division and the White Home argued that giving Germany the political cowl it sought to ship its personal tanks outweighed the Protection Division’s reluctance, the officers mentioned.

The motion towards sending the Abrams tanks, first reported by The Wall Road Journal, follows a testy confrontation final week throughout a NATO protection chiefs assembly over the refusal by Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, to ship the Leopards, which many army consultants consider could possibly be a important weapon in Ukrainian fingers.

Advertisement

German officers privately insisted that they’d ship the tanks, among the many most superior on the earth, provided that the US agreed to ship its personal M1 Abrams tanks.

Anticipation for a German announcement was excessive, as numerous German information retailers reported on Tuesday that Mr. Scholz had determined to ship the tanks. A lot of the eye centered on an anticipated handle by the chancellor to Parliament on Wednesday.

Many European international locations use German-built Leopards, which quantity about 2,000 throughout the continent, and Ukraine has pleaded for tanks in current weeks, describing them as essential to counter Russia’s benefits in arms and males. Western tanks are the most recent barrier to fall as Ukraine’s allies provide it with weapons methods that they had beforehand resisted sending; earlier this month, whereas debates over the Leopard and the Abrams wore on, Britain mentioned it might give a few of its Challenger 2 tanks.

On Tuesday, Poland’s protection minister mentioned his nation had formally requested Germany’s permission to ship Ukraine Leopard tanks from its personal shares, and different international locations have indicated they’d do the identical if Germany agreed.

In Kyiv, Finland’s president, Sauli Niinisto, advised reporters at a information convention that he had mentioned the provision of Western tanks to Ukraine with President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Advertisement

It was not instantly clear what prompted the Biden administration’s shift. As lately as Monday, a Pentagon official advised reporters that the Abrams tanks can be troublesome for Ukrainian forces to take care of, partially as a result of they run on jet gas.

However the resolution to ship a comparatively small variety of tanks, and the anticipated delay in supply, might outweigh considerations about escalating the struggle whereas offering political advantages for the administration.


What we contemplate earlier than utilizing nameless sources. Do the sources know the data? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved dependable up to now? Can we corroborate the data? Even with these questions glad, The Instances makes use of nameless sources as a final resort. The reporter and no less than one editor know the identification of the supply.

Protection officers have repeatedly used the gas situation to clarify partially why the administration was not sending the Abrams tanks to Kyiv. However whereas it’s true that the tanks have fuel turbine engines that burn jet gas, it’s not the entire story, tank consultants say. Abrams tanks, they are saying, can run on any kind of gas, together with bizarre gasoline and diesel.

The Pentagon press secretary, Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, wouldn’t verify information stories on Tuesday that the administration was on the verge of offering Ukraine with the M1 Abrams tanks. “When and if we’ve got one thing to announce, we are going to,” he mentioned.

Advertisement

He referred to as the Abrams tank “a really succesful battlefield platform.”

“It’s additionally very complicated functionality,” Common Ryder mentioned. “And so, like something that we’re offering to Ukraine, we need to be certain that they’ve the flexibility to take care of it, maintain it, to coach on it.”

He didn’t consult with the problem of gas.

The administration had initially hoped that the British supply of Challenger tanks can be sufficient to get the Germans to conform to ship their tanks, however Mr. Scholz, U.S. officers mentioned, insisted on the Abrams.

The officers mentioned that the Abrams tanks can be paid for by means of the Ukraine safety help bundle, which gives funding for weapons to Ukraine.

Advertisement

A second protection official mentioned the prolonged delay in supply would permit time for Ukrainian troops to be skilled on America’s most superior tank.

Robert B. Abrams, a former U.S. Military armor officer and four-star normal who retired in 2021, mentioned the hassle can be “herculean” however not unattainable.

“The time it might take to get there — to have the ability to construct up the provision stockage, to ship the automobiles, to coach the crews, to coach the mechanics, to collect every little thing you’d want — how lengthy would that take?” Common Abrams, who has in depth expertise within the M1 tank, which was named for his father, Gen. Creighton Abrams, mentioned in an interview. “I don’t know, but it surely ain’t like 30 days, I can inform you that.”

After a collection of Ukrainian successes on the battlefield final fall, the struggle has shifted to a grueling combat of attrition. Essentially the most intense combating is concentrated in jap Ukraine, the place Russia and Ukraine have taken heavy casualties across the metropolis of Bakhmut, as either side put together for anticipated spring offensives.

Ukrainian officers say they want tanks to interrupt by means of newly constructed Russian defenses and retake extra territory seized by Moscow early within the struggle, and to defend towards an anticipated Russian offensive within the spring. America has began coaching a whole bunch of Ukrainian troops on mixed arms ways, for tight coordination amongst infantry, artillery, armored automobiles and, when attainable, air help.

Advertisement

Germany’s new protection minister, Boris Pistorius, mentioned final week that his nation would additionally start to coach Ukrainians to make use of Leopard tanks, regardless of the shortage of settlement on the time on whether or not to ship them.

“It’s to arrange for a day that may probably come, at which level we might be capable to act instantly and ship the help inside a really brief time frame,” he advised reporters.

Ukraine’s allies have supplied more and more refined arms to assist Kyiv defend towards Russia’s invasion, however they’ve been reluctant to ship heavy offensive weapons for worry of frightening Moscow.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion started 11 months in the past, they’ve tried to fastidiously calibrate their help, which has slowly grown to incorporate howitzers, HIMARS rocket artillery methods, Patriot air defenses and, most lately, armored combating automobiles, together with the Stryker, utilized by the U.S. army.

Ukraine has been begging for closely armored Western tanks for months, with officers sustaining that the nation’s present stock of Soviet-style tanks will not be sufficient to expel Russian forces. When Britain introduced final week that it was sending 14 tanks, Ukrainian officers thanked the British authorities, however mentioned in an announcement that the Challengers had been “not enough to realize operational objectives.”

Advertisement

Matthew Mpoke Bigg, Lauren McCarthy and John Ismay contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Advertisement

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (iStock)

In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms.

Advertisement

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms. 

CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman presents award to attorney Paula E. Litt

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman, left, presents an award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service to attorney Paula E. Litt, on May 1, 2019. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division)

Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.” 

“Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

Advertisement

The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights. 

NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’

Gun store customer

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the gun rights of illegal immigrants. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.” 

Advertisement

Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

“In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said. 

“Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Published

on

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Former President Trump is suing TV journalist George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation for saying he raped advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

On a March 10 edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the anchor said Trump was “liable for rape” during his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Stephanopoulos was pressing Mace, a rape victim herself, on how she could rationalize supporting Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the jury in the Carroll case found him liable for sexual abuse — not rape — and that Stephanopoulos defamed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by using the term.

A jury ruled in January that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation, the second case related to a 1996 incident that occurred when the two met in a New York department store.

In May, jurors rejected Carroll’s allegation that she was raped but found Trump responsible for the lesser charge of sexual abuse, along with defamation, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump, who denied that the incident occurred, repeatedly mocked Carroll over her claims.

Advertisement

Trump’s suit cites how Stephanopoulos himself reported that Trump was not liable for rape when he reported on the verdict of the previous Carroll case on May 10.

The suit also noted that the headline on an ABC News online story on the Mace interview first used the word “rape” and was later changed to “sexual abuse.”

Trump’s suit is asking for unspecified damages.

ABC News has not issued a comment on the matter.

The tense “This Week” interview was widely shared on social media. Mace took umbrage at Stephanopoulos’ question, claiming he was “rape-shaming” her by bringing up her own experience as a victim, which she has publicly discussed.

Advertisement

Trump has previously sued media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, with no success.

Trump sued the Times over its investigation of his finances, which led to the recent New York civil court ruling that has him on the hook for $454 million. The suit was dismissed in March and Trump had to reimburse the Times legal cost.

In 2022, Trump sued CNN for $475 million claiming the news network was waging a campaign against him by booking guests critical of his policies and speeches. The case was dismissed in 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Published

on

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday for the first time since retiring, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Joining Milley will be retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who served as United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander during the 2021 withdrawal. The pair have appeared before Congress to discuss failings in the operation before, but Republicans say they may have been more tight-lipped then because they were still serving under President Biden.

Advertisement

Both Milley and McKenzie testified in 2021 that they had advised Biden to maintain a small U.S. force in Afghanistan, rather than committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. Milley himself has described the operation as a “strategic failure,” saying he has “lots of regrets.”

“It didn’t end the way I wanted it. That didn’t end the way any of us wanted it,” he told ABC News in September. “In the broader sense, the war was lost.”

OBAMA LIED TO AMERICANS ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: BOOK

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, left, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee for the first time since retiring on Tuesday, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The Tuesday afternoon hearing comes after months of Republican investigations into Biden’s handling of the withdrawal. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas., has repeatedly demanded the State Department turn over documents relating to the operation.

Advertisement

BIDEN’S BOTCHED AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL HAUNTS 2024 ELECTION AS BOOK CLAIMS ‘13 AMERICANS NEVER HAD TO DIE’

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has so far refused to offer interview notes relating to the Afghanistan after action report, which blamed senior officials for failing to prepare for all outcomes in the operation.

General McKenzie Afghanistan Pentagon

Retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, former commander of the United States Central Command, listens during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan. (Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book.

THINK THE US EXIT FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS BAD? LOOK WHAT’S BREWING IN THE PACIFIC

Following the withdrawal, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” author Alexander Ward writes in the book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”

Advertisement
President Joe Biden

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, President Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Biden allegedly told his top aides, including White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, that they had done their best given the situation and vowed to stand by them.

Fox News’ Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending