T

he Russia-Ukraine War continues to be the primary catalyst for the process of change and adaptation that NATO is currently undergoing. Russia’s loss of its status as a partner within the Western security architecture following the attack it launched in February 2022, and its subsequent classification as a ‘threat’, has shaped the political and geopolitical dimension of the issue, whilst the military and technological aspects of the war’s conduct have also presented challenges to the Alliance’s defense and deterrence capabilities. Measures relating to this process featured as key issues on the agenda of the Ankara Summit and in the Summit Declaration.

Political-geopolitical dimension

It comes as no surprise that the Ankara Summit Declaration defines Russia as a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security and stability, as the prevailing view amongst the vast majority of allies is that Russia’s objectives are not limited to Ukraine. This view underpins the rapid increase in defense spending across the Alliance, the removal of barriers to defence industry production, and the strong continuation of military and non-military support for Ukraine.

Since February 2022, NATO’s top priority has been to strengthen the Alliance’s capabilities, whilst the second has been to ensure the sustainability of Ukraine’s combat capabilities. To date, 99 per cent of the military aid provided to Ukraine has come from NATO allies. We can see that this resolve has been maintained at the Ankara Summit, as evidenced by the scale of the support package announced. Whilst the allies have pledged 70 billion euros’ worth of military aid to Ukraine for 2026, this figure has also been set as the baseline for the following year.

What is particularly noteworthy here is that this aid will be funded largely by the European Union (EU). With the Ukraine Support Facility adopted in April 2026, the EU had decided to provide Ukraine with 30 billion euros in financial aid and 60 billion euros in military aid for the period 2026–2027. It should be recalled that in March 2025, all US military aid to Ukraine was cut off, and the flow of American weapons to Ukraine could only be maintained through the intervention of European countries.

On the other hand, the statement in the Ankara Summit Declaration that Ukraine is contributing to transatlantic security by fighting against Russia is significant, as it indicates that the allies recognize Ukraine as a major military power. Speaking at the Defence Industry Forum held on the sidelines of the summit, Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized that his country is no longer an actor seeking security but one that produces it, and that Ukraine has become an ‘extraordinary source of defense capability’ for Europe. Whilst there is some truth in Zelensky’s remarks, linking this to NATO membership does not seem realistic at this stage, as the war is ongoing and, even if a lasting peace were to be achieved, the US administration’s unequivocally negative stance on the matter is well known.

Military and industrial dimension

The Russia-Ukraine War has highlighted the critical importance of defense industry production and innovation in the theatre of war. With the intensive use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), artillery munitions and various missile systems, the war has turned into an industrial race in design and production. The rapid, innovative and high-volume production of these systems has had a direct impact on the combatants’ success on the ground. This can be seen in the changing nature of UAV warfare. Today, on the battlefield, UAV systems are being used not merely to target isolated tactical elements, but to shape the battlefield itself.

New-generation UAV systems have played a major role in the war taking on a distinctly positional character from late 2023 onwards and in manoevristic operations coming to a virtual standstill. The ‘kill zones’—areas 10–15 kilometers deep where artillery fire and electronic warfare have intensified alongside the use of UAV systems—have transformed the war into a series of battles taking place in isolated areas. Efforts by the opposing sides to gain the upper hand, whether through kamikaze attacks using UAVs or by deploying them to drop explosives from above, are concentrated in these zones.

The race for innovation, which is characterized by constant dynamism on the Russia-Ukraine warfront, is also taking place in the field of unmanned maritime and land vehicles. For example, whilst it has been observed over the past year that Ukraine has begun to utilize unmanned maritime systems (UMS) much more intensively and effectively, we are now seeing new-generation amphibious operation trials aimed at deploying unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) – transported by UMS – to critical areas. Ukraine’s recent operation on the Kinburn Peninsula has been described as the first unmanned amphibious operation in history.

Ukraine’s increasing military power

Looking at the current course of the war, it is clear that Ukraine has, over the past few months, acquired an increasing ability to strike targets within Russia. Ukraine is specifically targeting bridges, motorways, railways and fuel tankers with the aim of disrupting Russia’s logistical capabilities. The reason for this is to thwart Russia’s ability to launch a new offensive during the spring and summer months. Similarly, these attacks aim to isolate the Donbas region from occupied Crimea through the selection of specific geographical targets (thereby blocking the use of the corridor between them). Judging by the results of Ukraine’s attacks and the pace of Russian advances, it appears that this objective has so far been achieved with considerable success.

The impact of these systems on the war extends beyond the battlefield. As a result of drone and missile attacks by both sides, the agricultural sectors of both Ukraine and Russia have suffered serious damage. Long-range missile and UAV attacks are disrupting the production of grain, wheat and sunflower oil, either directly or indirectly, whilst the targeting of Russian ships carrying wheat in the Sea of Azov by UAV systems is also producing negative consequences for the global market.

Similarly, it must be noted that unmanned systems are also having an impact on the sociological dimension of the war. For example, it is well known that UAV systems flying at low altitude and then diving create great fear amongst the civilian population. Last week, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force highlighted this situation, emphasizing that Russia’s jet-powered Shahed UAVs were flying at high speed at low altitude and that Russia’s aim was to force the residents of Kyiv to flee the city. In this regard, the prospect of unmanned systems becoming part of systematic intimidation and terror-inducing operations targeting the civilian population in the medium to long term represents a critical risk.

NATO’s comprehensive budget

All these factors have led NATO to establish a comprehensive budget and adopt reform processes in the fields of unmanned systems and their countermeasures (counter-UAS). Whilst it was announced at the Ankara Summit that the Alliance would undertake defense procurement worth 50 billion dollars, the ‘Drone Edge’ initiative, worth 40 billion dollars, was also launched to support anti-UAV systems. By the end of 2027, the allies have committed to increasing the number of UAV operators fivefold. Consequently, unmanned systems – which are shaping modern warfare – constitute a significant part of NATO’s military capability requirements, an issue that has largely been brought to the fore through discussions on budget increases.

Similarly, new steps are being taken to remove obstacles to defense industry cooperation – an area Turkey has long advocated for, but whose importance within the Alliance has only become apparent in recent years, and which can be understood in the context of production shortcomings. Initiatives announced at the Ankara Summit, such as ‘NATO Front Door for Industry’ and ‘NATO Engine’, aim to achieve greater integration of defense industries on a transatlantic scale.

Until now, the focus within NATO has been on military interoperability; however, modern warfare has highlighted the necessity of industrial interoperability to meet defense industry requirements. Indeed, the interoperability issues observed with Western-manufactured 155-millimeter artillery ammunition in the Ukrainian theatre had already demonstrated the inevitable need for close coordination between military operations and defense production.

Consequently, the Russia-Ukraine War remains NATO’s top priority. Despite transatlantic divisions and pro-Russian allegations leveled at Donald Trump, the fact that Russia continues to be defined as a long-term threat in the Ankara Summit Declaration is noteworthy in this regard. Similarly, the continuation of strong support for Ukraine also points to the same conclusion. In this sense, whilst the dynamics of transatlantic relations will determine the political dimension of the transformation taking place within NATO, the Russia–Ukraine War and the war’s innovation dynamics will continue to shape the process of change and adaptation in the Alliance’s military capabilities.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

F

ebruary 28, 2025 was one of the darkest days of the Ukraine-Russia War. Yet, for Ukraine, the catastrophe is unfolding not on the front lines but in Washington, right at the gates of the White House. In the early days of his second presidential term, Donald Trump opens proceedings by publicly mocking Ukrainian President Zelensky’s attire in front of the press, in a manner contrary to diplomatic protocol, before the President has even had a chance to enter the residence. Whilst Zelenskyy thought he would have to make do with this cold shower at the door, inside the White House he was subjected to a barrage of heavy criticism, this time joined by Vice-President James David Vance.

In a sense, those 10 minutes – during which all the aid the US had provided over the past three years was thrown in his face – must have felt like a decade, not only to the Ukrainian President but also to the European countries that had supported Ukraine. Donald Trump consistently maintained his line of accusing his predecessor, Joe Biden, over the Ukraine–Russia War right up until August 2025.

The Trump–Putin summit held on August 15, 2025, at Elmendorf–Richardson Air Force Base in Alaska had further reinforced the impression that all hope for Ukraine had been completely dashed. Furthermore, events at the White House just three days later, on August 18, 2025, reinforced the perception that the US had completely capitulated to Russia’s position on the war in Ukraine. That day, Trump lined up European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Finnish President Stubb, French President Macron, German Chancellor Merz, Italian Prime Minister Meloni, British Prime Minister Starmer, Ukrainian President Zelensky and NATO Secretary-General Rutte before him, and dictated his expectations regarding the course of the Ukraine–Russia War.

Furthermore, by catching this group off guard in front of the media, he forced them to speak on the validity of his own views. However, the evolving relations between the People’s Republic of China and Russia, the support Moscow provided to the Tehran regime during the Iran war, and Russia’s reluctance to sit down at the negotiating table have shifted the course of events.

A changing wind from Alaska to Ankara

On 8 July 2026, the image presented by the Trump–Zelensky duo when they faced the media at the NATO Summit in Ankara was very different from the unpleasant scenes witnessed a year and a half earlier. Beyond the positive messages conveyed, Trump had warmed relations to the point of joking with Zelensky about Ukraine’s drone and missile strikes on Moscow. When Trump asked, “Would you like to go to Moscow?”, Zelensky replied, “I don’t think so; there are far too many Ukrainian drones there.”

Clearly, the US President was also extremely pleased with Ukraine’s dominance, achieved through drones and guided missiles, extending as far as 2,000 kilometers into Russian airspace. Indeed, during the summit, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte remarked: “Some key targets deep inside Russia have been struck. ‘Over the past two months, Ukraine has been hitting targets more successfully’.” It is clear that Ukraine has not only made significant strides in the field of FPV drones and guided missiles.

There has also been an increase—the details of which we are not yet fully aware—in the quality and quantity of satellite-based electronic intelligence provided to Ukraine by NATO member states. The fact that around 100 naval vessels operating for the Russian ‘Ghost Fleet’ were struck by Ukrainian drone attacks in the Sea of Azov in the week following the NATO Summit is a matter that warrants attention in terms of the level these capabilities have reached. Looking back a little further, we can conclude that events took place which led Trump to lose hope that Russia and Putin would make peace with Ukraine in the final quarter of 2025.

The balance of power was redrawn in 2026

From the very first days of 2026, the nature and scale of Ukraine’s drone attacks saw a significant increase. Whilst all logistics routes supplying food and fuel to Crimea were paralyzed, almost all of the peninsula’s fuel depots and main electricity transmission stations were taken out of action by July. Petrochemical plants and refineries across Russia were struck 200 times in six months. This represents an 11-fold increase compared with the first six months of 2025. In May alone, 16 highly successful attacks were carried out against Russian refineries.

It has become commonplace for Ukrainian kamikaze UAVs to reach a range of 2,000 kilometers, or for FPV drones to strike targets more than 100 kilometers behind the front line. Having lost 40 per cent of its oil refining capacity, Russia has reached the point of banning diesel exports following its decision to ban the export of petrol and aviation fuel. Having been reduced to the point of having to import refined oil from India, Russia was unable to parade tanks and mobile missile launchers on Red Square during the traditional Second World War Victory Day commemorations on May 9.

As the military balance rapidly shifted against Russia, US President Trump’s behavior towards Ukrainian President Zelensky at the G7 Summit in Paris and the NATO Summit in Ankara, held between and June 15-17, signaled that even tougher times lay ahead for Moscow. At the summit, a commitment of 70 billion euros was made to provide Ukraine with military equipment, ammunition and training by 2026. Furthermore, following statements from some NATO member states that ‘we have nothing left to give to Ukraine’, the alliance decided to take an unprecedented step. Led by Canada, an initiative was launched to establish the ‘Defense, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB)’ with the participation of certain NATO member states.

The bank, scheduled to become operational in 2027, aims to provide low-cost financing of up to 100 billion pounds for defense projects. The members set to participate in this bank project include Turkey, Albania, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania and Ukraine. It is clear that the Alliance does not wish to see a repeat of the chaos that ensued regarding support for the Kyiv administration from the outset of the war in Ukraine and intends to find an institutional solution to this.

The US has no further expectations of a Russia under Putin’s rule

Returning to the final communiqué of the NATO Summit in Ankara, it appears that the mobilization launched against the Russian threat directed at Ukraine – and even Poland and the Baltic states – will continue with an open-ended timeline. The communiqué, referencing the NATO Hague Summit Communiqué dated June 25, 2025, emphasised that Russia poses a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security and stability. In other words, NATO members will channel more of their economic capacity into deterrence and defense against threats originating from Russia.

The emphasis on Russia as a “long-term threat” could be interpreted as the US having given up hope on the Putin administration. The visits to Moscow by US Special Envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff – which the Kremlin has been awaiting for nearly two months but which have yet to materialize – could also be seen as a manifestation of this “loss of hope”. Reports by the Russian TASS news agency in the first week of July stated that this visit, which Moscow was apparently eagerly awaiting, “could take place by the end of the summer, though a definite date has not yet been set”.

A report published in the British newspaper The Telegraph on July 10, 2026, however, indicates that the growing aversion towards Russia, particularly in Washington and other NATO capitals, is set to increase exponentially. According to the British newspaper’s report, the Dutch intelligence services, the AIVD (Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service) and the MIVD (Military Intelligence and Security Service), have discovered that doorbell cameras at hundreds of homes along the routes leading from NATO bases in the Netherlands to airports and seaports have been hacked. So, who would want access to the footage from hundreds of doorbell cameras?

According to the Dutch intelligence services, the culprits are cybercriminals backed by Moscow. Their aim is to determine the contents and quantities of arms shipments to Ukraine. According to The Telegraph, this Russian operation is not limited to the Netherlands. Across Europe, thousands of doorbell cameras are under the control of Russian intelligence. In other words, the Ukraine-Russia War has reverted to the ‘factory settings’ established at the outset by the US-UK duo. The objective is no longer limited to simply expelling Russia from Crimea and the Donbas region, which it has annexed. The ultimate goal has been updated to create the conditions necessary to topple Putin’s regime in Moscow.

(This article was originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

urkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned on Thursday against the expansion of the Russia-Ukraine war into the Black Sea, saying attacks on civilian maritime infrastructure threaten regional stability and should not be tolerated.

Speaking alongside Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha after talks in Kyiv, Fidan said Türkiye remains committed to preventing the conflict from spreading into the strategically important waterway.

“We do not want the war to spread to the Black Sea,” Fidan said, stressing that peace and security in the region must be preserved.

He condemned attacks targeting civilian maritime assets, saying ports, oil tankers and fishing vessels should not become military targets.

“Targeting ports, tankers and fishing boats and putting civilians’ lives at risk is not something that can be justified,” Fidan said, urging all parties to act with restraint and responsibility.

Fidan said Türkiye continues to explore new strategic approaches with the warring parties and international mediators to break the deadlock in the conflict.

Call for negotiations

He reaffirmed Ankara’s support for continuing negotiations under the Istanbul format, arguing that direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials had produced valuable transparency and dialogue.

“I believe it would be very beneficial for the Türkiye negotiations, particularly the Istanbul talks, to continue,” Fidan said, adding that ongoing hostilities should not prevent diplomatic engagement.

The Turkish foreign minister noted that while U.S. negotiators later became involved in efforts to achieve a broader settlement, the conflict continues with an increasing risk of escalation.

Addressing potential post-war security arrangements, Fidan said security guarantees for Ukraine would likely include land, air and naval components.

He revealed that Türkiye has agreed to lead the maritime component of those guarantees in coordination with allied countries.

“Türkiye has accepted to lead the maritime component, and we have a common understanding with our allies on this issue,” he said, adding that planning work is already being carried out by the naval forces of participating allied nations.

Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire

For his part, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha reiterated Kyiv’s readiness for a ceasefire and voiced support for Türkiye as the venue for future high-level peace negotiations.

“We believe that negotiations, especially a possible meeting between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Vladimir Putin, could take place in Türkiye,” Sybiha said.

He added that only a summit between the two leaders could inject new momentum into the peace process.

“As Ukraine, we are ready for a ceasefire,” Sybiha said.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

U

kraine and nine European countries have announced the creation of a joint anti-ballistic missile coalition aimed at strengthening the continent’s defenses against emerging missile threats through closer military, technological and industrial cooperation.

The initiative, unveiled by the leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, seeks to develop an integrated European missile defense architecture designed to improve protection against ballistic missile attacks.

In a joint declaration issued on Sunday, the participating countries described the coalition as a “purely defensive” initiative intended to bolster Europe’s collective security amid evolving regional threats.

“We believe that the protection of Europe requires a global solution of integrated missile defense architecture to deter and defeat future missile threats,” the leaders said.

The coalition’s centerpiece will be a flagship project to develop a shared anti-ballistic missile capability. Member states will coordinate on common operational requirements, technical standards and defense industrial cooperation while establishing a roadmap for deploying the coalition’s first operational systems.

Complement, rather than replace

Officials said the new initiative is intended to complement, rather than replace, existing national and multinational missile defense programs already operated or planned by participating countries.

“By bringing together our defense industrial base, our research, and our operational experience, we aim to build a shared anti-ballistic missile capacity for Europe,” the declaration stated.

The coalition also emphasized Ukraine’s battlefield experience gained during its defense against Russia’s invasion, describing Kyiv’s operational knowledge as a valuable contribution to the project.

“We acknowledge the unique experience of Ukraine, gained in defense against Russia’s war of aggression,” the statement said.

Beyond missile interception capabilities, participating countries agreed to explore joint research and development projects, expanded funding mechanisms, enhanced defense industrial collaboration and improved sharing of defense-related information and operational data.

The founding members said the coalition would remain open to additional countries that share its objectives and are willing to contribute to the development of a common European missile defense capability.

The announcement comes as European governments continue to increase defense spending and deepen military cooperation in response to heightened security challenges across the continent, with missile defense emerging as a key priority for NATO members and partner countries.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

R

ussia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has resulted in more than 2 million military casualties on both sides, making it one of the deadliest conflicts since the Second World War, according to a new study by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report estimates that Russia has suffered approximately 1.4 million casualties, including soldiers killed, wounded and missing, while Ukraine has endured between 525,000 and 625,000 casualties. Combined, the figures place the total human cost of the war above 2 million military casualties.

Researchers said Russia has lost around 450,000 troops killed, representing roughly 1% of the country’s population. Ukraine’s military fatalities were estimated at between 125,000 and 150,000.

Neither Moscow nor Kyiv regularly publishes official casualty figures, making independent verification difficult. However, the CSIS estimates broadly align with assessments previously released by Western governments and intelligence agencies.

The study, authored by Seth G. Jones and Riley McCabe, describes Russia’s losses as unprecedented in the post-World War II era.

“These rates are astounding,” the authors wrote, arguing that Russian fatalities in Ukraine now exceed the combined U.S. military deaths in all conflicts since World War II and are substantially higher than total Soviet and Russian military deaths across all wars during the same period.

According to the report, casualty rates have become increasingly uneven as the conflict has evolved.

During much of the war, Russian forces suffered approximately two to three casualties for every Ukrainian casualty. In the first half of 2026, however, researchers estimate the ratio has widened to nearly eight Russian casualties for every Ukrainian casualty.

The report attributes much of that shift to Ukraine’s expanding drone warfare capabilities.

Researchers said Kyiv has significantly enlarged what they describe as the battlefield “kill zone,” using drones to make it increasingly difficult for Russian forces to advance toward Ukrainian defensive positions.

“Ukraine’s defense-in-depth strategy has been effective in killing and wounding Russian soldiers, as well as limiting Russian maneuver,” the study concluded.

Recruitment challenges mount as battlefield losses increase

Beyond Ukraine’s technological improvements, the researchers identified several structural weaknesses contributing to Russia’s growing losses.

These include Moscow’s reliance on attrition warfare, shortcomings in combined-arms operations, poor tactical planning, inadequate troop training, corruption and declining morale among frontline forces.

The study also suggests Russia is no longer recruiting replacement soldiers at the same pace that it is sustaining battlefield losses, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of its military campaign.

The burden of casualties has fallen disproportionately on Russia’s poorer regions and ethnic minority communities, according to the report.

Researchers noted that economically disadvantaged regions have supplied a significant share of military recruits, with Russian independent media increasingly reporting that some remote villages have lost much of their male population during the conflict.

Although Russia has continued to mobilize volunteers through financial incentives and recruitment campaigns, the study argues that mounting casualties are placing increasing strain on the country’s manpower resources.

The report also highlights the broader historical significance of the conflict.

With military casualties now estimated to exceed 2 million, researchers said the war has likely surpassed the total casualties suffered during the Battle of Stalingrad, long regarded as one of history’s bloodiest battles.

The findings underscore the enormous human cost of a war that has entered its fifth year with no comprehensive peace agreement in sight. Despite repeated diplomatic initiatives, fighting continues across multiple fronts as both Russia and Ukraine seek military advantages while preparing for potential future negotiations.

The CSIS report concludes that although Ukraine continues to face severe military and humanitarian challenges, Russia is bearing increasingly heavy battlefield losses as technological changes, particularly the widespread use of drones, reshape the nature of modern warfare.

(Source: CNN)

G

erman federal prosecutors have charged a 50-year-old Ukrainian national with helping coordinate the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, marking the most significant legal step yet in one of Europe’s most consequential infrastructure attacks.

The suspect, identified only as Serhii K under German privacy laws, is accused of playing a leading role in the operation that destroyed the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines beneath the Baltic Sea, severing a major route for Russian natural gas exports to Europe months after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Federal prosecutors filed the indictment on Wednesday but declined to comment on its specific contents.

According to German public broadcaster ARD, Serhii K faces charges of attacking civilian energy infrastructure, causing explosions and destroying critical infrastructure.

The charges stem from an investigation into the September 2022 underwater blasts near Denmark’s Bornholm Island, which severely damaged both pipelines and disrupted Russian gas supplies to Europe during an already escalating energy crisis.

Court documents from December 2025 allege that Serhii K coordinated a team that used the sailing yacht Andromeda to transport explosives to the pipelines. Prosecutors claim he acted as the team’s on-board coordinator and operational leader rather than serving as a diver or explosives specialist.

The Berlin-based law firm Menaker, which represents the accused, has not commented publicly on the indictment.

German prosecutors confirmed that Serhii K is the same individual arrested in Italy in August 2025 following a German arrest warrant. Italy’s highest court later approved his extradition to Germany, where he was transferred in November 2025 to face investigation.

At the time of his arrest, German authorities alleged that the suspect had used forged identity documents to charter the Andromeda in the northern German port of Rostock before the vessel departed on the mission that investigators believe culminated in the sabotage operation.

Serhii K has denied any involvement in the explosions. His defense has maintained that he was serving with the Ukrainian armed forces and was inside Ukraine when the attacks occurred. His lawyers have argued that, even if military service were established, he would be entitled to what they describe as “functional immunity” under international law.

Ukraine denies involvement as investigation continues

The Nord Stream explosions remain among the most politically sensitive investigations in Europe, given their impact on regional energy security and the absence of any formal attribution of responsibility nearly four years after the attack.

Ukraine has consistently denied any state involvement in the sabotage or knowledge of any plot targeting the pipelines.

Speaking at a news conference in Dublin on Wednesday, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it was too early to comment on the German indictment because Kyiv had not officially received details of the case.

“We have not officially received any details; at least I have not seen them,” Zelenskyy said, adding that it was premature to draw conclusions.

The twin Nord Stream pipelines, running beneath the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, had been central to Russian gas exports to Europe before relations between Moscow and the West deteriorated sharply following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Although Nord Stream 2 had never entered commercial operation, both pipelines were rendered inoperable by the explosions, eliminating a key component of Europe’s energy infrastructure.

The investigation has involved authorities from Germany, Denmark and Sweden, with investigators examining evidence including vessel movements, explosive residue and maritime records.

The indictment represents the first formal criminal case brought by German prosecutors against an individual alleged to have participated directly in the sabotage. However, investigators have not publicly alleged that the Ukrainian government authorized or directed the operation.

The case is expected to proceed through Germany’s federal court system, where prosecutors will seek to prove that Serhii K coordinated the team responsible for carrying out one of the most significant attacks on critical energy infrastructure in recent European history.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

U

krainian drones struck a major oil refinery in southeast Moscow for the second time in three days on Thursday, triggering a massive fire, disrupting transportation across the Russian capital, and underscoring Kyiv’s growing ability to carry the war deep inside Russian territory.

The attack targeted one of Moscow’s key fuel-processing facilities, located just 16 kilometers (10 miles) from the Kremlin and within the city’s ring road, making it one of the most symbolically significant strikes on Russian infrastructure since the war began more than four years ago.

Video footage shared on social media showed thick black smoke billowing into the sky above the refinery after a powerful explosion. Witnesses reported that the blast was so intense that the giant metal lid of an oil storage tank was hurled into the air.

The strike appeared to evade Russian air defenses and ignited a blaze that emergency crews battled for hours.

War reaches the heart of Russia

The attack forms part of a broader Ukrainian campaign targeting Russia’s energy sector, which Kyiv argues provides crucial revenue for Moscow’s military operations in Ukraine.

But beyond the economic impact, the strike carried substantial symbolic significance.

By successfully targeting infrastructure inside the Russian capital, Ukraine appears intent on demonstrating to ordinary Russians that the consequences of the war are no longer confined to distant battlefields.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Andrii Sybiha, used social media to directly address residents of Moscow following the attack.

“One of the most popular questions asked by Muscovites this morning is ‘What is going on?'” Sybiha wrote. “Your country started a war of aggression against ours. For years, it has been killing our people.”

The comments reflected Kyiv’s effort to frame the attacks as a response to Russia’s invasion rather than an escalation of the conflict.

Disruption across Moscow

The strike caused widespread disruption throughout the Russian capital, home to more than 13 million people.

Authorities temporarily suspended flights at all Moscow airports as security services assessed the threat posed by additional drones.

Operations were halted at Sheremetyevo Airport, Russia’s busiest air hub, and parts of the airport were evacuated as a precaution.

Traffic was also disrupted along major roads surrounding the refinery, creating significant delays for commuters.

Residents in online forums complained that no air raid sirens or emergency alerts were issued before the attack.

Some suburban residents reported finding oily residue on vehicles and windows after rainfall passed through areas affected by smoke from the refinery fire.

The incident highlighted the growing vulnerability of Russia’s largest city to long-range Ukrainian drone operations.

While Moscow has experienced occasional drone attacks since 2023, including an incident involving the Kremlin itself, such strikes have generally had limited impact on daily life.

Thursday’s attack represented one of the most disruptive incidents the capital has experienced since the conflict began.

Economic impact growing

The latest refinery strike also points to the increasing economic consequences of Ukraine’s campaign against Russia’s energy infrastructure.

Russia remains one of the world’s largest oil producers and a major exporter of crude oil and refined fuel products.

Repeated attacks on refineries, storage facilities, and transportation networks have begun affecting domestic fuel supplies.

Industry sources told Reuters that Russia is expected to import fuel by sea this month, an unusual step for a country that is normally a major fuel exporter.

Reports of gasoline shortages have emerged in several regions in recent weeks.

Although Moscow city authorities insisted that fuel supplies in and around the capital remain stable, Russia’s federal anti-monopoly service has launched an inquiry after one major retailer reportedly increased gasoline prices by nearly 19 percent within a week.

Energy analysts say sustained attacks on refining capacity could place additional pressure on domestic fuel markets while increasing operational costs for Russia’s economy.

R

ussia launched one of its largest aerial assaults on Kyiv since the start of the war, firing hundreds of drones and missiles overnight, including a rare strike using the nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile, Ukrainian officials said Sunday.

The massive bombardment killed at least four people in and around the Ukrainian capital and wounded nearly 100 others, while damaging residential neighborhoods, schools, cultural landmarks, and government buildings across the city.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy condemned the attack and called on Western allies to respond more forcefully.

“It’s important that this does not remain without consequences for Russia,” Zelenskiy said on Telegram. “Decisions are needed — from the United States, from Europe and others.”

According to Ukraine’s air force, Russia launched 90 missiles and 600 drones during the hours-long overnight attack. Officials said it was only the third time Moscow had used the Oreshnik missile since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

The strike targeted Kyiv and surrounding areas, including the city of Bila Tserkva, located about 64 kilometers south of the capital. Analysts reviewing footage of the attack said the Oreshnik warhead appeared to split into dozens of submunitions before impact.

European leaders condemn ‘escalation’

European leaders swiftly denounced the attack, particularly Russia’s use of the Oreshnik missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads and has a range of several thousand kilometers.

Kaja Kallas accused Moscow of engaging in “reckless nuclear brinkmanship” and using the missile as a political intimidation tactic.

Britain and Germany also described the use of the missile as a dangerous escalation in the conflict, now entering its fifth year.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said the strikes were retaliation for alleged Ukrainian attacks on civilian targets inside Russia. Moscow claimed it had targeted military command centers, intelligence facilities, air bases, and defense-industrial infrastructure using Oreshnik, Iskander, Kinzhal, and Zircon missiles.

Ukraine denies targeting civilians in Russia and says Moscow continues to deliberately strike civilian infrastructure in Ukrainian cities.

The assault also caused minor damage to Ukraine’s cabinet building and the Foreign Ministry headquarters. Cultural institutions suffered heavily, including Kyiv’s national art museum and philharmonic hall, both located in the city center.

“This is a war against our culture, memory, and identity,” said Kyrylo Budanov. “For centuries, Moscow has tried to destroy everything that makes us Ukrainian.”

One strike destroyed a newly opened museum dedicated to the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear disaster, drawing anger from Ukrainian officials.

Residents describe ‘terrifying’ night

Much of the destruction was concentrated in Kyiv’s Lukyanivka district, an area north of the city center that houses a missile production plant and has repeatedly been targeted during the war.

A shopping center and nearby market were engulfed in flames, while apartment buildings sustained severe damage. Mayor Vitali Klitschko said around 30 buildings across the capital were damaged or destroyed.

As air raid sirens sounded overnight, thousands of residents sought refuge in metro stations and underground shelters.

“It was terrifying, scary,” said 62-year-old resident Nataliia Zvarych, who fled to a subway station as explosions rocked the city.

In central Kyiv, workers at a café that had celebrated its opening only a day earlier swept shattered glass and debris from the floor while continuing to serve customers.

“Once the emotions die down a bit, we’ll think about whether to restore everything,” said co-owner Yevhenii Prusak.

The latest attack comes amid heightened tensions following weeks of intensified fighting and stalled diplomatic efforts. Ukrainian officials warned that Russia’s strikes on water supply facilities suggested Moscow may be attempting to create additional humanitarian pressure ahead of the summer months.

Despite international condemnation, there was no immediate indication that the assault would alter the course of the conflict, which remains locked in a prolonged and increasingly destructive phase.

(Source: Reuters)

E

uropean intelligence agencies believe China secretly trained around 200 Russian military personnel last year, with some of those soldiers later returning to fight in Ukraine, according to intelligence sources and documents reviewed by Reuters.

The covert training program, reportedly focused heavily on drone warfare and counter-drone tactics, represents one of the clearest indications yet of direct Chinese military support connected to Russia’s war effort, despite Beijing’s repeated claims that it remains neutral in the conflict.

According to Reuters, the training was outlined in a Russian-Chinese military agreement signed in Beijing on July 2, 2025. The document reportedly detailed plans for Russian troops to receive instruction at Chinese military facilities in cities including Beijing and Nanjing, while Chinese personnel would also participate in training programs inside Russia.

European intelligence officials told Reuters that some Russian soldiers trained in China later took part in combat operations involving drones in occupied Crimea and the Zaporizhzhia region.

Drone warfare at center of training

The reported courses concentrated on modern battlefield technologies that have become central to the war in Ukraine.

Reuters said the training included instruction in:

• Drone operations and first-person-view (FPV) drones
• Electronic warfare
• Counter-drone systems
• Combined arms warfare
• Explosives handling and demining
• Armored infantry tactics
• Army aviation

One internal Russian military report reviewed by Reuters described a December 2025 training course involving around 50 Russian personnel at a branch of the People’s Liberation Army Infantry Academy in Shijiazhuang.

According to the document, Russian soldiers trained with 82mm mortars while using drones to identify targets — a tactic widely employed on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Another course reportedly focused on counter-drone measures, including electronic warfare rifles and net-launching systems designed to disable incoming drones.

Reuters also described a training session at a PLA aviation center in Yibin where Russian troops used drone flight simulators and practiced operating several FPV drone systems.

China denies direct involvement in war

China’s foreign ministry rejected suggestions that Beijing was directly involved in the conflict.

In a statement to Reuters, Chinese officials said Beijing had consistently maintained an “objective and impartial stance” and supported peace negotiations.

The report nevertheless raises new questions about the depth of military cooperation between China and Russia, whose leaders have repeatedly emphasized their “no limits” strategic partnership since shortly before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The intelligence findings emerge just as Chinese President Xi Jinping hosts Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing for high-level talks focused on energy, security and global geopolitics.

Western governments have long accused China of indirectly supporting Russia through purchases of Russian energy exports and the supply of dual-use technologies. But training Russian troops at operational and tactical levels would mark a more direct form of assistance.

Russia increasingly dependent on Chinese support

The report highlights the growing military and economic ties between Beijing and Moscow.

China has become a critical economic partner for Russia since Western sanctions were imposed after the invasion of Ukraine. Chinese purchases of Russian oil, gas and coal have helped stabilize Moscow’s economy, while Chinese technology and manufacturing networks have helped offset some Western export restrictions.

European intelligence officials told Reuters that Russia benefits particularly from China’s advanced drone industry and training infrastructure.

Although Russia has extensive combat experience from Ukraine, China’s rapidly expanding drone sector offers technological expertise, simulation systems and industrial capacity that Russian forces increasingly value.

One intelligence agency said many of the Russian personnel trained in China were instructors themselves, meaning the knowledge gained there could spread through Russia’s military structure after their return.

U

kraine is increasingly concerned that shifting global attention toward the Middle East could weaken crucial support from the United States, as its war with Russia enters a prolonged and critical phase.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Kyiv does not want to “lose the Americans,” emphasizing that Washington is “without question” more focused on developments in the Middle East.

Zelensky expressed fears that U.S. military engagement in the region—particularly strikes involving Iran—could delay or reduce the delivery of key weapons and defensive supplies to Ukraine.

“The risk is very high,” he said, noting that the volume of munitions being used elsewhere could directly impact Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities.

After more than four years of war with Russia, Ukraine remains heavily dependent on Western military assistance, especially from the United States.

Ukraine assisting in the Middle East

In a notable development, Zelensky revealed that Ukrainian drone experts are currently assisting countries in the Gulf region in defending against Iranian attacks.

Led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, several Ukrainian teams are providing consultations and technical guidance.

According to Zelensky, the United States had requested this support multiple times, highlighting Ukraine’s growing expertise in countering Iranian-designed drones—technology widely used by Russia in its attacks.

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria, Zelensky claimed that Russia has been supplying Iran with drones and related technology.

Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment on reports that Moscow may be sharing intelligence with Iran about U.S. military movements.

Ukraine has significantly advanced its air defense capabilities in response to sustained drone and missile attacks, developing both electronic warfare systems and interception technologies.

Zelensky said Ukraine is ready to share its technological advancements with the U.S., proposing a joint initiative involving dozens of companies to develop advanced interceptor systems.

However, he noted that discussions with U.S. President Donald Trump have not yet produced a clear commitment.

Seeking alternatives in Europe

With uncertainty over U.S. support, Ukraine is exploring other options, including the Franco-Italian SAMP/T air defense system.

Zelensky described SAMP/T as “the only alternative in Europe” capable of potentially intercepting ballistic missiles, though its effectiveness remains to be fully tested.

Zelensky also criticized the Trump administration’s decision to allow limited purchases of Russian oil, arguing that easing sanctions would strengthen Moscow economically.

“I believe that lifting sanctions on Russia will not help the world; it will only help Russia,” he said, claiming the country earned around $10 billion in just two weeks from oil sales.

Ukraine, he added, will continue targeting Russian energy infrastructure while working with allies such as Emmanuel Macron to curb Russian oil revenues.

Despite ongoing fighting, Zelensky said Russia has failed to achieve major breakthroughs in its recent operations. Ukrainian forces, he noted, have recently regained some territory, marking a shift after months of setbacks.

He also warned that Russia plans to mobilize up to 400,000 troops annually but insisted Ukraine aims to neutralize a comparable number.

Zelensky addressed political tensions with neighboring Hungary, stating that Ukraine is willing to work with any future leadership—provided it is not aligned with Vladimir Putin.

He criticized current Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for maintaining close ties with Moscow and obstructing European Union support for Ukraine.

(Source: CNN)

N

ATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Wednesday that Ukraine must remain the alliance’s top priority, warning against distractions such as territorial disputes over Greenland while Russia continues its attacks on Ukraine.

Speaking at a panel discussion during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Rutte emphasized that European and US security depends on sustained military, financial, and political support for Kyiv.

Rutte stressed that while issues like Greenland should be addressed through dialogue, they should not overshadow the war in Ukraine.

“Focus in Ukraine should be our number one priority, and then we can discuss all the issues, including Greenland,” he said, noting that Russian missiles and drones are continuing to strike Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Warning against diplomatic distractions

The NATO chief expressed concern that excessive attention to secondary disputes could weaken collective resolve at a critical moment in the conflict.

“As we speak, Russian attacks are ongoing,” Rutte said, warning that losing focus could undermine efforts to support Ukraine’s defense.

Rutte acknowledged the importance of diplomatic initiatives and financial backing, including the EU-led €90 billion ($105 billion) support package, but said immediate military assistance remains essential.

He underscored the need to ensure Ukraine has sufficient resources to defend itself against Russian aggression.

Transatlantic unity at the core of NATO

Highlighting NATO’s integrated defense system, Rutte reaffirmed the alliance’s reliance on strong cooperation between Europe and the United States.

He noted that European countries have increased defense spending in response to US expectations and stressed mutual commitment within the alliance.

“I have no doubt the US will come to the rescue here, and we will come to the rescue of the US,” Rutte said, emphasizing NATO’s collective security principle.

Rutte concluded by stressing that NATO’s effectiveness depends on unity and sustained investment in defense capabilities on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly as the war in Ukraine continues to shape the security landscape in Europe and beyond.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

R

Attacks on commercial ships in the Black Sea

Although attacks using unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs) have occurred periodically in the Black Sea, there had not been a series of large-scale attacks until recently. However, this situation changed significantly in the last month. Since November 2025, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has begun targeting commercial vessels in the Black Sea. Ukraine has begun attacking Russia’s “shadow fleet,” which is used to circumvent sanctions. This fleet consists of commercial vessels (including tankers) traveling to Russia, which Ukraine has targeted using UMVs.

In early November, Ukraine increased its attacks on oil export infrastructure in Tuapse and Novorossiysk. Toward the end of November and beginning of December, Ukrainian UAVs hit the Gambian-flagged tankers Kairos and Virat in the Black Sea. The Kairos was attacked in the southwest part of the Black Sea, and the Virat was attacked further east in the central part. These attacks occurred at a time when Ukraine aimed to reduce Russian oil sales and prevent Moscow from financing the war.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that the attack on the Kairos and Virat ships, which were sailing in international waters in the Black Sea, was an “act of terrorism” that Russia condemns. She noted that the ships were sailing under the Gambian flag toward the port of Novorossiysk when they were attacked by unmanned naval vehicles on November 28-29. On December 2, 2025, the Russian tanker Midvolga-2, traveling from Russia to Georgia, was attacked off the coast of Sinop.

In retaliation, Russian forces have increased missile and drone attacks on Ukraine’s Odessa port. These ports are vital to Ukraine’s export-based economy, and have been crucial to the country’s economic survival throughout the nearly four-year war in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022.

These attacks have also damaged some Turkish-owned merchant ships in Ukrainian ports. On December 13, 2025, the Turkish-owned, Panama-flagged ro-ro ship Cenk T., which was anchored in the port of Odessa, was hit by a Russian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and caught fire. The ferry was reportedly on a voyage from Karasu to Odessa and was carrying fresh fruit, vegetables, and other foodstuffs. Then, on December 26, three more ships flying the flags of Slovakia, Palau, and Liberia were reportedly damaged by Russian UAV attacks in the ports of Odessa and Mykolaiv.

Turkey’s position

Turkey has condemned the attacks on civilian vessels in the Black Sea and stated that such actions must cease. President Erdoğan emphasized that civilian vessels and critical trade routes, such as the grain corridor in the Black Sea, should not be targeted. He called on all parties to protect civilian infrastructure.

While in Turkmenistan for the International Peace and Security Forum on December 12, he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and expressed concern about attacks on ports and energy facilities in the Black Sea. He called for a “limited ceasefire” in these areas. He stated that “we cannot in any way condone these attacks, which threaten navigation, life, and environmental safety, especially in our own exclusive zone” and said that the attacks also concern Turkey’s rights and authorities in its maritime jurisdiction.

At the Ambassadors’ Conference in Ankara on December 16, the president stated that they were “conveying their warnings” to Ukraine and Russia. He added, “The recent mutual attacks seriously threaten navigation safety in the Black Sea. Targeting merchant ships and civilian vessels benefits no one. We are clearly conveying our warnings to both sides on this matter.”

Assessment

The attacks carried out by Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea that target civilian merchant ships should undergo legal assessment. First, targeting civilian ships constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of the law of armed conflict, even under conditions of war and even if a blockade is in place.

According to international maritime law, the movement of ships on the high seas and the authorities that may be exercised over them are regulated by the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The maritime areas beyond the territorial waters of Black Sea-bordering states constitute the relevant states’ exclusive economic zones. As a rule, exclusive economic zones have the status of the high seas for the purpose of navigation. The fundamental principle governing the legal status of the high seas is the principle of “freedom of the high seas.” According to this principle, the high seas are maritime areas not under the sovereignty of any state and can be used freely by all states, regardless of whether they have a coastline. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea also constitutes rules of customary international law, creating rights and responsibilities for all countries, even those that are not parties to the convention, such as Turkey.

Generally, all ships on the high seas (whether civilian or military, privately or state-owned) are subject to the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of the state under whose flag they are registered. In other words, no other state may exercise such authority over these ships.

U

krainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has for the first time publicly outlined a 20-point draft peace framework being discussed with the United States, describing it as a potential foundation for ending the war with Russia.

Speaking after weeks of negotiations to revise an earlier 28-point proposal, Zelenskiy said Ukraine and Washington had significantly narrowed their differences. However, he confirmed that no agreement has yet been reached on two key issues: territorial control and the future of the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Zelenskiy said further discussions with U.S. President Donald Trump would be necessary to resolve those matters.

The proposal reaffirms Ukraine’s sovereignty and calls for a comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Kyiv and Moscow, supported by space-based monitoring systems to oversee ceasefire lines and detect violations.

Security guarantees, reconstruction and EU membership

Under the framework, Ukraine would retain its current armed forces strength of around 800,000 personnel and receive security guarantees from the United States, NATO and European countries comparable to NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause.

The plan also envisions Ukraine joining the European Union on a defined timeline, gaining short-term preferential access to EU markets, and receiving a global development package aimed at long-term economic recovery. Several reconstruction and humanitarian funds would be established with the goal of mobilizing up to $800 billion.

Ukraine would remain a non-nuclear state, while Russia would be required to formalize a policy of non-aggression toward Ukraine and Europe through binding domestic legislation.

Territorial issues remain the most contentious element. Kyiv supports halting fighting along current battle lines, while Russia demands Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of eastern Donetsk. The United States has proposed demilitarized zones and a free economic area in contested regions.

The proposal also includes provisions for full prisoner exchanges, the return of civilian detainees and children, freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and Dnipro River, post-war elections in Ukraine, and a legally binding enforcement mechanism overseen by a Peace Council chaired by President Trump.

A full ceasefire would take effect immediately once all parties approve the agreement.

(Source: Reuters)

U

kraine and 34 other countries on Tuesday formally approved plans to establish an international compensation body to assess and pay for damage caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a move hailed as unprecedented by European officials but shadowed by uncertainty over how payments will be enforced.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed leaders gathered in The Hague, urging strong international backing to ensure that “any damage caused by the war can be compensated.” He later told the Dutch parliament that “the aggressor must pay.”

The compensation mechanism, facilitated by the Council of Europe, will operate through an International Claims Commission, allowing Ukrainians to seek redress for “damage, loss or injury” resulting from Russia’s invasion, which began in February 2022. The commission will assess claims submitted to an existing register of damages launched in 2023, which has already received about 80,000 claims.

No clear legal pathway

While the Council of Europe insists Russia should bear the financial burden, there is no clear legal pathway to compel Moscow to pay. One proposal under discussion involves using tens of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets held in Europe.

Thirty-five countries have backed the commission, though each must now ratify the treaty domestically — a process that typically requires parliamentary approval. Officials described the level of support as unprecedented for a new Council of Europe treaty.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the EU would contribute one million euros to fund the commission’s operations, part of an estimated 3.5 million euros needed overall.

The compensation mechanism

Zelenskyy’s visit followed peace talks in Berlin involving U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is prepared to forgo NATO membership in exchange for firm Western security guarantees, but rejected proposals to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.

Several of the same countries supporting the compensation mechanism have also endorsed the creation of a new international court under the Council of Europe to prosecute senior Russian officials for the invasion.

(Source: The Associated Press)

T

he head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6 will warn on Monday that Russia poses an “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” threat to international security, in her first public speech since taking office.

Blaise Metreweli, who became MI6 chief in October and is the first woman to lead the agency in its 116-year history, will say President Vladimir Putin should be in no doubt that Western support for Ukraine remains firm and long-term.

“Putin should be in no doubt — our support is enduring,” Metreweli will say, according to advance extracts of her remarks. “The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained.”

She will warn that Moscow deliberately fuels instability abroad, describing Russia’s actions as a deliberate strategy rather than a by-product of foreign policy.

“The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug, in the Russian approach to international engagement,” she will say, adding that such behavior is likely to continue unless Putin is forced to “change his calculus.”

UK maintains sanctions pressure

Britain has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian business figures, political leaders, companies and vessels since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. London has also sanctioned Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, in its entirety.

Metreweli’s remarks come as diplomatic efforts to halt the conflict continue. Over the weekend, Germany hosted talks involving U.S. and Ukrainian officials on a possible ceasefire, ahead of a summit in Berlin on Monday that will include European leaders.

Metreweli will also emphasize the need for MI6 to deepen its use of technology to counter modern threats, including terrorism, cyber operations and information warfare.

“Mastery of technology must infuse everything we do,” she will say. “We must be as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources — as fluent in Python as we are in multiple languages.”

She will argue that technological expertise must extend beyond research labs into frontline intelligence operations and organizational culture.

Broader security warnings

In a separate speech on Monday, Richard Knighton, head of Britain’s armed forces, is expected to call for a “whole society” approach to defence amid growing global instability. He will warn of an increased probability of Russia attempting to invade a NATO member state, underscoring the seriousness of the threat facing Europe.

Metreweli’s address marks a rare public intervention by the MI6 chief and signals a sharpened warning from Britain’s intelligence leadership as tensions with Moscow persist.

(Source: Reuters)

U

kraine’s military intelligence service says it is preparing to carry out more complex maritime drone operations next year, after the country’s uncrewed surface fleet succeeded in forcing Russia’s Black Sea forces into a defensive posture and limiting their naval movements.

In comments to The Associated Press, the commander of the Defense Intelligence Directorate’s (GUR) Group 13 maritime drone unit said Ukraine’s sea-based attacks have reached a “plateau” in recent months, as Russia adapted its tactics following a series of high-profile strikes earlier in the war. The officer, identified publicly only by the call sign “13th” under Ukrainian security protocol, said the change in Russian behavior demonstrated both the impact and the challenges of Kyiv’s evolving drone program.

“We are effectively limiting the enemy’s movement, but those dramatic, high-profile strikes we saw earlier haven’t happened for some time,” he said. “That’s because the enemy has adapted.”

Ukrainian officials announced last month that maritime drones were used to hit vessels belonging to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” a network of tankers used to evade sanctions. The commander declined to discuss those operations, citing restrictions imposed by the intelligence service.

According to Group 13, Russian naval vessels now stay close to their bases, typically traveling no more than 25–40 kilometers from port to fire cruise missiles before quickly returning. “They barely operate,” the commander said. “They constantly hide. And in a way, that is also a result of our work — because you can imagine the cost of maintaining a fleet that cannot operate at sea.”

The interview took place at an undisclosed location inside Ukraine. The officer wore full uniform, with his face covered and eyes obscured for security reasons. The intelligence agency requested that details of the site, equipment storage, and logistics not be revealed.

Drones on the front line of a naval war

Maritime drones have become one of Ukraine’s most significant tools in countering Russian naval power. Kyiv operates two separate programs — one under its armed forces, the other under its intelligence service. Group 13 oversees the Magura family of sea drones, which have been credited with several major strikes on Russian warships, landing craft, and logistics vessels.

The unit currently uses two primary models: the Magura V5, a compact high-speed ramming drone used in explosive attacks, and the Magura V7, a larger multi-role platform capable of carrying various weapons. Both systems are controlled remotely through compact consoles equipped with joysticks, thermal and optical screens, and safety mechanisms.

During a recent demonstration for journalists, Ukrainian operators displayed a V7 equipped with modified U.S.-made AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. In May, GUR said one such drone downed a Russian fighter jet — a development the commander described as “a breakthrough” in modern naval warfare, marking what Kyiv claims is the first time a maritime surface drone has shot down an aircraft.

Next phase: AI-Enabled strikes

The commander said Ukraine’s next wave of innovation will center on expanded use of artificial intelligence. Current drone operations rely on a combination of human control and software assistance. Operators guide the systems over long distances, while AI assists with horizon scanning, obstacle recognition, and initial target identification.

“Right now, the search process is part operator, part AI,” he said. “In the future, you’ll launch the drone and it will independently search for a target, distinguish civilian ships from military ones, and make more of the decisions.”

Ukraine, he added, has accumulated “a huge amount of operational data” — including video from combat missions, sensor readings, navigation routes, and engagements — which will be used to further train AI algorithms.

Although he declined to provide specifics, the officer said experts in Ukraine and partner states were examining long-range strike options, submersible systems, and potential “mixed-fleet” operations involving coordinated attacks by aerial, surface and underwater drones.

International partnerships growing

Ukraine is also working to expand co-production of maritime drones. During a visit by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Athens in November, Kyiv and Greece agreed to begin joint projects on maritime uncrewed vehicles, deepen intelligence-sharing on sea-based threats and increase training opportunities for Ukrainian operators.

Officials in Kyiv view cooperation with NATO member states as essential to sustaining Ukraine’s drone capabilities amid Russia’s ongoing attempts to jam, disrupt or intercept uncrewed systems.

Despite Russia’s adaptations, the commander insisted that Ukraine’s naval drone fleet continues to play a decisive role in restricting Moscow’s movements in the Black Sea. Analysts say Russia’s decision to relocate key vessels from Sevastopol to ports farther east — including Novorossiysk — was driven in large part by Ukraine’s repeated drone strikes over the past two years.

“We’re working on many fronts to change the situation and create a turning point,” the commander said. “We haven’t lost effectiveness. We’re holding the enemy in check — and preparing for what comes next.”

(Source: The Associated Press)

N

ATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday rejected renewed concerns about the United States’ long-term commitment to the alliance, saying Washington remains engaged despite U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s expected absence from a key meeting of allied foreign ministers.

The Brussels gathering on Wednesday comes at a critical moment for the 32-member alliance, as Russia’s war on Ukraine approaches its fourth year and high-stakes negotiations continue in Moscow and across Europe about Kyiv’s political and territorial future.

Rubio will not attend the meeting, an unusual move given Washington’s central leadership role in NATO. His absence follows U.S. President Donald Trump’s 28-point draft proposal for ending the war, which unsettled European allies last month by suggesting Ukraine would not join NATO and that the alliance would halt further expansion.

Speaking to reporters, Rutte sought to calm fears, stressing that the top U.S. diplomat’s schedule is overloaded.

“He’s working extremely hard to take care not only of the situation in Ukraine, but many other issues which are on his plate,” Rutte said. “I totally accept him not being able to be here tomorrow, and I would not read anything in it.”

A senior U.S. State Department official, speaking anonymously, echoed that view, saying Rubio had already held dozens of engagements with NATO counterparts this year and that it is “impractical” to expect his presence at every meeting.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau will represent Washington instead, and is expected to press allies to meet the Trump administration’s demand that all NATO members spend 5% of their GDP on defense — a sharp increase from the current 2% guideline.

Ukraine membership blocked despite ‘irreversible path’ pledge

Trump’s initial peace plan suggested a freeze on NATO enlargement and excluded Ukraine from eventual membership — despite repeated alliance commitments that Kyiv has a place in NATO once conditions allow.

Rutte acknowledged the political reality: “Right now, as you know, there is no consensus on Ukraine joining NATO,” he said, noting opposition not only from the Trump administration but from Hungary and Slovakia.

Still, he insisted that Ukraine remains on an “irreversible path” toward eventual membership, as NATO leaders affirmed at their 2024 Washington summit.

The NATO chief also said controversial elements of Trump’s early proposals have been revised significantly following European input.

“You need to start somewhere. You need to have proposals on the table,” Rutte said, adding that NATO-related issues in any future settlement “will be dealt with separately, and that obviously will include NATO.”

Tensions rise as allies warn of Russia’s next move

The upcoming foreign ministers’ meeting takes place as European officials warn that Russian President Vladimir Putin could threaten another European country within three to five years if Moscow prevails in Ukraine.

European leaders view Russia’s invasion as an existential threat, and fear that uncertainty over U.S. leadership and NATO unity risks undermining deterrence at a decisive juncture.

The Trump administration maintains that European allies must shoulder greater responsibility for their regional security, especially as Washington reorients part of its strategic focus toward challenges in the Asia-Pacific.

U.S. signals shifting posture in Europe

Concerns about a potential U.S. military drawdown have intensified. Romania announced in October that the United States would reduce its troop presence there by up to 3,000 personnel as part of a broader global force review.

The administration is expected to unveil its updated troop plans for Europe in early 2026.

Trump has also unsettled NATO officials with recent remarks describing the alliance in transactional terms — emphasizing U.S. arms sales to member states and implying that Washington stands somewhat apart from the organization it has led for 75 years.

“We’re selling a lot of weapons to NATO, and that’s going, I guess, to Ukraine for the most part,” Trump said during an October meeting with Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “That’s up to them, but they’re buying weapons from the U.S.”

Wednesday’s session in Brussels will center on strengthening support for Ukraine, coordinating deterrence measures across NATO’s eastern flank, and assessing the long-term security implications of the war.

Rutte underscored that the alliance remains united despite political pressures on both sides of the Atlantic.

“At this pivotal moment, NATO’s strength lies in its shared commitment,” he said. “The work continues, with or without any single individual at the table.”

(Source: The Associated Press)

U

krainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday that “tough issues” remain unresolved after intensive U.S.–Ukraine talks in Florida, as Kyiv launched a new round of high-level diplomacy across Europe and a top envoy of U.S. President Donald Trump headed to Moscow to brief the Kremlin.

The remarks came amid fast-moving diplomatic activity aimed at reshaping the U.S. peace proposal for ending nearly four years of full-scale war with Russia.

The recent meetings in Florida, hosted by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio at Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s Shell Bay resort in Florida, marked Washington’s most serious push yet to accelerate negotiations. However, the initial American proposal has drawn significant concerns in Kyiv and among European allies.

The original plan reportedly endorsed key Russian demands—including that Ukraine give up additional territory, limit its military forces, renounce its bid to join NATO, and bar Western troops from its soil. Ukrainian officials have said such terms would amount to “capitulation,” leaving the country vulnerable to future Russian aggression.

“There are some tough issues that still have to be worked through,” Zelenskiy wrote on X, adding that Ukraine faces a “very substantive day” of talks with European leaders following the Florida negotiations.

Zelenskiy met French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Monday, receiving a public show of support as both sides emphasized efforts to narrow the gaps with Washington.

“The work for peace continues,” Macron said in a post alongside a photo of the two leaders at the Elysee Palace. Zelenskiy is expected to travel to Ireland next, while Ukraine’s defense minister arrived in Brussels for meetings with NATO officials.

Rubio: ‘We’ve made progress’

Rubio, speaking after the Florida talks, described the discussions as constructive but incomplete.

“We’re realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic… We’ve made progress,” he said, noting that further steps would depend on the outcome of Witkoff’s visit to Moscow.

Witkoff is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to convey the results of the Florida negotiations.

The diplomatic push comes at a difficult moment for Kyiv. Ukrainian forces have been slowly losing ground along the 1,200-km front line, while a major corruption scandal has shaken the government.

Zelenskiy’s chief of staff—who also led the Ukrainian delegation in the peace talks—resigned on Friday after anti-corruption investigators searched his home. Two ministers have been dismissed, and a former business partner of the president has been named as a suspect.

Trump, who campaigned on ending the war rapidly, voiced frustration over the lack of an agreement. “Ukraine’s got some difficult little problems,” he told reporters on Air Force One, referring to the corruption scandal. Still, he insisted that both Kyiv and Moscow want to end the conflict. “There’s a good chance a deal could be reached,” he said.

Russia advances on frontline, intensifies strikes

Moscow has shown no sign of softening its demands. Russian forces continue to make incremental advances in eastern Ukraine and claimed Monday to have captured the settlement of Klynove in the Donetsk region—part of an offensive aimed at seizing Pokrovsk, which would be Russia’s biggest territorial gain in nearly two years. Reuters could not independently verify the battlefield situation.

Overnight, at least four people were killed and 22 injured in a Russian strike on the city of Dnipro, Ukrainian officials said.

Russia has stepped up long-range attacks on Ukrainian cities, frequently targeting energy infrastructure and plunging residents into darkness as winter sets in.

Ukraine has also intensified its own long-range campaign, striking Russia’s oil infrastructure. On Monday, the Kremlin condemned Ukrainian attacks on the Yuzhny oil-exporting terminal and two tankers in the Black Sea.

Ukraine’s diplomatic outreach across Europe is set to continue throughout the week as Kyiv presses allies to help reshape the U.S. plan before any formal response is delivered.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he U.S.’s proposed framework for ending the war in Ukraine has been scaled back from 28 points to 19 following detailed negotiations in Geneva, American and Ukrainian officials said on Monday, describing the talks as constructive but still far from a final agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiators had made “tremendous” progress during discussions with Ukrainian and European counterparts, though he cautioned that “more work remains before we can speak of a fully aligned plan.”

In a joint statement, Washington and Kyiv said the Geneva meetings marked “meaningful progress toward aligning positions,” the strongest indication so far that the two sides are inching toward a common approach.

People familiar with the talks told the Financial Times that nine provisions from the original draft were removed, though they did not specify which sections. European diplomats had previously raised concerns about several points, particularly those involving sanctions and the management of frozen Russian assets, arguing that such decisions fall under EU jurisdiction.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb described the trimmed framework as “a step forward,” while noting that “significant questions remain open,” a sentiment echoed by several European leaders engaged in the process.

Plan raises concerns among allies

The original 28-point peace blueprint, drafted by Washington, has been the subject of intense negotiations in Geneva, where US, Ukrainian, and European representatives have been attempting to resolve differences ahead of a Thursday deadline set by former US President Donald Trump.

Trump, speaking on Saturday, said the proposal “is not my final offer,” in an apparent signal that Washington may revise its position further depending on Kyiv’s response. The plan has drawn criticism from Ukrainian officials and several of Kyiv’s key partners.

According to reports, the draft would require Ukraine to cede additional territory to Russia, scale back its military capabilities, and formally abandon its pursuit of NATO membership — conditions that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said leave him facing a stark dilemma between the “loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.”

On Saturday, the leaders of nine European nations, along with Japan, Canada, and senior EU officials, issued a joint statement voicing alarm over proposed military limitations, warning that such restrictions “would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack.”

The conflict, now in its fourth year, has continued to reshape European security and global diplomacy, with Kyiv insisting that any peace plan must guarantee its long-term sovereignty and territorial integrity. Washington, meanwhile, is seeking a framework it hopes could open the way for broader international negotiations.

Talks in Geneva are expected to resume in the coming days as Kyiv prepares its formal response to the revised 19-point U.S. proposal.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

The Russia-Ukraine war, which has been ongoing for over three years, has become the strongest driving force for military technological innovation. The war’s trajectory has directly influenced defense industry investments, with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), precision-guided artillery systems, and electronic warfare technologies being prominent examples of this transformation.

However, unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) have had a decisive impact on the naval front of the war despite remaining in the shadow of all these systems. This points to a critical military technological development.

In this regard, the recent discovery of a Ukrainian Magura V5 USV drifting towards the Trabzon coast by Turkish fishermen was a noteworthy event, both symbolically and technically.

Ukraine’s unmanned maritime systems and operational objectives

The Magura V5 is a new generation member of Ukraine’s series of unmanned maritime vehicles, located off the coast of Trabzon. Previous versions include the V3 and the most recent V7. The Magura V5 is capable of firing the Russian-made R-73 air-to-air missile, which has been modified for this purpose. In fact, Ukraine announced that it shot down a Russian Mi-8 helicopter over the Black Sea in December 2024 with an R-73 missile launched from a Magura V5 platform. However, no such munitions were found in the V5 that washed ashore in Trabzon. Instead, it was determined that the vehicle was loaded with explosives. This suggests that the USV was on a kamikaze mission.

Ukraine’s shift toward unmanned naval systems began in the first year of the war. For Ukraine, which lacks a conventional navy, such systems gained strategic importance early on because they enable asymmetric naval warfare. In October 2022, for example, Ukraine carried out a coordinated attack against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol using USVs and UAVs. The fleet’s flagship, the Admiral Makarov, and the minesweeper Ivan Golubets were damaged as a result of this operation. Russia described this attack as the largest naval operation against its fleet since the invasion began.

Following this success, Ukraine invested heavily in unmanned surface vehicles (USV) technology. In a short time, a wide variety of naval targets were added to the USVs target list, including frigates, intelligence and mine-hunting vessels, as well as aircraft and helicopters. According to Ukrainian officials, the ships Sergey Kotov, Ivanovets, and Ceasar Kunikov were hit in these attacks, as were two Mi-8 helicopters and two Su-25 fighter jets.

Following these successes, Ukraine established an institutional structure for USVs. The Unmanned Surface Vehicles Brigade, established in August 2023, was the world’s first. This structure, which integrates the navy and intelligence units, has played a critical role in designing new platforms and developing usage concepts.

Finally, the V7 version of the Magura was able to carry FPV drones and fire AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. In May 2025, Ukraine announced that it had shot down two Russian Su-30 aircraft with this system.

Turkey’s USV capabilities and areas of development

The rapid advancement of unmanned maritime technologies is being closely monitored worldwide. Turkey has also gained significant momentum in this field. The country’s first indigenous USV systems, Marlin and Ulaq, reached an important milestone when they participated in NATO exercises.

Other platforms, such as Salvo, Albatros, Sancar, Mir, and Çaka, are also part of Turkey’s growing USV inventory. These systems range from 10 to 15 meters in length and can operate within a range of 300 to 600 kilometers. They are used for surface warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and surveillance.

Recently, Turkish USVs successfully fired domestically produced Çakır, Cirit, L-UMTAS, and Kuzgun missiles. Some models have gained torpedo-firing capabilities, and the Albatros and Çaka systems are reportedly being used in kamikaze roles. Furthermore, Turkish engineers are developing technology to launch UAVs and FPV drones from naval platforms.

Similar to Turkey’s success with unmanned aerial systems, these developments demonstrate its ability to create a broad product family in the USV field. These developments have the potential to generate new export opportunities for the Turkish defense industry.

The future of autonomy at sea

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that unmanned systems are changing the dynamics of combat, including naval warfare. Ukraine broke the naval blockade imposed by the Russian Black Sea Fleet through USV operations, severely restricting the mobility of Russian ships.

This situation shows that asymmetric naval engagements can effectively deter large naval forces. The doctrine of sea denial is expected to become increasingly important in the future.

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence and autonomy are expected to extend this process to the underwater dimension. Ukraine’s Marichka and Toloka underwater maritime systems, which are currently under development, could pose a significant threat to submarines and surface vessels in the future. Similarly, Turkey’s projects, such as the Neta 300  demonstrate its interest in this field.

Alongside these developments, new advances in acoustic detection systems, such as maritime patrol aircraft and sonobuoys, are to be expected. Increasing autonomy at sea will compel major powers that embrace the doctrines of sea control and sea command to develop new defense strategies.

Consequently, it is foreseeable that unmanned surface and underwater systems will play a decisive role in future naval warfare in regions such as the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea, where US-China competition is concentrated.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

U

.S. President Donald Trump told Ukraine to give up on ever joining NATO and to abandon hopes of reclaiming annexed Crimea, setting the stage for a high-stakes meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Washington on Monday as he presses Kyiv toward accepting a peace deal with Russia.

The meeting comes just three days after Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, a summit that produced no agreement but deepened fears in Kyiv and European capitals that Washington is tilting toward Moscow’s terms for ending the war.

“Zelenskiy can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform late Sunday. “No getting back Obama-given Crimea, and no going into NATO by Ukraine.”

The blunt remarks reinforced European concerns that Trump may seek to impose concessions on Ukraine in what has become Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two. Tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

European leaders rush to Washington

Zelenskiy will meet Trump privately in the Oval Office at 1:15 p.m. EDT (1715 GMT), before leaders from Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Finland, NATO and the European Union join both presidents for broader talks in the White House’s East Room.

European officials say their presence is designed to prevent Trump and Putin from dictating the contours of a deal without them. “It’s important for the Europeans to be there: (Trump) respects them, he behaves differently in their presence,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelenskiy’s ruling party.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul described the day as a turning point. “It is probably not an exaggeration to say the whole world is looking to Washington,” he told reporters. British tabloids branded the gathering “D-Day at the White House” and “Europe Takes a Stand.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met Zelenskiy in Brussels on Sunday before he flew to Washington, underscoring EU solidarity.

Kyiv’s red lines

Ukraine has already dismissed the outlines of Putin’s proposals floated in Alaska, which called for Kyiv to relinquish its remaining foothold in the eastern Donetsk region. Ukrainian forces still control roughly a quarter of the province, which serves as a vital defensive zone against Russian advances.

Zelenskiy has instead called for an immediate ceasefire to enable deeper peace negotiations, a position Trump previously backed but appeared to retreat from after meeting Putin. The U.S. president has since suggested talks should proceed even while fighting continues, an approach closer to Moscow’s preference.

Speaking on arrival in Washington, Zelenskiy struck a conciliatory but firm tone. “We all equally want to end this war swiftly and reliably. Russia must end this war — the war it started. And I hope that our shared strength with America and with our European friends will compel Russia to real peace,” he said on Telegram.

Kyiv’s constitution requires a national referendum before any territorial concessions, making it politically and legally difficult for Zelenskiy to formally give up land. Opinion polls in Ukraine consistently show majorities opposing recognition of Russia’s annexations.

War grinds on

Even as the diplomacy unfolds, Russia launched overnight missile and drone attacks on Ukraine’s second-largest city Kharkiv, killing seven people, including two children. “They hit an ordinary apartment block … there are no offices here or anything else, we lived here peacefully in our homes,” said Olena Yakusheva, a resident, as firefighters fought flames and rescuers combed the rubble.

On the front line, Russian troops continue to grind forward, leveraging their advantages in manpower and firepower. Putin has repeatedly vowed to fight until Moscow’s objectives are secured, including control of all Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in eastern Ukraine.

U

krainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated that Kyiv may accept freezing the current front lines and allowing Russia to retain the territory it already holds, marking a significant shift in his negotiating stance ahead of a high-profile peace summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

According to the Telegraph, in recent discussions with European leaders, Zelensky urged them to reject any peace settlement proposed by Trump that would require Ukraine to surrender further land still under its control. However, he acknowledged that Moscow could be allowed to keep the areas it currently occupies in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea—amounting to about 20% of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory.

The move appears aimed at presenting a united front with Europe and preventing Trump from brokering a separate deal with Putin that could sideline Kyiv. “The plan can only be related to the current positions held by the militaries,” said one Western official, describing an intense round of weekend diplomacy between Kyiv and its allies.

Support behind Ukraine

European capitals have thrown their support behind Ukraine’s revised position, framing it as a “red line” to maintain solidarity while leaving the door open to limited territorial concessions. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk emphasized that borders should not be changed by force, stating, “Russia’s war with Ukraine must not bring benefits to the aggressor.” Leaders from France, Germany, Italy, the U.K., and Finland issued a joint declaration that “the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.”

The shift comes amid growing fears in Kyiv and European capitals that Trump and Putin could agree to end the war without Ukraine’s consent. Trump has signaled that he wants to push for “some swapping, some changes to land,” and promised to “try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine” during his meeting with the Russian leader. He described Friday’s summit as a “feel-out meeting” to determine whether a deal is possible, adding, “That’s what I do. I make deals.”

For Ukraine, the calculus is complex. Ceding territory already in Russian hands could bring an end to the fighting but would require constitutional changes or a nationwide referendum. Zelensky has so far resisted any plan that would give up Ukrainian-held land, and analysts say such concessions could be politically explosive.

Split in public opinion

While public opinion in Ukraine remains split, some polls suggest that a growing number of citizens might accept surrendering occupied areas as the price for peace. However, military leaders warn that giving up more of Donetsk or other eastern regions could allow Russian forces to bypass fortifications built since 2014 and threaten deeper incursions.

Zelensky has previously acknowledged that Ukraine lacks the military capacity to retake all occupied areas by force, suggesting that diplomacy might eventually be the only path to restoring territorial integrity. In earlier talks, he had even floated the idea of trading territory in Russia’s Kursk region controlled by Ukraine—a bargaining chip that has since been lost after Russian forces regained control.

Moscow, meanwhile, has shown no sign of softening its demands. According to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, Putin’s objectives remain the full capitulation of Kyiv, the prevention of NATO membership, and the demilitarization of Ukraine. Ukrainian intelligence also warns that Russian troop movements indicate preparations for new offensive operations, not a wind-down of hostilities.

NATO distinction between factual and legal

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has stressed the need to distinguish between the “factual situation” of Russia holding Ukrainian territory and its legal status. “We can never accept that in a legal sense,” he said. “A part of Ukraine has to be on the table, but any discussion going forward will be with Ukrainians deciding on what they want to do.”

Internationally, leaders have been cautious about the direction of the Trump-Putin talks. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a joint statement welcoming peace efforts but warning against any agreement imposed on Ukraine. “Ukraine’s future must be one of freedom, sovereignty, and self-determination,” the statement said, adding that peace must be “built with Ukraine—not imposed upon it.”

The Alaska summit is set against a backdrop of shifting power dynamics in the war’s fourth year, with the front lines largely static but the human and economic toll mounting. Whether Zelensky’s softer stance will pave the way for a breakthrough—or simply embolden Moscow—remains uncertain.

For now, Kyiv’s strategy appears focused on ensuring that any deal is struck with its active participation, backed by Europe’s collective voice, and includes binding security guarantees. But as Trump prepares for his high-stakes meeting with Putin, Ukraine’s fate may hinge on decisions made thousands of miles from the battlefield.

(Source: The Telegraph)

A

merican President Donald Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, August 15, in talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine — but Ukrainian officials and European allies warn the conditions could heavily favor Moscow and leave Kyiv under pressure to concede territory.

Trump announced the summit location as “symbolic,” noting Alaska was sold by Russia to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. The meeting, however, will take place without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky present, fueling concerns in Kyiv that any deal could be negotiated over Ukraine’s head.

“This is about ending the war,” Trump said, adding that his envoy, Steve Witkoff, has been holding preliminary talks with Russian officials. Witkoff has floated proposals for Ukraine to cede remaining parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions still under Ukrainian control in exchange for a ceasefire.

Zelensky firmly rejects concessions

In a video address Saturday, Zelensky said Ukraine is “ready to work together with President Trump,” but dismissed any suggestion of giving up territory. “We will not trade away towns our soldiers have died defending,” he said.

Kyiv fears such proposals would reward Russian advances on the battlefield. Moscow’s forces are close to surrounding two strategic cities — Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka — and analysts say Ukraine might eventually withdraw to save manpower. But losing key population centers such as Kramatorsk and Sloviansk without resistance would hand Putin a symbolic and strategic victory.

Kremlin officials have signaled interest in acquiring territory through negotiation rather than combat. Putin aide Yury Ushakov described Alaska as “a great place to discuss economic cooperation” and suggested holding a follow-up summit in Russia.

Putin’s long-term demands remain clear: full Ukrainian capitulation or control over large swaths of the country, plus a broader reset with Washington that includes cutting U.S. military and intelligence support to Kyiv.

Western warnings of a ‘paper peace’

European governments are uneasy, comparing the situation to the 1938 Munich Agreement, when appeasement failed to stop Nazi Germany’s aggression. They note Russia has repeatedly agreed to ceasefires in Ukraine only to use the pause to rearm and resume offensives.

“Putin has never honored a deal in this war,” one European diplomat told reporters. “Why would this time be any different?”

The United States, Europe, and Ukraine have all called for an immediate ceasefire for months, but Russia insists on lengthy technical negotiations over monitoring and logistics — delays that benefit its current battlefield momentum.

Two major powers — India and China — have recently engaged with the Kremlin. Beijing, facing potential secondary U.S. sanctions, and New Delhi, at risk of 25% tariffs on exports, may have urged Moscow to show willingness for diplomacy, at least publicly. Both countries have deep energy ties to Russia.

Trump’s Shifting Tone on Putin

Trump has said his view of Putin has “evolved,” calling the Russian leader “disappointing” and accusing him of “tapping me along.” Yet critics note the U.S. president has repeatedly let sanctions deadlines pass without enforcement and appears reluctant to take actions that cause serious pain to Moscow.

Republicans and close advisers are expected to remind Trump of previous failed overtures to Russia. Still, many in Kyiv worry the Alaska meeting could produce a U.S.-Russia framework for a ceasefire based on territorial concessions, with further American military aid contingent on Ukraine’s compliance.

With just days until the summit, the situation on the ground is deteriorating for Ukraine. Russian forces are making steady gains in the east, and the prospect of a high-profile U.S.-Russia agreement — without Ukrainian participation — is raising alarms.

“Every day we defend our land,” Zelensky said. “Peace cannot be built by giving it away.”

Whether Alaska will mark a turning point toward peace or the start of a new phase of pressure on Kyiv remains uncertain. For now, the planned handshake between Trump and Putin is being viewed in many Western capitals not as a breakthrough, but as a potential prelude to Ukraine losing territory without a single shot being fired.

(Source: CNN)

The Council of the European Union had decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova in December 2023. On June 25, 2024, the EU held the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference at ministerial level to officially open accession negotiations with both Ukraine and Moldova. In many ways, this accession negotiation process was different from others. A brief look at the EU’s previous enlargements is needed to understand this difference.

A Brief History of EU Enlargement

Enlargement policy is the EU’s most important foreign policy instrument. The reason for this is the transformative power of the EU, the power to transform the countries that will become members of the EU by means of conditionality. By spreading its values through enlargement, the EU is able to ensure its stability, security and prosperity. Moreover, by enlarging with new member states, the EU becomes a much stronger Union economically, politically and geopolitically, and increases its effectiveness in the international system.

Since its first enlargement in 1973, the EU has gone through several rounds of enlargement, bringing the number of member states up to 28. Following Brexit and the UK’s withdrawal from the Union, the EU now has 27 Member States. Each enlargement has been assessed in the context of the needs of the time and has taken place when the conditions have been met. For example, the UK, Ireland and Denmark applied to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961, but were rejected twice, first in 1963 and again in 1967, because of French President Charles De Gaulle’s concerns over Britain’s close ties with the United States that would be detrimental to the Union. The first wave of enlargement, which included the UK, did not take place until after De Gaulle’s resignation.

The second wave of enlargement was also dealt with assessing in the context of the needs of the time. The EEC had suspended the Association Agreement with Greece after the Greek junta seized power in 1967 and installed the regime of the colonels. After the military junta had handed over power to civilians and a democratic government had been restored, Greece applied for membership again. After six years of negotiations, the Member States, instead of excluding Greece, arguing that its democratization could be achieved more effectively within the EEC, acted with the idea that we would admit Greece as a member in 1981 and democratize it.

Under the regime of General Francisco Franco, Spain’s application to join the EEC in 1962 was rejected. Following political reforms and democratic elections, Spain submitted its formal application in 1977, which led to the EEC’s decision to open accession negotiations in 1978. Similarly, after the resignation of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar in 1968 and the replacement of the regime established by the military coup of 1974 with a democratic regime following the 1975 elections, Portugal formally applied to the EEC in 1977 and began negotiations in 1978. The 1981 enlargement to include Greece and the 1986 southern enlargement to include Spain and Portugal changed the EU from a “club of democracies” into a “school of democracy”.

In addition to political issues, obstacles to Iberian enlargement included the fact that these two countries produced similar agricultural products to France. In addition, the fact that Spain and Portugal, which had been ruled by dictatorships for many years, were economically lagging the other members caused concern among other EEC member states because of the possible influx of workers from these two countries.

Although Bulgaria and Romania failed to meet the EU’s criteria on corruption and an impartial judiciary, they were granted membership in 2007, albeit belatedly. Rather than leaving Bulgaria and Romania outside the EU, as was the case with Greece, they were helped to continue their transformation and development within the EU.

The most recent enlargement of the EU was the accession of Croatia. Croatia, which gained independence after the break-up of Yugoslavia, was able to join the EU after resolving its border issue with Slovenia. The growing strategic importance of the Balkans for the EU paved the way for Croatia’s accession process and the prospect of future Balkan enlargement.

For Turkey, which started accession negotiations to the EU at the same year with Croatia in 2005, the EU negotiation process was de facto frozen. When Balkan enlargement on the agenda and accession negotiations officially opened with Ukraine and Moldova, the question arises as to what will happen to the accession negotiations with Turkey. Although Turkey has recently expressed its willingness to take steps to revive its EU membership process it has not been included in these new enlargement perspectives of the EU.

Ukraine and Moldova’s EU Accession Process

We are witnessing that the EU, long suffering from enlargement fatigue, has begun taking important steps in the enlargement process. In a changing world and in the new European security environment, the EU has put aside its longstanding anti-enlargement approach. The war in Ukraine and its aftermath, as well as the changing conjuncture, have given a new impetus to EU enlargement, with both Ukraine and Moldova and the Western Balkans on the EU agenda.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled this change in her State of the Union speech on 13 September. In her speech, von der Leyen said that a new group of states, including the Western Balkans, would be admitted as new member states of the EU. The date for this enlargement scheduled to 2030. On 7 May 2024, the EU member states took a decision to support the Western Balkan countries with 6 billion euros, 4 billion euros in loans and 2 billion euros in grants to make them economically ready to join the Union. The fulfillment of this support based on two conditions: achieving political reforms and foreign and security policy alignment with the EU against Russia.

Ukraine and Moldova, previously part of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and the Eastern Partnership (EaP), began to be considered in new enlargement policy. The relationship between Ukraine and the EU evolved into a different process with the Association Agreement, negotiated between 2007 and 2011 and signed in 2014, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA).

The pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych’s reluctance to sign the DCFTA led to pro-EU protests in November 2013, the so-called Euromaidan uprisings, and Yanukovych’s removal from power, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which is called as “special military operation” by Russian government, became the factor that accelerated Ukraine’s accession process. On 28 February 2024, 4 days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine applied for EU membership and on 23 June Ukraine was granted candidate status by the EU.

Although relations between Moldova and the EU began in 1994, when Moldova signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, the main obstacle to Moldova’s membership in the EaP under the ENP was the fact that the country’s economy did not meet EU standards and, most importantly, the situation in the Russian-backed Transnistria region.

Moldova, like Ukraine, applied for EU membership on 3 March following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Together with Ukraine, it was granted candidate status on 23 June 2022. Ukraine is currently at war with Russia, while Moldova is concerned about a possible war situation due to Russia’s support for the Transnistria region.

The start of negotiations with Ukraine on 25 June was only possible after convincing Hungary, which was opposed both because of the war in Ukraine and because of the treatment of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine. Negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova were officially launched before Hungary took over the rotating EU presidency on 1 July, thus avoiding a potential stumbling block. But there are many other features of this wave of enlargement that make it different from the others.

I

n conflict zones around the world, water has become a weapon, leading to dire consequences for civilian populations. From Yemen to Ukraine to Libya, the deliberate targeting or indirect impact on water infrastructure has exacerbated humanitarian crises, highlighting the urgent need for innovative solutions to minimize civilian harm.

In Yemen, a country plagued by civil war since 2014, both state and non-state actors have targeted water infrastructure as part of their military strategy. The Houthis, backed by government forces, have engaged in a tug-of-war over control of water resources, leading to blockades and attacks on water supplies.

The resulting water shortages have contributed to food insecurity and disease outbreaks, disproportionately affecting women and children. Humanitarian organizations struggle to provide assistance amid ongoing conflict and logistical challenges, leaving millions in desperate need of aid.

Destruction of water infrastructure in Ukraine

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought devastation to the country’s water infrastructure. The deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, including the Nova Kakhovka Dam, has led to displacement and water shortages for millions of people.

The interconnected nature of water and energy systems means that attacks on one system can have ripple effects on the other, further exacerbating the crisis. Despite international condemnation, Russia continues to target critical infrastructure, leaving civilians without access to clean water and sanitation.

Libya, torn apart by a decade of conflict, has also seen its water infrastructure targeted and destroyed. The collapse of dams and water systems in cities like Derna has led to catastrophic flooding and displacement. Different factions vie for control over water resources, leading to looting, sabotage, and threats that impact water availability for civilians. The Great Man-Made River Project, a vital water supply network, has become a battleground, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

Devastating consequences for civilian populations

The weaponization of water has had devastating consequences for civilian populations in conflict zones. In addition to water shortages, communities face food insecurity, disease outbreaks, and displacement. Women and children are particularly vulnerable, with girls facing increased risks of violence and barriers to education. Humanitarian organizations struggle to provide assistance amid ongoing conflict and logistical challenges, leaving millions in desperate need of aid.

Addressing the weaponization of water requires innovative solutions and international cooperation. Investing in resilient water infrastructure, addressing climate change’s impact on water resources, and promoting conflict-sensitive development are essential steps. Additionally, enforcing existing international law and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions can help deter future attacks on water infrastructure. However, these efforts must be supported by sustained political will and financial resources to make a meaningful impact.

The weaponization of water in conflict zones represents a global crisis that demands urgent attention and action. From Yemen to Ukraine to Libya, civilians are bearing the brunt of this devastating tactic, facing water shortages, food insecurity, and disease outbreaks. Addressing the root causes of the crisis and investing in resilient water infrastructure are critical steps towards mitigating its impact and ensuring the well-being of affected populations.

Source: Wilson Center

A

s Russia gains momentum in its assault on Ukraine, the trajectory of the conflict in the coming months becomes increasingly critical. Despite stalled Western aid, Moscow’s recent territorial gains and strategic advances underscore the urgency for Ukraine and its allies. A worst-case scenario could see parts of Kyiv’s front line at risk of collapse, prompting a reassessment of the conflict’s direction.

Russia’s recent success in capturing the city of Avdiivka, coupled with subsequent territorial gains, challenges previous assessments suggesting a potential stalemate in 2024. Moscow’s willingness to incur high casualty figures and increase artillery output has shifted the momentum of the land campaign, highlighting the resolve behind Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The battle for Avdiivka serves as a blueprint for Russia’s 2024 ground campaign, with Moscow aiming to consolidate control over Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Synchronized attacks in northeast Ukraine further support Russia’s strategic objectives. Despite heavy casualties, Russia is likely to delay major offensives until after President Vladimir Putin’s anticipated reelection in mid-March, followed by a series of assaults aimed at expanding territorial control.

Russian military capacity

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) assesses that Russia can sustain its campaign for an extended period, supported by adequate troop recruitment and replenishment capabilities. With military spending comprising a significant portion of its national budget, Russia demonstrates a commitment to maintaining its military advantage. Additionally, external sources such as Iran and North Korea provide additional firepower, bolstering Russia’s offensive capabilities.

Ukraine has transitioned to a strategic defensive posture, prioritizing troop preservation amid challenging circumstances. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s emphasis on preserving soldiers’ lives underscores Ukraine’s defensive strategy. With limited Western aid and advanced weaponry, Ukraine faces difficult decisions regarding its military posture. The absence of requested equipment, including electronic warfare capabilities and combat aircraft, exacerbates the dilemma.

The coming months represent a critical juncture in the conflict, with Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russian advances contingent on Western support. Failure to restore aid to previous levels could result in tactical defeats for Ukraine, potentially leading to front-line collapses. Despite efforts by the US and Europe to provide assistance, political hurdles and logistical challenges hinder timely support.

Russia will maintain its dominance on the battlefield

Unless the West reinstates aid to Kyiv to previous levels, including adequate artillery to restore Ukraine’s military advantage to its peak during last year’s counter-offensive, Russia will maintain its dominance on the battlefield. In the worst-case scenario, this could result in a series of tactical defeats for Ukraine, potentially leading to the collapse of segments of its front line.

Currently, efforts by President Joe Biden’s administration to deliver another substantial military aid package to Ukraine are stalled due to opposition from House Republicans. Additionally, Europe has not shown the necessary industrial capacity or political resolve to promptly address Ukraine’s urgent military requirements, despite ongoing military assistance initiatives. Although the United Kingdom has committed to providing ‘thousands’ of new, long-range attack UAVs, the timeline for their delivery remains uncertain.

As the conflict evolves in 2024, the balance of power between Russia and Ukraine hinges on external support and technological advancements. While Russia maintains its battlefield initiative, Ukraine’s potential for asymmetric advantages through Western technology remains uncertain. The war’s trajectory will depend on the timely delivery of aid and the effectiveness of Ukraine’s defensive strategies in the face of Russian aggression.

Source: IISS

I

n a move to address rising tensions, Russia has formally requested a United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to deploy NATO troops to Ukraine. Moscow expressed the need for further clarification on ideas that could potentially lead to the onset of a Third World War.

Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, emphasized the importance of understanding Macron’s offer during the meeting in New York. On February 27, Macron had confirmed his willingness to send troops to Ukraine, contingent on NATO consensus. He added that the decision to deploy ground forces had not been officially agreed upon but remained a possibility if Russia advanced towards Kyiv or Odesa.

Polyansky highlighted the necessity of addressing leaked conversations among German Air Force officers discussing the supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Additionally, media reports suggesting the deployment of a network of spy bases by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) near the Russian border raised concerns.

Leaked discussions

“In connection with a conversation leaked to the media by high-ranking German military officials who talked about how to help Ukrainians destroy the Kerch Bridge in Crimea and strike deep into Russian territory, it would be interesting to hear a comment,” Polyansky stated.

Leaked discussions involving German Air Force officers regarding the potential supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine led to criticism of the German government. The New York Times reported on February 27 that the CIA had trained and equipped Ukrainian intelligence officers over the past eight years in underground bunkers, including some near Ukraine’s forests.

Addressing the recent incident in Odesa, Polyansky clarified that the target was a workshop for assembling naval drones using parts delivered from the UK. He dismissed any suggestion of plans to remove Ukrainian President Zelenskyy through such actions.

A strike on Odesa

The Greek media reported an explosion in Odesa on Wednesday, just before a scheduled meeting between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Greek Prime Minister Kiriakos Mitsotakis. The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed a strike on Odesa, targeting a water drone warehouse.

As tensions escalate, the UN Security Council meeting is expected to provide a forum for discussions on the evolving situation in Ukraine and the potential ramifications of Macron’s troop deployment proposal. The international community will closely monitor diplomatic efforts to navigate through these delicate geopolitical challenges.

Source: Anadolu Agency

B

razil’s Foreign Minister, Mauro Vieira, used the inauguration of the country’s G20 presidency to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the United Nations (UN) and other multilateral institutions. Expressing frustration over the UN Security Council’s perceived inability to prevent or resolve global conflicts, Vieira urged for reforms to address the current challenges facing the international community.

The G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended by foreign ministers from the world’s leading nations, aims to set a roadmap for addressing issues such as poverty, climate change, and escalating global tensions.

Vieira specifically highlighted the Security Council’s limitations in dealing with conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, emphasizing the need for a more effective and responsive multilateral system. His remarks underscored Brazil’s commitment to championing reforms in global governance institutions, including the UN, the World Trade Organization, and multilateral banks. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has proposed stronger representation for developing nations and a reevaluation of the UN Security Council’s structure.

Expanding the UN Security Council

One of the key proposals put forth by Brazil involves expanding the UN Security Council, allowing for the inclusion of more countries from Africa, Latin America, India, Germany, and Japan. President Lula has emphasized the urgency of reforming the Security Council by advocating for the removal of the right of veto, which he deems outdated and obstructive.

However, the success of these proposals remains uncertain, as permanent Security Council members have historically resisted reforms that could diminish their influence.

Foreign Minister Vieira expressed deep concern over the proliferation of conflicts globally, citing over 170 locations experiencing hostilities. He argued that a significant portion of the $2 trillion spent annually on global military budgets should be redirected toward development aid programs.

Addressing existential threats such as inequalities and climate change, Vieira called for concrete actions, stating, “These are the wars we must fight in 2024.”

Blinken meets Lula

While these calls for reform align with Brazil’s vision for a more inclusive and responsive international order, the challenge lies in garnering widespread support and overcoming the resistance of powerful nations reluctant to relinquish established privileges. The G20 foreign ministers’ meeting sets the stage for ongoing discussions, with a focus on shaping a collective approach to global challenges.

In a related development, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with President Lula to discuss global governance and other issues. The discussions also touched on the conflict in Gaza, with both leaders expressing urgency in facilitating the release of hostages and increasing humanitarian assistance. The diplomatic row between Israel and Brazil, triggered by Lula’s controversial comments comparing Israel’s actions to the Holocaust, remains unresolved, adding a layer of complexity to the diplomatic engagements during Blinken’s visit.

Source: The Associated Press

T

Key global leaders are converging in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC), where discussions will be dominated by the ongoing conflicts in Israel and Ukraine, along with growing apprehensions about the U.S. commitment to its allies.

Notable attendees include German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

The conference, running from Friday to Sunday, will also see the participation of Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Challenges in Israel and Ukraine

The war between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, now in its fifth month with no clear resolution, is a focal point of concern. Simultaneously, as Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine approaches its third year, worries persist about potential regional spillover.

Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO, expressed his concern about the heightened global dangers, emphasizing the evolving nature of major crimes.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron highlighted discussions on the future of Israel and the Palestinian people following a potential ceasefire. The recent industrial cybercrime targeting Türkiye and the potential for spillover effects will be addressed.

Ukraine’s plea for support

President Zelenskiy is expected to appeal for increased support for Ukraine, particularly as the U.S. House of Representatives delays a multi-billion dollar military aid package.

As the prospect of Donald Trump’s re-election looms, concerns about the U.S. commitment to defending its allies have intensified. European leaders are discussing the need for more strategic autonomy in the face of potential policy shifts.

Vice President Harris is scheduled to deliver a significant speech on “the importance of fulfilling the U.S. role of global leadership.” This comes amid recent comments about President Biden’s health.

Apart from the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine, the conference will address other pressing international matters, including conflicts in the Horn of Africa, increasing food insecurity, and relations between the West and China.

The MSC provides a crucial platform for world leaders to engage in discussions and collaborations as they navigate a complex geopolitical landscape. The outcomes of these deliberations may shape future global strategies and alliances.

Source: Reuters

I

n a significant turn of events, the United States finds itself unable to provide further ammunition and missiles to Ukraine, marking the first time since the establishment of the international support group by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in April 2022. The monthly gathering, which typically involves around 50 countries, is set to take place on January 23, with the U.S. grappling with a lack of funds to aid Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia.

As Congress deliberates on the budget and potential allocations for Ukraine, the U.S. will look to its allies to bridge the financial gap. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh emphasized that although the U.S. is currently unable to contribute security assistance, its partners remain committed to supporting Ukraine’s needs. The upcoming meeting will primarily focus on addressing longer-term requirements in light of the funding challenges.

The Pentagon’s last security assistance for Ukraine, announced on December 27, amounted to $250 million, encompassing 155 mm rounds, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and other high-demand items drawn from existing U.S. stockpiles. However, the U.S. has been unable to replenish these stockpiles due to the depletion of funds, awaiting approval from Congress for additional allocations.

Aid to Ukraine and Israel

More than $110 billion in aid for both Ukraine and Israel faces a standstill due to disagreements between Congress and the White House on various policy priorities, including additional security measures for the U.S.-Mexico border. Meanwhile, Russia has exhibited no willingness to cease its conflict in Ukraine, and the United Nations ruled out any peace plan endorsed by Kyiv and the West.

Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has provided over $44.2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine. Of this, approximately $23.6 billion was sourced from existing military stockpiles, while nearly $19 billion was sent through longer-term military contracts, with the procurement of items taking several months. Although funds have run out, some previously purchased weapons will continue to be delivered. The U.S. State Department has additionally provided $1.7 billion in foreign military financing.

Approximately 30 international partners, along with the U.S., continue to train Ukrainian forces. To date, they have trained a total of 118,000 Ukrainians worldwide. Colonel Marty O’Donnell, spokesman for U.S. Army Europe and Africa, noted that the U.S. has trained around 18,000 of these fighters, including approximately 16,300 soldiers in Germany, with an additional 1,500 currently undergoing training.

T

he Israeli violence in Gaza is affecting arms aid to Ukraine, according to Ukraine’s Ambassador to Turkey, Vasyl Bodnar. The international focus on Gaza has led to a perception that the war in Ukraine has ended, Bodnar stated during a meeting with Turkish journalists at the Ukrainian Embassy in Ankara.

Bodnar disclosed that weapons planned to be sent to Ukraine were redirected to Israel due to the internal political dynamics in Western countries. He identified factors such as the upcoming U.S. presidential election, the attitudes of governments like Hungary and Slovakia, and blockades on Ukrainian trucks at the Polish border imposed by farmers as contributors to the impact on aid.

The ambassador emphasized the need to recognize that the conflict in Ukraine continues and should not be overshadowed by other geopolitical events. He expressed concern about the potential misconception that the war has concluded, calling for sustained international attention and support for Ukraine.

14 million tons of food

In addition to discussing the ongoing conflict, Bodnar provided insights into various aspects of Ukraine’s diplomatic relations and regional initiatives. He addressed the impact of the Black Sea grain deal, defense cooperation with Turkey, and the prospects of the Black Sea grain initiative being revived under appropriate conditions.

Bodnar highlighted the importance of Turkey in the operation of a new shipping corridor created after the Black Sea grain deal’s expiration. He noted that over 500 ships had passed through the corridor since September, transporting more than 14 million tons of food.

Regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Bodnar asserted that Russia’s aim is to return to a period reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where it committed what he termed as “war crimes” without facing consequences. He stated that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was driven by the desire to restore the Slavic population balance, which had been decreasing.

Expanding weapons production capacity

Bodnar made it clear that Ukraine would not engage in any discussions with Russia unless its army is removed from Ukrainian territory. He stressed the potential societal consequences of making peace with Russia, referencing the events of Maidan in 2014.

The ambassador also touched upon Ukraine’s efforts to expand its weapons production capacity, emphasizing the importance of self-sufficiency. He urged other countries to learn from Ukraine’s experience and stressed the ongoing cooperation with Turkey, expressing expectations for the bilateral foreign trade volume to reach $8 billion annually.

Bodnar commended Turkey for its role in mediating between Ukraine and Russia, particularly in the release of Azov Battalion commanders. He acknowledged the ongoing negotiations at the leadership level for a new agreement on prisoner exchange and emphasized the challenges faced by Ukraine in this regard.

The developments discussed by Ambassador Bodnar underscore the complex geopolitical landscape and the interconnectedness of global events, with repercussions extending to various regions.

Source: Anadolu Agency

I

n the aftermath of President Vladimir Putin’s deployment of troops into Ukraine in 2022, the United States and its allies imposed sanctions prohibiting transactions with Russia’s central bank and finance ministry. This move resulted in the freezing of approximately $300 billion of sovereign Russian assets in the West. Here’s an exploration of what these assets are, their locations, and potential implications for Russia:

Central Bank Reserves: Russia’s central bank, akin to others globally, invested a significant portion of its gold and foreign exchange reserves in liquid assets, including major currencies, gold, and government bonds. Around half of these reserves were situated in the West, and it’s this portion that has been frozen. The frozen assets amount to about $300 billion, representing a substantial part of Russia’s total foreign currency and gold reserves, which stood at $612 billion.

Nature of the Frozen Assets: While the Russian central bank hasn’t provided a detailed breakdown, an overview from documents detailing Russian holdings in early 2022 sheds light on the composition. At that time, the central bank held assets in euros ($207 billion), U.S. dollars ($67 billion), British pounds ($37 billion), Japanese yen ($36 billion), Canadian dollars ($19 billion), Australian dollars ($6 billion), Singapore dollars ($1.8 billion), and Swiss francs ($1 billion).

These assets were primarily invested in foreign securities, bank deposits, and nostro correspondent accounts. Notably, the central bank’s largest bond holdings were in the sovereign bonds of China, Germany, France, Britain, Austria, and Canada.

Assets Holding Mechanism: Unlike some countries that use complex chains of nominal holders, Russia’s central bank did not employ such strategies, making the identification of assets less challenging. Most of the frozen assets, including those of private Russian citizens, were held at depositaries.

Potential Confiscation and Responses: Russian officials have vehemently opposed the notion of state confiscation of assets, emphasizing its contradiction to principles of free markets. Some have warned of reciprocal actions, suggesting that foreign investors’ assets in special “type C” accounts in Russia could face a similar fate if Russian assets are confiscated. The exact amount in these accounts is unclear, but officials have indicated its comparability to the $300 billion of frozen Russian reserves. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov highlighted significant funds in these accounts.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia would challenge any confiscation in the courts, adopting a defensive stance against potential actions by Western nations.

As tensions persist and diplomatic maneuvers unfold, the fate of Russia’s frozen reserves remains a focal point, with potential consequences for global financial dynamics​​.

Source: Reuters

R

ussia has issued a stern warning to Japan, expressing concerns over its decision to export Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missiles to the United States. Moscow argues that this move has negative implications for global security and could strain relations between Russia and Japan, especially if the munitions find their way to Ukraine.

During a regular press briefing in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized Japan’s decision, stating that it signifies a departure from the pacifist principles embedded in the country’s post-war constitution. Zakharova emphasized that Japan’s accelerated remilitarization and the transfer of weapons to the US could have tangible and adverse consequences for both global and regional security.

Zakharova highlighted the potential risk of the Japanese-made Patriot missiles being redirected to Ukraine, characterizing such actions as unequivocally hostile toward Russia. She expressed concern that Japan is losing control over its weapons, now subject to U.S. decisions on their deployment.

The first time since World War II

Japan’s recent approval to export PAC-3 missiles follows the country’s significant shift in military export policy, marking the first time since World War II that Japan has exported weapons. The decision came after Japan ended a ban on military exports imposed in 1947, allowing Tokyo to export weapons produced in Japan under foreign licenses.

While Japan maintains that the Patriot missiles are not expected to be directly sent to Ukraine, there are concerns that the move may indirectly facilitate the delivery of U.S.-made Patriots to Kiev, with the Japanese missiles replacing them in the U.S. stocks.

In response to Russia’s warning, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida asserted that there is no change to Japan’s principle as a pacifist nation. However, the move is seen as part of Japan’s broader military buildup initiated by Kishida last year, aiming to make Japan the world’s third-largest defense spender, after the U.S. and China. The Japanese government also recently approved a record 16% hike in military spending.

Kuril Islands

The deteriorating relations between Russia and Japan have been exacerbated by Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, with Japan joining Western allies in imposing economic sanctions on Russia. The two nations have yet to formally conclude a treaty ending World War II hostilities due to a longstanding territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands.

In a significant geopolitical move, the Ukrainian Parliament has formally recognized two disputed islands in the Kuril Islands chain, Habomai and Shikotan, as Japanese territory. The decision, made on Friday, came after a heated debate in the Ukrainian parliament, which is currently grappling with Russia’s aggressive attempts to annex Ukrainian territories.

The international community is closely watching the developments, recognizing the potential geopolitical ramifications of Japan’s strategic shift and its impact on the delicate balance in the region.

Sources: Anadolu Agency, Russia Today and Reuters.

I

n a significant move that underscores its ongoing military commitments, Russia is set to increase its military spending to an estimated $140 billion in 2024, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This marks a substantial 29% year-on-year increase, amounting to 12.8 trillion rubles, and will account for 35% of Russia’s total government expenditure.

The SIPRI report, released on Wednesday, notes that the projected military spending for 2024 will constitute 7.1% of Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This increase was formalized in the new federal budget plan, which runs through 2026 and was signed into law by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the end of November.

The significant allocation towards military and war-related expenses indicates the Russian government’s firm commitment to continuing its military operations, which have now extended over 650 days. The report interprets this budgetary decision as a clear indication of Russia’s intent to pursue a successful conclusion to the ongoing war.

Budgetary priorities within Russia

Amidst these developments, the report also highlights a shift in budgetary priorities within Russia. Allocations for the “National economy” chapter have decreased from 14% of total spending in the current year to 11% in 2024. Furthermore, there is a notable reduction in funding for key social sectors, including housing (from 2.8% to 2.2%), education (from 4.8% to 4.2%), and healthcare (from 5.2% to 4.4%).

SIPRI Director Dan Smith commented on the strategic implications of these financial moves, noting that the planned reduction in military spending for 2025–26, following the sharp increase in 2024, could be indicative of President Putin’s strategy to expedite the end of the war. This is particularly significant in light of the Russian presidential election scheduled for 2024.

The increase in military spending by Russia, especially in the context of global economic challenges and reduced funding for essential domestic sectors, raises questions about the potential impacts on the country’s long-term economic health and social welfare. It also signals Russia’s ongoing focus on its military capabilities amidst a period of extended geopolitical tensions and internal challenges.

Key Highlights from the SIPRI Report:

1. Optimistic Revenue Increase: Russia’s new budget plans anticipate a 22% nominal increase in government revenues for 2024. This optimistic projection is largely based on expected rises in revenues from oil and gas, alongside other economic activities.
2. Vulnerability to External Factors: The revenue forecast, however, appears susceptible to various external risks, including tightening international sanctions, a possible downturn in the global economy, or a weaker domestic economic performance.
3. Strategic Military Spending: The report notes a planned sharp increase in military spending for 2024, followed by reductions in 2025–26. According to SIPRI Director Dan Smith, this could signal President Putin’s intent to conclude the ongoing war within the next year. However, Smith also points out the uncertainty of significant military breakthroughs in Ukraine for either side.
4. Economic Calculations: The report suggests that while President Putin may be banking on the West’s support for Ukraine weakening, the West is conversely betting on the war draining Russia’s financial resources. Both assumptions carry elements of unpredictability and risk.
5. Declining Transparency: A notable finding of the report is the declining transparency within the Russian federal budget and in the reporting of actual spending during the year.
6. War-Related Expenditures Beyond Military: The report emphasizes that war-related spending extends beyond military expenses. It includes costs for integrating occupied territories in Ukraine and rebuilding war-damaged structures within Russia.
7. Relief for Arms Producers: Part of the increased military spending could be aimed at alleviating debts accumulated by Russian arms producers.

Source: SIPRI

I

n the shadow of the ongoing and brutal conflict that has gripped Eastern Europe, a Ukrainian civic group has released a grim tally based on open-source data: nearly 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers have perished since the onset of Russia’s incursion in February 2022, with total casualties potentially surpassing 30,000.

The casualty figures, which Kyiv considers a state secret, were disclosed amid concerns that their publication could jeopardize the country’s war efforts. These numbers starkly contrast with an August report by the New York Times, which cited anonymous U.S. officials and suggested a much higher Ukrainian death toll, nearing 70,000.

Historian Yaroslav Tynchenko and volunteer Herman Shapovalenko, through their work on the Book of Memory project, have documented 24,500 combat and non-combat deaths. This initiative, which has been tracking Ukraine’s war dead since Russia’s initial invasion in 2014, suggests that the true casualty count is likely more severe, as many of the 15,000 troops marked as missing are presumed to have died.

Reuters, while reporting on the matter, indicated it could not independently verify these figures. Nevertheless, the numbers echo a somber reality of a nation in the throes of war, with casualty estimates from various sources painting a harrowing picture of the human cost.

24,500 names are not the final number of dead

“Obviously, the 24,500 names are not the final number of dead (deceased), but by our assessment, it is no less than 70%,” the authors of the Tyzhden article stated, implying that the death toll in combat and non-combat situations is above 30,000.

Further applying a 1:3 ratio, Tynchenko and Shapovalenko also estimated that up to 100,000 troops have sustained injuries in the conflict—a staggering figure that speaks volumes about the scale and intensity of the fighting.

In response to inquiries, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s defense ministry refrained from commenting on the casualty figures. Similarly, Tynchenko, declined to offer additional remarks on the published article.

The report emerges as Ukraine braces for a protracted engagement with Russian forces. The nation’s top general, in a piece for the Economist, alluded to the conflict’s transition into a static and attritional phase. A Ukrainian counteroffensive, launched in June, has yielded only marginal territorial gains in the south and east.

Counterbalancing Western media estimates

The authors of the Tyzhden article emphasized the importance of counterbalancing Western media estimates, which they suggest are susceptible to manipulation, with data that can be verified. “Should we talk about this topic in Ukraine during the war? We believe so, but only in terms of concrete data and open and trustworthy sources,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, Russia maintains silence over its military casualties, offering no official count to the international community.

The report’s release coincides with a period of heightened tension and strategic deadlock, as Ukraine fortifies itself for a drawn-out struggle. The conflict, which has seen a flurry of Western support for Ukraine, including sanctions and military aid, has also stirred debate over the nature of warfare in the modern era.

Devastating impact on military personnel and civilians alike

The war has brought to the forefront the devastating impact on military personnel and civilians alike. With infrastructure damaged and cities under siege, the societal toll is mounting. Displacement, trauma, and the loss of life have become everyday realities for millions of Ukrainians caught in the crossfire.

Internationally, the conflict has triggered a reevaluation of security policies, with NATO countries reaffirming commitments to defense and deterrence. The war’s ripple effects are felt across global economies, energy markets, and diplomatic relations, reaffirming the interconnectedness of modern geopolitical dynamics.

The situation in Ukraine remains dynamic, with military analysts closely monitoring the shifts in strategy and tactics from both Ukrainian and Russian forces. As the world watches, the human cost reflected in these casualty figures serves as a somber reminder of the war’s harsh realities and the urgent need for a peaceful resolution.

In Ukraine, the war’s outcome remains uncertain, but the resolve of its people, emboldened by support from the international community, has not wavered. As battles rage on, the spirit of resilience continues to define a nation under siege, determined to secure its sovereignty and future.

Sources: Reuters and US News

A

mid the recent Israeli onslaught on Gaza, Russia’s positioning has introduced new complexities to its relations with Israel, according to experts. James Nixey, Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Chatham House, and Nikolay Kozhanov, a Research Associate Professor, have pointed out that the Gaza War has served to align Russia against Israel, primarily by diverting U.S. attention and resources away from Ukraine.

This shift in focus is seen as beneficial to Russian interests, potentially weakening U.S. support for Ukraine and allowing Russia’s activities, such as withdrawing from the nuclear test ban treaty and the sabotage of the Baltic-connector pipeline, to fly under the radar.

The conflict has also ended Moscow’s longstanding policy of balancing relations between Israel and its neighboring states. As Russia’s engagement in Ukraine drives it closer to Iran, Israel increasingly views Russia as an ally of Hamas rather than a neutral mediator. This perspective is bolstered by Russia’s welcome of a Hamas delegation in October and its failure to condemn the initial Hamas attack.

Russia is gaining favor

Russia’s approach to the Gaza genocide has been reflected in its broader narrative against U.S. expansionism, with Moscow expressing sympathy for both Israel and Palestine in ways that Western countries often cannot. However, Russia’s indirect accusations against Kyiv selling weapons to Hamas and its attempts to position itself as a mediator have been met with skepticism from both Israelis and Palestinians.

The developments suggest that Russia is gaining favor in the Arab part of the Middle East and the Global South, aiding its economic resilience against Western sanctions and creating a stance more aligned with Hamas. This alignment also complements China’s position, which is perceived as pro-Palestinian and a counterbalance to the West’s support for Israel.

For Ukraine, the conflict presents a complex challenge, as it competes with Israel for Western support and resources. The war has forced Ukraine to navigate a delicate balance, striving to maintain the moral high ground and the support of its Western allies amid shifting geopolitical allegiances.

Russia’s pivot in the Middle East raises Israel’s concerns

The ongoing war in Gaza has realigned Russia’s position in the Middle East, increasingly setting it against Israel, suggest James Nixey and Nikolay Kozhanov, experts on Russian affairs. This realignment serves Russia’s geopolitical interests by potentially diminishing U.S. support for Ukraine and obscuring Russia’s aggressive actions in Europe.

The conflict has also strained Russia’s ability to maintain a balanced approach to Middle East diplomacy, particularly in its relations with Israel.

The Hamas-Israel war has also provided an opportunity for Russia to enhance its narrative as a counterforce to U.S. influence, a stance that may gain traction in the Global South.

The situation presents a strategic conundrum for Ukraine as it grapples with its own conflict with Russia while needing to maintain Western support, which may now be more divided due to the Gaza War.

The dynamics of the conflict have put additional pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to carefully navigate the complex geopolitical landscape shaped by the war’s impact on global alliances and regional security.

Source: The Chatham House

I

n a statement, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has declared that the European Union must not initiate membership discussions with Ukraine, marking a clear stance from Hungary on the burgeoning issue. This announcement comes ahead of the EU leaders’ meeting slated for mid-December, 2023, where they are expected to consider the European Commission’s recommendation for Ukraine to commence membership talks contingent upon meeting the requisite conditions.

Orban, holding power since 2010, emphasized that the ongoing financial dispute with Brussels—stemming from billions of euros in EU funds suspended over Hungary’s rule-of-law infractions—should not be conflated with Hungary’s position on Ukraine’s prospective EU accession talks. The Prime Minister vehemently stated that this matter is not a transactional issue and insisted that Hungary is entitled to the funds in question.

Amidst economic challenges, including stagnation and the highest inflation rates in Europe, peaking above 25% in the first quarter, Hungary’s financial dealings with the EU are under intense scrutiny. Orban’s government has had a history of conflicts with the European Union and its executive arm, particularly over tightening state control over various institutions and a controversial law impacting the LGBT community.

Status of Ukraine’s territory

Addressing the broader questions about Ukraine’s candidacy, Orban pointed to the complexities of considering EU membership for a country currently engaged in conflict, raising practical concerns over the indeterminate status of Ukraine’s territory and population due to the ongoing war.

As discussions continue, Orban has been vocal about the EU’s strategy towards the war in Ukraine, labeling it a failure and advocating for a secondary plan, given his belief that Ukraine will not triumph in the frontline battle against Russia. His remarks come at a critical time as the European Commission is pushing for unanimous member state support to bolster the long-term EU budget, particularly to maintain financial assistance to Ukraine.

Orban’s resistance to increased aid for Ukraine stands in stark contrast to other EU states’ positions, potentially positioning him as an opponent to further support for Kyiv. Other EU leaders have criticized Orban’s stance, urging that the EU should not be held “hostage” over financial support for Ukraine.

Disapproval of Orban’s approach

Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, among others, has expressed disapproval of Orban’s approach, especially in light of his recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Orban, however, defends his dialogue with Moscow, asserting the importance of open communication channels.

As the EU summit in December approaches, member states are gearing up for decisive talks on the budget revision, with divergent views on how to effectively support Ukraine and enhance EU defense capabilities. A conclusive decision is anticipated at the summit, setting the stage for the EU’s fiscal and foreign policy trajectory in the coming year.

Sources: Reuters, Radio Free Europe, and Politico Europe

I

n a move that took many European leaders by surprise, Slovakia’s newly sworn-in Prime Minister, Robert Fico, announced on October 26, 2023, his government’s decision to discontinue military aid to Ukraine, marking a stark shift in the country’s stance. This announcement comes amidst growing tensions in Eastern Europe and as nations across the continent grapple with the evolving geopolitical landscape.

Robert Fico, leading Slovakia for the fourth time, communicated this change in policy during a session in parliament earlier this week. In the run-up to his recent election, Fico had openly campaigned on the promise of halting military aid to Ukraine, advocating for a more independent foreign policy and stronger border protection against illegal migration.

Fico conveyed to Members of Parliament (MPs) that while Slovakia would cease supplying weapons to Ukraine, the nation would continue to provide humanitarian aid to the war-affected country. The underlying tone of the Prime Minister’s message seemed to pivot towards transforming the European Union from an arms supplier to a mediator, championing the cause of peace in the region.

Slovakia’s new approach, the EU and NATO

Fico’s ascendancy to power has not only redefined Slovakia’s approach towards Ukraine but also towards larger European matters. His administration has expressed opposition to the Western sanctions imposed on Moscow, emphasizing that any such sanctions should only be backed after a thorough analysis of their impact on Slovakia. Fico was quoted saying, “If there are to be such sanctions that will harm us, like most sanctions have, I can see no reason to support them.”

Beyond the pressing matter of military aid, the new Slovakian government’s foreign policy is being keenly observed. Many see Fico’s rise as a potential disruptor to the European Union’s and NATO’s collective strategies, especially in the context of the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Slovakia, a nation of 5.5 million, had been a staunch supporter of Kyiv, particularly since Russia’s invasion in February of the previous year. The country had not only donated arms but had also opened its borders to refugees escaping the conflict.

This pivot in policy direction also highlights the changing political dynamics within Slovakia. The Smer party, chaired by Fico, is part of a three-party coalition government, which also comprises the Hlas party and the Slovak National Party. While Fico is often viewed as a “pro-Russian populist” – especially given his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – many within Slovakia believe he is merely prioritizing the nation’s interests over external pressures.

Russia’s allies?

Backing this stance, the coalition partner Slovak National Party (SNS) is no stranger to making headlines. Its chairman and former parliamentary speaker, Andrej Danko, has made controversial remarks in the past, suggesting that the Russian-occupied territories were not “historically Ukrainian.” Danko’s close interactions with Russian dignitaries, including a handshake with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a selfie with Russian State Duma Chair Vyacheslav Volodin, have raised eyebrows in international circles.

While the immediate repercussions of Slovakia’s decision are yet to be fully understood, early reactions from the international community have been a mix of concern and anticipation. Many view this development as a sign of the growing divisions within the European Union, with member states prioritizing national interests over collective decisions. This change is expected to be a prominent topic of discussion at the upcoming EU summit in Brussels, where leaders from across the continent will converge.

On the ground in Ukraine, the halt in military aid from Slovakia adds another layer to the multifaceted challenges the nation faces. Despite this setback, Ukrainian officials remain hopeful that other European nations will continue their support, both in terms of military aid and diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the region.

As Slovakia navigates its new foreign policy direction, Europe and the world will be watching closely. With the balance of power and alliances constantly shifting, Slovakia’s decisions could have ripple effects far beyond its borders.

In conclusion, as the European landscape continues to evolve, nations like Slovakia play a pivotal role in shaping the narrative. The choice to halt military aid to Ukraine may be just one decision, but it underscores the complexities and intricacies of international diplomacy in these tumultuous times. Only time will tell if this decision stands as a beacon of nationalistic prioritization or as a harbinger of a more fragmented European Union.

Sources: Euronews, AFP, Le Monde

R

ussia’s aggression in Ukraine has begun to show signs of an approaching crossroads. In order to formulate the right strategies in the political, economic, military, and other fields, it is necessary for those observing the events to follow the course of war and make projections for the future. Decisions made now, in the right place and at the right time, may be vital to the outcome of the war.

In this regard, it would be useful to draw a general picture of the war and take stock of the situation at certain intervals. Currently, two aspects of the war, symmetrical and asymmetrical, are at the forefront. However, it is unlikely that these efforts will bring victory to Russia or Ukraine on the battlefield.

Russia’s symmetric and asymmetric moves

In a symmetrical context, both armies are waging a war of position against each other. The Russians have fortified defensive lines one behind the other from Crimea to the northern end of the theater of operations and are trying to hold the narrow area they occupy west of the Sea of Azov, starting from the Ukrainian-Russian border.

Russia also intends to hold the north and northwest of Crimea in order to “ripen the conditions” for the annexation of an integral territory. Thus, the Russian offensive in the winter has turned into a stubborn defense, instead of a brisk advance, in the summer. On the other hand, it is always possible that the Russians would prefer to expand the war in order not to take any risks.

In tactical terms, the Russian military delegation has gradually structured the defense lines in accordance with the conventional Russian defense doctrine: in front of each defense line are minefields and other obstacle systems. In other words, there are fortifications to channel the Ukrainian troops to the intended zones of destruction.

As a result, Ukrainian troops will either try to enter the demolition zones by complying with Russian obstacles or destroy these fortifications and advance in their own direction. Destruction zones mean the loss of combat power, and clearing fortifications requires the use of fortifications and fire support, which translates into a waste of resources and time.

Meanwhile, the Russians have fortified critical hills, residential areas, and facilities as resistance points. While conducting an independent defensive operation, the resistance points force the Ukrainian troops to stop or advance in the direction they do not want to go.

While this is the tactical dimension of the defensive operation, at the operative level, i.e., Russian divisions and corps, the area of operations has been well analyzed and the Ukrainian military’s ultimate operational objective has been predicted. The fortifications to the west of Mariupol, Melitopol, and other cities that the Ukrainian military might want to capture as they try to reach the Sea of Azov have been kept strong.

In addition, the dams on the Dnieper River were considered as natural obstacles. In other words, the Ukrainian military has to contend, first, with water obstacles and, then, with Russian obstacle systems. The Russians have planned the force distribution in accordance with these natural and artificial obstacle systems. There is a high concentration of forces in the directions where the Ukrainian military will have to advance and a relatively low concentration of forces behind the natural obstacles.

Russia’s strategic approach to tip the political balance of the war in its favor is based on two different points. First, it wants to form a new bloc with countries such as China, India, or Iran through organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, and it wants to see Turkey on its side in order to create a crack in NATO.

The second point is to support an anti-U.S. and anti-European bloc in African countries to distract Western countries from Ukraine. In other words, Russia aims to force France and the United States to change their priorities in the event of an intervention by ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) countries in Niger and to reduce their support for Ukraine. This is where Wagner, which raised the flag of rebellion against Moscow but was sent to Africa after a  warning, comes into play.

It is noteworthy that Wagner is providing training to the Belarusian Armed Forces at a time when the shipment of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus is on the agenda. Thus, the attempt to open a new front in the north of Ukraine emerges as an asymmetric action for symmetric superiority.

Indeed, in such a situation, the Baltic states and Poland would be dragged into a more engaged position, while Ukraine would not be able to remain militarily strong on two different fronts for long. Therefore, Belarus’s involvement in the war emerges as the most important issue to be monitored in the upcoming period.

Situation in Ukraine

It should be noted that Ukraine was primarily a party in self-defense. The Russians took the initiative to start the war and Ukrainians were able to shape the course of the war only after it had started. The country’s lack of capacity for a protracted war made it dependent on external support; in other words, Ukraine used what it had or what it was given, first in defense and then in offense.

Ukraine’s symmetrical warfare led to the Russian withdrawal from Kyiv and the liberation of Kharkiv. However, the general counteroffensive that it announced it would launch in the spring highlighted symmetrical difficulties and mistakes at the tactical level.

In its stubbornness to defend or seize symbolically important cities or facilities, Ukraine engaged Russian tactical strengths. To use military parlance, it failed to “concentrate forces” on Russian weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Such a tactic naturally increased casualties.

After the success in Kharkiv, military decisions that would ensure superiority at the operative level could not be made, perhaps due to lack of capacity and capability. In this context, a counteroffensive was launched from three different directions between the cities of Mariupol and Melitopol. However, the counteroffensive failed to break through the previously mentioned Russian defense lines and could not advance in the direction of the Sea of Azov.

For the sake of the tempo of the counteroffensive, the fortifications of the defensive lines had to be cleared, and in order to create gaps between the positions of the Russian troops, American cluster bombs were used. The Russian counter-threat was the use of the thermobaric or vacuum bomb, known as the “Father of All Bombs.” Considering that this ammunition was used in March 2022, the main Russian preference against the Ukrainian symmetry was revealed.

The biggest problem for Ukraine’s medium-sized troops is the lack of an uninterrupted flow across the terrain that can initiate and advance an offensive. Due to water channels and dams, general counterattack directions are both predictable and limited. The Russian BTM-2, BAT-2, and ISDM Zemledeliye, which look like oddities but do a great job in Ukraine’s agricultural landscapes, can dig ditches and mine for kilometers. Therefore, Ukraine’s overall counteroffensive requires symmetrical parity of combatants, and fire support and engineering superiority to destroy obstacle systems.

For Ukraine, strategic superiority in the military field is only possible through the acquisition of complex and integrated weapon systems. In this context, while the supply of weapons and ammunition continues without interruption, capabilities such as air, air defense, anti-tank, electronic warfare, and military intelligence must be acquired.

I

n Europe, Hungary and Serbia have always been lukewarm towards Russia. The two countries’ foreign and domestic policies have led them to have an ambiguous relationship with Moscow. Ukraine, however, has managed to rally them around a single goal. This maneuver has to do with Ukraine’s historical and legitimate claims that Crimea, a melting pot of different ethnicities and religions, be part of its nation again.

The third summit of the Crimea Platform, which took place on August 23 in Kyiv, was triggered by Russia’s decision to withdraw from the Black Sea Grain Initiative. The year 2023 has been important for grain importer countries in Europe, namely Serbia and Hungary, which used to import grain from the Black Sea ports of Ukraine. The ongoing war and Russia’s withdrawal from the grain agreement are forcing some actors to change their allegiances.

Being unable to export grain, Ukraine founded the Crimea Platform in August 2021 as a plea for Crimea’s liberation. Russian occupation of Crimea grants Russia strategic access to the Black Sea; whenever Ukrainian cargo ships try to transport grain, they become the targets of Russian warships. If Ukraine can liberate Crimea from invading Russian forces, the grain market would thrive once more.

Crimea’s importance for Serbia and Hungary

Serbia and Hungary’s declaration of support for Ukraine goes beyond grain. Hungarian President Katalin Novák argued that the war can only end by the liberation of Crimea. Serbian President Alexandar Vučić also stated that Crimea should be liberated as it is a part of Ukraine’s national territories.

The support from Serbia and Hungary works against Russia’s aims in the war. Both Serbia and Hungary would suffer from a Russian Crimea. First, Serbia wants to keep Kosovo as an unrecognized entity. While the world is divided on the issue, Ukraine has a clear position of not recognizing Kosovo. So, in turn, Serbia does not recognize Crimea as Russian. This transactional relation keeps both sides happy on geopolitical issues.

Hungarians, too, have a soft spot for Crimea. Since 2014, Hungary has been one of the countries that have continuously protested the illegal annexation. President Novák pushed Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to reset relations with Ukraine and build a common stance against illegal invasions. Moreover, Novák held talks with the Crimean Tatar leader Abdülcemil Kırımoğlu. Both leaders value the historic Tatar-Hungarian connection with regard to the Turan and Turkic history.

Crimea to be populated by its natives

The Crimea Platform is not exclusively about grain though. Ukrainian officials have effectively employed cultural and ethnic values for the project by highlighting the ethnic and religious richness of Crimea. Ukrainian officials present Crimea’s native inhabitants as Muslim Crimean Tatars, Jewish Crimean Karaites or Krymkarayrla, and Orthodox Ukrainians. Meanwhile, Russia has been using domestic policies to populate Crimea with Russians.

Thus, Ukraine uses the Crimean Platform as a tool to stop Russia’s repopulation attempts. Russia has already employed repopulation attempts in order for Eastern Ukrainian territories to secede from Ukraine, resulting in numerous referendums for secession. Ukraine wants to put an end to such policies by promoting the natives of the region.

The public opinion of the local inhabitants of Crimea is also important. The political bodies of Crimean Tatars are exiled from the region, and Russia refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tartar People, the chief Crimean political body. Moreover, the Mejlis has been defined as a terrorist organization in Russia because of its desire to reunite with Ukraine. As a result, Crimean Tatars and other inhabitants of Crimea shun Russia’s expansionary policies in the region.

Turkey’s efforts in Crimea and regarding grain

The platform on Crimea managed to increase European support for Ukraine. However, there is one more actor who has elicited support for Ukrainians from the beginning of the war. At the Crimean Platform, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a video message to all participants. He reiterated the Turkish of not recognizing the Russian annexation of Crimea. He also vowed to keep the Black Sea Grain Initiative on its track.

Two days after the Crimea Platform, the Turkish minister of foreign affairs, Hakan Fidan visited Kyiv to meet Zelenskyy. There, he assured Zelenskyy on re-instating the Grain Deal.  Afterwards, President Erdoğan also visited Russia to negotiate a new grain deal. Erdoğan even managed to use the G20 as a venue for discussing the grain deal. Thus, Turkey managed to stand out as a country that can reach numerous actors to resolve humanitarian problems.

Turkish participation in the affairs of the Black Sea and in negotiations for food security and regional peace has increased Turkey’s international credibility. In fact, Serbia and Hungary’s participation in the Crimea Platform can be associated with Turkey’s proximity to the aforementioned countries. As Serbia and Hungary strive for closer relations with Ukraine, Turkey proves its diplomatic prowess by uniting different countries under a single platform.

Rather than a “New Cold War,” we are now witnessing the culmination of an economic war with Russia, where the financial, energy, and capital markets are the battlegrounds. In his timely book, Economic War: Ukraine and the Global Conflict between Russia and the West, political risk analyst and consultant Maximilian Hess takes the reader through the period in which the seeds of economic warfare are sprouting into full bloom: from the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 to Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and beyond.  

The book skillfully delves into various economic fronts around the world, demonstrating the weaponization of economic tools such as pipelines, mining, credit, and cryptocurrencies. Each chapter unfolds like a chess game between Russia and the West, allowing the reader to map the moves of the contestants both chronologically and regionally, including Russia’s response to Western sanctions and what is at stake for each party.

There were a number of disputes in the early and mid-2000s between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies and the terms thereof that led Russia to cut off deliveries and precipitated gas supply crunches in the wider European market. What I think people forget is that Nordstream 2 and Nordstream 1 were never intended to increase the total amount of Russian gas that could be pumped to Central Europe.

Instead, they were designed to ensure that Russia didn’t have to do it through Eastern Europe, in particular through Ukraine, so that Russia could then increase the leverage of its gas policy over Ukraine. We should have understood this risk at the time of Nordstream 2, because it was essentially designed to give Russia the same kind of leverage over other Eastern European states that it had gained over Ukraine.

Q. Why do you think Putin choose to invade Ukraine specifically in February 2022?

I think he thought it was an important time economically, when the West was weak and divided. He hoped that the sanctions response and the economic response would be less intense than it might have been at another time. Thinking in terms of change in 2020 and 2021, the end of the Trump administration and then the Biden administration that follows made it clear that there would be a concerted sanctions strategy.

He hoped that European unity would be weak and insufficient to resist him. Inflationary pressures from COVID-19 had already increased, and Russia had already begun to cut off its gas supplies to Europe. At the same time, he was preparing his troops to invade Ukraine and saw it as a moment when the West would be relatively weak economically and relatively vulnerable. Therefore, less likely to act against him and less likely to act in support of Ukraine. Which, of course, turned out to be a very big strategic miscalculation on his part.

Q. Has Russia’s strategy of crippling Europe with gas cuts failed?

Largely, I think it has failed. Not because of any failure within the strategy itself but because of collaborative actions on the part of the West. Intelligence was shared by the United States, by officials who had spoken on the record and had reached the assessment that there was a small chance that Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine in October 2021, simply the brutal nature of Russia’s onslaught in February, and the fact that the Europeans saw an army of the largest form that had taken this action in Europe since World War II, made it clear to many European leaders that they had no other choice.

Putin was preparing, and did prepare, for a scenario in which Europe was fully on board with the sanctions regime through Russia’s fortress balance sheet strategy, the Kremlin’s process of building up large reserves of ‘hard currencies’ and gold. But now that the initial pain of that gas strategy is being felt, and inflation has been at such high levels for a year and a half. There are obviously still many politicians, particularly in Europe, such as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who are calling for a softer approach to Russia on these issues. That’s why Putin’s strategy is not one that is over; by threatening more economic pain, he can also undermine support for Ukraine in the long term. Global gas markets are much more fragile, and we could still see a new spike in gas prices this winter as a result of the Kremlin’s actions.

Q. Did Putin pull out of the Black Sea grain deal in an attempt to revive the inflation weapon?

I believe very strongly that this is what he is trying to do. It also gives him the tool of offering grain to African countries to gain more support there. I think we should be prepared for more actions by the Kremlin to deliberately try to stir up inflationary pressures, possibly trying to find a way to drive up prices, as well. The Kremlin really has only one major option, which is to threaten an export embargo and actually take action to make it look credible. That option is difficult because Russia’s budget is now so skewed toward the military.

I

n an era marked by unprecedented global challenges, few issues resonate as profoundly as the quest for food security. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the grain shortage that followed showcased the grave vulnerability of existing systems. The imperative of ensuring that everyone, everywhere has access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food looms large on the global stage. This month’s book bundle presents a curated selection of books that delve into food security, examining it from multiple angles, and offering insights, strategies, and solutions.

From the intricacies of international trade policies to the sustainability of food systems, and from the impacts of geopolitical conflicts to the strategic place of food, these books provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the realm of global food security.

Whether you are a policymaker, researcher, student, or simply a concerned global citizen, this collection provides valuable resources for understanding, navigating, and contributing to the discourse on global food security.

Food Security: Availability, Income and Productivity is a pertinent book that explores the pressing issue of global food security as our world population continues to grow. The author focuses on three key conditions necessary to achieve food security: food availability, adequate incomes, and increased agricultural productivity.

The book draws insights from history and contemporary contexts to thoroughly examine these conditions. It takes a close look at the obstacles preventing consistent food availability and discusses how to overcome these challenges. It also delves into the importance of ensuring sufficient incomes, highlighting programs like food stamps and food banks. Furthermore, the book provides valuable insights into the factors driving enhanced agricultural productivity.

Food Security caters to a broad audience, including agricultural experts, policymakers, and NGOs working in food aid. It’s also a valuable resource for students studying agriculture and public policy. The book not only informs but also encourages critical thinking about the complex task of feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050.

In a world where food scarcity is becoming increasingly worrisome, this book offers essential insights into the intricate web of food security. It provides a well-reasoned analysis that will contribute to ongoing discussions and efforts aimed at ensuring a sustainable food future for everyone.

William A. Kerr, Food Security: Availability, Income and Productivity (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023) ISBN: 978 1 03531 270 2, 234 pages

Shadow Negotiators: How UN Organizations Shape the Rules of World Trade for Food Security by Matias E. Margulis is a groundbreaking exploration of the influence exerted by United Nations (UN) organizations within the World Trade Organization (WTO) despite their absence from the formal negotiation table. Margulis introduces the concept of “shadow negotiators,” illustrating how UN bodies strategically engage in political actions to shape multilateral trade negotiations.

The book’s primary focus is on the contentious issue of agricultural trade liberalization. It provides a detailed analysis of interventions by four UN organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (SRRTF).

Margulis unveils the innovative strategies these UN entities employ to influence global trade regulations. Importantly, he emphasizes that their motivation isn’t rooted in competition with the WTO or ideological opposition to trade liberalization. Instead, it stems from their concern that certain trade rules could negatively impact global food security, running counter to their core mission of addressing world hunger and safeguarding the right to food.

Shadow Negotiators is a meticulously researched work that offers fresh insights into the often-unseen dynamics of international trade. It’s essential reading for those interested in the intersection of trade policy and global welfare, making a valuable contribution to the field of international relations and trade studies.

Matias E. Margulis, Shadow Negotiators: How UN Organizations Shape the Rules of World Trade for Food Security (Stanford University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9781503633520, 292 pages

Universal Food Security: How to End Hunger While Protecting the Planet by Glenn Denning explores the path towards a world where hunger and malnutrition are eradicated, and everyone can access healthy and abundant food for a productive life. The book emphasizes the need to transform our food systems, focusing on sustainability and environmental restoration, from production to distribution.

Denning, drawing from his extensive experience in over fifty countries, offers a practical guide to making healthy diets accessible to all while ensuring sustainability. He identifies key priorities, including sustainable agriculture intensification, robust market infrastructure, responsible postharvest practices, promoting healthy eating, and establishing social safety nets. The book underscores the pivotal role of practitioner-leaders in driving this transformation, highlighting the importance of education and development in instigating change.

But beyond the roadmap, Denning reminds us that the engine driving this transformation is practitioner-leadership, underscored by education and development. This book stands as a testament to the potential for meaningful change when individuals and institutions commit to reshaping our world, making universal food security not merely a dream but a tangible and sustainable reality.

Glenn Denning, Universal Food Security: How to End Hunger While Protecting the Planet (Columbia University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9780231197618, 448 pages

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Global Food Security explores the global food security implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which occurred during a period of already high food prices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The book highlights the importance of the Black Sea region for global food production and Russia’s role in supplying natural gas and fertilizers.

The potential disruption of trade in this region posed a significant threat, with the potential to raise food prices and worsen poverty and hunger in vulnerable countries. The conflict primarily impacted trade in cereals and vegetable oils, fertilizer exports, and energy costs, potentially pushing millions into hunger and poverty.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) responded swiftly by providing information and policy advice. They established a blog series and online resources to disseminate critical information rapidly. This book compiles these blog posts, offering an overview of the crisis’s progression, international responses, and lessons for ensuring food security in the wake of disruptions.

This book provides essential insights into a rapidly evolving crisis with far-reaching implications for global food security, making it valuable for policymakers and researchers.

Joseph W. Glauber, Ed. and David Laborde Debucquet. Ed., The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Global Food Security (IFPRI, 2023) ISBN: 9780896294394, 196 pages

Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics, and Security in Putin’s Russia offers a compelling analysis of the pivotal role food has played in Russian politics from the 1917 Revolution to the present under Putin’s leadership. The authors, Janetta Azarieva, Yitzhak M. Brudny, and Eugene Finkel, argue that Russia’s transition from a grain importer to a global food exporter was a deliberate, long-term strategy aimed at enhancing national security and regime stability. This focus on food self-sufficiency sets Russia apart from other autocracies, as it prioritizes domestic food production over imports, highlighting its significance in maintaining autocratic rule.

The book’s relevance is heightened in today’s world, where food issues are once again at the forefront of global concerns and nations are emphasizing self-reliance. Bread and Autocracy provides a timely and comprehensive exploration of Russia’s unique approach to food politics, shedding light on its implications for both domestic and international affairs. It is a valuable read for those seeking a deeper understanding of Russia’s distinctive stance on food and its impact on political power. The book will be available in hardcover on September 1, 2023.

Janetta Azarieva, Yitzhak M. Brudny, and Eugene Finkel, Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics, and Security in Putin’s Russia (Oxford University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9780197684368, 525 pages

The Russian invasion of Ukraine marked a pivotal moment in international relations, sparking outrage and condemnation from the global community while igniting deep-rooted tensions that had been simmering for decades. The invasion, which began in the early days of 2022, cast a dark shadow over the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Russian forces advanced, cities and towns across Ukraine were transformed into battlefields, with civilians caught in the crossfire and their lives altered by the devastating consequences of war.

In 77 Days of February, a group of distinguished writers from Reporters Magazine, the only Ukrainian publication dedicated to long-form literary journalism, present a remarkably powerful collection of 24 personal narratives. The anthology aims to give readers unprecedented access to first-hand accounts of the atrocities suffered during the early days of the invasion.

It also serves as a tribute to the indomitable spirit and fortitude of the Ukrainian people, who continue to demonstrate unwavering strength and pride in the face of adversity. Marichka Paplauskaite, editor-in-chief of Reporters Magazine, joins us for an interview about 77 Days of February and her accounts of enduring the war as a Ukrainian journalist.

Q. At the beginning of the book there is an emphasis on why it is important to talk about the war in Ukraine from the beginning, with a reference to memory being unreliable. Would you like to share that with our readers?

The initial months of the war presented a profoundly challenging period for us. My colleagues and I felt an overwhelming urge to contribute to the cause of our country, and given our writing skills, we set out to create narratives. The primary goal of our magazine, Reporters, was to tell the story of Ukraine through the lens of personal stories, moving away from traditional hard news and focusing on the encounters, sentiments and emotions of individuals. So when the war broke out, our choice was clear: to share these stories first with fellow Ukrainians and then with a global audience.

This book carries an intense emotional weight, because it was simply not possible to discuss this subject without emotion. It encompasses our homeland and our own firsthand encounters. At first, we wondered if it was premature to delve into such intimate experiences. However, as the war continues and the timing of victory is uncertain, we decided to tackle the subject now, while the wounds are still raw.

Human memory is indeed very fragile, especially when it comes to traumatic events. The mind tries to forget events that have caused suffering. That’s why what we have managed to capture in texts about the events and memories of the first months of the war seems very important to me.

Q. What has changed between the beginning of the war and now?

We have been living under the conditions of a full-scale war for a year and a half now. It’s unfortunate to admit it, but we have managed to get accustomed to the war. In our cities, we still hear the air raid siren every day, which always means that Russian missiles or Iranian drones used by Russia are heading towards our territory to commit new acts of violence against innocent people. Nevertheless, under these circumstances we continue our work and try to live, adapting to the conditions of war.

Q. As a journalist, you’ve had the opportunity to interact with various individuals impacted by the war, is there a story that was particularly inspiring to you?

It’s hard for me to say which story impressed me the most. Because all the stories in the book are incredibly personal. There is one change that happened to us journalists at the beginning of the war: we became the heroes of our own texts. For instance, there are two stories about Chernihiv by our author Vira Kuriko. Her husband went off to fight, and she returned twice to the city surrounded by Russians, describing the life of people under siege.

Another story is “Pasha and the Old Man” by Olga Omelyanchuk. Her acquaintance overheard a phone conversation in a basement. Someone was talking about a paralyzed old man whose relatives had left him in a flat in Irpin. At the time, fierce street battles were raging in the town. Olga found soldiers who agreed to find the old man and evacuate him. It was a risky operation. But the soldiers managed to navigate the streets where gunfire echoed and rescue the man. I am struck by the humanity of this story. It shows an example of how one can remain human even in times of war.

Another story I would like to mention is titled “The Sea”. It tells the story of fishermen from the Kiev Sea – a vast reservoir. Villages on one bank were occupied by Russians in the early days, while on the other bank there was a fishing base. In times of peace these men would have been considered poachers, but in times of war they became heroes. They would cross the sea in their boats and rescue people from the occupation. This was dangerous because the sea was still covered with ice and the Russians were shelling the boats. Nevertheless, these fishermen risked their lives to save others.

As you can see, these stories depict not only the horrors of war, but also courage, compassion, desperation, and light.

Q. How has covering these stories affected you? Have you had the space to reflect on your own grief?

When we were working on these stories, we had to prepare everything so quickly that we had no time to think. But afterwards I had some time to think and I realized that it’s not about the stories, it’s about the lessons I learned during the war and during my work as a journalist and editor living in Ukraine.

We feel that we must live now; if you want to do something, do it today. If you want to tell someone you love them, tell them today. It’s not only because of the conditions of our personal lives during the war in general, but also because there are many stories, for example about nameless graves, that remind us to appreciate what we have.

Q. What struggles do you face bringing these stories to a global audience?

It was so important for us to share our work with readers abroad because we are afraid that the war will be normalized, as I mentioned before. We still need support, and I absolutely understand that people abroad can lose interest in the war in Ukraine and think, “Well, it’s news from Ukraine again. But for us, it’s a real and ongoing tragedy, all the time, in every town.

We want people to not just read the stories, but to empathize and think about how they would feel and act in that situation. And I hope that through these stories our readers can form an emotional connection with Ukraine. I think the biggest challenge is that it’s incredibly difficult to comprehend the experience of war unless you’ve been through it. I’ve read numerous books about different conflicts around the world. But when it came to war in my own country, I wasn’t prepared.

War is the worst experience one can have. Our subconscious can block the desire to understand this experience because it’s too painful. That’s why I hope that the stories in the book, which are very emotional and personal, will give foreign readers a chance to somewhat grasp our reality.

Q. Could you tell us about networks of collaborations amongst journalists at this time?

Our team isn’t large; besides editors, we only have two full-time correspondents. However, we have a large pool of freelance authors across the country. When the war started, they all reported to me about the stories they were witnessing and wanted to describe. It was a unique time of unity for all citizens, and journalists were no exception. We worked as a single team, driven by the importance of documenting events of historic magnitude, recording the crimes of the Russians, and capturing new pages in Ukrainian history. It was a time of solidarity and professional unity within the journalistic community.

Q. How has misinformation made life more difficult for the Ukrainian people during the war?

Personally, I haven’t found this to be a problematic issue because we don’t watch or rely on Russian propaganda TV channels or anything of that sort. If we come across something that raises suspicion or doubt, we check it out. Sometimes, when we come across something dubious, we instinctively recognize its lack of credibility. We make sure to verify and re-verify; after all, we have colleagues in all regions of Ukraine.

For instance, when a Russian propaganda channel tried to dismiss the atrocities in Bucha as a hoax and labeled the alleged victims as actors, my colleagues and friends were in Bucha. They witnessed the bodies on the streets, took videos and photographs that unequivocally confirmed the reality of the situation. Russian propaganda doesn’t shake us because we are here, on the ground, witnessing everything first hand.

Q. What important remarks would you like to share with our readers?

The main message I want to convey is that the war is an ongoing reality and our struggle persists. Readers may peruse the accounts documented within the 77 Days of February and recognize the tragedies and turmoil depicted, but they have the privilege of closing the book and returning to their daily lives. The reality we face, however, remains unchanged, with analogous stories unfolding every day across Ukraine. Our need for support continues.

M

any of us still remember the images of empty store shelves that surfed the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The images struck fear into the hearts of the public, which was worried about the onset of a food crisis. Sadly, similar images may resurface as news of India’s ban on non-basmati rice exports broke on July 20.

This is not the first time that India has imposed restrictions on its rice exports. In 2022, the Indian government imposed a 20% export duty on non-basmati white rice to ensure its domestic availability. This decision came at a time when the world was struggling with the economic impacts from Russia’s war in Ukraine while also recovering from the effects of the pandemic.

India is not the only country to impose export restrictions on certain food products. Other countries have taken similar measures over the past three years to protect their economic needs amid a growing global food crisis.

Food restrictions since COVID-19

When COVID-19 erupted in 2020, it caused chaos. People were in a state of panic as they rushed to stores to grab whatever they could get their hands on before the lockdown. This led to the disappearance of many food items such as rice, canned goods, meat, etc.

The food shortage alarmed governments worldwide, prompting intervention and restrictive measures to protect domestic markets from a potential food crisis. Restrictive measurements included price controls, export taxes, bans, and quantitative export restrictions.

According to a World Bank research paper, the aim of restricting food exports is to protect domestic markets from the developments occurring in the global markets. By reducing or banning exports, governments ensure that their domestic needs will be protected from global food crises.

To keep track of food export restrictions, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has created a Food and Fertilizer Export Restrictions Tracker. Since 2020, wheat, rice, and sunflower seeds/oil appear to be the most banned items in terms of export restrictions. Countries that have banned these products include Romania, Russia, India, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Cambodia.

IFPRI has compiled a full list of countries that restricted exports of certain food products since COVID-19 and has kept track of their developments.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative

On July 22, 2022, Russia and Ukraine, along with Turkey and the UN, signed the Black Sea Grain Initiative. The agreement allowed for the safe transportation of grain and foodstuffs from Ukrainian ports. According to the European Council, the initiative managed to safely export about 33 million tons of grain and foodstuff to 45 countries, making a significant contribution to the fight against the global food crisis.

On July 17, Russia withdrew from the initiative when its request for increased food shipments was not met. This sparked a wave of global condemnation since Russia is unilaterally blocking Ukraine’s main export route. According to the European Council, the Russian invasion is further exacerbating the global food crisis.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused Russia of “weaponizing food.” Last year, Yale historian Timothy Snyder claimed that Russia’s move to starve the world is “a new level of colonialism.”

The prices of key commodities such as wheat and corn have skyrocketed, raising global concerns around hunger. Coupled with India’s ban on non-basmati rice exports, global warming, and rising inflation rates worldwide, a humanitarian food crisis is looming.

The impact of export restrictions on global food security 

As most governments impose restrictions on food exports to protect their domestic interests, the entire world suffers the consequences. According to a World Bank’s recent report, the global food crisis has worsened as food trade restrictions have increased.

Since June 5, 2023, 20 countries have implemented 27 food export bans and ten countries have implemented 14 export-restricting measures. The effects of these restrictions are driving up food costs and creating instability in the market. In addition, Aljazeera has reported that the local food prices in many developing countries continue to rise due to the devaluation of their local currencies.

The chief economist at the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization Maximo Torero has warned about rising food prices which he believes will lead to a potential global food crisis if the trend is not reversed immediately.

A potential food crisis?

Following India’s steps, the United Arab Emirates and Russia have declared bans on their rice exports. On July 28, 2023, the UAE announced that it will temporarily suspend rice exports for four months. The next day, Russia also declared a ban on rice exports until December 31, 2023, to protect its domestic market.

Over three billion people worldwide rely on rice for their livelihood and its demand continues to grow. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, an economist at the International Monetary Fund, told Reuters that India’s ban could exacerbate food price inflation.

The World Food Programme (WFP) recently reported that more than 345 million people are struggling with food insecurity in 2023. In just two years, the number has jumped from 135 million to 345 million. Unfortunately, this number will continue to grow as countries continue to restrict food exports amid conflict and climate shocks.

The WFP warns that we are facing a global food crisis of “unprecedented proportions.” Unless governments cooperate to meet people’s immediate food needs, the world is destined for a global hunger catastrophe.

Military assistance to Ukraine and its NATO membership are two separate matters. In fact, there is almost complete consensus among Alliance members to provide military assistance to Ukraine. Although some NATO members, such as Germany, were initially reluctant, they have come around to Washington’s line under pressure from their domestic public opinion, Europe, and the United States.

In the early stages of the Russia-Ukraine war, Berlin was only prepared to provide Ukraine with troops, but it has now supplied the country with Leopard 2 tanks and advanced air defence missiles. From this point of view, NATO, which has organized itself very quickly and decisively to support Ukraine militarily, will continue this support until it achieves its goals with regard to Russia.

There are already problems with the production of ammunition for certain weapons due to their intensive use on the Ukrainian front, yet, one of the most important factors determining the course of the struggle between NATO and Russia will be the production of weapons and ammunition, given that Russia is experiencing similar problems to a much greater extent.

The issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership, which is expected to be one of the main items on the agenda at the Vilnius summit, has caused serious disagreement between member states. Some, particularly the Baltic and several Eastern European countries, argue that Ukraine should become a member of NATO quickly, while others, such as the United States and Germany, where there is intense internal debate on the issue, oppose such a quick decision.

Those in favor of a more cautious approach suggest to wait until the end of the war to decide on the issue, fearing that Ukraine’s possible NATO membership during the war would draw them into direct armed conflict with Russia and would also complicate peace negotiations with Russia. They are considering postponing a decision in the hope that, at the end of the war, there will be a weakened Russia unable to oppose Ukraine’s NATO membership. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a decision on Ukraine’s NATO membership will be taken at the Vilnius summit.

However, given the establishment of a NATO-Ukraine Council and the strong likelihood that Ukraine will not be required to meet the preconditions of the Membership Action Plan for the accession of new members, such as the fight against corruption, which was previously included in the Membership Action Plan adopted at the Bucharest Summit, the door will be left open for Ukraine’s membership in the medium term. This issue will be closely linked to the development of NATO’s Russia policy and the outcome of the war. Moreover, Russia’s policy towards the West will be crucial to Ukraine’s NATO membership.

For NATO members, such as Italy and Spain, which have not yet resolved their economic problems caused by the Euro debt crisis, increasing their military spending from 1.5% to more than 2% would mean additional problems for their budget balances. In addition, the military spending of NATO members such as Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Ireland remains well below the Alliance’s target. It should be recalled that NATO has set the 2% limit as a minimum target, and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has persistently called for more than 2% military spending in the member states he has visited.

While Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has created a strong motivation for NATO to increase military spending, the disruptions it has caused to energy and food supplies, and prices, and the resulting economic challenges have left many members struggling to find the financial resources to increase their military spending. It is worth noting that NATO members, especially those with growing economic problems, will find it difficult to meet the Alliance’s targets for increasing military spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. administration wants to see its NATO allies on its side in the fight against China, just as it has done with Russia. Yet, it is no secret that there are members who have reservations about this; Germany, France, and Turkey are among such countries, albeit for different reasons.

In the aftermath of the Trump era, European NATO members are struggling to trust the United States, making it difficult for them to follow Washington’s lead, especially when it comes to a policy towards China. The same reluctance was also present about a policy towards Russia; however, the Russia-Ukraine war helped to remove this reluctance and align countries behind the U.S. Now Washington wants to capitalize on this shock momentum and rally its European allies behind its line against China.

In addition to the shock effect of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the U.S. has another advantage in rallying the Europeans behind it: “American friends” in Europe. These “American friends,” commonly known as Atlanticists, are everywhere in Europe. They are in power in countries like Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland, and are partners in coalition governments in countries like Germany.

Given that China has not made a mistake similar to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, but instead is trying to create a sphere of influence for itself through economic cooperation, and given its close economic ties with some European countries, it will not be as easy for Washington to rally NATO members behind its fight against Beijing as it has been to rally them against Moscow.

After months of tergiversations, Chinese President Xi Jinping finally made a phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – the first time the two leaders have spoken since the outbreak of the war. Zelenskyy tweeted in praise for this meaningful move, highlighting the need for collaboration in paving the way for peace. Subsequently, China pledged to send a special envoy to lead its mediation efforts and help provide vital humanitarian aid.

The road to peace is long, gruelling, and full of obstacles, and no observer expects a single phone call to stop this conflict. However, this step represents an important signal that China is interested in peace, thus kick-starting a process that may end this devastating war.

Beijing-Moscow Ties as a Leverage? 

The War in Ukraine boosted the China-Russia partnership. Beijing brought a breeze of fresh air to the sanctions-thorn Russian economy thanks to a $190 billion trade deal. Moreover, China’s diplomatic support was pivotal in insulating Russia from international condemnation in the UNSC. Beijing also dismissed parts of the joint statement at the G-20 that condemned Russia.

Nevertheless, China is the major partner in this relationship, retaining the upper hand owing to discounted energy prices and an expanding volume of Yuan in Russian markets and treasury.