The Biden administration says it is giving Israel 30 days to address concerns related to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In a letter to two senior Israeli officials dated Oct. 13, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said, “We are now writing to underscore the U.S. government’s deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza, and seek urgent and sustained actions by your government this month to reverse this trajectory.”
But critics are panning the letter, calling it a political gambit that’s too little and too late.
“I don’t know whether I'm terribly naive, I still have the capacity to be shocked, but the degree of cynicism required to set a 30 day limit … which coincidentally, gets you past the election date,” said Daniel Levy, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Levy spoke about the letter Tuesday during a panel discussion on Israel’s war in Gaza hosted by the Quincy Institute.
The letter warns that a “failure to demonstrate a sustained commitment to implementing and maintaining these measures may have implications (arms embargo) for U.S. policy under NSM-20 and relevant U.S. law.” The problem with this is that “the Biden administration hasn’t done this (ultimatums) throughout” the last year when it could have, according to Levy.
Others wondered, given atrocities are playing out in real time, whether the Biden administration would act on its ultimatum.
“The U.S. giving Israel 30 days to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza or face cuts in weapon shipments is the most dishonest and morally bankrupt announcement I've seen for a long time,” said former UK diplomat Ian Proud on X. “Surely U.S. voters aren't so stupid they won't spot a big can of worms kicked down the street until after the elections?”
Blinken and Austin say that a minimum of 350 aid trucks per day need to enter Gaza through the four major crossings, as well as a fifth crossing that must be opened. Additionally, they want to ensure that Israel is not preventing essential items from entering Gaza by listing them as “dual use.”
They also insist “that there will be no Israeli government policy of forced evacuation of civilians from northern to southern Gaza.”
Dr. Annelle Sheline, Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, said that the letter appears to be a “clear acknowledgement” that the Biden administration knows that Israel is flouting laws governing U.S. military assistance.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Image Credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth meets with Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, in Panama City, Panama April 9, 2025. REUTERS/Aris Martinez
U.S. troops are now set to deploy near the Panama canal for military training, exercises and "other activities,” as per a new joint deal with the Panamanian government.
The deal, seen by AFP on Thursday, comes as an apparent concession to President Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to retake the major global trade route from Panama if it failed to reduce or axe fees it charged to American vessels passing through there.
“We’re going to take [the canal] back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump alleged in early February.
Notably, the deal walks back previous assertions by Hegseth, who posited on Wednesday that the U.S. could, “by invitation,” even “revive” military bases previously used in Panama to “secure [its] sovereignty.” Instead, American troops will be deployed to Panama-controlled facilities — though some of these facilities will be American built-ones, erected in Panama decades ago when it still occupied the canal zone.
“Panama made clear, through President Mulino, that we cannot accept military bases or defense sites,” Panama’s security minister, Frank Abrego, explained in a Wednesday appearance with Hegseth.
Critically, the U.S. military deal advances amid uncertainties regarding Washington’s recognition of Panamanian sovereignty, thrown into question by Trump’s repeated calls to “take back” the canal since returning to office.
A Spanish-language version of an April 8 joint U.S.-Panama statement said that Hegseth “recognized the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.” The English version of the joint statement, however, does not contain the same assertion.
And when asked about the U.S. recognition of Panamanian sovereignty on Wednesday, Hegseth sidestepped the question, framing it about protecting Panama from other “malign influence.” “We certainly understand that the Panama Canal is in Panama, and protecting Panamanian sovereignty from malign influence is important,” he said. Leaving Panama, however, Hegseth told reporters that "we certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians and the Panama Canal."
Hegseth likewise alleged on Wednesday that the U.S. is “taking back the canal from Chinese influence. That involves partnership with the United States and Panama.” Such comments, notably, are made in tandem with a quickly escalating tariff-sparked trade spat between the U.S. and China.
In early March, Trump previously lauded plans for a consortium led by controversial U.S. asset manager BlackRock to buy key Panama Canal ports; these plans may be tripped up as Hong-Kong based port investor CK Hutchinson, who was to sell ports to Blackrock, has come under fire over unpaid fees and its lack of relevant clearances for some of the ports.
Controlling the region surrounding the canal since 1903, the U.S. had returned the canal to Panama in 1999. And now, it seems, some of that influence, in the form of U.S. military is creeping back.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Diplomacy Watch: Rubio recommits to NATO as peace talks flounder
According to Ukraine’s President, Volodymy Zelenskyy, at least 155 Chinese nationals are fighting for Russia in Ukraine.
Ukrainian intelligence reportedly confirmed the identities of the 155 individuals, who Zelenskyy claims were recruited through social media advertisements. This comes after Ukraine captured two fighters claimed to be Chinese nationals earlier in the week.
A list provided by the Ukrainian intelligence agency claims that the more than 150 individuals have contracts dating to 2024 and are officially part of Russia’s military, in lower ranks. Zelenskyy has asserted that the Chinese government is aware of the fighters and that there are likely “many, many more.”
“These people arrive to the Russian Federation, to Moscow. Medical examinations last three to four days. Training centers are for one to two months. They fight on the territory of Ukraine,” said Zelenskyy.
For its part, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that Chinese citizens are fighting in Ukraine in any official capacity, calling the claims “groundless.”
“China is neither the creator nor a party to the Ukrainian crisis. We are a staunch supporter and active promoter of the peaceful resolution of the crisis,” said the department’s spokesperson, Lin Jian, in a press conference. Mr Jian added, "the Chinese government has always instructed its citizens to stay away from areas of armed conflict and avoid getting involved in the conflict in any form, especially avoiding participation in any party’s military operations.”
The incentives behind joining the Russian military to fight in the war remain unconfirmed. “According to the prisoner, he joined the Russian military through an intermediary in China, paying RUB 300,000 ($3,500) for the opportunity to enlist in the Russian Armed Forces,” said the Luhansk Operational Tactical Group.
Regardless of whether Zelenskyy’s claims are entirely accurate, some experts question the significance of Chinese nationals volunteering to fight for Russia.
“Paid recruits from all across the world have signed up to fight for Russia, and, considering the large border and wide gamut of ties between the two countries, it's hardly a surprise that some Chinese soldiers can be found on the Russian side of the line of contact,” said the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos. “But this is a very different proposition from the claim that there is any kind of large-scale, state-sponsored Chinese effort to send units of combat troops to the frontlines in Ukraine.”
Episkopos concluded that “there has been no evidence over the course of the Ukraine war that any country has engaged in systematic efforts along these lines.”
Indeed, foreign volunteers on both sides are widespread in the conflict, even from nations that have banned their citizens from participating. Volunteers from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, and Moldova, among others, have assisted the Russians on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Ukraine has received volunteers for its foreign legion from many nations, including the United States, Georgia, South Korea, France, and Australia.
In other Ukraine War news this week:
The Wall Street Journal reports that Washington and Moscow participated in a prisoner swap on Thursday. The United States released dual German-Russian citizen Arthur Petrov, who was allegedly exporting microelectronics that are considered sensitive to national security. Russia freed Ksenia Karelina, an American-Russian dual citizen whom Russia charged for treason.
According to the Washington Post, Trump’s recent tariff announcement could harm Russia’s economy, even though he did not impose tariffs on Moscow. Russia’s oil has fallen 30% to about $52 a barrel as a result of the tariffs. Oil exports comprise about 30% of Russia’s economy and are subject to harsh sanctions from the United States and the European Union.
Russia has begun a new offensive in Ukraine’s northeast, according to Kyiv’s military chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi. Syrskyi said, "for several days, almost a week, we have been observing almost a doubling of the number of enemy attacks in all main directions (on the frontline)," according to Reuters.
Additionally, Zelenskyy confirmed on Monday that Ukrainian forces were in Belgorod, a border region of Russia north of Kharkiv. This incursion, reported by Reuters, marks the second time Ukrainian soldiers have been active in Russian territory.
Bloombergreported that Zelenskyy had requested another package of military aid from the United States but that Kyiv was willing to pay for the weapons this time. The request totals $30 to $50 billion, but Zelenskyy is not asking for the package “free of charge." Ukraine could finance the deal through a direct payment or as part of the proposed mineral deal.
A reporter asked State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce about the upcoming talks between American and Russian delegations in Istanbul, Turkey. Bruce confirmed that talks were occurring on April 10 but that the Ukraine War was not on the agenda but that the talks would focus on embassy relations
Bruce confirmed that the administration was aware of reports that Ukrainian forces captured Chinese nationals, calling them “disturbing.” She went on to call China a “major enabler” of Russia’s effort in the war.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Belgium - 2023-10-26 - On 26 and 27 October 2023, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, participates to the European Council meeting. On 27, she gave a conference with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. - Christophe Licoppe via REUTERS
Amid calls for Europe to rearm, competing ideas are circulating around how to ensure European nations can take on Russia in a possible future war without U.S. backing. While the idea of a rearmament bank may carry some appeal, it’s less clear that there’s any new money for what is likely to be a very expensive enterprise.
The European Commission recently unveiled €800 billion ($876 billion) plan to REARM. The plan essentially involves imposing a huge hike in defense spending on every member state. Some €650 billion ($712 billion) of the funds would come from each of the 27 members increasing defense spending on average by 1.5% of GDP on top of current levels.
It’s hard to imagine that such an increase would be politically palatable given that many European governments are highly in debt. For example, France would need to increase its military spending by almost $47 billion each year when its debt stands already at 113% of GDP. Likewise Italy, the EU’s third largest defense power, would have to increase spending by $34.7 billion each year with its current debt at 136% of GDP.
So, European countries are scrambling to seek elegant ways to boost defense spending, including off-balance sheet. One idea that has emerged recently has been creating a Rearmament Bank (also known as a Defence Security and Resilience Bank). It would be designed to tap private investment to support development of defense capabilities.
The commercial appeal to establishing a bank to provide investment funding for new defense projects and purchases appears powerful. As I pointed out previously, NATO currently spends a staggering $472 billion per year on equipment alone each year, of which $113.4 billion is spent by EU countries. Add in a REARM boost — if it materializes — and the EU figure could jump to $195.1 billion.
A bank founded on commercial principles might be helpful in tackling widespread sclerosis in Europe-wide defense procurement. This is not a problem unique to Europe, as the Department of Defense also struggles to account accurately for its $800 billion+ yearly spending and its $4 trillion in assets.
For European governments, the bank would help shift more of the risk of cost and project overruns onto defense contractors, while lifting direct costs of development from government balance sheets. But at best, that might control spiraling costs, rather than necessarily reducing costs or providing additional capabilities.
The UK provides a perfect case study. On December 4, 2023, the National Audit Office produced a review of the defense ministry’s equipment plan for the next decade, concluding that it was unaffordable and was facing its largest budget deficit since the plan was introduced in 2012. Note here that the current plan was developed two years before the Ukraine war started.
The costs of the equipment program shot up by 27%, or $83.8 billion, between 2022 and 2023, and that was based on the “most likely” scenario for spending. In the “worst case,” the total increase in cost will amount to almost $102 billion. Add in other expected cost overruns that the MoD reassures us can be absorbed by efficiency savings, the cost then shoots up to over $133 billion.
In March 2024, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee reported that the defense ministry has been consistently unable or unwilling to control the spiraling costs and delivery schedules of its 1,800 defense projects. The MoD has a woeful track record: whether it’s a $550 million overspend on the Warrior armored vehicle program, a $3.2 billion overrun on new aircraft carriers, or a 59% delay in delivering the Challenger 3 tank.
By far the biggest area of budgetary pressure is found in the nuclear program, which is currently overspent by 62%. There is a joint UK-U.S. project to build a new class of submarines to counter the apparent threat from China under the AUKUS program; although the current generation of the UK’s Astute class fleet submarines has only been operational for 10 years.
We have a program to design a new nuclear warhead with the U.S., as if having 225 nukes wasn’t enough. The ‘Dreadnought’ submarine, to replace the SSBNSs that carry the UK’s nuclear missiles, is currently seven years behind schedule. None of these massively costly projects are giving us capabilities that we don’t already possess. While they are undoubtedly strengthening the UK’s military-industrial supply chain, they aren’t making us safer.
Meanwhile, money to pay for actual soldiers, sailors and air personnel has been pinched, given the ballooning costs of equipment. Research has suggested a 10% cut in real terms in UK military resource costs since 2010. The day-to-day budget last year (2024-25) to pay for the lads and lasses on the front line of our defense, has been cut by $3.2 billion. Many service personnel worry about whether they’ll have a house to live in. Submariners talk about the increased stress of longer deployments which have been driven by the need to cut costs.
By far the biggest threat facing European militaries contemplating a future war with Russia is force density; Europe’s armies are just much smaller than those of both Russia and Ukraine. It is still far from clear that the headline-grabbing $876 billion European REARM plan will deliver significantly larger armies given likely resistance to the proposed spending increases.
For now, the UK, along with Poland, appears most keen to push the idea of a Rearmament Bank. Part of the reason is Britain’s exclusion from the Commission’s plan under the REARM program to offer defense loans totaling $150 billion over four years. However, the two initiatives appear to serve different purposes: the proposed bank aims to support new investment in defense equipment development and procurement, while generating a commercial return; the loans scheme is a Commission-led initiative to help states purchase additional weapon supplies for Ukraine at low rates of interest.
As always, setting aside the grand aims and headline-grabbing statements, there’s a baseline indecisiveness in Europe around spending huge additional sums on defense, even as the U.S. looks to scale back its engagement.
That sentiment may worsen if the ongoing tariff war develops into a global recession. For now, Euro REARM and the UK-led Rearmament Bank appear simply to be shuffling fake money around the monopoly board of European defense.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.