Zelenskyy says Ukraine has secured monthly Patriot missile deliveries from US

Agreement comes as Kyiv warns it has run out of interceptor supplies and Washington weighs longer-term support for Ukraine's air defences. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin August 8, 2026

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Kyiv has reached an agreement with the United States to receive monthly deliveries of Patriot interceptor missiles, just as Kyiv runs out of air defence ammo leaving its skies open to an incessant Russian bombardment.

Speaking alongside Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić during a visit to Belgrade on August 7, Zelenskiy said Washington had agreed to allocate an undefined number of Patriot interceptor missiles to Ukraine every month.

"Will they allocate missiles to us every month? Yes, we have an agreement," the Ukrainian president told journalists at a joint press conference.

The announcement comes after months of repeated Ukrainian appeals for additional Patriot interceptors, which remain the only Western-supplied system in Ukraine's arsenal capable of reliably intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. The lack of missiles has been turning into a crisis and as IntelliNews reported Zelenskiy has been sounding increasingly desperate in recent weeks as he tries to source more air defence ammo from somewhere.

The deal comes as relations between Washington and Kyiv has improved dramatically following a meeting between Zelenskiy and US President Donald Trump at the Ankara Nato summit on July 8. Trump pledged to grant Ukraine a license to make Patriot missiles in Ukraine, but walked that promise a few days later. Zelenskiy also asked Trump for a tranche of 300 missiles from the US stockpile, but he declined as it has been reported that the US is down to its last 759 missiles and is anticipating renewed fighting in the Iran conflict.

However, Ukraine is being brutally punished in an escalating tit-for-tat missile war and has only a handful of the PAK-3 interceptor missiles left.

Zelenskiy didn’t specify how many missiles Kyiv would get per month, but as IntelliNews reported, even the 300 he was asking for – more than a third of the remains US stockpile – is woefully inadequate to offer Ukraine’s main cities protection from the deluge of Russian ballistic missiles. Former Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov said in an interview over the weekend that Russia makes more missiles in a week than Ukraine’s Western partners have been sending it in months, even before the current shortage kicked in.

 

Managing expectations, Zelenskiy went out of his way to caution that the agreed monthly allocations would still fall short of Ukraine's operational requirements. "There will be fewer of these missiles in 2026," he said.

The delivery of missiles is like to number in the tens, not the hundreds, and as such will be little more than another gesture in the “some, but not enough” Western policy of supplying Ukraine with significant weapons, but always too few and too late. As IntelliNews reported, even the 300 missiles Zelenskiy asked for previously would last only between 4-8 weeks after Russia has doubled the number of missiles it fires at Ukraine in just last month.

Ukraine has repeatedly warned that shortages of interceptor missiles are becoming one of its biggest military vulnerabilities.

The Kremlin maintains that increased deliveries of advanced Western weapons merely deepen Nato's involvement in the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in June that "the entire West" was assisting Ukraine. "They haven't yet reached the point of launching anything from their territory. They understand there will be a retaliatory strike. Everyone understands, or should understand."

Putin added: "We must strengthen our security, strengthen our missile defence system, strengthen our air defences, and we will do so."

At the same time it is widely expected that the Armed Forces of Russia (AFR) will launch a major missile campaign against Ukraine’s remaining power facilities this winter in a repeated attempt to freeze Ukraine into submission. Ukrainian officials fear that this year the campaign will be expanded to include water and sewage infrastructure.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that longer-range Western weapons would force Russia to push Ukrainian military infrastructure farther from its borders.

"There will be more destruction in Ukraine, because, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin said, if the range of weapons increases, the sanitary, buffer security zone—whatever you want to call it—will expand, which will be necessary to protect our territory and our citizens."

Zelenskiy's announcement came during his first official visit to Serbia, where he and Vučić focused publicly on strengthening economic ties and cooperation on energy, infrastructure and Ukraine's resilience ahead of another winter of Russian attacks. Military cooperation was not announced during the visit, reflecting Belgrade's continued attempt to balance its traditional relationship with Moscow against its aspirations for European Union membership.

The Same Enemy Is Driving Protests Across the Balkans

Saturday 8 August 2026, by Aleksandar Matković

In Serbia, the connivance between politicians and multinational capital has fed a sustained protest movement. Current protests in Albania, resisting a luxury development project backed by Jared Kushner, target a similar cronyish capitalism. [1]

I’ve been following the recent protests in Albania but from a particular angle: as a participant in a similar wave of mass protests in Serbia. In 2024, I got three months of death threats after I published a scholarly article exposing controversial economic data related to a German-backed lithium mining project that threatened to tear up the Serbian countryside. Since some of the threats were written in German and followed a visit by that country’s then Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the case drew international attention. It is still under United Nations investigation and was covered by the Guardian, which helped draw attention to the massive statewide protests and subsequent repression in Serbia at the time. Previously, I was involved in internationalizing Serbia’s lithium struggles, linking activists and local communities from Portugal, Chile, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere with those in Serbia under what became known as the “Jadar Declaration.” It was these international links that triggered the threats in my case.

So, there’s good reason to speak up about what’s happening in Albania after the last month of protests against a destructive luxury resort project backed by Jared Kushner. Surely, not everyone shares this view. Decades of nationalism and war have created deep divisions between Serbia and Albania. Yet there are important similarities. Both governments are currently facing backlash from their citizens over ties to foreign-led development projects. This marks a shift in both countries: citizens are no longer identifying with their own states. Instead, both societies are experiencing a growing divide between citizens and state structures, which repress their own populations in defense of projects led by US and other global elites.

Like Serbia, Albania has experienced brain drain. It lost more than a million citizens through migration during the post-1991 transition to capitalism. Official UN estimates suggest that over 43 percent of the population now lives abroad. Both countries face mounting environmental conflicts, while political opposition is either ineffective or, in Albania’s case, sometimes aligned with extractive industries, while trade unions remain weak. Both countries are also becoming increasing focuses for US capital. Already prior to the Zvërnec luxury resort scheme, Kushner was involved in a real estate project in Serbian capital Belgrade proposing redevelopment of the General Staff Building — a partially destroyed site, until now preserved as a memorial to the 1999 NATO bombing. Plans to transform the site into a luxury development, reportedly linked to the Trump network, provoked public outrage and led to the project’s withdrawal.

Kushner’s trajectory in the Balkans is emblematic of a broader transformation of US hegemony in the region, which some have now dubbed “Trump’s Balkan doctrine.” In Serbia, the United States was the third largest international investor in 2024 and signed a landmark Energy Cooperation Agreement with its government. In May, a previously announced €2.6 billion hydroelectric Đerdap 3 project was even publicized by the US Embassy in Serbia. Similar dynamics appear in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where American investments used to be €6.1 million in 2022. However, this is expected to surge, as the United States has brokered a €1.5 billion deal with Bosnia and Croatia to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline connecting the two countries — a key target for US LNG exports. The company set to do the construction is AAFS Infrastructure and Energy, a Donald Trump–linked US-based enterprise now officially endorsed by the Bosnian state.

The same approach is now changing Albania, where US investment previously rose from approximately $100 million in 2020 to over $300 million in 2023. This is also expected to surge, as the United States seeks to position Albania as an LNG hub through a $6 billion project in cooperation with Greece. Thus, US energy investments are changing the Balkans as a whole.

This is in line with the strategy encoded in the “Western Balkans Democracy and Prosperity Act” passed by the US Congress in October 2025. The same strategy features US attempts at removing Chinese and Russian influence and explains why, subsequently, Serbia’s Russian-owned oil sector has faced sanctions, contributing to supply instability and pressure on the national currency. This reflected a broader strategy of restricting energy flows among China’s partners, from Venezuela to Iran. In this context, the Balkans is now embedded in shifting patterns of US hegemony.

It is only within this context that Kushner’s $1.4 billion Albania project must be understood. And it is not without precedent: Peter Thiel has also expressed intentions to build a Mediterranean city populated by IT specialists and a racially exclusive elite, where capital is explicitly prioritized over democracy and human rights. The expansion of US capital in the region thus signals not only increased investment but also increased power over the Balkan states; a broader Pandora’s box of projects is emerging, some of which are deeply unsettling.

In fact, the Balkans are once again transforming into a site of geopolitical competition between major powers, potentially destabilizing Europe. This is another structural reason why intra-Balkans solidarity will become more widely important.

Citizens of Albania and Serbia are therefore justified in questioning whether their states function as agents of their citizens or as intermediaries for global capital, enforcing its conditions on their populations. The citizens of Bosnia are doing the same. Even though protests in Bosnia are still localized, in past instances they did spread across the country, as in 2014. In all three cases, the Balkan states increasingly appear as vehicles for foreign capital and its fantasy projects while repressing their own citizens.

Beyond the Fragments

Historically, the Balkans have been marked by fragmentation shaped by both national conflicts and competing external influences. These divisions have made the region vulnerable to extractivism. Overcoming them is thus essential if any pan-Balkan strategy — politically or economically speaking — is to emerge in response to what increasingly look like proxy resource conflicts.

Issues such as mining and ecological degradation transcend national borders and create material interests that can potentially be articulated across them without relying on the states that are backing devastating projects. In this sense, we are witnessing an opening in the region. Previously, isolated, nationally bounded movements were unlikely to succeed against transnational forms of power. For Serbia, Bosnia, and other Balkan countries to support Albanian protests is thus not only a moral claim but a strategic necessity.

If the Balkans is to avoid becoming another peripheral zone for elite megaprojects and a proxy for clashes between extractivist superpowers, we need to do more than think in terms of the nation-state. In fact, this also opens up space for rethinking the Balkans itself. Recently, the Regional Alliance to Defend the Nature of the Balkans, a network of over thirty organizations across the region that also includes the Alliance of Ecological Organizations of Serbia, expressed its full support for environmental activists, local communities, and citizens in Albania. There have also been limited instances of cross-border activism between Bosnia and Serbia’s local communities when it comes to the struggle against lithium mining. So, the perspective of integration, one might say, is opening up.

However, the obstacles to deeper society-wide cooperation remain substantial. Bosnia, Serbia, and Albania all have weak opposition forces that are unable to channel this energy or, in some cases, are even opposed to it. If a new political opposition emerges with an alternative vision, and if they can articulate it effectively — which the student movement in Serbia certainly had the potential to do in some regards — such cooperation could reshape the Balkans. At the very least, the current moment may be creating conditions for the Balkans to assume a new role.

Finally, we cannot ignore an old idea. The proposals for Balkan federation were conceived a hundred years ago out of the fear that the region as a whole might be subordinated — like the process that is currently under way. This confronts the Balkans with an alternative. The region may again become a resource colony, as many protesters fear. Or else it can avoid this fate by choosing the path of solidarity and mutual support. To do that, it has to recognize what’s at stake.

6 July 2026

Source: Jacobin

Attached documents

• the-same-enemy-is-driving-protests-across-the-balkans_a9683.pdf (PDF - 1 MiB)
  Extraction PDF [->article9683]

Footnotes

[1] Photo: The pink flamingo is the symbol of the Albanian protest movement. File:Pink Flamingo @ Temaikén.jpg|Pink_Flamingo_@_Temaikén

• Aleksandar Matković

  Aleksandar Matković is a researcher at the Institute for Economic Sciences in Belgrade.

Baltic Republics Foment Crises With Russia

by Ted Galen Carpenter | Aug 7, 2026 | 

Historically, one of the greatest dangers to a major power in the international system is letting smaller allies and clients drag that power into an unwise war. Both the United States and leading European powers seem inclined to make that blunder with respect to the Baltic republics. Too many U.S. policymakers have not only tolerated but also facilitated the obsession those “allies” (i.e. protectorates) have exhibited with defeating Russia in Ukraine and weakening their arch adversary overall.

The belligerent behavior of some of NATO’s smallest members creates the prospect of disastrous results in Europe and beyond. A crucial policymaker, Kaja Kallas, is a former prime minister of Estonia and now serves as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice‑President of the European Commission. That does not help matters. Kallas is not only one of Ukraine’s most avid supporters, but is also an outspoken Russophobe on a wide range of issues. Kallas has received strong, vocal support from Dutch-born Ursula von der Leyen, an influential German politician and currently President of the European Commission.

Kallas has repeatedly pressed her EU colleagues as well as NATO officials and policymakers in other European governments to make no concessions to Russia with respect to territorial or other issues involving Ukraine. Any compromises, she contends, would reward Moscow’s aggression, and increase the risk of a much larger war.

The former Estonian leader combines such policy rigidity with an alarming degree of arrogance and overconfidence about Europe’s power. In one speech, Kallas asserted that if NATO simply stayed united on policy, Russia stood no chance of prevailing in Ukraine or of achieving any of its other objectives. Horrific wars have emerged throughout history from far less hubris than she routinely displays with respect to the democratic West’s policy toward Russia.

The centerpiece of the current effort by leaders of the Baltic states to exacerbate tensions with Moscow is a propaganda campaign asserting that the Kremlin is plotting to launch military attacks on vulnerable NATO members in the near future. In mid-July, the presidents of Lithuania and Latvia warned that Russia “may be preparing ‘limited kinetic operations’ against NATO’s eastern-flank infrastructure to test Article 5” – the provision in the North Atlantic Treaty proclaiming that an attack on any Alliance member will be considered an attack on all. Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs asserted that “The next few months, or even the next 12 months, will be crucial for Baltic security.”

Predictably, Russian officials dismissed the warnings as cynical cover for NATO’s own military buildup in the Baltic region. There is no question that such a provocative campaign by the Western powers has taken place and continues to do so. Indeed, a sizable buildup of NATO air, naval, and ground forces has been occurring for years. One important move was the re-deployment of U.S. F-22 fighter planes to Estonia from Poland in the spring of 2023. The most significant Russian provocations have been repeated spy plane incursions into the airspace of the Baltic republics and Russia’s other neighbors. Similar maritime incidents have taken place involving Russian naval and civilian vessels. Although Moscow’s moves are foolish and needlessly antagonistic, they are hardly in the same category as the major NATO buildups of troops, warplanes, and naval vessels.

Alarmist warnings from the Baltic governments also are nothing new, so cynical American observers might be tempted to respond to the latest flurry with indifference. However, Poland – a much more significant political and military player than the tiny Baltic countries–has been outlining similar alarming scenarios. There have been numerous warnings in recent weeks by Polish politicians, following multiple media reports that Russia could carry out a limited military or hybrid provocation against Poland in the near future. In late June 2026, a leading Polish outlet called onet.pl reported that U.S. intelligence had alerted its Polish counterparts about the possibility of a Russian attack. Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on July 3 that the warnings should be taken seriously and noted that he had been issuing similar alerts for weeks. “Poland is preparing very intensively for various scenarios,” Tusk said.

The possibility that the chronically anti-Russia U.S. intelligence agencies are helping to foment such paranoia should be a matter of profound concern to Americans who are opposed to having the Ukraine conflict spiral into a full-blown NATO-Russia war. An especially sad development is how Donald Trump, who once justifiably scorned Washington’s entanglement in Ukraine as a folly, now seems firmly committed to perpetuating NATO’s showdown with Moscow. Baltic hardliners undoubtedly take comfort in the Trump administration’s new course.

The U.S. military’s already risky commitment to the Baltic countries is becoming more explicit and uncompromising. At a June 30, 2016, ceremony in Valga, Estonia, the American commander of NATO’s land forces ​in Europe made that intention quite clear. Stating that “You’re [the Alliance’s Baltic members] ready to do more ‌and following words with action, and ‌the United States will be there alongside you,” U.S. General Chris Donahue asserted that “is how deterrence is built: Not with words from a ​podium, but with boots in the mud.” Indeed, NATO is adding a new command headquarters to focus on developments in the Baltics.

With President Trump having effectively capitulated to the NATO hawks, there is an alarming opportunity for anti-Russian zealots in the Baltic republics and elsewhere to push their pro-war agenda. Given Moscow’s egregious behavior toward its neighbors during both the Czarist and communist eras, one can readily understand the hatred that many people in those countries still harbor. But we must not let such poisonous historical memories drive current U.S. policy.

Too many officials in the Baltic states are courting a military conflagration that would consume not only their countries but the United States as well. America does not have any security, economic, or moral interests at stake that even remotely justify incurring such a level of risk. Allowing NATO’s mini-states to drag the United States into a major conflict with Russia – one with possible nuclear implications – would constitute the biggest folly of the post-World War II era.

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He is also a contributing editor to National Security Journal and The American Conservative. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,600 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

 

The great Infantino divide: Who is for and against the controversial FIFA chief?

Copyright STR/Copyright 2026 The AP. All rights reserved

By Nathan Rennolds

Published on 07/08/2026 - EURONEWS

The Norwegian Football Association has called for Infantino to resign while Mexico and Argentina have come out in support of the beleaguered FIFA boss.

As the 2026 World Cup drew to a close last month, many would have expected tournament organiser FIFA to slip back behind the scenes as fans around the world turned their attentions to their respective club teams once again.

FIFA, it seems, had other ideas.

The football world governing body sparked huge backlash in late July when it announced a plan to invite private investors to take stakes in a new subsidiary known as the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), which would have run its commercial operations and events, including the World Cup.

The proposal, which FIFA said could raise up to $4.2 billion based on an initial valuation of $20 billion, prompted fierce criticism from across the football community.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino and his team have since scrapped the plan and issued an apology for the way the situation was handled, with Infantino vowing to fight on in his role despite mounting calls for him to step down.

The crisis has now evolved into a widening divide between confederations and associations across the globe.

Euronews has taken a look at who is getting behind the embattled FIFA chief and who is calling for change.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino, right, and Arsene Wenger, Chief Officer (FIFA) and former soccer coach arrive for the Women's Euro 2025 quarterfinals soccer match. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Against

European governing body UEFA has dished out particularly strong criticism of Infantino and the FFE idea, announcing that its 55 member associations would boycott FIFA competitions unless the plan was abandoned.

UEFA later said that FIFA's continued support for Infantino - who had already been facing scrutiny over his relationship with US President Donald Trump - and its apology over the FFE proposal "changes nothing."

"UEFA’s associations were very clear about the conditions attached to the non-participation in FIFA competitions," it said in a statement on Thursday. "First, the proposals to sell off the major competitions had to be withdrawn, and secondly, assurances have to be made that such attempts to disfigure the game in this way will never be made again," it said. "These conditions have not been met."

Some individual associations also moved quickly to withdraw support for Infantino's re-election bid as the controversy gathered pace.

Wales, Finland, Serbia, and Sweden were among the first to announce they would no longer back the FIFA president for another term, with the Serbian FA calling its decision the "only logical and rational course of action" after recent events had "seriously damaged the standing and reputation of both FIFA and its president."

They have since been followed by football associations from England, Norway, Jordan, and Albania.

The Norwegian FA went a step further, calling for Infantino to resign after it said its "trust" had been broken.

"We believe that trust has now been lost and that FIFA needs new leadership," Lise Klaveness, its president, said. "When trust is lost, the leadership must also be reassessed. We therefore believe that Gianni Infantino’s time as FIFA President should be over, and we are asking him to step down."

Spain players, from left, cheer alongside President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino at the conclusion of the World Cup. Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

For

However, Infantino still retains some allies across the football world, in particular among associations working with smaller budgets, where ensuring continued funding is critical to remaining competitive.

On Thursday, the Confederation of African Football announced it had "unanimously reconfirmed its support" for Infantino while thanking him for his help developing African football.

"CAF will continue to focus on making African Football amongst the best in the world and is reaffirming its commitment to adhering to global governance, transparency and auditing best practices," its president, Patrice Motsepe, said.

In October, Infantino told an audience in Kinshasa that FIFA had invested more than $1 billion into African football through its FIFA Forward Programme since 2016. The Forward Programme helps provide development funding and support to FIFA's 211 member associations.

The governing body says it will have provided around $1.28 billion in support to the continent by the end of 2026.

Related

• Portugal legend Luis Figo calls for Infantino to resign, saying he 'debased' FIFA presidency
• Infantino vows to carry on as FIFA chief following crisis meeting

World Cup cohosts Mexico are also standing behind Infantino, as are Paraguay and World Cup runners-up Argentina.

Despite heavy criticism of FIFA from the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, of which it is a member, the Mexican Football Federation said it "supports president Infantino's leadership to continue driving the development of football through institutional strengthening."

For its part, Argentina, whose national team have been dealing with their own fair share of controversy in recent weeks, praised Infantino for his work since he was first elected as president in 2016 and commended him for recognising his "mistakes."