内容摘要：I do not ignore their fear or uncertainty. I do not deny their right to safety.

I do not ignore their fear or uncertainty. I do not deny their right to safety.

Although Ukraine already usesmissiles from the US and the United Kingdom, some experts and Ukrainian officials believe this projectile would be the strongest Western missile to be used by Ukraine if Germany gives a green light because the others have only half of the range of the Taurus and cannot carry as much ammunition.

Why hasn’t Germany given Ukraine these missiles yet?Scholz’s left-leaning Social Democratic Party (SPD)-led coalition government was cautious of escalating the war and possibly drawing in Germany, and by default, NATO.That’s because Moscow has warned several times that if Ukraine uses any Western missiles inside Russian territory, it would be perceived as those countries directly entering the conflict. It’s also due to the SPD’s stance against war.

Germany – which currently provides Ukraine with short-range rockets, including the M142 HIMARS MLRS and MARS II MLRS – and other weapons-providing Western allies initially restricted Ukraine from using their weapons inside Russia but allowed Kyiv to hit Russian targets within Ukraine.In November, former US President Biden, however, lifted restrictions on US weapons, allowing Ukraine to use them in Russia’s Kursk region. That came at a time when Kyiv had launched a surprise offensive on the region on its border. Some experts said lifting the restrictions was a major help to Ukraine. It has since lost most of the territory it had seized but does continue to hold some Russian land.

In March 2024, Russia tapped a top-secret conversation among Germany’s military brass in which officials discussed whether they might be able to persuade Scholz to send the Taurus to Ukraine and whether the missile could blow up the Kerch Bridge connecting Russia to Ukraine’s occupied Crimea region.

Is Germany changing its stance now and will it matter?The ruling, if it stands, could derail Trump’s global trade strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

The court struck down Trump’sissued since January under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute meant for addressing rare and extraordinary national emergencies. Tariffs introduced under other laws, such as those targeting specific industries like steel, autos and aluminium, were not addressed in this ruling.

The Trump administration swiftly filed an appeal, disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A White House spokesperson insisted trade imbalances posed a national crisis. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, defending Trump’s executive actions as necessary to protect US industry and security.Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC, said the judges on the court had been appointed by various Democrat and Republican presidents.