DONATE

Current News

Archives

Focus Areas

< Back

April 11, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: European NATO states announce new military aid for Ukraine

Institute for the Study of War

Ukraine’s European partners announced new military aid during the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (the Ramstein format) meeting on April 11. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on April 11 that Germany will provide Ukraine with four IRIS-T air defense systems, 33 missiles for the systems, 120 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), 25 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 15 Leopard tanks, 14 artillery systems, and 130,000 155mm artillery shells. Pistorius stated that Germany recently provided 30 Patriot missiles to Ukraine as well. The German Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on April 11 that Germany and the United Kingdom (UK) are establishing an electronic warfare (EW) coalition for Ukraine. The UK MoD announced a military aid package worth 450 million pounds (about $588 million) drones, radars, and anti-tank mines. Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur stated that Estonia will deliver 10,000 155mm artillery shells and 750,000 rations packages to Ukraine; Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans stated that the Netherland will provide 150 million euros (about $170 million) to strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses; and Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė announced that Lithuania will allocate 20 million euros (about $22 million) to Ukraine for the purchase of ammunition.

US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev in St. Petersburg on April 11 to discuss the war in Ukraine. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed that the Putin-Witkoff meeting would continue discussions about the war in Ukraine, that Putin would listen to the points that Witkoff delivers from US President Donald Trump, and that the meeting is a good chance for Russia to convey its “main concerns” to Trump via Witkoff. Peskov claimed that the officials may discuss a future meeting between Trump and Putin and that Trump and Putin could “theoretically” have a phone call following the Putin-Witkoff meeting. Peskov claimed that one should not “expect any breakthroughs” during the Putin-Witkoff meeting and that Russia and the United States are in the process of normalizing relations and “searching” for a way to settle the war in Ukraine. Peskov claimed that the Putin-Witkoff meeting and the April 10 US-Russian bilateral meeting in Istanbul are not related but are “two different tracks with one common process.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on April 11 that the Putin-Witkoff meeting is another step in the negotiating process toward a ceasefire and an “ultimate peace deal” in the war in Ukraine. Dmitriev stated that his meeting with Witkoff was “productive.”

Kremlin officials continue to demonstrate Russia’s unwillingness to make territorial compromises in Ukraine in a future peace settlement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated on April 11, following a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) foreign ministers meeting in Almaty, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will have to accept territorial concessions and that it is “impossible” for Ukraine to return to its 1991 borders – Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. Lavrov attempted to deflect blame for Russia’s intransigence onto Zelensky and Ukraine’s alleged mistreatment of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The Kremlin continues to explicitly demonstrate its unwillingness to make compromises and cede Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine as part of any future peace negotiations – in contrast to Ukrainian officials who have expressed their willingness to make territorial compromises in a future peace agreement. Russian President Vladimir Putin has even demanded that Ukraine cede territory in Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts that Russian forces do not currently occupy and claimed that Mykolaiv and Kharkiv oblasts are “historically Russian lands.”

Key Takeaways:

  • Ukraine’s European partners announced new military aid during the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (the Ramstein format) meeting on April 11.
  • US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev in St. Petersburg on April 11 to discuss the war in Ukraine.
  • Kremlin officials continue to demonstrate Russia’s unwillingness to make territorial compromises in Ukraine in a future peace settlement.
  • Russian authorities continue efforts to extract concessions from the United States as part of ongoing bilateral US-Russian negotiations while delaying progress towards peace in Ukraine.
  • Ukrainian sources continue to speculate about which directions Russian forces will prioritize in Spring and Summer 2024. ISW is updating the axis sections in its Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment to reflect shifting Russian operational efforts along the frontline.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to emphasize Russia’s large-scale and long-term investments in Russia’s navy and naval strategic nuclear forces.
  • Russian forces recently executed Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) in western Zaporizhia Oblast amid continued reports of systematic executions of Ukrainian POWs across the theater of war.
  • Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Novopavlivka, and Velyka Novosilka.
  • Russian opposition media provided additional details regarding Russia’s efforts to recruit Chinese citizens to serve in Ukraine following Ukrainian reports about Chinese nationals fighting in Ukraine.
Share the Post:
Close

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.