UkraineAlert - Atlantic Council

Putin’s Kyiv blitz sends message to G7 leaders: Russia does not want peace

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:52:00 +0000

As G7 leaders attended a summit in Canada on Monday, Russia unleashed one of the largest bombardments of the Ukrainian capital since the start of Moscow’s invasion more than three years ago. The overnight Russian attack on Kyiv involved hundreds of drones and missiles targeting residential districts across the city. At least fifteen Ukrainian civilians were killed with many more injured.

While this latest Kyiv blitz was by no means unprecedented in a war that has been marked by frequent Russian attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population, the timing is unlikely to have been coincidental. Like a mafia boss ordering elaborate killings to send coded messages, Putin has repeatedly scheduled major bombardments of Ukraine to coincide with international summits and gatherings of Western leaders. For example, Russia bombed Kyiv, Odesa, and other Ukrainian cities on the eve of NATO’s 2023 summit, and conducted a targeted missile strike on Ukraine’s biggest children’s hospital as NATO leaders prepared to meet in Washington DC last summer.

Bombing raids have also taken place during high-profile visits of international dignitaries. In spring 2022, Russia launched an airstrike on Kyiv while UN Secretary General António Guterres was in the Ukrainian capital. At the time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the attack was a deliberate attempt by the Kremlin to “humiliate” the United Nations. Two years later, Russia subjected Ukrainian Black Sea port Odesa to intense bombardment as Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis visited the city.

The massive bombardment of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities during this week’s G7 summit is the latest example of Putin’s penchant for sending messages with missiles. On this occasion his message could hardly have been clearer: Russia does not want peace. On the contrary, Moscow feels increasingly emboldened by growing signs of Western weakness and is more confident than ever of securing victory in Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Russia’s rejection of US-led peace efforts is equally evident in the diplomatic arena. While Ukraine agreed to US President Donald Trump’s call for an unconditional ceasefire more than three months ago, Russia still refuses to follow suit. Instead, the Kremlin has engaged in obvious stalling tactics while creating a series of obstacles aimed at derailing any meaningful progress toward peace. At one point, Putin even claimed the Ukrainian authorities lacked the legitimacy to negotiate a settlement and suggested the country be placed under temporary UN administration.

The recent resumption of bilateral talks between Moscow and Kyiv has provided further confirmation of Russia’s commitment to continuing the war. Putin personally initiated these talks but then chose not to attend and sent a low-level delegation instead. In the two meetings that have since taken place, Russian officials have presented a list of ceasefire conditions that read like a call for Kyiv’s complete capitulation.

The Kremlin’s demands include Ukraine’s withdrawal from four partially occupied Ukrainian regions that the Russian army has so far been unable to fully occupy. This would mean handing over dozens and towns and cities while condemning millions of Ukrainians to the horrors of indefinite Russian occupation.

Moscow also wants to ban Ukraine from any international alliances or bilateral security partnerships, while imposing strict limits on the size of the Ukrainian army and the categories of weapons the country is allowed to possess. In recent days, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has underlined Moscow’s insistence on Ukraine’s total disarmament by calling on the country to destroy all Western weaponry provided since 2022.

Putin’s punitive peace terms are not limited to sweeping territorial concessions and harsh military restrictions. The Kremlin also expects Ukraine to grant the Russian language official status, reinstate the Russian Orthodox Church’s legal privileges, rewrite Ukrainian history in line with Russian imperial propaganda, and ban any Ukrainian political parties that Moscow deems to be “nationalist.”

The Kremlin’s negotiating position envisions a postwar Ukraine that is partitioned, disarmed, internationally isolated, and heavily russified. If imposed, these terms would allow Russia to reestablish its dominance over Ukraine and would deal a fatal blow to Ukrainian statehood. In other words, Putin wants a Ukraine without Ukrainians.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Donald Trump’s talk of peace through strength succeeded in generating considerable optimism during the early months of 2025, but it is now time to acknowledge that this was largely based on wishful thinking. Since Trump returned to the White House, the Russians have significantly escalated their air war against Ukraine’s civilian population. On the battlefield, Putin’s troops are now engaged in the early stages of what promises to be a major summer offensive. Meanwhile, Kremlin officials continue make maximalist demands at the negotiating table that no Ukrainian government could accept. These are not the actions of a country seeking a pathway to peace.

In both words and deeds, Putin is sending unambiguous signals that he has no interest whatsoever in ending his invasion and remains determined to achieve the complete subjugation of Ukraine. This uncompromising stance will not change unless Western leaders can convince Putin that the most likely alternative to a negotiated peace is not an historic Russian triumph but a disastrous Russian defeat.

The steps needed to bring about this change and create the conditions to end the war are no secret. Sanctions measures against Russia must be tightened and expanded to starve the Kremlin war machine of funding and weaken the domestic foundations of Putin’s regime. Countries that currently help Moscow bypass international sanctions must be targeted with far greater vigor. In parallel, Western military aid to Ukraine must be dramatically increased, with an emphasis on providing long-range weapons and financing Ukraine’s rapidly growing domestic defense industry.

All this will require a degree of political will that is currently lacking. It would also be expensive. Indeed, during this week’s G7 summit, Trump balked at the idea of imposing new sanctions, saying they would “cost us a lot of money.” This is dangerously shortsighted. Trump and other G7 leaders need to urgently recognize that if Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, the cost of stopping him will skyrocket.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

In parallel, wartime Ukraine has continued to make progress in combating corruption. When Russia’s invasion of Ukraine first began in 2014, Ukraine was ranked 142 of 180 countries in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index. In the most recent edition, Ukraine had climbed to the 105 position.

Rising Ukrainian patriotism has helped fuel this progress in the fight against corruption. EU accession demands and IMF conditions have been equally important. Ukraine has gone through eight quarterly reviews of its four-year IMF program. It has done so on time and with flying colors. The same has been true of each EU assessment.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Looking ahead, three critical factors are necessary for wartime Ukraine’s future economic progress. First of all, Ukraine needs about $42 billion a year in external budget financing, or just over 20 percent of annual GDP, to finance its budget deficit. The country did not receive sufficient financing in 2022 because EU partners failed to deliver promised sums. This drove up Ukraine’s inflation rate to 27 percent at the end of 2022. The Ukrainian budget was fully financed in 2023 and 2024, driving down inflation to 5 percent. The budget will be fully financed this year.

The second factor is maritime trade via Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Shipping from Odesa and neighboring Ukrainian ports to global markets has been almost unimpeded since September 2023 after Ukraine took out much of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The vast majority of Ukraine’s exports are commodities such as agricultural goods, steel, and iron ore, which are only profitable with cheap naval transportation, so keeping sea lanes open is vital.

The third crucial factor for wartime Ukraine’s economic prospects is a steady supply of electricity. Russian bombing of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure disrupted the power supply significantly in 2024, which was one of the main reasons for the country’s deteriorating economic performance.

Ukraine’s economic position looks set to worsen this year. In the first four months of 2025, economic growth was only 1.1 percent, while inflation had risen to 15.9 percent by May. The main cause of rising inflation is a shortage of labor. The national bank will presumably need to hike its current interest rate of 15.5 percent, which will further depress growth. After three years of war, Ukraine’s economy is showing increasing signs of exhaustion. The country has entered stagflation, which is to be expected.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s current economic situation is surprisingly similar to Ukraine’s, although almost all trade between Russia and Ukraine has ceased. After two years of around 4 percent economic growth in 2023 and 2024, Russia is expecting growth of merely 1.5 percent this year, while official inflation is 10 percent. Since October 2024, the Central Bank of Russia has maintained an interest rate of 21 percent while complaining about stagflation.

The Russian and Ukrainian economies are both suffering from their extreme focus on the military sector. Including Western support, Ukraine’s military expenditure amounts to about $100 billion a year, which is no less than 50 percent of Ukraine’s GDP, with 30 percent coming from the Ukrainian budget in 2024. Meanwhile, Russia’s 2025 military expenditure is supposed to be $170 billion or 8 percent of GDP. Unlike the Ukrainians, the Russians complain about the scale of military spending. This makes sense. The Ukrainians are fighting an existential war, while Russia’s war is only existential for Putin.

Contrary to common perceptions, Russia does not have an overwhelming advantage over Ukraine in terms of military expenditure or supplies. Russia does spend significantly more than Ukraine, but much of this is in reality stolen by politicians, generals, and Putin’s friends. Furthermore, Western sanctions impede the Russian military’s ability to innovate. In contrast, Ukraine benefits from innovation because its economy is so much freer, with hundreds of startups thriving in areas such as drone production.

Russia is now entering a fiscal crunch. Its federal expenditures in 2024 amounted to 20 percent of GDP and are likely to stay at that level in 2025, of which 41 percent goes to military and security. However, the Kremlin has financed its budget deficit of about 2 percent of GDP with its national welfare fund, which is expected to run out by the end of the current year. As a result, Russia will likely be forced to reduce its public expenditures by one-tenth.

Low oil prices could add considerably to Russia’s mounting economic woes and force a further reduction in the country’s public expenditures. However, Israel’s attack on Iran may now help Putin to stay financially afloat by driving the price of oil higher.

Economically, this is a balanced war of attrition at present. Ukraine’s Western partners have the potential to turn the tables on Russia if they choose to do so. Ukraine has successfully built up a major innovative arms industry. What is missing is not arms but funds. The West needs to double Ukraine’s military budget from today’s annual total of $100 billion to $200 billion. They can do this without using their own funds if they agree to seize approximately $200 billion in frozen Russian assets currently held in Euroclear Bank in Belgium. This could enable Ukraine to outspend Russia and achieve victory through a combination of more firepower, greater technology, and superior morale.

Anders Åslund is the author of “Russia’s Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Last month’s destruction of two Russian warplanes was the latest in a series of remarkable maritime breakthroughs that have allowed Ukraine to gain the upper hand in the Battle of the Black Sea. When the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began more than three years ago, few would have believed such a turn of events was possible. At the time, the war at sea was widely viewed as a foregone conclusion. After all, Ukraine had no conventional navy to speak of, while Russia could call on the considerable might of the country’s aged but nonetheless formidable Black Sea Fleet.

This disparity was on display during a famous incident that took place on the very first day of the invasion. On the morning of February 24, 2022, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva missile cruiser, loomed up to Ukraine’s Snake Island and ordered the tiny Ukrainian garrison to surrender. “Russian warship, go f*** yourself,” came the iconic response. While this message of defiance captured the global imagination and became an unofficial slogan for the entire Ukrainian war effort, the incident also served to underline the apparent mismatch between the maritime capabilities of the two adversaries.

During the initial weeks of the war, Russian control of the Black Sea remained uncontested, with Ukrainian attention focused firmly on preventing amphibious landings along the country’s southern coastline. But even at this precarious point, Ukrainian commanders had their own offensive ambitions and would soon send a powerful signal that they were capable of fighting back at sea as well as on land. In April 2022, the Ukrainian Navy launched a bold missile attack on the Moskva, securing two direct hits and sinking the Russian flagship. The attack sent shock waves around the world and sparked fury among Kremlin officials. Little did they know that this was just the first of many stunning Russian naval defeats that would transform the military situation in the Black Sea.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Since the sinking of the Moskva, Ukraine has used a combination of domestically developed naval drones and cruise missiles provided by Kyiv’s French and British partners to decimate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainian Navy officials claim they have managed to damage or destroy around one-third of Putin’s entire fleet, while forcing the remaining Russian warships to retreat from occupied Crimea to the relative safety of ports in Russia itself. This has severely limited the Russian Navy’s ability to operate in the Black Sea. By spring 2024, Britain’s Defense Ministry declared that the Russian Black Sea Fleet had become “functionally inactive.”

Ukraine’s stunning success in the Battle of the Black Sea has yet to receive the international attention it deserves. By breaking the Russian naval blockade of Ukraine’s seaports, it has allowed Kyiv to resume maritime exports and secure a vital economic lifeline.

Crucially, the Russian Navy’s humiliating retreat from Crimea has also made a complete mockery of the Kremlin’s so-called red lines and has demonstrated the emptiness of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling. The Russian dictator has long championed the seizure of Crimea as his crowning achievement, and has repeatedly hinted that he is willing to use nuclear weapons in defense of his conquests. But when confronted by the harsh military realities of Ukraine’s deadly naval drones, he withdraw the bulk of Russia’s fleet from Crimea with barely a murmur.

The Battle of the Black Sea is far from over, of course. While Ukraine develops groundbreaking new naval drones capable of hitting warplanes as well as warships, Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian seaports and targets merchant shipping carrying Ukrainian exports to global markets. The Russian Navy is also producing marine drones of its own, and is adopting defensive measures to protect the remainder of the Black Sea Fleet. Nevertheless, Kyiv’s Black Sea innovations are a reminder that Ukraine is an increasingly formidable military power in its own right and is shaping the future of drone warfare at sea as well as on land.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

Tetiana Kotelnykova — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:06:24 +0000

The memorandum presented by the Russian Federation during recent bilateral talks with Ukraine in Istanbul was described by Kremlin officials as a constructive step toward a possible peace agreement. However, the demands outlined in the document tell an altogether different story. Russia’s memorandum makes clear that Moscow does not seek peaceful coexistence with an independent and sovereign Ukraine. Instead, the Kremlin’s goal evidently remains the systematic dismantling of Ukrainian statehood.

One of the key demands detailed in the Russian memorandum is the requirement for Ukraine’s complete withdrawal from four Ukrainian provinces that Moscow claims as its own but has so far been unable to fully occupy. For Kyiv, this would mean abandoning dozens of towns and cities along with millions of Ukrainians to the horrors of indefinite Russian occupation. It would also dramatically weaken Ukraine’s defenses and leave the rest of the country dangerously exposed to further Russian aggression.

Handing over the city of Kherson and the surrounding region would be particularly disastrous for Ukraine’s future national security. This would grant Russia a foothold across the Dnipro River in the western half of Ukraine, placing Odesa and the country’s other Black Sea ports in immediate danger. The loss of Zaporizhzhia, one of Ukraine’s largest cities with a prewar population of around seven hundred thousand, is similarly unthinkable.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Territorial concessions are only one part of Russia’s comprehensive plan to undermine Ukrainian statehood. The memorandum presented in Istanbul calls for strict limits to be imposed on the size of Ukraine’s military along with restrictions on the categories of weapons the country is allowed to possess. Ukraine would also be banned from joining any military alliances or concluding bilateral security agreements with other nations. This would transform Ukraine into a disarmed and internationally isolated buffer state with no means to defend itself, leaving it entirely at Putin’s mercy.

Beyond the battlefield, Russia’s memorandum proposes a series of sweeping changes to Ukraine’s internal political and cultural landscape that would allow Moscow to reestablish its dominance over the country. Key demands include official status for the Russian language, the reinstatement of the Russian Orthodox Church’s legal privileges, and a wholesale rewriting of Ukrainian history in line with Kremlin narratives.

One of the most sinister aspects of the Russian peace proposal is the call for a complete ban on all so-called “nationalist” Ukrainian political parties. This rather vague wording is open to interpretation and could easily be used to silence Ukrainian politicians opposed to Russian influence. Given the Kremlin’s long record of labeling anything that contracts Russian imperial orthodoxies as “extremist” or “fascist,” the idea of outlawing “nationalist” political parties represents an obvious threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and the country’s democratic political system.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Moscow’s memorandum was presented at a time when Russia is escalating its invasion of Ukraine. In recent months, Russian drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities have increased significantly, leading to a sharp rise in the number of killed and wounded civilians. Along the front lines of the war, the Russian military is currently engaged in what most analysts believe are the early stages of a major summer offensive that seeks to break Ukrainian resistance. Russian troops are advancing in the east and have recently crossed the border in northern Ukraine to open a new front in the Sumy region.

The Ukrainian authorities cannot accept the punishing terms being proposed by Russia. Indeed, no sovereign state could do so and expect to survive. The real question is how the international community will respond. Russia’s memorandum is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood and the return of the country to Kremlin control. It makes a complete mockery of recent US-led calls for a compromise peace, and demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia has no interest in ending the invasion.

This should be enough to persuade Western leaders that progress toward peace will only be possible if they increase the pressure on Putin. At present, the Russian leader clearly believes he is winning and is confident of outlasting the West in Ukraine. In order to change this calculus and force a rethink in Moscow, Kyiv’s partners must impose tougher sanctions on Russia while boosting military support for Ukraine. In other words, they must speak to Putin in the language of strength, which remains the only language he truly understands.

Russia’s recent memorandum sends an unambiguous signal that Moscow is undeterred by the current Western stance and remains fully committed to its maximalist goal of erasing Ukraine as a state and as a nation. If Western leaders wish to avoid this catastrophic outcome, they must convince Putin that the alternative to a negotiated peace is a Russian defeat.

Tetiana Kotelnykova is a graduate student at Yale University specializing in European and Russian Studies with a focus on conflict, postwar recovery, and regional geopolitics. She is the founder of Brave Generation, a New York-based nonprofit organization that supports young Ukrainians affected by war and invests in the next generation of Ukrainian leadership. She also leads the Ukrainian Recovery Youth Global Initiative.

It was not always this way. When the modern square first began to take shape in the nineteenth century, it was a relative backwater in an elegant and aged city where the center of gravity remained firmly fixed elsewhere. Tellingly, when Ukrainian officials gathered in Kyiv on January 22, 1919, to publicly sign the unification act between the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic, they chose to stage this historic event on Sophia Square rather than Maidan.

As Kyiv rose from the ashes following World War II, the square became more architecturally impressive and gained in logistical importance, but it continued to lack the aura attached to the city’s true heirlooms. Instead, Maidan remained a fairly identikit Soviet public space noted for its large fountains and even larger Lenin monument.

Maidan first became associated with political activism during the dying days of the Soviet Empire in 1990 when it hosted a two-week student protest dubbed the Revolution on Granite that played a significant part in Ukraine’s independence struggle. At the time, it was known as October Revolution Square. Maidan would receive its current name on August 26, 1991, two days after the Ukrainian declaration of independence, but it would be many years before the square began to earn its current reputation as a genuine symbol of Ukrainian statehood.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

During the first decade or so of Ukrainian independence, Maidan was anything but inspiring. The square remained largely empty, with no monuments or memorials to celebrate the newly independent state. Instead, the cult of communism was replaced by crass commercialism. On the spot once occupied by Lenin, a giant TV screen was installed broadcasting an eclectic mix of adverts, pop videos, cage fights, and catwalk shows. Taxi drivers would line up nearby and watch absentmindedly while waiting for new fares.

High above Maidan, the skyline was dominated by the Hotel Moscow. In 2001, the Ukrainian authorities finally decided that this branding was probably inappropriate for a country looking to shake off the shackles of empire, and the hotel name was duly changed from Moscow to Ukraine. Likewise, a colossal Soviet hammer and sickle was allowed to loom large over Maidan until 2003, when it was belatedly removed from the facade of the Trade Union building. The continued prominence of the Soviet crest made a mockery of Independence Square and spoke volumes about the often ambiguous attitudes toward Ukrainian statehood that characterized the early post-Soviet period.

The first big turning point in Maidan’s transformation came following Ukraine’s November 2004 presidential election. Amid massive public anger over a crude Kremlin-backed bid to steal the vote, huge crowds flooded into Kyiv from across the country and congregated on Maidan, establishing a tent city and a round-the-clock presence. This protest movement lasted for over two months and came to be known as the Orange Revolution. Millions of Ukrainians participated. They eventually succeeded in overturning the rigged election and forcing a rerun which was won by the opposition candidate, representing a watershed moment in modern Ukrainian history.

Maidan itself was synonymous with the Orange Revolution and occupied a central position in the mythology that grew up around it. From that moment on, Maidan became not just a place but also an event. To stage a Maidan meant to organize a grassroots protest and hold power to account. This was a particularly terrifying concept for the neighboring Russian authorities. Dread of a Moscow Maidan soon began to haunt the Kremlin, feeding Putin’s obsession with Ukraine and laying the foundations for the horrors that were to follow. The Russian propaganda machine promptly adopted Maidan as a buzzword signifying wicked foreign plots, and continues to use it two decades later without any need for further explanation.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Nine years after the Orange Revolution, Maidan would be the scene of a second Ukrainian revolution. This time, the spark came when Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin president, Viktor Yanukovych, pulled out of a long anticipated EU association agreement and unleashed the riot police against students who objected to this drastic geopolitical U-turn. Once again, millions of Ukrainians flocked to the capital and gathered on Maidan. This time, though, it would not be bloodless.

With strong backing from Russia, the Ukrainian authorities took a hard line approach to the protests, leading to weeks of running battles on Maidan and in the surrounding streets. The nadir came in late February 2014, when dozens of protesters were shot and killed in the city center. This Maidan massacre brought down the Yanukovych regime. With his support base evaporating, the disgraced Ukrainian president fled to Russia. Days later, Putin responded by invading Crimea. Russia’s war to extinguish Ukrainian statehood had begun.

The tragic events of February 2014 had a profound impact on Ukraine’s collective psyche and served to consecrate Maidan in the national imagination. Up until that point, the square had regularly hosted public holidays, pop concerts, and Christmas fairs. In the aftermath of the killings, such events were moved to other locations in the Ukrainian capital. Maidan itself would now be reserved for the most somber and significant occasions in the life of the nation, such as the funerals of soldiers, vigils for Ukrainians held captive in Russia, and memorials marking important Ukrainian anniversaries.

Since 2022, Maidan’s transformation has gained further momentum amid the shock and trauma of Russia’s full-scale invasion. During the initial stages of the war, people began planting flags on the square in memory of fallen soldiers. This impromptu memorial has since expanded organically to become a sea of flags and portraits commemorating those who have lost their lives in the defense of Ukraine. It is an authentic grassroots tribute that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Maidan.

As Russia’s invasion has unfolded, Maidan’s role as the principal site for wartime mourning and reverence has served to confirm the square’s position at the heart of modern Ukraine’s national story. There could hardly be a more fitting location. After all, Vladimir Putin launched the current war because he viewed the emergence of an independent Ukraine as an intolerable threat to his own authoritarian regime and a potential catalyst for the next stage in Russia’s long retreat from empire.

Maidan embodies Putin’s darkest fears. The Russian dictator’s goal remains the destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation, but he is acutely aware that the country is slipping inexorably out of the Kremlin orbit. This is nowhere more evident than on Kyiv’s central square, which has become the ultimate symbol of Ukraine’s escape from empire and embrace of an independent identity.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Ukrainian innovations are redefining the role of drones in modern war

Vitaliy Nabukhotny — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:34:16 +0000

Ukraine’s audacious recent drone strikes on Vladimir Putin’s bomber fleet at airbases across Russia have generated global headlines and fueled a lively debate over the implications of the attack. Many have hailed this highly successful Ukrainian operation as a watershed moment in military history, leading to claims in some quarters that Ukraine is now “redefining modern warfare.”

This international attention is understandable. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is widely recognized as the world’s first drone war, with Ukrainian innovation playing a key role in defining the role of drones in twenty-first century military operations. But while most analysis tends to focus on spectacular attacks like the recent decimation of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, the Ukrainian military is actually using drones for a far wider variety of functions. Ukraine’s drone experience is unprecedented and provides a range of important lessons for military commanders around the world.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The primary role of drones in modern warfare is as weapons. Over the past three years, first person view (FPV) drones have become a ubiquitous feature of the contemporary battlefield and are believed to be responsible for the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian casualties. This is changing the way the war is fought. Any vehicles operating close to the front lines must now rely on jamming devices, with many also favoring the additional protection of so-called “cope cage” coverings to shield against drone attacks. With larger groups of infantry deemed too vulnerable to drone strikes, attacks are typically carried out by small groups, often using highly mobile transport such as motorbikes or buggies.

Ukraine has also pioneered the use of drones and accompanying software to perform surveillance tasks mapping out the battlefield and providing real-time situational awareness of enemy deployments. This reconnaissance capability is not new in itself, but has undergone significant upgrades in recent years. Accurate and up-to-date information allows commanders to make informed decisions quickly, improving the effectiveness of military operations.

Beyond the battlefield, Ukraine has also transformed international understanding of drone warfare at sea. Since 2022, Ukrainian naval drones have succeeded in sinking or damaging around one-third of Russia’s entire Black Sea Fleet, forcing the remainder of Putin’s warships to retreat from Russian-occupied Crimea to the relative safety of Russia’s own Black Sea ports. Most recently, Ukraine claimed to have used naval drones to shoot down two Russian warplanes over the Black Sea.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In addition to strike and surveillance functions, Ukraine has also employed drones in logistical roles. The Ukrainian army uses both aerial and ground-based unmanned systems to deliver ammunition, food, medicine, and other supplies to troops operating in dangerous or inaccessible areas, thereby reducing the need to expose personnel to hostile environments. Drone-based solutions can also potentially facilitate the evacuation of the wounded when manned rescue is deemed to be too risky.

One of the most creative Ukrainian uses of drones on the battlefield has been to help take surrendering Russian soldiers prisoner. This method reduces the need for physical engagement with enemy troops and therefore limits the risks to the Ukrainian side. Drones are used to give instructions using printed messages or via loudspeakers to guide enemy soldiers and indicate safe directions that will allow them to surrender without coming under fire.

Ukrainian unmanned systems are also playing an important role in efforts to document Russian war crimes. Drones are able to record the time, location, and nature of potential crimes, along with the identity of the perpetrators in some cases. Over the past three years, Ukrainian drones have captured evidence of potential war crimes including the execution of unarmed POWs and attacks on civilians. This footage can be used in future prosecutions and increases the chances that those responsible for war crimes in Ukraine will be held accountable.

The growing role of drones in warfare creates a range of challenges in terms of the accepted norms governing military operations. With this in mind, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence has drawn up and issued internal guidelines for drone operators and legal teams to ensure adherence to the laws of armed conflict. These guidelines incorporate real-world combat scenarios to help drone operators understand how to treat categories such as medical personnel, retreating enemy troops, and those engaged in the evacuation of the wounded. This initiative is a step toward establishing broader global standards for responsible drone warfare.

Ukraine’s unique experience of drone warfare offers valuable insights that will shape military doctrines for many years to come, while also helping to define international standards for the use of drones in a military context. It is already clear that drones are transforming the battlefield in ways the evoke the twentieth century rise of air power. As drone technologies continue to advance, Ukraine is likely to remain a key player in this new wave of military innovation.

Vitaliy Nabukhotny is a human rights lawyer and external legal advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence’s Legal Department.

Russian hybrid warfare: Ukraine’s success offers lessons for Europe

Maksym Beznosiuk — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 21:39:11 +0000

As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues, the Kremlin is also rapidly escalating its hybrid war against Europe. Intelligence officials from a number of European countries are now raising the alarm and warning that Russian operations are growing in number and becoming bolder, with potential targets including transport hubs and critical infrastructure.

The Kremlin employs hybrid warfare tactics to remain below the threshold that would trigger a unified and potentially overwhelming European response. This has led to a surge in sabotage, cyberattacks, political interference, and disinformation campaigns across Europe, with a particular emphasis on countries closer to Russia.

Moscow’s hybrid war against Europe mirrors the tactics used by the Kremlin in Ukraine following the start of Russia’s invasion in 2014. Ukraine’s response to the often unprecedented challenges posed by Russian hybrid warfare offers important lessons for Kyiv’s European partners.

The Ukrainian experience highlights the gravity of the hybrid threat and the importance of an integrated response. The overall message to Western policymakers is clear: Moscow views hybrid warfare as an important Russian foreign policy tool and will continue expanding its campaign. Europe cannot afford to wait for Russian hybrid attacks to escalate further before building the advanced capabilities required to counter this threat.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There have been growing reports of Russian hybrid war-style attacks across the EU since the onset of Russian aggression against Ukraine eleven years ago. This trend gained significant additional momentum following the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Typical incidents include cyberattacks targeting infrastructure, sabotage including arson attacks, and attempts to disrupt military aid destined for Ukraine. Moscow is also accused of investing billions of dollars in sophisticated social media campaigns to influence the outcome of elections across Europe. The Kremlin’s hybrid operations are concentrated in central and eastern Europe, with Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states among the primary targets.

None of this is new to Ukraine. For more than a decade, Ukrainians have been learning to cope with the full range of Russia’s hybrid warfare toolbox. Russia’s attack on Ukraine began in February 2014 when Russian soldiers without insignias took control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in a lightning operation that was accompanied by a massive wave of targeted disinformation.

Russia’s subsequent efforts to destabilize and subjugate the rest of Ukraine have involved a combination of conventional military aggression, sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and support for pro-Russian actors in Ukraine. Thanks to this prolonged exposure to Russian hybrid warfare, Ukraine has been able to develop countermeasures that have helped build resilience and reduce the impact of Russia’s hybrid operations.

Ukraine’s response has been a collaborative effort involving the Ukrainian government, civil society, and the private sector. In the cyber sphere, efforts to improve Ukraine’s digital security have played a key role, with the launch of the country’s popular Diia platform and the establishment of the Ministry of Digital Transformation helping to drive important digital governance reforms.

This has enhanced Ukraine’s ability to maintain public services amid acts of cyber aggression and has improved engagement with the population. Ukraine’s progress in the digital sphere has been recognized internationally, with the country climbing from the 102 spot to fifth position in the UN’s annual Online Services Index in the seven years between 2018 and 2025.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s coordination structures, such as the Center for Strategic Communications and the Ministry of Digital Transformation, enable swift and well-coordinated responses across government, media, and digital channels. This offers a number of advantages in a hybrid war setting. For example, it allows the Ukrainian government to synchronize positions with proactive narrative-setting when countering the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns.

Ukraine has also benefited from a decentralized approach involving digital volunteers, civil society, and public-private partnerships. A wide range of civic tech groups and open-source investigators are active in Ukraine detecting and countering Russian disinformation. These measures have made it possible to expose Russian narratives efficiently, coordinate messaging across government and civil society, and maintain coherence during military operations.

Since 2014, Ukraine has been able to reduce Russia’s overwhelming initial advantages on the information front of the hybrid war. While Russian disinformation tactics continue to evolve and remain a major aspect of the ongoing invasion, Ukraine has managed to increasingly leverage information to shape international opinion and influence diplomatic outcomes.

At present, the European response to Russia’s hybrid war lacks the institutional agility and coordination between public sector and civil society that is evident in Ukraine. Instead, the EU and NATO have developed a number of parallel structures such as NATO’s Joint Intelligence and Security Division and the EU’s East StratCom Task Force. While these agencies continue to make meaningful contributions to the fight back against Russian hybrid warfare, they have yet to demonstrate the kind of real-time operational coordination that has served Ukraine so well.

Ukraine’s model for combating Russian hybrid warfare can’t be replicated in full, but it could serve as a practical reference point for building more adaptive and integrated responses across the West. Given Ukraine’s unique experience, it might make sense to establish a trilateral consultative framework together with the EU and NATO to enable rapid hybrid threat evaluations and coordinate responses.

Ukraine’s long record of countering Russian hybrid warfare has also highlighted the role of civil society. Kyiv’s European partners should consider increasing support for initiatives such as investigative journalism, fact-checking platforms, and technical watchdogs that can serve as support elements in a broader European defense ecosystem. In an environment where information is increasingly weaponized, Ukraine’s experience has also underlined the need to embed media literacy into the education system to ensure European citizens are able to consume information critically and are less vulnerable to Russian propaganda.

Maksym Beznosiuk is a strategic policy specialist and director of UAinFocus, an independent platform connecting Ukrainian and international experts around key Ukrainian issues.

Trump’s Russia policy must be rooted in realism

Agnia Grigas — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 20:50:06 +0000

US President Donald Trump has recently changed his tone toward Russian president Vladimir Putin, suggesting that he has “gone crazy” and is “playing with fire.” This highlights the ongoing difficulties of negotiating with the Kremlin. While the Trump administration broadly favors a realist approach to international relations, a more pragmatic assessment of Russia’s capabilities and objectives could better equip the US to achieve its stated goal of bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.

Almost three months ago, Ukraine accepted a US proposal for a thirty-day unconditional ceasefire. So far, Russia has refused to do likewise. Instead, the Kremlin continues to demand a series of preconditions. Meanwhile, Russia has intensified its missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian civilian targets. When Trump recently backed Putin’s proposal for direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the Russian leader then boycotted the subsequent Istanbul talks, sending only a lower-level delegation.

Within the Trump administration, key figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have all articulated their support for a realist view of international relations. This implies sidestepping abstract ideological objectives and focusing on tangible power factors such as economic size, population, geography, and military strength.

The realist viewpoint is reflected in Hegseth’s assertion that Ukraine returning to its pre-2014 borders is “unrealistic.” It can also be seen in Trump’s statements that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “does not have the cards” in negotiations with Russia, an assertion that seems far less certain in the wake of Ukraine’s successful recent strikes on Russia’s long-distance bombers.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Some advocates of foreign policy realism argue that the US should seek to accommodate Russia, even at Ukraine’s expense. However, this approach tends to exaggerate Russia’s strengths, while underestimating the importance of the Kremlin’s imperial objectives and the relevant fact that Russian national security doctrine identifies the US as its principal adversary. A more comprehensive realist analysis of Russia reveals that, despite its assertiveness, Moscow’s power is in fact often overstated, while its appetite for compromise is limited.

Compared to the United States, Europe, and NATO, Russia simply does not “hold the cards,” to use Trump’s phrase. Its $2 trillion economy ranks outside the world’s top ten, trailing behind the US, China, Germany, Japan, India, and others. Although Russia has weathered sanctions, the prolonged war since 2022 has left its economy overextended and vulnerable.

The Russian population of 145 million is shrinking and ranks ninth globally, far behind the US and the collective European Union. Militarily, Russia’s large conventional forces have under-performed during the invasion of Ukraine while sustaining heavy losses. Russia’s $146 billion military budget, though substantial relative to neighboring states, pales in comparison to the $968 billion US budget in 2023, or even the collective defense spending of EU member states.

Russia remains a formidable nuclear power and frequently reminds the international community of this fact. Since the very first days of the Ukraine invasion in February 2022, Putin and other Kremlin officials have engaged in regular nuclear saber-rattling. But while Russia is the only nuclear power to make such threats, Putin has repeatedly failed to act when his red lines have been crossed by the Ukrainians, and has been publicly warned by his Chinese allies not to cross the nuclear threshold.

Since 2022, Russia has lost much of its energy leverage and is no longer Europe’s key energy supplier. Meanwhile, the United States has consolidated its position as a leading global energy exporter, particularly in liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is enabling Europe to diversify away from Russia while starving the Kremlin of vital revenue and geopolitical influence.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In realist terms, Russia’s power surpasses that of its immediate smaller neighbors but falls well short of the US or the European Union as a whole. Countries in Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe view Putin’s ambitions through a realist lens based on centuries of painful experience with Russian imperialism. They understand that Putin’s current goal of reasserting Moscow’s dominance over the territories of the former Soviet Union and Russian Empire is deeply rooted in the Kremlin’s perception of Russian national interests.

President Trump should not fall into the same trap as his predecessors. Past US administrations, from George W. Bush onward, have sought to normalize relations with Moscow but have consistently underestimated Russia’s enduring imperialist objectives. In 2001, Bush famously called Putin “trustworthy” and said he has been able to “get a sense of his soul.” And yet before the end of Bush’s second term, Putin had become increasingly hostile to the West and had invaded Georgia. US President Barack Obama then pursued a “reset” in relations with Russia, only for Putin to invade Ukraine in 2014.

US President Joe Biden initially adopted a similarly optimistic stance toward Moscow, emphasizing the importance of predictable relations with Russia. In May 2021, Biden canceled sanctions on the Kremlin’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline. The following month, he met Putin in Geneva for a bilateral summit that was widely viewed as a further concession to the Russian leader. Less than a year later, Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Looking back, it is clear that US policy toward Russia has often been shaped by the optimism of incoming administrations rather than a sober, realist understanding of Moscow’s longstanding ambitions. A deeper grasp of Russia’s objectives and capabilities could help the Trump administration, alongside European leaders, to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and achieve a durable peace. Approaching the Kremlin from a position of strength, through the implementation of new sanctions on Russia and sustained military support for Ukraine, would be essential tools in securing that peace.

Agnia Grigas is senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire.”

Putin’s punitive peace terms are a call for Ukraine’s complete capitulation

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 21:42:17 +0000

Russian and Ukrainian delegations failed to achieve any meaningful breakthroughs when they met for peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. The event was not a complete waste of time, however. Aside from agreeing on another welcome round of prisoner swaps, the two sides also exchanged peace proposals that confirmed the complete lack of middle ground for any kind of meaningful compromise to end the fighting.

While Ukraine’s proposal laid out a fairly pragmatic vision based on battlefield realities and security concerns, Russia presented punitive peace terms that would reestablish Kremlin control over Kyiv and doom the postwar Ukrainian state to a slow but inevitable death. This uncompromising Russian position should serve as a wake-call for anyone who still believes Putin is negotiating in good faith. In reality, the Russian dictator is more determined than ever to destroy Ukraine, and is merely exploiting US-led peace talks in order to strengthen his hand and divide the West.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The demands unveiled by the Russian delegation this week in Istanbul came as no surprise and closely mirrored the conditions outlined on numerous prior occasions by Putin and other Kremlin leaders. Nevertheless, at a time when US President Donald Trump is publicly pressing for progress toward peace, the Russian decision to deliver such a maximalist memorandum sent a clear message of defiance to Washington DC.

As expected, Moscow reiterated its call for Ukraine to withdraw completely from four Ukrainian provinces that Russia currently claims as its own but has been unable to fully occupy. This would oblige the Ukrainian authorities to hand over a number of major cities and condemn millions of their compatriots to indefinite Russian occupation. Kyiv would also be expected to officially cede these regions together with Crimea, paving the way for international recognition of Russia’s conquests.

This crushing territorial settlement is only one aspect of Russia’s vision for the comprehensive dismantling of Ukrainian statehood. In line with Putin’s peace terms, Ukraine would be forced to accept limitations on the size of its army and on the categories of weapons it is allowed to possess. The country would be also be barred from joining any military blocs or concluding alliances with foreign nations. It does not take much imagination to guess what Putin has in mind for Ukraine once it has been successfully disarmed and internationally isolated.

Nor is that all. The Kremlin’s conditions actually go much further and aim to transform Ukraine from within in ways that would erase Ukrainian identity along with the country’s political independence. Moscow’s memorandum called on Ukraine to grant Russian the status of official state language, reinstate the privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church, and adopt a Kremlin-friendly version of Ukrainian history. Meanwhile, all so-called “nationalist” Ukrainian political parties would be banned, paving the way for the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

On the morning after this week’s bilateral meeting, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev confirmed the true objective of Russia’s participation in peace talks. “The Istanbul talks are not for striking a compromise peace on someone else’s delusional terms,” commented Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s powerful National Security Council. Instead, Medvedev stated that Russia’s goal was to secure victory and ensure “the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime,” which is widely recognized as Kremlin code for the Ukrainian state. “That’s what the Russian memorandum published yesterday is about,” he noted.

Medvedev’s frank appraisal of the Russian position won him sarcastic praise from US Senator Lindsey Graham. “Congratulations to Mr. Medvedev for a rare moment of honesty coming from the Russian propaganda machine,” commented Trump ally Graham. “I appreciate you making it clear to the world that Putin and Russia are not remotely interested in peace.”

It is hard to argue with Graham’s assessment. For the past few months, Putin has gone out of his way to demonstrate that he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. While Ukraine has accepted a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire, Putin has repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, he has engaged in transparent stalling tactics that make a mockery of the entire peace process.

Away from the negotiating table, Putin has dramatically increased drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, killing and wounding hundreds of civilians. On the battlefield, his armies are currently engaged in the early stages what is shaping up to be one of the biggest Russian offensives of the entire war. These are not the actions of a man who seeks peace.

After this week’s fresh confirmation of Moscow’s undiminished imperial ambitions in Ukraine, it is now surely time to abandon any lingering delusions and accept that the Russian dictator will not stop until he is stopped. Putin believes he is on a messianic mission to extinguish Ukrainian statehood and revive the Russian Empire. He currently thinks he is winning this historic struggle and will not be swayed by Trump’s comparatively trivial talk of tariffs and trade deals.

The only thing that can change Putin’s mind is Western strength. As long as Putin is confident of eventual victory, he will continue. But if the alternative to a peace deal is a potentially crushing defeat, he may reconsider. To achieve this change, Western leaders must demonstrate a degree of collective resolve that has often been absent over the past three years. They must sanction Russia to the max and arm Ukraine to the teeth. This will require considerable political will and good old-fashioned courage in Western capitals. Ukraine will do the rest.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

David Kirichenko — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:55:58 +0000

Ukraine carried out one of the most audacious operations in modern military history on June 1, using swarms of smuggled drones to strike four Russian airbases simultaneously and destroy a significant portion of Putin’s bomber fleet. While the full extent of the damage remains disputed, open source evidence has already confirmed that Russia lost at least ten strategic bombers and possibly many more.

The attack highlighted Ukraine’s innovative use of military technologies and confirmed the country’s status as a world leader in the rapidly evolving art of drone warfare. Crucially, it also underlined Kyiv’s ability to conduct complex offensive operations deep inside Russia. This will force the Kremlin to radically rethink its domestic security stance, which could lead to the diversion of resources away from the invasion of Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

According to Ukrainian sources, preparations for Operation Spider’s Web had been underway since late 2023. Ukraine was able to move a series of modified cargo containers into Russia along with more than one hundred first-person view (FPV) drones. The containers were then loaded with the drones and mounted on lorries before being moved into position close to Russian airbases. On Sunday morning, the green light was given and the drones were remotely activated, emerging from their containers to strike nearby Russian bombers.

The bombers targeted in these drone attacks play a key role in Russia’s air war and are regularly used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities. While Ukraine’s June 1 success will not bring this bombing campaign to an end, it may help save Ukrainian lives by reducing the number of available planes and forcing Russia to disperse its remaining strategic bombers to locations further away from Ukraine.

While any reduction on Russia’s ability to bomb Ukrainian civilians is welcome, the impact of Ukraine’s airbase attacks on the future course of the war is likely to be far more profound. Sunday’s Ukrainian strikes at locations across Russia have transformed the situation on Putin’s home front. Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than three years ago, Russians have grown accustomed to viewing the war as something that is taking place far away. That sense of security has now been shattered.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

This was not the first time Ukraine has struck deep inside Russia. For much of the war, Ukraine has been using its growing fleet of long-range drones to target Russian military bases and the country’s oil and gas industry. Russian Air Force hubs such as the Engels airbase in Saratov Oblast have been hit multiple times.

Ukraine’s attacks have gained momentum as the country’s long-range drone fleet has evolved and as Kyiv has developed its own missile capabilities. This mounting proficiency has not gone unnoticed internationally. Indeed, China reportedly asked Ukraine to refrain from attacking Moscow during the recent Victory Day parade on May 9, as Beijing was apparently unsure whether the Russians themselves could provide sufficient protection for the visiting Chinese leader.

Sunday’s operation represents a new stage in Ukraine’s efforts to bring Putin’s invasion home to Russia. By deploying large numbers of drones surreptitiously across the Russian Federation and activating them remotely, Ukraine demonstrated an ability to strike anywhere without warning. The consequences of this are potentially far-reaching. Russia must now increase security at every single military base, military-industrial site, command center, and transport hub throughout the country.

In addition to ramping up defensive measures around military infrastructure, Russia must also introduce further checks at the country’s borders and closely monitor all activity along endless highways stretching from Europe’s eastern frontier to the Pacific Ocean. This is a logistical nightmare. For example, thanks to Ukraine’s attack, all cargo containers must now be treated with suspicion. There are already reports of bottlenecks emerging at locations across Russia as alarmed officials inspect lorries in the hunt for more Ukrainian drones.

Given the colossal size of the Russian Federation, addressing the threat posed by Ukraine’s Trojan Horse tactics is a truly Herculean task. Russia’s vastness has traditionally been viewed as one of the country’s greatest strengths. The new form of warfare being pioneered by Ukraine could now turn this size into a major weakness. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that Ukraine does not “have any cards” in its war with Russia, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may just have played the ace of drones.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 29 May 2025 21:46:50 +0000

Russia is guilty of committing crimes against humanity in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region, according to a new report by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. The report comes following an extensive investigation into a campaign of Russian drone strikes on Ukrainian civilians over a ten-month period beginning in July 2024, with the probe focusing on an area of southern Ukraine stretching more than 100 kilometers along the right bank of the Dnipro River around the city of Kherson.

Members of the UN Commission determined that Russia was engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians and concluded that the drone attacks were “widespread, systematic, and conducted as part of a coordinated state policy.” The report detailed how civilians were targeted “in various circumstances, mainly when they were outdoors, both on foot or while using any type of vehicles,” and noted that on a number of occasions ambulances had been struck by drones in an apparent bid to prevent them from reaching victims and providing vital medical assistance.

During the ten-month period covered by the United Nations probe, Russian drones killed almost 150 Ukrainian civilians in and around Kherson, while leaving hundreds more injured. The constant threat of attack has created a pervasive climate of fear throughout the region, with people afraid to leave their homes. Terrified locals say they feel hunted and refer to the drone attacks as a “human safari.”

In addition to daily drone strikes, Russia has sought to maximize the psychological pressure on residents of the Kherson region via social media channels. UN investigators reported that video footage of drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians is regularly disseminated on Russian Telegram channels, some of which have thousands of subscribers. This video footage shows drone strikes along with the resulting deaths and destruction in the style of video games, often accompanied by background music. Meanwhile, menacing messages posted on Telegram call on Ukrainians to flee the region. “Get out of the city before the leaves fall, you who are destined to die,” read one message quoted in the UN report.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

This is not the first time UN investigators have accused Russia of committing crimes against humanity in Ukraine. A March 2025 UN report reached a similar conclusion regarding the Kremlin’s large-scale program of detentions and deportations targeting Ukrainians living under Russian occupation. “The evidence gathered led the Commission to conclude that the enforced disappearances against civilians were perpetrated pursuant to a coordinated state policy and amount to crimes against humanity,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued a number of arrest warrants for senior Russian officials in relation to alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine including the targeted bombing of civilians and critical civilian infrastructure. The most high-profile ICC arrest warrant is for Vladimir Putin himself, who is wanted for his alleged involvement in the mass abduction of Ukrainian children.

At least 20,000 Ukrainian children are believed to have been kidnapped since the start of the full-scale invasion and taken to Russia, where they are subjected to indoctrination to rob them of their Ukrainian heritage and impose a Russian national identity. The nature and scale of these mass abductions may qualify as an act of genocide according to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s deadly “human safari” drone campaign against the civilian population in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region is part of the Kremlin’s strategy to make the area unlivable. The city of Kherson was occupied by the advancing Russian army during the first days of the full-scale invasion and was officially annexed by Russia in September 2022. However, Kherson and the surrounding area were liberated by the Ukrainian military soon after. The scenes of joy that accompanied the liberation of Kherson were deeply humiliating for Putin, who had personally proclaimed the city to be “forever” Russian just weeks earlier.

This setback forced Putin’s invading army to retreat across the Dnipro River, creating a major physical obstacle for the Russian invasion and limiting the occupied zone of Ukraine to the eastern half of the country. Nevertheless, Moscow continues to insist that Kherson and the surrounding region are now part of the Russian Federation and must be handed over within the framework of a future peace deal.

Ukraine has completely ruled out any such concessions. This is hardly surprising. While some temporary territorial compromises may prove possible during peace negotiations, Ukraine’s stance on Kherson is unlikely to change. After all, allowing the renewed Russian occupation of Kherson would be suicidal for Kyiv. It would present Russia with a priceless foothold across the Dnipro River that could be used as a gateway to seize Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and complete the conquest of the country.

For now, Russia appears to have little chance of seizing Kherson militarily or of acquiring the city at the negotiating table. Instead, Moscow seems to be intent on terrorizing local residents and forcing them to flee. Putin claims that the population of the Kherson region are Russians, but he has no qualms about his soldiers using drones to hunt and kill them mercilessly. This tells you all you need to know about Putin’s cynical posturing as the protector of the Russian people in Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Once the war ends, Ukraine can expect to receive unprecedented international support as foreign governments seek to participate in what promises to be Europe’s largest reconstruction initiative since the years following World War II. While donor funding from partner countries is likely to be very significant, this will not be nearly enough to cover the estimated rebuilding price tag of around half a trillion US dollars. Instead, much of this money must come from the private sector. However, unless Ukraine has a transparent, reliable, and efficient justice system, private capital will stay away.

If Ukraine hopes to become a success story, it needs courts that can settle disputes fairly, whatever the issue. If legal cases are tainted by bias or drag on for years, this will serve as a major red flag to all potential investors. For this reason, Ukraine’s courts should be recognized as a key element of the country’s infrastructure that is every bit as vital to national recovery as roads or power lines. After all, the justice system serves as the legal framework that makes it possible to build everything else.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite the ongoing war, Ukraine has made real progress in recent years toward meaningful judicial reform. This has included the reform of key institutions like the High Court of Justice, along with the launch of new processes to improve the selection of Constitutional Court judges. It is now crucial to build on this momentum.

Judicial reform must be deep, deliberate, and closely tied to Ukraine’s European future. With this in mind, it is important to maintain the current dialogue with the Venice Commission and use its recommendations to shape genuine change. One of the most effective tools to help achieve this change is the participation of international experts. Their role is not to control the process, but rather to help ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability.

As Ukraine looks to create the conditions for national reconstruction, one judicial reform initiative currently being backed by the Ukrainian parliament is the creation of specialized courts to handle issues like land rights and construction disputes. These courts could help speed up vital cases and take pressure off the existing judicial system.

Work is also continuing toward greater digitalization within the justice system, from electronic courts to online case tracking. Much more can be done in this direction. Other tech savvy countries such as Estonia and Singapore are currently leading the way in digital justice. Ukraine can build something just as bold using tools like blockchain and AI. The expanded use of technology can improve the efficiency of Ukraine’s courts, while also boosting trust levels and leading to greater transparency.

Creating a fully functioning and internationally credible justice system is the necessary starting point for everything else Ukrainians want to achieve, from economic strength and prosperity to the rule of law and a greater sense of national security. It can encourage investors to bet on Ukraine, and can help persuade Ukrainians currently living abroad to return home. Ultimately, judicial reform can serve as a national anchor confirming Ukraine’s place in the heart of Europe.

Amid the horror and the trauma of Russia’s ongoing invasion, Ukrainians now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve transformational change in the country’s justice system. We must not miss this chance.

Oleksandr Vasiuk is a member of the Ukrainian parliament for the Servant of the People party and head of the Ukraine-USA Strategic Partnership cross-party association.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There are some drawbacks to this kind of drone. Key problems include limited range and a tendency to become entangled in obstacles such as trees and pylons. Nevertheless, there is mounting recognition on both sides of the front lines and among international military observers that fiber optic drones are now indispensable. In a recent report, the BBC called these drones “the terrifying new weapon changing the war in Ukraine.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post noted that Moscow’s focus on fiber optic drones represents “the first time Russia has surpassed Ukraine in front-line drone technology since the full-scale invasion in 2022.”

The combat effectiveness of fiber optic drones became increasingly apparent amid heavy fighting in Russia’s Kursk region during the early months of 2025. Russia’s campaign to push Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region used large numbers of fiber optic drones to attack Ukraine’s flanks, cut supply lines, and cripple Ukrainian logistics. This eventually forced Ukrainian troops to retreat, ending an extended incursion into Russian territory that had been hugely embarrassing for Vladimir Putin. Ukrainian troops who fought in Kursk later reported that the only thing capable of stopping fiber optic drones was bad weather.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The technology behind fiber optic drones is no secret and is available to Ukraine as well as Russia. However, as is so often the case, Moscow benefits from weight of numbers and is looking to exploit its strengths. While Ukraine has experimented with a wide variety of drones produced by hundreds of different startup-style defense companies, Russia has concentrated its vast resources on the mass production of a relatively small number of specific weapons categories including fiber optic drones and shahed kamikaze drones. Moscow’s strategy is to focus on volume with the goal of overwhelming Ukraine’s defenses. Russia has also benefited from close ties with China, which is a key drone producer and ranks among the world’s leading suppliers of fiber optic cables.

Ukraine’s front line military commanders and the country’s tech sector developers recognize the growing importance of fiber optic drones and are now rapidly increasing production. However, they are currently lagging far behind Russia and have much work to do before they can catch up. It is a race Ukraine cannot afford to lose. One of the country’s largest drone manufacturers recently warned that if the current trajectory continues, Kyiv will soon be unable to defend against the sheer scale of Russia’s mass production.

Increased foreign investment in Ukraine’s defense industry could help close the gap. By financing the development and production of fiber optic drones, Ukraine’s international partners can put the country’s defenses on a firmer footing and enable the Ukrainian military to address the threat posed by Russia’s cable-connected drones. This trend has already been underway for some time, with more and more partner countries allocating funds for Ukrainian defense sector production. The challenge now is to channel this financing specifically toward fiber optic drones.

Time may not be on Ukraine’s side. The Russian army is currently in the early stages of a summer offensive that promises to be one of the largest and most ambitious of the entire war, with fighting already intensifying at various points along the front lines. If Putin’s commanders can implement the fiber optic drone tactics that proved so successful in the Kursk region, they may be able to finally overcome Ukraine’s dogged defenses and achieve a long-awaited breakthrough. In a war defined by attrition and innovation, Ukraine must now come up with urgent solutions to counter Russia’s fiber optic drone fleet.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Russia is extinguishing all traces of Ukrainian identity in occupied Ukraine

Kateryna Odarchenko — Tue, 27 May 2025 20:39:21 +0000

In recent months, US-led efforts to initiate a Russia-Ukraine peace process have focused primarily on the issue of potential Ukrainian territorial concessions. But as negotiating teams discuss technical details and draw lines on maps, almost no attention is being paid to the desperate plight of the millions of Ukrainians currently living under Russian occupation.

Throughout occupied Ukraine, the Russian authorities are seeking to consolidate their control by eradicating all traces of Ukrainian statehood and national identity while imposing a reign of terror on the civilian population. If these Russian occupation policies are allowed to pass unchallenged in the international arena, it will set a disastrous precedent for the use of force against civilians and the weaponization of national identity in other contested regions globally.

From the very first days of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, it was clear that Russia intended to entrench itself firmly in occupied regions of Ukraine. Russian troops often arrived armed with lists of local community leaders including elected officials, journalists, activists, religious figures, and military veterans. Those who refused to cooperate were likely to be detained before disappearing into a vast network of Russian prisons and camps.

Ukrainian detainees are being systematically subjected to torture and other human rights abuses, according to an international investigation led by the French group Forbidden Stories together with thirteen media outlets including Britain’s Guardian newspaper, the Washington Post, and Le Monde. While it is not possible to calculate exactly how many Ukrainian civilians have been abducted in the occupied regions, UN officials have concluded that the large scale and systematic nature of the disappearances qualifies as a crime against humanity.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Those who remain in areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control face a regime of forced russification encompassing everything from language and the media to education and religion. Place names have been changed to reflect the new Russian realities, with the curriculum in local schools transformed in line with the Kremlin’s anti-Ukrainian imperial dogmas. Parents who attempt to shield their children from classroom indoctrination are being threatened with loss of custody.

Ukrainian residents in the occupied regions of the country have also come under increasing pressure from the Kremlin to accept Russian citizenship. Anyone who refuses to take a Russian passport risks losing access to a range of essential services including healthcare. They also face restrictions on property rights along with the ability to run a business and use banking services.

This passport campaign has intensified significantly in recent months, with Russian President Vladimir Putin issuing a decree announcing that Ukrainians living under Russian occupation have until September 2025 to accept Russian citizenship or face possible deportation from their own homes. Understandably, Moscow’s ruthless tactics are proving difficult to resist. Kremlin officials claim that by March 2025, Russian passports had been issued to approximately 3.5 million people in occupied Ukraine.

Moscow is accused of engaging in religious persecution throughout the occupied regions, with all Christian denominations other that the Kremlin-linked Russian Orthodox Church facing various degrees of restrictive measures and oppression. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry officials stated in spring 2025 that the Russian occupation authorities have killed dozens of clergy members over the past three years while damaging or destroying hundreds of churches.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia has been careful to prevent information about conditions in occupied Ukraine from reaching the outside world. All independent media sources have been shut down throughout the occupied regions, and have been replaced by new Kremlin-controlled outlets. Individual journalists have frequently been among those targeted for oppressive measures including physical abuse and imprisonment.

One of the few reporters to shed light on the horrors unfolding in Russian-occupied Ukraine was Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna, who visited areas under occupation on multiple occasions before being captured by the Russian authorities in summer 2023. Roshchyna died after a year in Russian captivity. When her body was returned to Ukraine in early 2025, it showed signs of torture.

From a military standpoint, it may not currently be feasible to liberate all of the Ukrainian regions held by Moscow. Nevertheless, the crimes being committed by the Kremlin in occupied Ukraine are unprecedented in modern European history and cannot be ignored.

It is vital that the human rights of Ukrainians living under Russian occupation feature prominently in any peace process. This includes the rights of those currently being held in Russian jails. Ukraine’s Western partners must maintain or increase sanctions pressure, while also expanding support for Ukrainian civil society and raising awareness about Russia’s actions among international audiences.

Looking ahead, longer term investments are also needed to help document war crimes and support Ukrainian victims of the Russian occupation. Ultimately, the most meaningful response to Russia’s campaign against Ukrainian identity is to make sure Ukraine is in a position to not only survive but thrive as an independent European nation.

Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine.

Russia’s summer offensive could spark a new humanitarian crisis in Ukraine

Viktor Liakh, Melinda Haring — Tue, 27 May 2025 19:34:22 +0000

As the Russian army gears up for a major summer offensive, Ukraine could soon be facing its most serious humanitarian crisis since the initial phase of the full-scale invasion more than three years ago. If the West does not act swiftly by sending military aid, tightening sanctions, and reaffirming its long-term commitment to Ukraine, the unfolding crisis could overwhelm Kyiv and undermine the Ukrainian war effort.

Current Russian troop movements and battlefield dynamics indicate that the coming summer offensive may be one of the largest and most ambitious of the entire war. If successful, this campaign could allow Russian troops to push the front line tens of kilometers forward into Ukrainian-held territory and overrun parts of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk provinces.

The cities of Kostyantynivka, Pokrovsk, and Kramatorsk are high on the list of likely targets. They have all experienced significant damage and large-scale displacement as a result of Russian bombardment. If these cities and others in the surrounding area fall to the Russians in the coming months, the wider region could become depopulated as large numbers of people flee the fighting.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Based on current trends and previous displacement waves, at least two hundred thousand Ukrainian civilians living close to the current front lines of the war could be forced to leave their homes by fall 2025. This is not speculation; it is informed by experience gained during Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Since the beginning of the invasion in February 2022, Ukrainian organizations have been on the front lines of the humanitarian response. They have provided essential aid, temporary housing, psychological support, and ongoing reintegration counselling to help Ukrainians displaced by Russia’s invasion rebuild dignity and restart their lives.

Ukraine’s civil society has worked wonders over the past three years but cannot realistically hope to absorb another 200,000 diplaced people without international support. The situation is even more alarming due to the recent closure of USAID, which was a major player in the humanitarian response to Russia’s invasion. With Putin’s troops already advancing, Ukraine’s Western partners must not ignore the looming danger.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), more than 3.6 million people remained internally displaced within Ukraine as of early 2025. Most are women, children, and elderly individuals. Many have already been forced to flee multiple times. This population of displaced people may soon become considerably larger.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Compounding the crisis, European governments are beginning to phase out temporary support programs for Ukrainians. While the EU recently agreed to extend temporary protection through 2026, enforcement is sometimes patchy. Meanwhile, there are indications across Europe that resettlement fatigue is growing.

In the UK and US, political rhetoric on the topic of Ukrainian refugees has shifted ominously. Most recently, reports emerged that the Trump administration is exploring options to repatriate Ukrainians who entered the United States following the start of the full-scale Russian invasion.

If these trends continue, millions of Ukrainians could find themselves trapped between advancing Russian forces and a closing window of international asylum. While Ukrainians in the east of the country flee Putin’s invading army, many Ukrainian refugees may be forced to return home with uncertain prospects.

If the overstretched Ukrainian military is unable to contain Russia’s summer offensive, the fallout will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The displacement of at least 200,000 more civilians would severely strain humanitarian corridors, destabilize border regions, and sow chaos in Ukrainian cities already struggling to absorb previous waves of refugees.

Ukraine’s Western partners still have time to prevent this, but they must act with a sense of urgency. While the Trump administration has been clear that it does not plan to provide Ukraine with further military aid, it should continue sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians while confirming its readiness to sell arms to Kyiv. Europe must speed up the delivery of promised weapons and should expand supplies significantly to improve Ukraine’s position on the battlefield.

In parallel, European countries should take steps to provide reassurance and protect the legal status of Ukrainian refugees. Donor organizations can help by strengthening partnerships with Ukrainian civil society groups that have demonstrated agility, transparency, and high levels of local trust.

The next phase of Russia’s invasion is not just being fought on the front lines of the war. It is taking place across the country in bomb shelters, train stations, and temporary accommodations. Russia is trying to break Ukrainian resistance by making large parts of Ukraine unlivable and destabilizing the country. Ukraine’s partners can do much to counter these efforts, but they must act now before the military and humanitarian situation deteriorates further.

Viktor Liakh is president of the East Europe Foundation. Melinda Haring is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a senior advisor at Razom for Ukraine.

Putin aims to destroy Ukraine and has zero interest in a compromise peace

Peter Dickinson — Wed, 21 May 2025 20:51:25 +0000

US President Donald Trump came away from Monday’s phone call with Vladimir Putin expressing confidence that the Russian leader wants peace, but few others appear to share this optimism. Many senior Western figures were reportedly unimpressed by Putin’s vague references to a “memorandum on a possible peace agreement” and believe he is still engaging in stalling tactics. “Putin is clearly playing for time. Unfortunately we have to say Putin is not really interested in peace,” commented German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

Trump’s latest call to Putin also prompted fresh questions over the US leader’s handling of the faltering peace process. Britain’s The Economist pondered Trump’s “strange reluctance to get tough with Putin,” while Washington Post columnist Max Boot led a chorus of voices accusing the Kremlin strongman of manipulating his American counterpart. “While Trump’s lack of success in peacemaking might not doom Ukraine, it certainly dispels the president’s pretensions to being a world-class deal maker,” argued Boot. “Putin is playing him for a fool, and Trump doesn’t even seem to realize it.”

The mood was very different in Moscow, with the Kremlin-controlled media trumpeting the call as a significant success for Russian diplomacy. In his daily press review, BBC correspondent Steve Rosenberg reported that many of Russia’s leading news outlets were “crowing” over the contents of the Trump-Putin conversation. “It looks like Russia has won the latest round of global poker,” commented one newspaper. “Donald Trump’s stance couldn’t be more advantageous to Moscow,” observed another.

It is no surprise to see mounting unease in Western capitals over the US push to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Since Trump first initiated peace talks in February, Ukraine has agreed to an unconditional ceasefire and signaled its readiness to make major territorial concessions. In contrast, Russia has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire while proposing new conditions of its own and creating various obstacles to any meaningful progress. At one point, Putin even claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lacked the legitimacy to sign off on a peace deal and suggested placing Ukraine under United Nations administration.

Recent diplomatic developments have further underlined Russia’s reluctance to end the war. When the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Poland delivered a ceasefire ultimatum to Putin in early May, the Russian ruler responded by calling for the first bilateral talks with Ukraine since spring 2022. However, Putin then chose not to attend the bilateral meeting in Istanbul that he himself had proposed, preferring instead to send a low-level delegation. This was widely interpreted as a “slap in the face” for Ukraine and the collective West.

Putin’s representatives during last week’s negotiations in Istanbul sought to emphasize Moscow’s unwillingness to compromise, calling on Kyiv to officially cede four entire provinces to Russia including a number of major Ukrainian cities that the Kremlin has so far been unable to seize militarily. If Ukraine refuses to do so, they warned, Russia will increase its demands to include six Ukrainian provinces. “We fought Sweden for twenty-one years. How long are you ready to fight?” the head of the Russian delegation reportedly commented, in reference to the eighteenth century Great Northern War. “Maybe some of those sitting here at this table will lose more of their loved ones. Russia is prepared to fight forever.”

While Putin rarely makes such thinly veiled threats, he continues to insist that any settlement must focus on eliminating what he refers to as the “root causes” of the war. This is generally understood to mean Ukraine’s international neutrality and disarmament, along with the reestablishment of Russia’s former imperial dominance in every sphere of Ukrainian public life, from language and education to national memory and religion. Any Ukrainian leader who agreed to such terms would be signing their country’s death sentence.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Trump’s efforts to talk up the prospects of a negotiated peace and his attempts to entice Putin with commercial incentives suggest a fundamentally flawed understanding of Russia’s war aims in Ukraine. The US leader seems to sincerely believe that Putin can be persuaded to end his invasion by the promise of limited territorial gains and future economic prosperity. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Putin is not fighting for Ukrainian land; he is fighting for Ukraine itself. He views the current war in the broadest of possible historical terms and sees the destruction of the Ukrainian state as a sacred mission that will define his entire reign and shape Russia’s future for decades to come. It is ludicrous to suggest that he could be swayed from this messianic vision by mundane talk of trade deals and sanctions relief.

Putin’s thirst for historical revenge can be traced back to his traumatic experience during the collapse of the Soviet Union. While Putin did not personally face the grinding poverty that millions of his compatriots endured in the 1990s, Russia’s national fall from grace nevertheless made a profound impression on him. Ever since, he has been haunted by fears of a further imperial collapse and driven by a determination to reverse the verdict of 1991. This has fueled his revanchist brand of Russian nationalism, and helps to explain his otherwise inexplicable obsession with Ukraine.

Throughout his reign, Putin has made no secret of his bitter resentment over the breakup of the USSR, which he has called “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century” and “the disintegration of historical Russia.” Crucially, he views Ukraine as a central and indivisible part of this fabled “historical Russia.” Indeed, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv occupies pride of place in his imperial mythology as “the mother of all Russian cities.”

To Putin, the emergence of an independent Ukraine is a symbol of Russia’s post-Soviet humiliation and a potential catalyst for the next stage in his country’s retreat from empire. According to this twisted imperial logic, if a province as quintessentially Russian as Ukraine is allowed to break away and establish itself as a modern European democracy, the entire Russian Federation will be in danger of disintegrating. Likewise, Putin is convinced that if Ukraine can be returned to its rightful place within Greater Russia, the injustice of 1991 will be undone and Russia will resume its position among the world’s Great Powers.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Putin has been attempting to force Ukraine back into the Kremlin orbit ever since the 2004 Orange Revolution, which he personally helped spark by clumsily intervening in Ukraine’s presidential election. The violence of these efforts has escalated in direct proportion to the strengthening of modern Ukraine’s own national identity. At first, Putin pursued his imperial goals in Ukraine through control of the country’s political, business, cultural, and religious elites. When this failed, he ordered the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Once it became apparent that even this partial occupation of the country would not derail Ukraine’s national consolidation, Putin made the fateful decision to launch the full-scale invasion of February 2022.

The rising tide of Russian aggression against Ukraine has been accompanied by ever more extreme anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. For years, Putin has publicly insisted that Ukrainians are Russians (“one people”). On the eve of the current invasion, he published an entire essay denying Ukraine’s right to exist. Putin and other senior Kremlin officials have repeatedly labeled Ukraine as an artificial country built on stolen Russian land, a Nazi invention, and an intolerable “anti-Russia” created for the purpose of undermining Russia itself. Ukrainians who insist on their own national identity are typically portrayed as traitors undeserving of sympathy or mercy.

This dehumanizing propaganda has laid the ideological foundations for the crimes that are currently being committed by the occupying Russian army in Ukraine. Wherever the Kremlin is able to establish control, Ukrainian patriots and community leaders are routinely detained and incarcerated in a vast network of prisons and camps. While the number of victims remains unknown, UN officials have concluded that the large scale and systematic nature of the disappearances qualifies as a crime against humanity. Those who remain are subjected to a reign of terror and forced to accept Russian citizenship while submitting their children to indoctrination. Meanwhile, all traces of Ukrainian national identity, culture, and statehood are being ruthlessly erased. Many experts believe these actions qualify as genocide.

Putin is understandably happy to exploit the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for peace talks. This allows him to buy time, divide the West, and reduce the flow of weapons to Ukraine. But it is already abundantly clear that he has no real interest in ending his invasion. Indeed, he dare not stop. Any peace deal that secures Ukraine’s survival as an independent state would be viewed in Moscow as a major defeat. Rather than taking his place alongside Stalin, Peter the Great, and Ivan the Terrible as one of Russia’s greatest rulers, Putin would be remembered in Russian history as the man who lost Ukraine. He would rather fight on indefinitely than accept such a fate.

Trump deserves considerable credit for seizing the initiative and attempting to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, his current approach is obviously not working. The time has now come to stop seeking compromises with the Kremlin and start speaking to Putin in the language of strength. This means tightening sanctions on Russia and targeting the many countries that continue to fuel Putin’s war machine. Above all, it means significantly increasing military aid to Kyiv and boosting Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Putin has staked his entire reign on the destruction of Ukraine. He will not back down unless forced to do so. Peace will only come when Ukraine is too strong to be subjugated.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

The new agreement between Kyiv and Washington differs greatly from classic concession deals as Ukraine retains full ownership of national natural resources while the Reconstruction Investment Fund will be under joint management. Unlike more traditional trade deals or resource acquisitions, this is a strategic agreement that combines commercial objectives with geopolitical interests, making it a textbook example of economic statecraft. By establishing military aid as a form of capital investment, the United States is securing a long-term stake in Ukraine’s security and the management of the country’s resources.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The minerals deal with Ukraine offers a number of obvious potential advantages for the United States. Crucially, it ensures preferential access to rare and highly valued natural resources like lithium and titanium, thereby reducing dependency on China. This is a strategic win for Washington with the possibility of significant long-term geopolitical implications. The deal also creates a framework for further US military aid to be treated as an investment via the Reconstruction Investment Fund, providing opportunities for the United States to benefit economically from continued support for Ukraine.

By signing a long-term resource-sharing agreement, the United States is also sending an important signal to Moscow about its commitment to Ukraine. Any US investments in line with the minerals deal will involve a significant American financial and physical presence in Ukraine, including in areas that are close to the current front lines of the war. Advocates of the deal believe this could help deter further Russian aggression. Kremlin officials are also doubtless aware that around forty percent of Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves are located in regions currently under Russian occupation.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

There are fears that the mineral deal makes Ukraine too dependent on the United States and leaves the country unable to manage its own resources independently. Some critics have even argued that it is a form of dependency theory in action, with Ukraine’s mineral wealth set to primarily fuel the needs of US industry rather than building up the country’s domestic economy. However, advocates argue that Ukraine was able to negotiate favorable terms that create a credible partnership, while also potentially securing valuable geopolitical benefits.

The agreement provides the US with a form of priority access but not exclusivity. Specifically, the US is granted the right to be informed about investment opportunities in critical minerals and to negotiate purchase rights under market conditions. However, the framework of the agreement explicitly respects Ukraine’s commitments to the EU, ensuring that European companies can still compete for resource access.

In terms of implementation, it is important to keep practical challenges in mind. The identification, mining, and processing of mineral resources is not a short-term business with immediate payoffs. On the contrary, it could take between one and two decades to fully develop many of Ukraine’s most potentially profitable mines. Without a sustainable peace, it will be very difficult to secure the investment necessary to access Ukraine’s resources. Without investment, the Reconstruction Investment Fund risks becoming an empty gesture rather than an economic powerhouse.

The minerals deal has the potential to shift the dynamics of the war while shaping the US-Ukrainian relationship for years to come. The United States is not only investing in resources, it is also investing in influence. Viewed from Washington, the agreement is less about producing quick payoffs and more about allowing President Trump to make a statement to US citizens and to the Russians. For Ukraine, the minerals deal provides a boost to bilateral relations and creates opportunities for a new economic partnership. America’s strategic rivals will be watching closely to see how this partnership now develops.

Svitlana Kovalchuk is Executive Director at Yalta European Strategy (YES).

How to prevent Ukraine’s booming defense sector from fueling global insecurity

Vitaliy Goncharuk — Tue, 20 May 2025 20:18:47 +0000

Following the 1991 Soviet collapse, newly independent Ukraine inherited the second-largest defense arsenal in Europe from the USSR. As a result, the country soon emerged as one of the biggest arms exporters to Africa and the Middle East, significantly influencing conflicts in those regions. With the Ukrainian defense sector now experiencing years of unprecedented growth in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion, it is important to prevent Ukraine’s innovative military technologies from fueling a new wave of international instability.

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, hundreds of companies have sprung up in Ukraine producing defense tech equipment for the country’s war effort. Growth has been largely driven by private initiatives led by civilians with no prior experience in the defense industry. This has led to a startup culture that does not require much investment capital, with most of the products developed since 2022 based on existing open source software and hardware platforms. Data leaks are a significant issue, as the vast majority of the people involved in this improvised defense sector have not undergone the kind of security checks typical of the defense industry elsewhere.

While there is currently no end in sight to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is already apparent that in the postwar period, the large number of Ukrainian defense sector companies that have appeared since 2022 will face a significant drop in demand. Indeed, even in today’s wartime conditions, many companies are already lobbying for the relaxation of export restrictions while arguing that the Ukrainian state is unable to place sufficient orders.

If these companies are forced to close, skilled professionals will seek employment abroad. This could lead to the leakage of knowledge and technologies. Meanwhile, with NATO countries likely to be focused on their own defense industries and strategic priorities, it is reasonable to assume that many Ukrainian defense sector companies will concentrate on exporting to more volatile regions. The potentially destabilizing impact of these trends is obvious. It is therefore vital to adopt effective measures to limit the spread of Ukrainian defense sector technologies, data, and finished products along with skilled developers, engineers, and operators to potential conflict zones around the world.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s defense sector innovations fall into two categories. The first includes innovations that are easily replicated using readily available technologies. The second category features more complex systems requiring skilled professionals. It makes little sense to focus regulatory efforts on the first category. Instead, preventing proliferation is more effectively managed through intelligence operations and security measures. Preventative efforts should focus on those innovations that are more complex in both development and deployment.

Efforts to prevent Ukrainian defense technologies from fueling conflicts around the world will depend to a significant degree on enforcement. While Ukraine has made some progress in combating corruption over the past decade, this remains a major issue, particularly in the country’s dramatically expanded defense sector. A successful approach to limiting the spread of Ukrainian defense tech know-how should therefore incorporate a combination of positive and negative incentives.

Positive incentives can include opening up NATO markets to Ukrainian companies and supporting their efforts to comply with NATO standards. This would likely encourage a broader culture of compliance throughout the Ukrainian defense tech sector as companies sought to access the world’s most lucrative client base.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Creating the conditions for the acquisition of Ukrainian companies by major international defense industry players could help to encourage a responsible corporate culture among Ukrainian companies while bolstering the country’s position globally. Likewise, enhanced access to funding and a simplified route to work visas and citizenship in the EU and US would help attract and retain talent. This would further strengthen Ukraine’s defense sector and encourage corporate compliance.

Professional organizations also have a potential role to play. Promoting the development of robust industry and professional associations for Ukrainians in the defense sector would encourage collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the establishment of industry standards, which could further propel innovation and growth within Ukraine’s defense industry, while creating a climate more conducive to regulation. Regulatory measures could include enhanced access to Western defense markets, with strict penalties for non-compliance.

Targeted export controls are another important measure. By establishing robust controls over critical components such as processors and specialized equipment, Ukraine can limit the availability of these technologies in regions with high conflict potential. Enhanced monitoring mechanisms should be implemented to track the transfer of technologies and the movement of skilled personnel. International cooperation is also crucial. Ukraine should look to work closely with global partners to synchronize regulatory standards and enforcement strategies, thereby reducing the challenges presented by regions with weak legal mechanisms.

Ukraine is now recognized internationally as a leading defense tech innovator in areas including AI solutions, cyber security, and drone warfare. There is huge global appetite for such technologies, but unregulated distribution could have disastrous consequences for international security. By combining enforceable regulatory measures with strategic incentives, it is possible to reduce the risks associated with the spread of Ukraine’s wartime innovations, while simultaneously maintaining an environment that supports ongoing innovation and growth in a controlled and secure manner.

Vitaliy Goncharuk is a US-based tech entrepreneur with Ukrainian roots who previously served as Chairman of the Artificial Intelligence Committee of Ukraine from 2019 to 2022.

Russia’s aerial attacks on Ukrainian civilians must not go unpunished

Anastasiya Donets, Susan H. Farbstein — Thu, 15 May 2025 21:41:38 +0000

Editor’s note: This article was updated on May 16, 2025, to include additional context about different types of crimes against humanity.

While international attention focuses on the US-led effort to initiate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, Moscow is dramatically escalating its aerial attacks on Ukrainian civilians. During the first twenty-four days of April, for example, UN officials verified 848 civilian casualties due to Russian bombardments, representing a forty-six percent increase over the same period in 2024.

Russia’s aerial offensive is a daily feature of the war that aims to terrorize the civilian population and render large parts of Ukraine unlivable. By bombing cities and energy infrastructure, the Kremlin hopes to force millions of Ukrainians to flee the country and break the will of the remaining residents to resist. Any future peace deal that sidelines this reality and fails to hold Russia to account would erode international law and set a disastrous precedent for future armed conflicts.

For the past one and a half years, the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and the International Partnership for Human Rights have documented and analyzed Russia’s aerial attacks in Ukraine. This research is based on extensive fieldwork, witness interviews, open-source intelligence, and forensic analysis.

After reviewing hundreds of Russian drone and missile strikes, researchers narrowed the focus down to twenty-two key attacks and identified two patterns that illuminate their impact: Attacks on energy infrastructure and on densely populated areas. The legal memorandum resulting from this work concludes that Russia’s bombing campaign amounts to the crimes against humanity of extermination and persecution.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For three consecutive winters, Russia has bombed Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in a bid to deprive the civilian population of access to heating and electricity at a time when the days are short and temperatures are typically well below freezing. These attacks have had a devastating impact on the Ukrainian power grid, with around half of Ukraine’s entire prewar energy-generating capacity destroyed by summer 2024.

As well as targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, Russia has also launched waves of drones and missiles at Ukrainian towns and cities throughout the invasion, causing widespread destruction and loss of life. There have been a number of particularly deadly attacks in recent weeks, including a ballistic missile strike on a playground in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s hometown, Kryvyi Rih, that killed eighteen people including nine children. On Palm Sunday one week before Easter, Russia launched a targeted strike on Sumy city center as civilians made their way to church, leaving thirty-five dead.

In addition to killing and injuring civilians, Russian aerial attacks also create untenable living conditions for the wider civilian population. They leave people traumatized and fuel intense feelings of insecurity, while disrupting access to heating, power, water, healthcare, and other essential resources.

While estimating the true toll of these attacks is challenging, the number of displaced Ukrainians indicates the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis. According to UN data from February 2025, Russian’s invasion has forced 10.6 million people to relocate, with 6.9 million recorded as refugees living outside Ukraine. Meanwhile, around 12.7 million Ukrainians are in need of humanitarian assistance, including nearly two million children.

Russia systematically and deliberately deprives civilians of objects essential to their survival and inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction, which constitutes the crime against humanity of extermination. Statements by Russian officials, such as calls for Ukrainians to be left to “freeze and rot,” corroborate this conclusion.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s aerial terror campaign, as well as the Kremlin’s actions in the occupied regions of Ukraine, have intentionally deprived Ukrainians of their fundamental rights to life, health, education, and culture, thus constituting the crime against humanity of persecution. The crime of persecution requires special discriminatory intent to target Ukrainians as a distinct group. This intent can be seen in Moscow’s branding of Ukrainians as “Nazis” who must be “destroyed.” such language underscores that Russia is attacking the very existence of Ukrainians. Targeted Russian attacks on educational and cultural facilities across Ukraine are further evidence of this intent.

Additionally, throughout the regions of Ukraine currently under Kremlin control, the Russian occupation authorities are reportedly enforcing russification policies that aim to extinguish any trace of Ukrainian national identity or statehood. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia and subjected to anti-Ukrainian indoctrination. The International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in relation to the large-scale deportation of Ukrainian children.

Holding Russia accountable for the ongoing air offensive against Ukraine is particularly important as this form of prohibited total war, where everything and anything including vital infrastructure and civilian populations are targeted to achieve victory, looks set to return. Technological advances are transforming the modern battlefield to essentially include entire countries and their civilian populations. Against this backdrop, Russia’s use of long-range drones and missiles to terrorize Ukrainian civilians is likely a taste of things to come.

To date, no international tribunal has held individual perpetrators responsible for international crimes resulting from unlawful aerial attacks. The International Criminal Court has taken an important initial step by issuing arrest warrants against four senior Russian officials for their roles in attacking Ukrainian civilians and energy infrastructure, but further measures are needed.

Failure to hold Russia accountable today will fuel tomorrow’s wars and embolden Putin’s fellow autocrats to embrace similar tactics against civilian populations. It is vital to make sure long-term security is not sacrificed in order to reach some kind of compromise with the Kremlin to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. By focusing on accountability for Russia’s aerial attacks, the international community can set a meaningful precedent that could help protect civilians around the world for years to come.

Anastasiya Donets leads the Ukraine Legal Team at the International Partnership for Human Rights, an independent non-governmental organization. She was previously an assistant professor in the International Law Department at Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University in Kharkiv. Susan H. Farbstein is a clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School, where she directs the International Human Rights Clinic.

Ukraine’s vibrant civil society wants to be heard during peace talks

Ana Lejava — Thu, 15 May 2025 20:31:22 +0000

As US-led efforts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine struggle to gain momentum, debate continues over what a viable future settlement could look like. While officials in Moscow, Washington, Brussels, and Kyiv discuss technicalities and potential concessions, members of Ukraine’s vibrant civil society are also attempting to define the contours of a lasting and meaningful peace.

Many Ukrainian civil society representatives stress that peace must be more than a mere pause in fighting. Temporary ceasefires may lead to periods of relative calm, but unless the root causes of the war are addressed and justice is delivered, the conflict will merely be frozen and not resolved. Similarly frozen conflicts in Moldova and Georgia offer cautionary tales of how such outcomes can serve Russian interests. These unresolved disputes have allowed Moscow to destabilize its neighbors for decades while maintaining strategic leverage and control.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In order to avoid the geopolitical uncertainties and internal instability of a frozen conflict, Ukrainian sovereignty must remain non-negotiable. This means rejecting any potential peace deal built on territorial concessions, restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s military, or limitations on the country’s ability to form international alliances.

Instead, Ukraine needs concrete and comprehensive security guarantees from the country’s partners. With this in mind, many civil society representatives warn against repeating the mistakes of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which saw Ukraine surrender its nuclear arsenal in exchange for toothless security assurances that failed to prevent Russia’s invasion.

Ukraine’s future security also depends on a strong military. Many women within the country’s civil society have sought to communicate this to their colleagues in the international feminist movement, which has often traditionally championed disarmament and non-violent conflict resolution. They stress that a durable peace cannot come at the expense of security or Ukraine’s fundamental right to exist.

Speaking during a recent visit to the United States, Ukrainian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Oleksandra Matviichuk emphasized that safeguarding Ukrainian sovereignty is about much more than protecting the country’s physical borders and also involves millions of human lives. Ukrainians living under Russian occupation are currently enduring the kidnapping of children, forced deportations, prison camps, sexual violence, widespread human rights abuses, and the methodical erosion of civil liberties. These are not isolated crimes. Instead, Russia is accused of seeking to systematically erase Ukrainian national identity in a campaign that many believe amounts to genocide.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukrainian civil society leaders have stressed the need for broad inclusion in peace negotiations and post-war recovery processes. Their calls are backed by the experience of peace initiatives elsewhere. Research indicates that peace efforts are up to 64 percent less likely to fail in instances when civil society representatives are invited to participate in talks. This has been the case in places like Northern Ireland and South Africa, where a combination of official diplomacy and civil society dialogue helped forge lasting peace.

Excluding Ukrainian civil society from peace efforts could undermine the human dimension of the process and remove accountability from the equation. While defining what justice should look like at the local, national, and international levels will be an ongoing discussion requiring the involvement of diverse stakeholders, Ukrainian civil society activists emphasize that justice must remain at the heart of any peace agreement.

Demands for accountability are widespread throughout Ukrainian society. More than 70,000 war crimes have been documented since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, including a large number of cases involving conflict-related sexual violence. Civil society activists have been at the forefront of efforts to secure justice for war crimes while also working for the protection of displaced people and the return of abducted Ukrainian children. Their demands include ensuring that the perpetrators of war crimes do not enjoy immunity, and that frozen Russian assets be directed toward rebuilding Ukraine and supporting victims.

Many Ukrainian civil society leaders believe the pursuit of justice in response to the crimes committed during Russia’s invasion is not only a national priority. Instead, they say Russia’s actions elsewhere from Syria to Africa reflect a wider pattern of impunity and argue that addressing this problem is a global imperative. As Oleksandra Matviichuk bluntly puts it, “Unpunished evil grows.”

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a watershed moment in modern history that has directly undermined the foundations of the existing international order. Ukrainian activists recognize the scale of the challenge this represents, but argue that international law must be revitalized rather than being abandoned entirely. They see this moment as a critical test for the global community. How the world responds to Russia’s alleged war crimes will set precedents that extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. Failure to act decisively now will not only undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but also embolden authoritarian regimes everywhere.

Ana Lejava is a Policy Officer at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security at Georgetown University.

How much longer will Putin be allowed to continue stalling for time?

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 13 May 2025 21:59:27 +0000

The leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Poland arrived in Kyiv last weekend amid much fanfare to deliver an unprecedented ultimatum to the Kremlin. The time for talk was over, they announced. If Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire by Monday, he would face tough new sanctions and increased weapons transfers to Ukraine. “All of us here, together with the US, are calling Putin out. If he’s serious about peace, then he has a chance to show it now,” declared British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

For a brief moment, it seemed possible that this bold move could revive faltering peace efforts. After all, if Putin agreed to a ceasefire, the way would be open for more substantive negotiations. If he refused, the West would now be obliged to turn up the pressure on Moscow and force Russia to rethink its position. Putin, however, had other ideas. At a hastily arranged midnight press conference in the Kremlin, he chose not to directly address the West’s ultimatum, and instead proposed bilateral talks with Ukraine.

Putin’s announcement that he was ready to resume negotiations with the Ukrainian authorities for the first time since the initial months of the war succeeded in overshadowing Saturday’s ultimatum. It also undermined any fleeting sense of Western unity and decisiveness. Predictably, US President Donald Trump was the first to break ranks, posting a statement urging Ukraine to “immediately” accept Putin’s offer in order to determine whether a peace deal is actually possible.

Elsewhere, confusion reigned. Was the original ultimatum still in place? There seemed to be no clear answer. In Berlin, German officials stated on Monday that “the clock is ticking,” but then took no action when their subsequent midnight deadline came and went. Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg, the Kyiv quartet quietly decided to wait until after a potential Russia-Ukraine meeting on Thursday in Istanbul before taking any action. This was the exact opposite of US President Theodore Roosevelt’s famous foreign policy advice to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” European leaders had instead opted to speak very loudly while carrying no stick at all.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin’s evasive response to last weekend’s ceasefire ultimatum was wholly in line with his elusive approach to the entire US-led peace process. Since tentative talks first began in February, Putin has consistently voiced his support for peace. At the same time, he has offered endless excuses and presented a long list of additional demands that make genuine progress toward a peaceful settlement of the war virtually impossible. At one point, he even questioned the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and suggested the country should be placed under United Nations administration.

In contrast, Ukraine has demonstrated a readiness to make compromises in the interests of peace. Kyiv has acknowledged that any negotiated settlement will likely leave Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine under de facto Kremlin control, and has backed a US proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. It came as no surprise on Sunday when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promptly agreed with Trump’s call to accept the Russian offer of bilateral talks. In the current climate, even the most obtuse of observers cannot help but conclude that Putin is now the main obstacle to peace.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

It remains theoretically possible that this week’s proposed bilateral talks will lead to some kind of breakthrough, but past experience suggests there is very little prospect of any real progress. On the contrary, negotiations are far more likely to end inconclusively, with the Russian delegation offering up just enough false hope to justify yet another round of time-consuming meetings. The real question is how long Putin will be allowed to continue engaging in stalling tactics before Western patience finally runs out.

It should be obvious by now that Putin has no genuine interest in ending the war. He refuses to offer any meaningful concessions and continues to insist on maximalist peace terms that would leave postwar Ukraine partitioned, disarmed, isolated, and defenseless in the face of future Russian aggression. It does not require much imagination to anticipate exactly what Putin has planned for Ukraine if his conditions are met.

Anyone who thinks Putin is willing to compromise over Ukraine clearly does not understand his profoundly revisionist worldview or his imperial ambitions. While Western leaders speak about the need for diplomatic dialogue and mutual concessions, Putin himself views the current invasion in far more existential terms as an historic mission to reverse the Soviet collapse and revive the Russian Empire.

The Russian leader is perfectly happy to entertain the idea of negotiations in order to buy time and weaken Western resolve, but in reality he has no intention of stopping until Ukrainian statehood has been extinguished. Trump has made a legitimate effort to broker a generous peace, but the time has now come to acknowledge that Putin is not negotiating in good faith and will only respond to the language of strength.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The most important tools in Ukraine’s unmanned arsenal are the country’s growing fleet of First Person View (FPV) drones. These drones in many ways function as the infantry of drone warfare. They have become a central pillar of Ukraine’s war effort, inflicting up to 80 percent of Russian battlefield casualties and making it possible to hold the line even when Ukrainian troops have found themselves starved of artillery shells.

Ukrainian production of FPV drones has mushroomed in recent years, with domestic companies also gradually moving away from an initial reliance on imported components. By early 2025, Ukraine was reportedly producing 200,000 FPV drones per month. Cheap to manufacture, they are capable of destroying tanks and other military equipment worth millions of dollars.

Russia is also relentlessly adapting to technological changes on the battlefield, creating a daily race to innovate that runs in parallel to the actual fighting on the front lines of the war. The dominance of FPV drones has led to a variety of countermeasures, ranging from the widespread use of netting and so-called “cope cages,” to increasingly sophisticated electronic blocking and the jamming of signals. In response, both Russia and Ukraine are turning to fiber optic drones that are not susceptible to jamming technologies.

As the full-scale war approaches a fourth summer, the evolution of drone tactics continues. Over the past year, Ukraine has sought to establish a 15-kilometer kill zone patrolled by drones along the front lines of the conflict, making it extremely challenging to concentrate troops for major offensive operations. The strength of Ukraine’s so-called “drone wall” defenses will be severely tested in the coming few months by Russia’s ongoing offensive. Building on Ukraine’s experience, NATO is reportedly exploring the idea of creating a “drone wall” of its own on the alliance’s eastern flank.

Beyond the front lines, Ukraine has developed an expanding fleet of long-range drones capable of striking targets deep inside Russia. This has made it possible to carry out a wide range of attacks on Russian military bases, ammunition storage facilities, air defenses, and Putin’s economically vital but vulnerable oil and gas industry. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called the country’s growing long range capabilities “a clear and effective guarantee of Ukraine’s security.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukrainian drone innovations are also transforming naval warfare. During the first two years of the war, Ukraine used marine drones to target Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, sinking or damaging multiple warships and forcing the remainder to retreat from Russian-occupied Crimea. This remarkable success made it possible to lift the naval blockade on Ukrainian ports and reopen commercial maritime routes, providing Kyiv with a vital economic lifeline.

More recently, Ukraine has begun using naval drones as launch platforms for missiles and smaller unmanned systems. The results have been spectacular. In January 2025, missile-armed Ukrainian naval drones reportedly destroyed several Russian helicopters over the Black Sea. In another world first, Ukrainian officials announced in early May that they had shot down two Russian fighter jets using marine drones equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems.

Ukrainian military planners are now working on a range of unmanned ground systems as they look to take drone warfare to the next level. With support from the country’s government-backed defense tech cluster Brave1, work is underway to develop dozens of robotic models capable of performing a variety of combat and logistical tasks. In December 2024, Ukrainian forces claimed to have made history by conducting the world’s first fully unmanned assault on Russian positions using ground-based robotic systems and FPV drones.

Speaking in April 2025, Ukraine’s former commander in chief Valeriy Zaluzhniy underlined how his country’s use of new technologies was transforming the battlefield. “The Russian-Ukrainian War has completely changed the nature of warfare,” he commented. Zaluzhniy predicted that the wars of the future would be won by countries that focus their resources on the development of drones, electronic warfare, and artificial intelligence. “It is obvious that victory on the battlefield now depends entirely on the ability to outpace the enemy in technological development,” he noted.

Western leaders and military commanders are clearly taking note of the remarkable progress made by the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2022. Many are now incorporating Ukraine’s unique battlefield experience into their own programs, while NATO members including Britain and Denmark are reportedly already receiving training in drone warfare from Ukrainian military instructors. This is likely to be just the beginning, as more countries seek to benefit from Ukrainian expertise.

For many years, it has been customary to view Ukraine as being almost entirely dependent on Western aid and know-how for its survival. This was always an oversimplification; it is now hopelessly outdated. In reality, today’s Ukraine is a drone superpower with an innovative domestic defense industry that can provide its NATO allies with important lessons in the realities of twenty-first century warfare.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Russia’s coming summer offensive could be deadliest of the entire war

Mykola Bielieskov — Thu, 08 May 2025 15:08:20 +0000

As the US-led peace initiative continues to falter, the unfolding summer campaigning season in Ukraine promises to be among the bloodiest of the entire war. In the coming months, Russia is hoping to build on more than a year of gradual advances to achieve breakthroughs on the eastern front, while Ukraine aims to demonstrate to the country’s partners that it is capable of stopping Putin’s war machine and holding the line.

While the Kremlin insists it is ready for peace, developments on the battlefield tell a different story. According to Britain’s Ministry of Defense, Russia is intensifying its offensive operations and sustained approximately 160,000 casualties during the first four months of the current year, the highest total for this period since the start of the full-scale invasion. If this trend continues during the coming fighting season, 2025 will be the deadliest year of the war in terms of Russian losses.

Russia’s strategy continues to rely on costly frontal assaults, but the nature of these attacks is steadily evolving. Russian troops now increasingly employ motorbikes and other improvised vehicles to advance in small groups and infiltrate Ukraine’s defensive lines. These assaults are backed by strike drones, glide bombs, and artillery, making it difficult for Ukraine to direct reinforcements to hot spots or provide medical and engineering support. The end goal is to force Ukrainian tactical withdrawals and inch further forward.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s defensive strategy is focused primarily on attrition. This includes remote mining to channel advancing Russian troops into kill zones, along with the extensive use of traditional artillery. Ukraine’s expanding drone army is also playing a crucial role, making it possible to target Russian units at depths of up to 15 kilometers behind the line of contact.

By increasing drone coverage along the front lines, Ukrainian commanders aim to hamper the logistics of Putin’s invasion force and significantly reduce the potential for future Russian advances. This approach is being dubbed the “drone wall,” and may well come to play a far biggest role in efforts to freeze the front lines. However, Russia is also rapidly innovating to address Ukraine’s growing drone capabilities, leading to a relentless technological contest that runs in parallel to the fighting on the battlefield.

As the Russian army currently holds the initiative and is advancing at various points along the front lines of the war, Putin’s commanders can choose from a range of potential locations as they look to identify geographical priorities for their summer offensive.

At present, Russia is expanding a foothold in northeastern Ukraine’s Sumy region after largely pushing Ukrainian formations out of Russia’s Kursk region. There have also been recent localized Russian advances in the Kharkiv region. However, the main thrust over the next few months is expected to come in eastern Ukraine, where Russia has concentrated forces in the Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka sectors. Success in these sectors could create the conditions for the occupation of the entire Donetsk region, which remains Russia’s most immediate political objective.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While Putin is under no pressure on the home front, he will be keen to achieve some kind of meaningful breakthrough in the coming months in order to demonstrate to domestic and international audiences that the Russian army is capable to achieving victory in Ukraine. He recently stated that Russia has “sufficient strength and resources to take the war in Ukraine to its logical conclusion,” but the fact remains that his army has failed to capture and hold a single Ukrainian regional capital in more than three years of brutal warfare.

For war-weary Ukraine, the coming summer campaign will be a major test of endurance. If Ukrainian forces are able to prevent any significant Russian advances despite dwindling supplies of US military aid, it would serve as a powerful argument for pro-Ukrainian politicians in Europe and the United States. This would likely lead to strengthened support for the Ukrainian war effort, and could help convince skeptics in the Trump White House to adopt a firmer stance toward Russia.

The Ukrainian authorities have already accepted a US proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and remain ready to pursue a sustainable peace settlement. But with Russia showing little sign of following suit, Ukraine faces another long summer of brutal fighting.

The Kremlin’s current negotiating position would leave postwar Ukraine partitioned, isolated, and defenseless. Any peace on such terms would almost certainly mean the end of Ukrainian statehood. Instead, Ukraine must continue to defend itself while hoping that Russia’s ability to sustain heavy losses declines faster than the West’s collective commitment to stopping Putin.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Putin’s parade cynically exploits WWII to justify his own criminal invasion

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 08 May 2025 02:13:09 +0000

Dozens of foreign leaders are expected in Moscow on May 9 for the largest international event in the Russian capital since Vladimir Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago. Officially, they are gathering for a military parade to mark eighty years since the World War II victory over Nazi Germany, but it is already apparent that the shadow of Russia’s current war in Ukraine will loom large over the entire spectacle.

The guest list for Friday’s Victory Day parade on Red Square reflects the dramatic geopolitical realignments that have taken place since 2022, and underlines the widening rift between Putin’s Russia and the democratic world. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s showpiece annual parade had been attended by many Western leaders including US President George W. Bush. This year, however, the guest of honor will be Chinese President Xi Jinping. He will be joined by the Brazilian president along with a host of Central Asian and African leaders. The sole representative from the European Union will be Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Visiting dignitaries will be treated to a bold demonstration of modern Russia’s military might. The mood is expected to be far detached from the kind of somber tones more typically associated with World War II memorials elsewhere. Friday’s parade has been been carefully choreographed to emphasize Russian strength while projecting Putin’s supreme confidence in eventual victory over Ukraine.

The link to today’s war will be hammered home by the participation of numerous Russian military units accused of committing war crimes in Ukraine. Putin may also choose to surround himself with alleged war criminals from the ranks of his invading army, as he did last year. In his official address, it will be genuinely shocking if Putin does not attempt to draw direct parallels between the struggle against Nazi Germany and his own ongoing war in neighboring Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Even without the involvement of Russian troops fresh from the front lines of the current war, it would be virtually impossible to separate Putin’s parade from the Kremlin propaganda justifying the invasion of Ukraine. Ever since Russia first set out to subjugate Ukraine more than ten years ago, the Kremlin has portrayed its escalating invasion as a continuation of the World War II fight against Germany, with Ukrainians cast in the role of modern-day successors to the Nazis. Despite an almost complete lack of evidence to support these absurd and obscene claims, the “Nazi Ukraine” narrative continues to resonate among a Russia population that has been utterly saturated in an extreme form of World War II mythology that often borders on religious fanaticism.

From the very first years of his reign, Putin has sought to place the Soviet Union’s World War II experience at the very heart of modern Russia’s national identity. For the Kremlin, this emphasis on the immense suffering and ultimate triumph of the Soviet war effort has served as the ideal ideological antidote to the horrors of Stalinism and the humiliations of the Soviet collapse. It has proved a highly effective strategy, helping to rebuild Russia’s battered national pride and giving new meaning to the country’s twentieth century totalitarian trauma.

Putin’s war cult has centered around Victory Day, which has emerged over the past 25 years as by far the most important holiday on the Russian calendar. Many outside observers assume Victory Day always enjoyed similar prominence, but that is not the case. In fact, Stalin himself discouraged commemorations and made May 9 a working day in 1947. It remained so until the mid-1960s, when Victory Day was declared a public holiday. Nevertheless, there was none of the pomp and fanfare currently associated with the anniversary of the Nazi surrender. In the 46 years between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, Moscow hosted a grand total of just four Victory Day parades.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Putin’s cynical exploitation of World War II has also shaped Russian rhetoric on the international stage. This has been most immediately apparent in relation to Ukraine, which Kremlin propaganda has consistently portrayed as a Nazi state. Russia’s lurid claims have proved remarkably resistant to reality, with even the 2019 election of Jewish candidate Volodymyr Zelenskyy as president of Ukraine failing to force a change in tactics. Instead, Putin and other leading Kremlin officials have resorted to ever more ridiculous mental gymnastics as they have struggled to explain how a supposedly Nazi country could elect a Jewish leader. In one particularly notorious incident during the first months of the invasion, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed Zelenskyy’s Jewish roots by declaring that Adolf Hitler also had “Jewish blood.”

When Putin announced the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on the fateful morning of February 24, 2022, it came as no surprise that he identified “denazification” as one his two key war aims. The true meaning of this chilling phrase has since become abundantly clear; “denazification” is actually Kremlin code for “de-Ukrainianization,” and reflects Putin’s end goal of a Ukraine without Ukrainians.

In areas of Ukraine that have fallen under Kremlin control since the start of the invasion, the occupation authorities are systematically wiping out all traces of Ukrainian history, culture, and national identity. Thousands of children have been abducted and subjected to indoctrination in a bid to rob them of their Ukrainian nationality, while anyone seen as potentially loyal to Ukraine has been detained and dispatched to a vast network of prisons where torture is reportedly routine. Europe has not witnessed atrocities on this scale since World War II.

For decades, most European countries have marked the end of World War II with solemn memorial services while collectively vowing “never again.” Under Putin, Russians have come to embrace an altogether more menacing form of militant remembrance accompanied by the unofficial slogan “we can repeat it.”

Putin has already succeeded in weaponizing the memory of World War II to consolidate his grip on power, garner domestic support for his expansionist foreign policy, and dehumanize his enemies. He is now poised to use this week’s Victory Day parade in Moscow to legitimize the criminal invasion of Ukraine among his foreign guests and place it in the same context as the fight against Hitler. This is staggeringly disrespectful. It is also historically illiterate. If anyone today is guilty of echoing the crimes of the Nazis, it is Putin himself.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

As Russia intensifies its air offensive against Ukraine’s civilian population, the death toll is rising. According to UN officials, the number of Ukrainian casualties has spiked recently. During the first 24 days of April, 848 civilians were killed or wounded, representing a 46 percent increase on the same period one year ago.

Meanwhile, Russia is also escalating its offensive operations on the battlefield as Putin’s commanders seek to wear down Ukrainian resistance and achieve a breakthrough. This is leading to mounting Russian losses. The UK Ministry of Defense reports that in the first four months of 2025, Russia suffered approximately 160,000 casualties. If the current rate of attrition persists, this will become the costliest year of the war for Putin’s invading army.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Despite extensive evidence of Russia’s intention to escalate the invasion, the United States continues to pursue a vision of peace through compromise. Since talks began, the Trump administration has offered the Kremlin a range of concessions while pressuring Ukraine to back down on key issues such as the country’s NATO ambitions. A recent US peace proposal indicated that President Trump may even be prepared to officially recognize Russia’s 2014 seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

The tone of American diplomacy has shifted noticeably since Trump returned to the White House, with US officials now seeking to avoid any direct condemnation of Russia. In line with this new strategy, the United States has sided with Moscow on a number of occasions to vote against UN resolutions critical of the Kremlin. The US has also stepped back from international efforts to hold Russia accountable for alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine, defunding one flagship program and exiting another.

The Trump administration’s conciliatory approach toward Russia does not appear to be working. Far from offering concessions of his own, Putin has responded to the new US administration’s peace initiative by doubling down on his maximalist war aims. The Kremlin dictator insists on international recognition for Russia’s claims to Ukrainian territory, and demands that any peace deal must leave Ukraine disarmed and internationally isolated.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The current lack of progress toward peace should come as no surprise. After all, the experience of the past two decades has demonstrated that there is nothing more likely to provoke Putin than weakness. When the West chose not to punish Russia for the 2008 invasion of Georgia, this paved the way for the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The underwhelming Western response to Putin’s initial assault on Ukrainian sovereignty then set the stage for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russian’s sense of impunity is now a crucial factor fueling the largest European invasion since World War II. While Putin is always ready to engage in diplomatic maneuvers, his evasive actions in recent months confirm that he has no real interest in a compromise peace. Instead, he is more confident than ever that he can outlast the West in Ukraine and achieve his objectives.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a watershed event in world history that will define the future of international security for decades to come. If Western leaders allow Russia to continue bombing civilians and destroying the foundations of international law without consequence, a ruthless new world order will emerge and will be defined by the principle that might makes right. Putin and his authoritarian colleagues in China, Iran, and North Korea will dominate the global stage and will rewrite the rules to suit their expansionist agendas. No country will be secure.

Today, Ukrainians are paying the price for the West’s reluctance to confront Russia. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, many other countries will also count the cost of this failure.

Alyona Nevmerzhytska is CEO of hromadske.ua.

The shadow of 1930s appeasement hangs over US-led peace talks

Oleksandr Merezhko — Tue, 06 May 2025 13:10:47 +0000

As the world prepares to mark the eightieth anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, the shadow of events leading up to World War II hangs over efforts to end Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine. In order to avoid the horrors of another global conflict, Western leaders must apply the lessons learned from the struggle against twentieth century totalitarianism.

US President Donald Trump’s efforts to initiate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine reflect a commendable desire to end the war. Nevertheless, after more than three months of Russian stalling tactics and empty promises, it should now be abundantly clear that attempting to negotiate a meaningful compromise with Vladimir Putin was a mistake.

Since the current peace process began in early February, the Russian ruler has refused to join Ukraine in backing a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire. Instead, Putin continues to insist on maximalist goals that reflect his undiminished determination to erase Ukrainian statehood and subjugate the Ukrainian people.

Putin’s demands include the comprehensive disarmament of the Ukrainian military and the reestablishment of Russian dominance in all spheres of Ukrainian public life (euphemistically called “denazification” by the Kremlin), along with official international recognition for Russia’s territorial gains and an end to all military support for Kyiv. If implemented, Putin’s terms would leave Ukraine partitioned, isolated, and defenseless. This is not a negotiating position; it is a call for Kyiv’s capitulation.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

While Russia’s ultimate objectives remain unchanged, there is a very real danger that Putin may seek to exploit Trump’s evident ambition to settle the Ukraine issue as soon as possible. He could do so by agreeing to a temporary ceasefire that would lead to a pause in hostilities, while creating the conditions to complete the conquest of Ukraine following the end of Trump’s presidency. This would allow Putin to lift sanctions, rebuild the Russian army, and destabilize Ukraine from within.

In order to secure Kremlin backing, a ceasefire deal would need to hand Putin the semblance of victory while denying Ukraine any genuine and reliable security guarantees. Alarmingly, reports indicate that current US peace proposals go a long way toward meeting these conditions.

Crucially, the United States is reportedly prepared to officially recognize the Russian seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. This has led to inevitable comparisons with the 1938 Munich Agreement, which saw Britain and France hand Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland over to Nazi Germany in the hope that this would satisfy Adolf Hitler. Instead, the shameful deal struck in Munich encouraged the Nazi dictator to escalate his territorial demands. Less than a year later, World War II began.

The appeasement policies of the 1930s have long been condemned for enabling the rise of Hitler. Attempts to appease Putin have produced strikingly similar results. After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Western efforts to downplay the war and resume “business as usual” only served to embolden the Kremlin. When Russia’s 2014 invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine again failed to produce a resolute Western response, Putin interpreted this as a tactic green light to go further. This paved the way for the full-scale invasion of 2022.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

It should now be obvious to any objective observer that the continued appeasement of Putin will further fuel his imperial ambitions. This would be potentially fatal for Ukraine itself. It would also be disastrous for the future of international security.

Putin’s revisionist agenda is not limited to Ukraine. He openly speaks of establishing a new world order and frequently laments the fall of the Russian Empire, which at its peak included more than a dozen currently independent nations beyond Ukraine, from Finland and Poland in the west to the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, it is delusional to think he will simply stop. On the contrary, abandoning Ukraine to Russia would dramatically increase the chances of a far larger conflict in the coming years.

In order to prevent this nightmare scenario from materializing, the West must demonstrate maximum unity and an uncompromising commitment to Ukraine’s survival as an independent state. Putin interprets any talk of compromise as a sign of weakness. The only language he truly understands is the language of strength.

The most effective deterrent remains Ukrainian membership of NATO. Unsurprisingly, Putin has worked hard to prevent this from happening. He has employed nuclear blackmail to intimidate the West, and has spent years spreading false narratives about an alleged NATO security threat to Russia itself.

Putin’s objections to Ukrainian NATO membership do not stand up to scrutiny. Notably, he has been unable to explain why he went to war over Ukraine’s distant hopes of joining NATO but did nothing to oppose Finland’s recent NATO accession, despite the fact that Finnish membership of the alliance more than doubled Russia’s NATO borders overnight. Indeed, Russia already shares borders with six NATO member states and leaves these frontiers largely unguarded. Putin’s real problem is evidently with Ukrainian independence and not NATO enlargement.

Bringing Ukraine into NATO would serve as a powerful barrier to future Russian invasions and would dramatically reduce the likelihood of a major European war without undermining Russian national security. However, this would require a degree of political will on the part of the United States and major European powers including Britain, France, and Germany that is currently absent. Unless that changes, Western leaders must come up with a credible alternative to NATO membership that will guarantee Ukraine’s long-term security.

Nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainian people. But Ukrainians also recognize that well-meaning efforts to compromise with the Putin regime will only encourage further Russian aggression. Similar policies aiming to accommodate and appease Hitler led directly to World War II. If Western leaders wish to prevent a repeat of this catastrophic outcome, they must stop offering the Kremlin concessions and demonstrate the kind of resolve that Russia respects.

Oleksandr Merezhko is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament for the Servant of the People Party and Chair of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Claims of North Korean troops participating in Russia’s war against Ukraine first began to circulate in October 2024. However, the Kremlin initially denied the North Korean presence, with Russian officials remaining tight-lipped on the subject until late April.

Moscow and Pyongyang appear to have coordinated their recent statements, indicating that both partners felt the time was now right to confirm the involvement of North Korean forces in Russia’s war. Official confirmation came as Putin proclaimed the defeat of Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, where the bulk of North Korean soldiers are believed to have been deployed.

Moscow’s decision to confirm the presence of North Korean soldiers after months of denials could prove damaging to the Kremlin’s credibility at a time when questions are already being asked over Russia’s commitment to US-led peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. In recent days, US President Donald Trump has signaled his mounting frustration with Putin’s apparent stalling tactics, and has suggested that the Russian leader may be “tapping” him along.

The appearance of North Korean troops alongside their Russian counterparts on the front lines of the war against Ukraine represents the latest stage in a deepening military alliance between the two countries. North Korea has been supplying Russia with significant quantities of military aid since the early stages of the war in 2022. Deliveries have included millions of artillery shells as well as ballistic missiles, which have been used to devastating effect against Ukrainian cities.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

North Korea’s direct participation in the war against Ukraine is a watershed moment in modern European history. It is also widely seen an indication of the Russian army’s mounting recruitment issues.

While the Kremlin still has vast untapped reserves of available manpower to call upon, Putin is thought to be deeply reluctant to conduct a new mobilization due to fears of a possible domestic backlash inside Russia. This is making it increasingly challenging to replenish the depleted ranks of his invading army amid continued heavy losses.

For much of the war, Putin has relied on a combination of recruits drawn from Russia’s prison population and volunteer soldiers attracted by generous financial incentives that are typically many times higher than average Russian salaries. However, with the Russian army now reportedly averaging over a thousand casualties per day, it is becoming more difficult to find sufficient manpower to maintain the momentum of offensive operations in Ukraine.

So far, the North Korean contingent has seen action inside the Russian Federation itself amid fierce battles to push Ukrainian forces out of Russia’s Kursk region. However, with their participation now publicly confirmed by both Moscow and Pyongyang, officials in Kyiv are voicing concerns that North Korean troops could soon be redeployed to Ukrainian territory. This would represent a dangerous international escalation with unpredictable consequences for the wider region.

North Korea has now firmly established itself as one of the Kremlin’s most important allies in the invasion of Ukraine. Pyongyang’s involvement began with the supply of artillery shells and has expanded to include ballistic missiles and large numbers of combat troops. This comprehensive military support is enabling Russia to sustain the current war effort.

Ukraine’s allies are still searching for a suitable reaction to the expanding North Korean military presence on Europe’s eastern frontier. Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called for the strengthening of sanctions against Russia and North Korea, while also warning that the Koreans are gaining valuable experience of modern warfare in Ukraine that could have grave implications for international security. In the absence of an overwhelming Western response, it seems safe to assume that North Korea’s involvement in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will continue to deepen.

Olivia Yanchik is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Cautious optimism in Kyiv as Ukraine reacts to landmark US minerals deal

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 01 May 2025 14:49:44 +0000

There was a sense of cautious optimism in Kyiv on Thursday morning as Ukrainians reacted to news that a long-awaited natural resources agreement with the United States had finally been signed. While the details of the minerals deal are still being digested, many have already noted that the key terms of the agreement are now far more favorable for Ukraine than earlier drafts, which some Ukrainian critics had likened to “colonial” exploitation.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy first raised the prospect of a minerals-sharing agreement between Ukraine and the United States in late 2024 as he sought to engage with Donald Trump in the run-up to America’s presidential vote. The idea gained further momentum following Trump’s election victory, but a planned signing ceremony was abandoned in late February following a disastrous Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy.

When talks resumed in early spring, leaked details indicated a hardening of the American position, with US officials insisting on extensive control over Ukrainian assets and seeking to use revenues to repay aid provided to Ukraine during the first three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion. However, following weeks of exhaustive negotiations, the most contentious conditions have now been removed, resulting in a more forward-looking document that sets the stage for a potential deepening in the strategic partnership between Kyiv and Washington.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s Minister of Economy Yulia Svyrydenko, who traveled to the US to sign the minerals deal on Wednesday evening following intense last-minute discussions over the fine print of the agreement, emphasized that Ukraine would retain ownership and control over its natural resources. She noted that the final wording “provides mutually beneficial conditions” for both countries, and praised the deal as “an agreement that reaffirms the United States commitment to Ukraine’s security, recovery, and reconstruction.”

Back in Kyiv, many saw the signing primarily as an opportunity to improve relations with the Trump White House following a turbulent few months that has seen the US President employ harsh rhetoric toward Ukraine while repeatedly blaming the country for Russia’s invasion. “Ukraine held the line. Despite enormous pressure, every overreaching demand from the other side was dropped. The final deal looks fair,” commented Kyiv School of Economics president Tymofiy Mylovanov. “It’s a major political and diplomatic win for Ukraine and the US that gives Trump a domestic political boost. That will translate, I expect, into a more positive attitude toward Ukraine.”

There was also much praise for the Ukrainian negotiating team and their ability to accommodate US interests while addressing Kyiv’s concerns. “This final version is significantly fairer and more mutually beneficial than earlier drafts,” stated Olena Tregub, who serves as executive director of Ukraine’s Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NAKO). “To me, the minerals agreement is a clear win-win. It’s a well-negotiated, balanced deal that reflects both strategic vision and professionalism.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Many members of the Ukrainian parliament adopted a pragmatic view of the landmark minerals deal. “It seems like Trump was putting pressure on us in an attempt to get a victory during his first hundred days in office,” commented Oleksandr Merezhko, a lawmaker representing President Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party who chairs the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee. “The devil is in the details. But politically there are upsides. We have improved relations with Trump, for whom the deal is a win.”

Fellow Ukrainian member of parliament Inna Sovsun, who represents the opposition Golos party, underlined the unprecedented challenges Ukraine faced during negotiations as the country sought to broker a fair deal with a crucial ally while fighting for national survival. “We weren’t choosing between good and bad, we were choosing between bad and worse. What we got is better than the initial offer,” she noted.

While the general mood in Kyiv was relatively upbeat following the news from Washington, Sovsun stressed that the new natural resources agreement with the United States falls far short of the security guarantees that Ukraine is seeking in order to safeguard the country’s future and prevent further Russian aggression. “A true end to the war can only happen if the US provides significantly more weapons to Ukraine, is willing to apply greater sanctions pressure on Russia, or ideally both. If neither happens, it’s hard to expect the war to end.”

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Putin announces ceasefire to protect Moscow parade from Ukrainian attack

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 21:26:01 +0000

Russian President Vladimir Putin has just announced his second unilateral ceasefire in a matter of days, but this emerging trend does not reflect any sincere desire for peace. On the contrary, Putin’s brazen new ceasefire gambit suggests a man emboldened by Western weakness who is now more confident than ever that he can continue to game the US-led peace process without seriously disrupting his invasion of Ukraine.

In early March, Ukraine agreed to an American proposal for an unconditional ceasefire. Almost two months later, Russia still refuses to follow suit. As a result, many observers are drawing the obvious conclusion that Russia rather than Ukraine is the primary obstacle to peace. In an apparent bid to counter this growing consensus and distract attention from Russia’s reluctance to end the war, Putin has recently begun declaring his own brief ceasefires. His first step was to announce a surprise 30-hour Easter truce during traditional Orthodox religious festivities in Russia and Ukraine. Putin is now proposing a three-day break in hostilities to mark Victory Day on May 9.

The timing of Putin’s latest truce is particularly interesting. Critics note that his Victory Day ceasefire coincides with a major military parade in Moscow to mark the eightieth anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. Putin is expected to host a number of high-ranking foreign dignitaries at the event, including the leaders of China, Brazil, and India. Needless to say, it would be hugely embarrassing for the Kremlin dictator if his propaganda parade was overshadowed by Ukrainian airstrikes in Moscow or elsewhere in Russia.

Many have already noted the cynicism of Putin’s proposal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacted by reaffirming his commitment to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire while accusing the Kremlin of trying to “manipulate the world” and “deceive the United States” with empty ceasefire stunts. “We value human lives, not parades,” he stated. Officials in Brussels were similarly critical of the Kremlin. “Russia could stop the killing and the bombing at any time, so there’s absolutely no need to wait until May 8,” commented European Commission spokesperson Anita Hipper. Meanwhile, the Trump White House responded by emphasizing the need for a “permanent ceasefire.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin’s shamelessly self-serving call for a Victory Day ceasefire says much about his opportunistic approach toward the faltering peace process initiated by the United States in early 2025. Much like the 30-hour lull in fighting initiated by Putin over the Easter holiday, the three-day truce proposed this week is far too short to have any meaningful impact on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. However, it does allow the Russian ruler to pose as peacemaker while continuing his invasion.

Putin’s headline-grabbing truces are also an important part of his stalling tactics as he seeks to drag out peace talks indefinitely without exhausting US President Donald Trump’s patience or closing the door on a potential broader thaw in bilateral relations with the United States. It is no coincidence that both of Putin’s recent ceasefire announcements have come in the immediate aftermath of critical comments from Trump indicating that the US leader is growing tired of Russian excuses. Indeed, news of the Victory Day truce emerged just hours after Trump had questioned Russia’s willingness to end the war and commented that he feared Putin was “tapping me along.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While Putin engages in dubious peace gestures, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has recently provided a far more realistic view of the Kremlin’s war aims and continued commitment to the conquest Ukraine. In an interview with Brazilian newspaper O Globo that was published on the same day as Putin’s Victory Day ceasefire announcement, Lavrov listed Russia’s conditions ahead of possible negotiations with Ukraine. These included international recognition of Russia’s right to five partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, the removal of all sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014, guarantees over Ukrainian neutrality, and the reduction of Ukraine’s army to a skeleton force.

Crucially, Moscow also insists on Ukraine’s “denazification,” which is recognized as Kremlin code for the comprehensive “de-Ukrainianization” of the country and the reestablishment of Russian dominance in all spheres of public life. If implemented, these punishing Russian terms would not lead to a sustainable peace. Instead, they would serve as an act of capitulation, setting the stage for the final destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation.

All this is a very long way from the Trump administration’s frequent assertions that both sides must be willing to compromise if they wish to achieve a viable settlement. While Ukraine has repeatedly backed calls for an unconditional ceasefire and has accepted the need for temporary territorial concessions, Russia continues to pursue maximalist goals that no Ukrainian government could possibly accept.

During the first hundred days of his presidency, Trump has sought to advance the peace process by pressuring Ukraine while offering Russia a wide range of incentives to engage. It should now be abundantly clear that this uneven approach has backfired. Far from persuading Putin to offer concessions of his own, Trump’s appeasement policies have convinced the Kremlin to escalate its demands further. We have now reached the point where Putin believes he can personally pause the war to host a military parade on Red Square before resuming his invasion three days later. This absurd situation makes a complete mockery of Trump’s peace efforts and threatens to leave him looking foolish.

If Trump is serious about bringing Russia to the negotiating table, he must first demonstrate a readiness to impose crippling costs on the Kremlin. The current US strategy toward Russia can be characterized as all carrots and no sticks. This is useless against a regime that only understands the language of strength and regards any attempts at compromise as signs of weakness. It also gravely underestimates the high stakes underpinning Russia’s invasion. Putin views the war in Ukraine as an historic mission to reverse the imperial collapse of 1991 and return Russia to its rightful place as a global superpower. He will not abandon this mission unless the alternative is defeat.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Kyiv accuses China of deepening involvement in Russia’s Ukraine war

Katherine Spencer — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:43:29 +0000

As US-led efforts continue to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, Kyiv has recently accused China of deepening its involvement in Moscow’s invasion. The claims leveled at Beijing are not the first of their kind since the start of the full-scale invasion and add an extra dimension of geopolitical complexity to the ongoing negotiations.

In early April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that two Chinese nationals had been captured while fighting alongside the Russian military in eastern Ukraine. Although the presence of foreign fighters within the ranks of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invading army is not new, officials in Kyiv claim that more than 150 Chinese mercenaries have been recruited by Russia. China has called the allegations “totally unfounded.”

While there is no evidence linking Russia’s Chinese troops to Beijing, many have suggested the Chinese authorities must be aware that their nationals are participating in a foreign war. Some have pointed to widespread Russian military recruitment adverts circulating across China’s heavily censored social media space, and have suggested that the presence of these videos indicates a degree of tacit official approval, at the very least.

US officials do not believe the recently captured fighters have direct ties to the Chinese government, Reuters reports. However, there are mounting concerns in Washington and other Western capitals over reports that Beijing is sending army officers to observe the Russian invasion of Ukraine in a bid to learn tactical lessons from the war. This could provide the Chinese military with important insights into drone warfare and the rapidly changing nature of the modern battlefield.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In a further indication of growing frustration in Kyiv over China’s alleged support for Russia’s invasion, Zelenskyy recently accused Chinese citizens of working at a Russian manufacturing plant producing drones for the war in Ukraine. In the past month, the Ukrainian authorities have also imposed sanctions on three Chinese companies for alleged involvement in the production of Iskander ballistic missiles, which Russia often uses in the war against Ukraine.

The most serious Ukrainian allegations came in the middle of April, when Zelenskyy claimed that China was now supplying weapons and gunpowder to Russia. This was the first time the Ukrainian leader had openly accused Beijing of providing Moscow with direct military assistance. Although, last fall US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell had also suggested that China was providing Russia with technology that was “not dual-use capabilities,” contributing directly to Russia’s war production.

Claims of expanding Chinese involvement in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine do not come as a complete surprise. After all, China has long been seen as one of the Kremlin’s key allies and has emerged over the past decade as Moscow’s most important economic partner.

On the eve of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, China and Russia declared a “no limits” partnership. Over the past three years, the two countries have repeatedly underlined their shared geopolitical vision, which includes a commitment to ending the era of US dominance and ushering in a new multipolar world order. These strengthening ties have been further highlighted by a number of bilateral summit meetings between the Russian and Chinese leaders.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite its close relations with Moscow, China has officially adopted a neutral stance toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has included refraining from any overt gestures of support and publicly backing calls for peace. Nevertheless, Beijing has faced accusations of enabling the Russian war effort in important ways through the provision of restricted items including sanctioned components and dual-use technologies used in the production of missiles, tanks, and aircraft. By providing the vast majority of these exports to Russia, US officials believe that China has helped Russia greatly boost its arsenal and ramp up military production.

US officials have also alleged that China is providing Russia with geospatial intelligence to aid the invasion of Ukraine.

Claims of growing Chinese involvement are fueling speculation that this could lead to a possible international escalation in Russia’s war against Ukraine. There is also alarm over what Russia may be providing in exchange for Chinese support. US officials have alleged that China is receiving unprecedented access to highly sophisticated Russian defense technologies. The US Congress has also suggested that the Kremlin could be providing China with critical knowledge about the vulnerabilities of Western weapons systems based on combat experience acquired in Ukraine.

While Beijing has denied providing any material support for Moscow’s war, there is no question that the geopolitical partnership between China and Russia has reached new levels against the backdrop of the conflict.

With the United States now looking to reduce its involvement in European security, opportunities may soon emerge for China to play a greater role in peace efforts to end the war. However, Beijing would first need to align its actions with its words to convince Kyiv that it is a plausible peacemaker rather than a Russian ally.

Katherine Spencer is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Editor’s note: This article was updated on April 30, 2025, to clarify that reports of Chinese support for Russia’s war effort have been persistent before Kyiv’s recent accusations.

Ukraine’s innovative army can help Europe defend itself against Russia

David Kirichenko — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 21:39:48 +0000

When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, he cited Ukraine’s “demilitarization” as one of his two key war aims. He has not yet succeeded in achieving this goal, to put it mildly. Rather than disarming Ukraine, Putin’s invasion has actually transformed the country into one of Europe’s most formidable military powers.

The emergence of the Ukrainian army as a serious international fighting force can be traced back to the beginning of Russia’s invasion in 2014. At the time, decades of neglect and corruption had left Ukraine virtually defenseless. With the country’s existence under threat, a program of military modernization was rapidly adopted. During the following years, the Ukrainian Armed Forces expanded dramatically and implemented a series of far-reaching reforms in line with NATO standards.

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of February 2022, the transformation of the Ukrainian military entered a new phase. The number of men and women in uniform swelled to around one million, making the Ukrainian army by far the largest in Europe. They have been backed by a domestic defense industry that has grown by orders of magnitude over the past three years and now accounts for around 40 percent of Ukraine’s military needs.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For today’s Ukraine, a strong domestic defense sector is now a matter of national survival. During the initial stages of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian authorities relied heavily on military aid from the country’s partners. This support helped enable Ukraine’s early victories but was also often subject to prolonged delays that left Kyiv vulnerable to changing political priorities in various Western capitals.

The need for greater military self-sufficiency has been underlined in recent months by the return of US President Donald Trump to the White House. The new US leader has made clear that he does not intend to maintain United States military support for Ukraine, and plans instead to downgrade the overall American commitment to European security. This shift in US policy has confirmed the wisdom of Ukraine’s earlier decision to prioritize the expansion of the country’s domestic defense industry.

Ukraine’s growing military capabilities owe much to a defense tech revolution that has been underway in the country since 2022. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion, hundreds of Ukrainian companies have begun producing innovative new technologies for the military ranging from software to combat drones. By focusing on relatively simple and affordable defense tech solutions, Ukraine has been able to close the gap on Russia despite Moscow’s often overwhelming advantages in terms of manpower, firepower, and resources.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

More than three years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, it is now clear that wartime necessity has transformed Ukraine into perhaps the most agile and experimental military ecosystem in the world. Whereas Western arms procurement cycles typically span several years, Ukraine can translate ideas into operational weapons within the space of just a few months. This has helped establish Ukraine as a global leader in drone warfare. The country’s use of inexpensive FPV drones is increasingly defining the modern battlefield and now accounts for approximately 80 percent of all Russian casualties.

Ukraine’s domestic drone production capacity is growing at a remarkable rate. According to the country’s Deputy Defense Minister Ivan Havryliuk, Ukrainian forces are currently receiving approximately 200,000 drones per month, a tenfold increase on the figure from just one year ago. Kyiv is also making rapid progress in the development of numerous other cutting edge military technologies including robotic systems, marine drones, and cruise missiles.

Ukraine’s dramatically expanded armed forces and groundbreaking defense tech sector make the country an indispensable partner for Europe. After decades of reliance on US security support, European leaders currently find themselves confronted with the new political realities of an isolationist United States and an expansionist Russia. In this uncertain environment, it makes good sense for Europe to upgrade its support for the Ukrainian army while deepening collaboration with Ukrainian defense tech companies.

European investment in the Ukrainian defense industry is already on the rise, both in terms of government donor funds and private sector investment. This trend looks set to intensify in the coming months as Ukrainians and their European partners increasingly acknowledge that their collective future security depends on closer cooperation. Russia’s invasion has forced Ukraine to become a major military power and a leading defense tech innovator. This status looks set to guarantee the country a position at the heart of Europe’s security architecture for many years to come.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

A pro-Putin peace deal in Ukraine would destabilize the entire world

Elena Davlikanova, Lesia Ogryzko — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:41:09 +0000

US President Donald Trump launched a fresh attack against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on April 23, accusing him of obstructing peace negotiations and prolonging the war with Russia. Trump’s comments came after Zelenskyy rejected the idea of ceding Crimea to Russia as part of a US-brokered plan that some skeptics say would reward the Kremlin and grant Moscow most of its objectives while offering Ukraine little in return.

Ending the war between Russia and Ukraine has been Donald Trump’s top foreign policy priority throughout the first hundred days of his new administration. This has led to mixed results. The US leader has won praise for initiating the first meaningful talks since the early months of the Russian invasion, but he has also been accused of adopting an overly Kremlin-friendly approach to negotiations that has seen the US consistently pressure Ukraine while offering Russia a series of concessions.

The eagerness of the new US administration to reach some kind of settlement comes as no surprise. During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump vowed to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible. Since returning to the White House in January, he has sought to distance himself from the current confrontation with the Kremlin, and has repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for normalizing relations with Moscow.

This dramatic shift in US foreign policy is sparking considerable alarm in Kyiv and other European capitals. Concerns are now mounting that if Ukraine is forced to accept a pro-Putin peace deal, the country would be unlikely to survive much longer as an independent state. This would represent an historic victory for Putin’s Russia, with profound geopolitical repercussions that would be felt far beyond the borders of Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In Russia itself, a successful peace deal would vindicate the entire invasion of Ukraine and further consolidate the country’s ongoing transition toward a fully totalitarian model of government. Today’s militarization of Russian society would intensify, with imperial propaganda dominating the national information space and defense spending rising to unprecedented levels. Unpopular aspects of the current war such as heavy battlefield losses and sanctions-related shortages would soon be forgotten as triumphant Russians embraced a new era of imperial expansionism.

Others would draw very different conclusions from a Russian victory in Ukraine. The failure of the existing international order to prevent the invasion and occupation of a major European country would send shock waves around the world and mark the dawn of a dangerous new era defined by the principle that might is right. This would soon lead to sharp increases in defense budgets as nations rushed to rearm in order to avoid suffering the same fate as Ukraine.

Russia’s frequent use of nuclear blackmail during the invasion of Ukraine would be particularly consequential. The Kremlin’s readiness to engage in nuclear saber-rattling would convince many countries that in order to be truly safe, they must acquire nukes of their own. In such a scenario, the existing nuclear nonproliferation architecture would collapse and be replaced by a nuclear arms race that would significantly increase the potential for a future nuclear war.

For Putin, a successful outcome in Ukraine would be a stepping stone toward even more ambitious foreign policy adventures. He would almost certainly seek to continue reasserting Russian dominance across the former USSR, with his next targets likely to include Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and the countries of Central Asia. He may also seek to go further into Central Europe. Confronted by a demoralized and weakened West, Putin would surely be tempted to escalate his campaign of aggression against front line nations like Finland or the Baltic states in order to expose the emptiness of NATO’s collective security guarantees and discredit the alliance.

An emboldened Russia would also seek to increase its military and economic presence in other regions of the world including the Arctic, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. With sanctions no longer in place and Russia increasingly viewed as a geopolitical winner, potential allies would flock to Moscow. In this new reality, Putin’s current authoritarian alliance with China, Iran, and North Korea would serve as the basis for a far larger anti-Western grouping.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Any settlement that leaves Ukraine partitioned, isolated, and disarmed will not bring peace. On the contrary, it would signal the start of a new stage in the country’s agony marked by the slow bleeding of territory, population, and sovereignty. Step by step, an abandoned Ukraine would gradually be absorbed into Putin’s new Russian Empire. This would place Europe’s second-largest army under Russian control, while also providing the Kremlin with vast additional industrial and agricultural wealth to fuel Putin’s expansionist agenda.

Meanwhile, Europe would lose its Ukrainian shield at a time when the continent is already facing up to the reality of a drastically reduced US commitment to transatlantic security. While European leaders are now urgently addressing the need to rearm, few would currently be confident in their ability to withstand a determined Russian offensive. Without Ukraine’s battle-hardened million-strong army to protect them, the countries of Europe would represent an extremely inviting target that Putin may be unable to resist.

After more than three years of relentless horror and destruction, nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians themselves. But most Ukrainians also recognize that a bad peace will mean no peace at all. Handing Russia victory in Ukraine may temporarily create the illusion of peace, but in fact it would merely set the stage for a dangerous new era of international insecurity marked by militarization, authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, and wars of aggression.

Elena Davlikanova is a fellow at CEPA. Lesia Ogryzko is director of the Sahaidachny Security Center.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

If the goal of Putin’s Easter ceasefire gambit was to position Ukraine as the main obstacle to peace, it appears to have backfired. Far from rejecting Russia’s last minute ceasefire proposal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy quickly agreed. “If Russia is now suddenly ready to truly engage in a format of full and unconditional silence, Ukraine will act accordingly, mirroring Russia’s actions,” he commented in a social media post outlining Ukraine’s position.

Crucially, Zelenskyy also called Putin’s bluff by issuing his own counter-proposal to significantly extend the ceasefire. “If a complete ceasefire truly takes hold, Ukraine proposes extending it beyond Easter Day. This will reveal Russia’s true intentions, because 30 hours is enough to make headlines, but not for genuine confidence-building measures. Thirty days could give peace a chance,” the Ukrainian leader commented.

Zelenskyy has since expanded on his call for a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. On Easter Day, he said Russia and Ukraine should both implement a month-long pause on all missile and drone attacks against civilian infrastructure. Putin has not yet provided a definite answer to Zelenskyy’s proposal, but he has suggested that he may be open to bilateral talks with Ukraine on the issue. It is far from certain whether this dialogue will lead to any meaningful action, but the Ukrainian leader has already succeeded in demonstrating his constructive approach to the peace process.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

These recent developments come at a key moment in the Trump administration’s efforts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and bring Europe’s largest invasion since World War II to an end. Ukraine agreed to a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire on March 11, but Russia has yet to do likewise. Instead, Moscow has sought to secure multiple further concessions and has been accused of attempting to drag out talks indefinitely.

Putin’s efforts to obstruct negotiations have placed Trump in an uncomfortable position and have led to widespread suggestions that the US leader is being played by the Kremlin dictator. Matters first came to a head in late March when Putin publicly questioned Zelenskyy’s political legitimacy and said Ukraine should be placed under temporary United Nations administration in order to elect what the Russian ruler called a more “competent” government. Trump responded by saying he was “pissed off” and “very angry” about Putin’s comments.

Throughout April, the chorus of international criticism over Russia’s bad faith approach to negotiations has grown steadily louder, as have demands for Trump to respond accordingly. The US leader is now evidently running out of patience and is threatening to walk away from peace talks altogether. With American officials demanding progress in a matter of days rather than weeks, we should soon have a better picture of the prospects for a breakthrough toward a sustainable settlement. For now, there is little indication that Russia has any interest in ending the invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin’s surprise Easter ceasefire announcement was clearly a cynical stunt, but it did inadvertently serve an important purpose by underlining the simple fact that Russia can end the war whenever it chooses. With faltering peace talks now approaching a critical juncture, the significance of this basic point cannot be overstated. As many people have observed over the past three years, if Russia stops fighting, there will be no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

US-led peace talks hampered by Trump’s reluctance to pressure Putin

Olivia Yanchik — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:20:14 +0000

During the 2024 election campaign, US President Donald Trump famously vowed to end the Russian war on Ukraine “in 24 hours.” Three months into his presidency, the US leader now appears to be rapidly losing patience with a faltering peace process that is showing few signs of progress. Trump stated on April 18 that he wanted a ceasefire agreement in place quickly and would “take a pass” if Moscow or Kyiv “make it very difficult” to reach a peace deal.

Trump’s latest comments reflect mounting US frustration. Speaking on the same day in Paris, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US may soon “move on” from efforts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine if there is no progress in the coming days. “We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not,” Rubio told reporters.

It is not difficult to see why the Trump White House is feeling discouraged. While Ukraine agreed to a US proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire on March 11, Russia has so far refused to follow suit. Instead, the Kremlin has offered a long list of excuses and additional conditions. This has led to accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin has no real interest in peace and is deliberately engaging in stalling tactics in a bid to drag out negotiations and continue the war until he has political control of Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Critics of Trump say he has been too reluctant to pressure Putin and has done little to convince the Kremlin dictator that the time has come to abandon his invasion. They claim Trump has consistently signaled his readiness to offer Russia concessions while adopting a noticeably tougher stance toward Ukraine. This has included multiple statements blaming Ukraine for Russia’s invasion.

Since the very early stages of Trump’s peace initiative, the US has ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. This was recently underlined by US envoy General Keith Kellogg, who confirmed that NATO membership for Ukraine was “off the table.” Kellogg’s comments were welcomed by the Kremlin. “Of course, this is something that causes us satisfaction and coincides with our position,” noted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

The US has also made clear that it expects Europe to play a leading role in any peace settlement, including the provision of security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent any future repeat of Russia’s current invasion. This is part of a broader foreign policy transition that looks set to see the United States reduce its historic commitment to European security in order to focus more on Asia.

After taking office in January, Trump threatened to target Putin’s energy sector and extended some existing sanctions, but he has so far chosen not to impose any additional economic measures against Moscow. When Trump unveiled landmark new tariffs in early April, Russia was one of the few major economies not on the list.

US officials said the decision not to impose tariffs was because bilateral trade had already effectively stopped due to sanctions imposed following Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, trade with Russia is greater than trade with a number of countries subject to the new tariffs. Meanwhile, Trump and other US officials have frequently talked up the prospect for greater economic cooperation between Russia and the United States.

In the diplomatic arena, the Trump White House has sought to avoid direct criticism of Russia in favor of more neutral messaging that prioritizes the need for peace. This approach has seen the United States siding with Moscow at the United Nations and voting against UN resolutions condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. US officials also reportedly refused to back a statement by the G7 group of nations condemning Russia’s recent Palm Sunday attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy, which killed dozens of civilians.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The Kremlin has responded approvingly to the dramatic recent shift in the United States approach toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In early March, Russian officials noted that US foreign policy now “largely coincides with our vision.” However, while Putin has good reason to welcome the Trump administration’s stance on Ukraine, he has so far shown little interest in reciprocating by offering any concessions of his own. Far from it, in fact. Since the start of bilateral talks with the United States in February, the Russian military has significantly increased its bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities. In recent weeks, Russian forces have launched a major new spring offensive in Ukraine.

The Kremlin’s negotiating position in ongoing US-led talks is similarly hard line and reflects Russia’s continued commitment to ending Ukrainian independence. Moscow’s demands include official recognition of Russian control over four partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, a complete end to all Western military support for Kyiv, and the drastic reduction of the Ukrainian army to a mere skeleton force, apparently with the intention of leaving Ukraine defenseless against a future phase of Russia’s invasion.

Russia’s uncompromising current approach reflects Putin’s conviction that he can eventually outlast the West in Ukraine, and that by saying no, he will push Trump to offer more concessions. So far, Putin’s logic appears to be working. Trump’s efforts to win over the Kremlin seem to have convinced many in Moscow that they are now firmly on track to secure an historic victory and have no reason to offer any meaningful concessions. If Trump is serious about achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine, he must demonstrate that he is prepared to turn up the pressure on Putin and increase the costs of continuing the invasion.

Olivia Yanchik is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Putin is attempting to intimidate Merz with yet more Russian red lines

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:58:03 +0000

As Germany’s next chancellor Friedrich Merz prepares to boost support for Ukraine, the Kremlin is already seeking to deter him with intimidation tactics. Merz’s response to Moscow’s threats will reveal much about his ability to lead Europe at a time when the continent is attempting to confront the challenging new geopolitical realities of an expansionist Russia and an isolationist United States.

When Merz takes up his post in the coming weeks, his first big foreign policy decision will be whether to provide Ukraine with long-range Taurus missiles. Current German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has consistently refused to do so, but Merz has indicated that he will be prepared to give the green light for deliveries. This would potentially enable Ukraine to launch precision strikes against targets deep inside Russia.

The Kremlin is clearly anxious to prevent this from happening. Speaking in Moscow on April 17, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that any decision to supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles would have serious consequences for Berlin, and would be viewed by Russia as direct German involvement in the war.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

It is no surprise to see Russia engaged in yet more saber-rattling. After all, this approach has served the Kremlin well throughout the full-scale war in Ukraine. From the very first days of Russia’s invasion, Putin has attempted to exploit Western fears of escalation by threatening to retaliate if Kyiv’s partners dare to cross arbitrary red lines set by Moscow limiting the scale of international support for Ukraine.

Russia’s threats have proved remarkably effective. They have helped fuel prolonged debates in Western capitals over each and every aspect of military aid for Ukraine, and have made many of Kyiv’s partners reluctant to provide the kinds of weapons that could lead to a decisive Ukrainian victory. Indeed, while the Russian army has struggled to advance on the battlefield, Putin’s ability to intimidate the West has been arguably his most important achievement of the entire war.

This success is all the more remarkable given how many times Putin’s bluff has been called. He began the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 by issuing thinly-veiled threats indicating that any Western attempts to interfere would be met by a nuclear response. When Western leaders ignored this and proceeded to arm Kyiv, Putin did nothing.

In September 2022, as he prepared to illegally annex four partially occupied regions of Ukraine, Putin famously announced his readiness to use nuclear weapons to defend his Ukrainian conquests. “I’m not bluffing,” he declared. When Ukraine completely disregarded this bluster and proceeded to liberate the strategically vital southern city of Kherson days later, Putin did not reach for his nuclear button. On the contrary, he ordered his defeated army to quietly retreat across the Dnipro river.

The Kremlin’s many bloodcurdling threats regarding the sanctity of Russian-occupied Crimea have proved similarly hollow. Since 2022, Moscow has sought to position the occupied Ukrainian peninsula as being beyond the boundaries of the current war. This has not prevented Ukraine from sinking or damaging around one-third of the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet, which has traditionally been based in Crimea. Putin has responded to this very personal humiliation in typically understated fashion by withdrawing the rest of his warships to the safety of Russia.

Remarkably, Putin even failed to react when Ukraine crossed the reddest of all red lines and invaded Russia itself in August 2024. Rather than declaring World War III or attempting to rally his compatriots against the foreign invader, Putin actively sought to downplay the significance of Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s recent warnings regarding the potential delivery of German missiles to Ukraine are eerily similar to the empty threats made by Putin last September as the US weighed up the possibility of allowing Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes inside Russia using American weapons. At the time, Putin stated that any lifting of restrictions would mean that Russia was “at war” with NATO. However, when the US then duly granted Ukraine permission to begin attacking Russian targets, there was no discernible change in Putin’s stance.

Russia’s saber-rattling over Taurus missiles represents an important early test for Germany’s next leader. As Chancellor, Merz will inherit a major war on Europe’s eastern frontier that is now in its fourth year and could potentially expand further into the heart of the continent. He is also well aware that Europeans can no longer rely on US military support, as they have done for generations.

Germany is the obvious candidate to lead Europe’s rearmament, but Merz must first demonstrate that he has the political will to match his country’s undoubted industrial capabilities. US President Joe Biden consistently sought to avoid escalation with Russia, while his successor Donald Trump seems more interested in building bridges with Vladimir Putin than containing the Kremlin. If Merz wants to lead the Western resistance to Putin’s imperial agenda, he can begin by rejecting Russia’s threats and delivering Taurus missiles to Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

The Ukrainian army is now Europe’s most credible security guarantee

Pavlo Verkhniatskyi — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:22:52 +0000

Ever since the first months of Russia’s full-scale invasion in spring 2022, Kyiv has played host to a steady stream of visiting European officials eager to demonstrate their support for Ukraine. With the war now in its fourth year, there are growing signs that this relationship is evolving and becoming more balanced. While Kyiv continues to rely on European aid, it is increasingly clear that Ukraine also has much to offer and can play a major part in the future security of Europe.

Following his return to the White House in January, US President Donald Trump has initiated a dramatic shift in United States foreign policy that has left many in Europe unsure of the transatlantic alliance and keen to ramp up their own defense capabilities. This geopolitical instability is also encouraging European policymakers to rethink Ukraine’s role in the defense of the continent. With unparalleled combat experience and proven ability to scale up arms production at relatively low cost, Ukraine is in many ways the ideal partner for European countries as they confront the twin challenges of an expansionist Russia and an isolationist US.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s defense industry has grown at a remarkably rapid rate since 2022 and is now capable of meeting approximately 40 percent of the country’s military needs. The segment that has attracted the most international attention so far is drone production, with Ukraine widely recognized as a global leader in drone warfare. It requires a careful approach in order to identify the few true gems from among the hundreds of Ukrainian companies currently producing over a million of drones per year, but the potential for groundbreaking advances in drone technologies is obvious.

In order to make the most of this potential, Ukraine must first safeguard its survival as an independent nation. Looking ahead, a key challenge for the Ukrainian authorities will be creating the kind of business climate that can enable the country’s emerging defense industry to prosper in a postwar environment that is likely to feature declining defense budgets.

At present, many Ukrainian defense sector companies are moving production to locations outside Ukraine due to a combination of factors including export bans and a lack of financing options inside the country. The most elegant solution to this problem is to promote more defense sector partnerships with Ukraine’s European allies.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

During the first few years of Russia’s full-scale invasion, security cooperation between Ukraine and the country’s partners was generally a one-way street, with weapons and ammunition flowing to Kyiv. More recently, a new model has emerged involving Western countries funding production at Ukrainian defense companies. This approach is efficient and strategically sound. It boosts Ukraine militarily and economically, while also taking advantage of the country’s strengths as a cost-effective and innovative arms producer. However, it lacks long-term appeal for Ukraine’s partners.

Establishing joint ventures between Ukrainian and European defense companies may be a more attractive and sustainable format. This would be a financially attractive way of fueling Europe’s rearmament, and would allow participating companies to build on a wide range of potential research and development synergies. Setting up production facilities in wartime Ukraine would clearly involve an element of risk, but this need not necessarily be a deal breaker if sensible security measures are implemented.

The scope for such joint ventures is huge. Indeed, it would make good sense to invest in specialized business and science parks providing the full range of related services and industry expertise. Initially, jointly produced equipment could be fast-tracked to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Further down the line, output could also be exported to partner countries and global markets. The growth of joint ventures would significantly improve Ukraine’s defensive potential and enhance the country’s ability to shield Europe from the Russian threat.

An ambitious European rearmament plan is currently taking shape that could significantly accelerate the integration of Ukraine’s defense industry. For this to happen, a number of regulatory and operational issues must first be resolved in Kyiv, Brussels, and various European capitals. While Ukraine can undoubtedly make a meaningful contribution to European security, the continent’s political complexities are particularly pronounced when it comes to defense budgets and procurement policies. It will require a degree of pragmatism to dismantle bureaucratic hurdles and overcome narrow national interests.

As European leaders adapt to radical shifts in the geopolitical landscape, Kyiv is ideally positioned to help the continent address its most pressing security needs. Ukraine’s army is by far the largest in Europe and has unique experience of modern warfare. It is backed by a domestic arms industry that is growing at a phenomenal rate while benefiting from an innovative startup culture that is transforming the twenty-first century battlefield. With sufficient international funding and technological cooperation, the Ukrainian defense sector can serve as a cornerstone of Europe’s security architecture for decades to come.

Pavlo Verkhniatskyi is managing partner of COSA, co-founder of Fincord-Polytech Science Park, and advisor to the Defense Group at the Ukraine Facility Platform.

US funding cuts create openings for Russian disinformation in Ukraine

Muhammad Tahir — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:14:02 +0000

Cut the cameras. Slash the salaries. Cancel the investigations. That’s the reality facing Ukraine’s independent media, which serves as a vital firewall against Kremlin disinformation, as the US freezes nearly all support.

Since January 2025, the United States has quietly suspended 90 percent of its development funding for Ukraine, including the grants that kept most of the country’s independent newsrooms alive. Whether channeled directly through USAID or via partners, that funding has disappeared. The move to cut financial support comes as Moscow is intensifying its disinformation efforts.

In Mykolaiv, a strategic port city in Ukraine’s south, NikVesti is on the brink. With 4.5 million visits in 2024, it has been a cornerstone of independent local wartime reporting. Now, after losing a fifth of its budget through the loss of US funding, the newsroom is running on fumes. “We’re burning through our final reserves,” co-founder Oleh Dereniuha commented. “If funding doesn’t return, it will be difficult to make it past April.”

Further south in Kherson, Vgoru, one of only three independent outlets still operating in the region, has lost 80% of its US funding. Freelancers are gone and investigative projects have been shelved. “No one else is reporting from here,” said editor Ilona Korotitsyna. “Without us, they’ll only hear Russia.”

In Sumy, a northeastern Ukrainian city facing relentless Russian bombardment from across the nearby border, independent outlet Cykr is barely hanging on. “Sixty percent of our budget came from USAID,” said editor Dmytro Tyschenko. The site has enough funding to last a month. “After that,” he warned, “we’re bracing for a flood of unchecked Russian propaganda to fill the vacuum.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022, the US has delivered more than $37 billion in development aid to Ukraine. With the domestic Ukrainian media market in a state of wartime collapse, the vast majority of outlets have survived almost entirely on international grants, most of them from the US.

Outlets like NikVesti, Vgoru, and Cykr are among the 90 percent of independent Ukrainian media that relied on this funding to report the facts under extraordinary conditions of bombardment, blackouts, and occupation. Beyond exposing Russian disinformation, journalists working for these outlets have investigated corruption, documented Russian strikes and their aftermath, and held the Ukrainian authorities to account, often at considerable personal risk.

There are now mounting concerns that Russia will seek to exploit emerging gaps in Ukraine’s information space created by US funding cuts. With far fewer credible sources able to report on local news stories across Ukraine, Kremlin disinformation will become much harder to counter.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

A recent disinformation operation in the Sumy region offered a glimpse of the kinds of tactics Moscow is likely to employ. In early April, Russian-linked Telegram channels began promoting fake messaging attributed to the Sumy City Council’s Health Department claiming that a mysterious disease had broken out among Ukrainian soldiers. They warned civilians to avoid contact with troops returning from the front.

This is a typical Russian disinformation operation, with fake news wrapped in official-looking packaging and seeded online in order to sow panic. The goal isn’t just to mislead, however. Russia also aims to undermine faith in the information space altogether. And with credible independent Ukrainian media outlets unable to operate, that task becomes significantly easier.

Allowing Ukraine’s independent media to fall silent in the middle of a war would have serious strategic consequences. Without independent journalism, Ukraine not only loses its first line of defense against Russian disinformation. It also loses the transparency and accountability that are vital for the future of the country’s democracy.

The Ukrainian outlets and journalists hit by recent US funding cuts are not just waiting for a bailout. They are launching membership programs, pitching donors, trimming operations, and testing new formats. Some are turning to diaspora networks. Others are banking on European funding. So far, these efforts are proving slow and insufficient.

“We’re doing everything we can. In a region where the local business market is nonexistent, we’re reaching out to European partners, applying for every grant we can find,” said Vgoru’s Korotitsyna. “But EU funding is slow, and the competition is fierce. We need support now, not six months down the line, or we won’t be around to receive it.”

Muhammad Tahir is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former journalist with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He has reported extensively across the CIS, South Asia, and the Middle East.

Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian civilians cast shadow over peace talks

Mercedes Sapuppo — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 20:36:03 +0000

As Ukrainians made their way to church on the morning of April 13 to attend Palm Sunday services, two Russian ballistic missiles struck the city center in Sumy, killing at least 35 people and wounding more than 100. This Palm Sunday bombardment was the deadliest Russian attack so far this year. It was part of an escalating recent trend of Russian airstrikes targeting Ukrainian civilians that is casting doubt over the viability of US-led peace talks initiated by President Trump.

The attack in Sumy came just over a week after a similarly devastating strike on a residential district in the southern Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih that killed 19 people including nine children. The missile struck close to a playground in the early evening when the area was busy with children and families. According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the attack was “the deadliest single strike harming children which the Office has verified since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.”

The Russian missile strikes on Kryvyi Rih and Sumy share a number of characteristics. Both attacks targeted civilian areas of major Ukrainian cities and took place at times when large numbers of people were likely to be present. Both reportedly involved the use of cluster ammunition designed to maximize casualties. “The use of an explosive weapon with wide area effects by the Russian Federation in a densely populated area, and without any apparent military presence, demonstrates a reckless disregard for civilian life,” commented UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk following the Kryvyi Rih attack.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In addition to these ballistic missile strikes on heavily populated civilian areas, Russia has also recently escalated drone attacks across Ukraine. In the month following the first meeting between Kremlin and White House officials in Saudi Arabia, the number of Russian drones targeting Ukraine surged by more than 50 percent. Analysis by Britain’s Telegraph newspaper found that Russia launched an average of 101 drones per day in the period prior to the initial February talks in Riyadh, compared to 154 afterward.

Russia’s increased bombardment of Ukraine and deadly missile attacks on Ukrainian cities are casting a long shadow over the Trump administration’s efforts to broker a peace deal and end the largest European invasion since World War II. Many view Russia’s actions as an indirect but unmistakable snub to Trump’s peacemaker efforts. Others have also suggested that Kryvyi Rih may have been selected as a target due to the city’s status as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s hometown, in order to send a chilling message of Russian impunity and underline Ukraine’s vulnerability to further such attacks.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Trump has so far refused to criticize Russia directly for the recent spate of bombing attacks that have left dozens of Ukrainian civilians dead. Instead, he somehow concluded that the recent Palm Sunday strike in Sumy may have been a “mistake.”

Elsewhere in the US and across Europe, there has been widespread condemnation. “Putin’s Russia keeps bombing cities and murdering citizens. It is their strategy to wear down Ukraine. We shouldn’t agree to reward these war crimes with any Ukraine territory,” commented GOP Representative Don Bacon. Fellow Republican Michael McCaul said the Palm Sunday attack was “beyond the pale” and served as further confirmation that Russia has no intention of ending the war. “While Ukraine has accepted President Trump’s ceasefire proposal, Putin continues to show he is more interested in bloodshed than in peace,” stated McCaul.

Across the Atlantic, French President Emmanuel Macron responded to the Palm Sunday attack by emphasizing the “blatant disregard for human lives, international law, and the diplomatic efforts of President Trump.” Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni echoed Macron, condemning “this unacceptable violence, which goes against all real engagement in favor of peace.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Russia’s “horrific attacks” and noted that while Zelenskyy had shown his commitment to peace by backing an unconditional ceasefire, “Putin must now also agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions.”

Such calls are unlikely to resonate in Moscow unless the entire US approach to the peace process changes significantly. During the first few months of Trump’s peace initiative, the US has offered Russia a series of concessions, for instance the Black Sea ceasefire proposal, while very publicly applying pressure to Ukraine. So far, this appears to have hardened Putin’s conviction that he can ultimately outlast the West in Ukraine. With existing US aid commitments to Ukraine set to run out in the coming months and no indication that the Trump administration will sanction further support, it is easy to understand why Putin is in no hurry to seek peace.

While Trump remains reluctant to condemn Putin, there are indications that he may finally be growing tired of the Kremlin dictator’s stalling tactics and will soon run out of patience. Trump has recently said he is “very angry” and “pissed off” with Putin over the lack of progress toward peace, and has called on him to “get moving” toward a ceasefire agreement. If Trump is serious about getting Putin’s attention, he will need to follow through on earlier threats and increase the economic pressure on Russia via sanctions and tariffs measures against Putin’s energy industry. Anything less will be interpreted by the Kremlin as a tacit green light to continue escalating attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population as Putin seeks to break the country’s resistance.

Mercedes Sapuppo is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

A pragmatic peace plan for Ukraine

Mykola Bielieskov — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 21:36:32 +0000

Almost two months since the start of negotiations between the United States and Russia over the war in Ukraine, it is clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is in no hurry to end his invasion. While Ukraine has agreed to an unconditional ceasefire, Russia refuses to do likewise. Instead, the Kremlin continues to make excuses and employ a range of stalling tactics in an apparent bid to drag out the negotiating process indefinitely.

This failure to achieve a breakthrough is a significant setback for US President Donald Trump, who famously claimed during the 2024 election campaign that he would end the war in twenty-four hours. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump’s approach to peace talks has been based on the need for a compromise settlement. He has sought to persuade Moscow and Kyiv by pointing to the devastating cost of continued hostilities, while arguing that neither side can realistically hope to achieve their goals via military means.

So far, Putin remains unconvinced. This is in part due to Trump’s own actions. The US leader’s foreign policy turn away from Europe, together with his frequent Kremlin-friendly statements and hostile treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during their notorious Oval Office meeting, have encouraged Putin to believe that he can outlast the West in Ukraine.

With the Western coalition in support of Ukraine looking increasingly fragile, Putin is now more than confident than ever of succeeding in his historic mission to extinguish Ukrainian statehood. This is reflected in his current negotiating position, which includes a series of maximalist demands that would deny postwar Ukraine any meaningful sovereignty or security, leaving the country at Russia’s mercy.

Needless to say, Putin’s insistence on an internationally isolated, disarmed, and defenseless Ukraine is a non-starter for Kyiv. Ukrainians have learned the bitter lessons from previous international agreements with Russia such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which did not deter Moscow from attacking Ukraine in 2014 and failed to prevent the full-scale invasion of 2022. Understandably, Ukrainian officials are now emphatic that security guarantees for their country must be at the heart of any future peace deal.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

With Putin unwilling to make concessions and seemingly determined to fight on, the United States will soon be forced to reassess its approach to ending the Russia-Ukraine War. In order to deliver on his promise of peace, Trump must seek to change Russia’s strategic calculus and convince the Kremlin that its present goals in Ukraine are unattainable.

Any settlement seems certain to involve Russia’s continued occupation of the almost 20 percent of Ukraine that is currently under Kremlin control. This has led some commentators to draw parallels with the partition of the Korean peninsula following the Korean War in the early 1950s. In order for such comparisons to be relevant, the front lines of the current war in Ukraine must be stabilized to the extent that neither side has any realistic chance of achieving a decisive military victory. That is not yet the case.

If a ceasefire proves possible, the next challenge will be moving toward a more permanent peace. Trump has made it clear that he does not support Ukrainian membership of NATO and will not deploy US troops to Ukraine in order to enforce any peace deal. Instead, responsibility for safeguarding Ukraine’s security will fall primarily on the country’s own armed forces and Kyiv’s European partners. This cannot be compared to the kind of watertight security guarantees that many Ukrainians had hoped for, but it is not entirely unrealistic.

The Ukrainian military has evolved dramatically since 2022 and already represents a formidable obstacle to Putin’s imperial ambitions. Crucially, Ukraine has emerged over the past three years as one of the world leaders in drone warfare. In 2024, Ukraine became the first country to establish a separate branch of its military dedicated to drones. Hundreds of Ukrainian companies are now producing millions of drones per year, and are using wartime conditions to test their products on the battlefield. This is leading to new innovations on a virtually daily basis. Ukraine’s drone revolution is already transforming the way wars are waged and can serve as a key pillar of the country’s future security.

The broader Ukrainian defense industry is undergoing rapid expansion but needs additional investment in order to make the most of excess production capacity. With this in mind, Kyiv is calling on the country’s partners to place orders with Ukrainian defense companies and support joint ventures. If sufficient international investment is forthcoming, Ukraine’s defense sector can become a key component in Europe’s future security architecture. This would greatly improve the country’s ability to defend itself and help contain the threat posed by an expansionist Russia.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

With continued United States security support no longer assured, European countries are now embarking on an unprecedented rearmament drive. This will have huge implications for any peace settlement in Ukraine. Indeed, Ukraine’s survival may well hinge on Europe’s ability to match the current rhetoric about the need to rearm with concrete steps to boost weapons production.

The EU is preparing to unveil a major package of measures to support defense sector spending in the coming weeks, while individual countries including Germany are set to radically increase national defense budgets. A significant portion of Europe’s expanding arms industry output will likely go to Ukraine. After all, European leaders are acutely aware that if Ukrainian resistance should falter, they will be next in line.

Some European countries are also expected to play a more direct role in enforcing a peace deal in Ukraine. A “coalition of the willing” led by Britain and France is already taking shape, with practical discussions between military chiefs over possible troop deployments now well underway. However, it is still far from clear whether European troops in postwar Ukraine would have a mandate to engage in combat operations, leading to doubts over their effectiveness as a deterrent force.

While details remain vague, Ukrainian commanders and their European partners are currently discussing a military presence “on land, in the sky, and at sea.” The most practical contribution may be in the air, with coalition forces potentially capable of supplying fighter jet squadrons and air defense systems. This could allow them to close the skies over large parts of Ukraine, minimizing the threat posed by Russian missiles and drones without risking direct clashes between coalition and Russian forces.

Officials in Kyiv and across Europe are also still counting on some degree of continued US support. First and foremost, this means leading the diplomatic push for a ceasefire and the start of serious peace talks.

While it is thought to be highly unlikely that the Trump administration will be willing maintain earlier levels of military aid, the US can still make a critical contribution to Ukraine’s security in terms of intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and the supply of specific munitions such as missiles and air defense interceptors. In a bid to win Trump’s approval, Ukraine has recently expressed a willingness to pay for future US weapons packages, possibly with support from European partners.

After two months of false dawns and failed ceasefires, it is evident that the road toward a sustainable settlement in Ukraine remains long and uncertain. The radical recent shift in US foreign policy under Trump has transformed perceptions of what a possible peace deal in Ukraine could look like, but a plausible picture is now slowly beginning to emerge.

Naturally, the first step is to stop the fighting. If US-led talks do lead to a ceasefire, preparations are in place that should allow Ukraine and the country’s European partners to make any temporary pause in hostilities more permanent. Participating European countries will be expected to close Ukrainian skies and provide a reassurance force of troops on the ground, creating the conditions for a Ukrainian national recovery. In parallel, they must also significantly increase the flow of military aid to Kyiv and strengthen Ukraine’s domestic defense industry.

Ultimately, Ukraine’s main security guarantee will remain the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The country’s military has already proven itself during the past three years of full-scale war. If Kyiv’s European partners can now rise to the challenge and provide sufficient support, Ukraine looks destined to continue guarding Europe’s eastern frontier and defending against the Russian threat for many years to come.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s domestic legal system has been overwhelmed by the scale and the gravity of the war crimes allegations against Russia. For example, since the onset of the full-scale invasion in 2022, more than 156,000 investigations into potential war crimes have been opened. As of March 2025, only around 150 verdicts had been reached, mostly in absentia.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has taken some bold steps to help secure justice for Ukraine, most notably charging Russian President Vladimir Putin for his involvement in the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. While this is certainly welcome, the ICC can only be expected to handle a small number of cases involving the most senior Russian officials.

Meanwhile, recent US cuts to international assistance threaten to impact existing efforts to hold Russia responsible for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. This has underlined the need to explore alternative formats that can help Kyiv overcome existing gaps in capacity-building.

One possibility would be to broaden the mandate of a proposed special tribunal to prosecute Russia’s leadership for the crime of aggression. Ukraine and its partners recently agreed to establish a tribunal in hybrid format with international and domestic components operating under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

While there is significant international support for efforts to put Russia’s military and political leaders on trial for the crime of aggression, the potentially political nature of this charge has raised some concerns. Expanding the mandate of a future tribunal to include other serious crimes could help garner more support and address any reservations regarding political legitimacy.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Another possibility would be to expand international partnerships within Ukraine’s domestic legal system to enhance its ability to address alleged Russian war crimes. This hybrid approach would build on existing practice that has seen a number of countries providing investigators, prosecutors, forensic specialists, and other experts in recent years.

Foreign investigators and prosecutors could be formally inserted into specialized units at the investigative and prosecutorial level to work alongside their Ukrainian colleagues. This would significantly increase capacity, while also potentially improving the quality of investigative efforts. Further down the line, it may prove possible to introduce foreign judges in a similar manner.

This approach could draw on past experience and current international efforts, including those related to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central African Republic (CAR). If tailored to meet the specific requirements of the Ukrainian justice system, this could serve as an improvement over the well-meaning but somewhat scattershot efforts of Ukraine’s partners to date.

Some skeptics have suggested that any new justice mechanisms for Ukraine would compete with the ICC in terms of jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Advocates counter that new mechanisms could in fact coexist with the ICC, complementing rather duplicating the work being done in The Hague.

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has voiced support for the work of the CAR Special Criminal Court and recently endorsed the idea of a hybrid mechanism for the Democratic Republic of Congo. If applied effectively, this approach could make it possible for Ukraine to prosecute the kind of mid-level perpetrators who are beyond the mandate of the ICC.

Adopting new approaches to the issue of accountability for alleged war crimes committed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine can bring hope for justice and lay the foundations for a sustainable peace. A strengthened Ukrainian justice system could also play an important role in the country’s postwar progress on the path toward EU membership and further Western integration.

Nadia Volkova is the founder and head of the Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG). Eric Witte is an independent international justice consultant who has worked at the International Criminal Court and Special Court for Sierra Leone. Arie Mora is an advocacy manager at the Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG).

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Maritime strategy has long played a significant role in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s thinking as he works to expand Moscow’s influence on the international stage. In August 2024, Putin ordered the establishment of a Russian maritime collegium headed by his close personal ally and advisor Nikolai Patrushev, who formerly led Russia’s FSB security service and the country’s National Security Council.

The recent creation of a maritime collegium comes at a time when Russia is accused of engaging in a wide range of hostile naval acts including the sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltic Sea along with surveillance activities off the coast of Britain and other NATO member states. Unsurprisingly, one of the stated goals of the new collegium is to help secure Russia’s national interests in the Arctic.

Russia’s Arctic ambitions are similarly evident in the country’s current maritime doctrine. Russian control over the Northern Sea Route, which runs through Arctic waters along Russia’s northern coast and serves as the shortest shipping route between Europe and the Pacific, is vital for the Kremlin’s plans. With this in mind, Putin is currently prioritizing an enlarged and modernized military presence in the Arctic region including enhanced naval capabilities.

Moscow sees the Northern Sea Route as part of Russia’s national transport infrastructure and has sought to control access for shipping from other nations. This is particularly controversial as the Northern Sea Route covers a vast area that is expected to become increasingly navigable in the coming years due to changing environmental conditions. Some of the areas currently claimed by the Kremlin are situated well beyond the territorial waters of the Russian Federation.

Critics have argued that Russia’s efforts to restrict access to the Northern Sea Route directly violate the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, while Russia is a signatory of the convention and ratified its commitments to UNCLOS in 1997, Kremlin officials say the terms are not applicable to Russia’s maritime claims in the Arctic region.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

With Russia militarizing along the Northern Sea Route and laying claim to large parts of the Arctic maritime zone, the scope for potential future conflict is huge. Geopolitical tensions are likely to be further heightened by the deepening regional involvement of China in partnership with Russia. The two nations have identified the Arctic as a key area of cooperation, both as a trade route linking China to Europe and as a source of the natural resources that Beijing needs to fuel its economy.

In the years ahead, the ports of the Northern Sea Route could become increasingly important for the projection of Chinese and Russian naval power on the international stage, both in the Arctic region and beyond. This could allow both countries to enforce their claims to Arctic resources and overwhelm other regional nations with less powerful navies such as Canada, Denmark, and Norway. This is leading to security concerns over a number of isolated and vulnerable islands throughout the region.

Allowing Russia to gain the ascendancy in the Arctic would lead to unpredictable geopolitical consequences. Control over the oil and gas resources of the Arctic region could dramatically increase Russian state revenues. Past experience indicates that this windfall would likely be used by the Kremlin to finance military spending, potentially setting the stage for fresh acts of aggression. Limiting Russian access to the Arctic should therefore be viewed as matter of international security.

As the struggle for dominance in the Arctic heats up, it is already clear that NATO member states need to dramatically strengthen their presence and capabilities in the region. It would also make sense to call upon international bodies such as the International Court of Justice to request clarification regarding the regime that Russia has arbitrarily established in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.

Ultimately, the goal should be to conclude an international convention based on UNCLOS and the UN Charter that can prevent today’s mounting tensions from leading to armed conflict in the Arctic. Before that can happen, countries with territories that could potentially be at risk from an expansionist Russia should look to seek enhanced security agreements with the United States and other NATO members that comply with the requirements of international law.

Bohdan Ustymenko is director of Ukraine’sNational Security Institute.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In addition to invoking imaginary Ukrainian Nazis, the Kremlin has also sought to stall negotiations over a possible ceasefire by questioning the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. Ukraine was scheduled to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in 2024, but the Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that elections cannot take place during martial law. Despite this constitutional barrier and numerous logistical obstacles to wartime elections in Ukraine, officials in Moscow have repeatedly called for a new national ballot while arguing that President Zelenskyy lacks the authority to conclude a peace deal.

Most recently, Putin went one step further by suggesting that Ukraine should be placed under some kind of external administration, with United Nations officials overseeing elections. This obvious attempt to derail peace talks proved too much even for US President Donald Trump, who reportedly responded by stating that he was “pissed off” with Putin. Trump then threatened to impose secondary tariffs on Russian oil exports if the Kremlin dictator refuses to make a deal ending the war in Ukraine.

Putin’s inflexible negotiating position further underlines his intention to continue the invasion of Ukraine. Kyiv has made a number of major concessions in recent months, including expressing its readiness to accept the temporary occupation of Ukrainian regions currently under Kremlin control. Rather than offering compromises of his own, Putin has insisted on the surrender of additional Ukrainian land that the invading Russian army has so far been unable to seize. He also demands an end to all foreign aid and the dramatic reduction of the Ukrainian army to a mere skeleton force. This would leave Ukraine partitioned, isolated, disarmed, and defenseless against further Russian aggression. No Ukrainian government could expect to remain in power for long if they accepted Putin’s maximalist terms. Indeed, it is unlikely that Ukraine itself would survive such a suicidal settlement.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

By now, it should be abundantly clear that Putin does not want peace. For more than two months, the Trump administration has tried to entice Moscow by pressuring Ukraine into concessions while offering the prospect of lucrative future cooperation between Russia and the United States, only to be met with endless excuses and stalling tactics. Although Putin remains reluctant to openly reject Trump’s peace overtures, his goal evidently remains the complete subjugation of Ukraine and the effective end of Ukrainian statehood.

Many Western leaders are now publicly criticizing Putin’s refusal to engage in meaningful peace talks. “It is urgent that Russia stops with the pretenses and stalling tactics and accepts an unconditional ceasefire,” French President Emmanuel Macron commented recently. The Trump White House is also apparently now finally running out of patience. While US officials have been keen to talk up progress in talks with their Russian counterparts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated last week that Trump was not “going to fall into the trap of endless negotiations” with Moscow.

Trump’s initial attempt to broker a Ukraine peace deal by offering Putin an attractive off-ramp has failed. He must now decide whether he is prepared to employ sticks as well as carrots. At present, Putin has little interest in limited territorial concessions and remains committed to the destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation. Crucially, he has been encouraged by Trump’s reluctance to maintain US support for the Ukrainian war effort. This has strengthened the Russian ruler’s conviction that he can ultimately outlast the West in Ukraine.

In order to force a change of mood in Moscow, the United States must increase the costs of the invasion while undermining Russian hopes of military victory. This can be achieved by tougher sanctions measures targeting the Russian energy sector along with increased military aid that will allow the Ukrainian army to regain the battlefield initiative. Anything less will be interpreted by the Kremlin as a tacit green light to continue the invasion. If Trump is serious about persuading Putin to seek peace, he must first convince him that the alternative is defeat.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Lithuanians pay tribute to US soldiers who died in training exercise tragedy

Agnia Grigas — Sat, 05 Apr 2025 00:24:44 +0000

Thousands of Lithuanians paid tribute this week to four United States soldiers who died during a training exercise while serving in the Baltic nation. Crowds lined the streets of Vilnius as hearses carrying the bodies of the deceased soldiers made their way to the Lithuanian capital city’s main cathedral for a memorial service before being flown to the United States.

The US servicemen had gone missing a week earlier during training exercises at a Lithuanian military facility close to the border with Belarus. This led to the largest search operation in modern Lithuanian history through the surrounding area of forests and swamps, with military and civilian teams being joined by colleagues from Poland, Germany, and Estonia. Tragically, the four missing United States soldiers were eventually found submerged in a peat bog together with their vehicle.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Around one thousand US soldiers have been based at Camp Herkus in Lithuania since 2021. Their presence is part of NATO’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, which involves rotational deployments of troops from member states as part of the alliance’s deterrence strategy on its eastern flank.

The recent deaths of four US soldiers have shocked and saddened the Lithuanian public, underlining the bonds between the country and the United States. For days, the search operation for the missing soldiers gripped the nation of almost three million. “For us, it is more than a duty, it is an emotion. We have experienced trials in our history and therefore we understand well what loss is, what death is, what honorable duty is,” commented Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda during events in Vilnius honoring the deceased servicemen.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The tragedy has served to highlight the importance of the NATO troop presence in Lithuania at a time when Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has heightened alarm in the region over the threat posed by a resurgent Russia. With the Trump administration now discussing plans to reduce the US commitment to European security and focus more of Asia, there are concerns in Lithuania and other front line NATO member states that Russia may seek to take advance of any weakening of resolve within the alliance.

In March, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys traveled to Washington DC with his Estonian and Latvian colleagues to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and seek assurances regarding the continued United States commitment to the security of the Baltic region. “The Baltic states are quite skeptical about Russia’s intentions. Our intel assessments clearly show that Russia and their instruments of power are all aligned toward war, not toward peace,” commented Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze while in the US.

Lithuania is currently preparing for a dramatic increase in military spending as the country responds to Russia’s expansionist agenda and Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin’s apparent imperial ambitions. Lithuanian officials unveiled plans in January 2025 to boost the defense budget from just over three percent to between five and six percent starting next year. This increase comes as the Trump White House calls on NATO members to move beyond current guidelines stipulating two percent of GDP and spend significantly more on national security.

Amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty, the recent tragic events involving US troops stationed in Lithuania have helped unite the two countries. “We cannot thank our allies and fellow service members enough, especially the Lithuanians, who spared no resource in support of this mission,” commented Major General Curtis Taylor, the commanding general of the United States 1st Armored Division, in the wake of the tragedy. “Together, we delivered on our promise to never leave a fallen comrade.”

Agnia Grigas is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and the author of Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire and other books.

The West must stop seeking Putin’s permission for peace in Ukraine

Alyona Getmanchuk — Thu, 03 Apr 2025 13:25:32 +0000

Recent efforts to establish a “coalition of the willing” to help enforce a potential peace deal in Ukraine are very welcome, even if it still remains unclear exactly what participating countries are actually “willing” to do. The good news is that talks on the issue appear to be advancing steadily from the purely theoretical level toward more practical military matters. In particular, it is encouraging to see recognition among Ukraine’s European partners of the need for genuine deterrence rather than a toothless United Nations peacekeeping mission.

The bad news is that the entire discussion over the possible deployment of Western troops to Ukraine continues to be overshadowed by concerns over Russia’s inevitably negative reaction. While British and French officials insist that they do not require the green light from Moscow, a significant number of their European colleagues disagree. Furthermore, many of those who appear supportive of Western troops in Ukraine seem ready to grant Putin a veto on other critical issues relating to Ukraine’s long-term security, such as the country’s NATO aspirations.

Efforts to seek some kind of consensus with the Kremlin over the future security of Ukraine are futile and fundamentally misjudge the expansionist goals underpinning Russia’s invasion. After more than three years of full-scale war, it should be painfully obvious to any objective observer that Putin is not pursuing legitimate security concerns, and is instead obsessed with the idea of erasing Ukraine as a state and as a nation.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Putin has demonstrated time and again that he has no intention of seeking a sustainable solution that could lead to peaceful coexistence between the Russian Federation and an independent Ukraine. On the contrary, he remains committed to wiping the Ukrainian state off the map. This is most immediately apparent in the systematic eradication of Ukrainian national identity throughout areas of the country currently under Kremlin control.

Putin’s current negotiating position is similarly revealing. The Kremlin dictator continues to insist on a demilitarized and neutral Ukraine, with Kyiv prevented from receiving any further Western aid and forced to cede large tracts of additional Ukrainian territory that the Russian army has so far been unable to occupy. If implemented, these so-called peace terms would amount to a complete capitulation that would leave Ukraine partitioned, isolated, and virtually defenseless against further Russian aggression. It would then only be a matter of time before Putin completed his conquest.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Given what we now know about Russia’s war aims in Ukraine, it makes little sense to let Putin set the agenda for peace negotiations or dominate the debate over future security guarantees. His imperial ambitions clearly leave no room for any meaningful compromise that would guarantee Ukraine’s national survival or serve as the basis for a lasting peace in the wider region.

Instead, Ukrainians should be focused on convincing the country’s European partners that they do not need Russia’s consent before acting to defend Ukrainian sovereignty and safeguard their own security. One of the most compelling arguments in this respect has been provided by Putin himself. After all, the Russian ruler did not ask Western leaders for their opinion when he invited North Korean soldiers to join his war against Ukraine, or when he deployed Russian nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus.

It is delusional to think that offering Putin concessions will persuade him to abandon his expansionist agenda. In reality, as long as Ukraine’s Western partners continue to seek Putin’s permission before taking steps to protect themselves, they will never be secure. If the leaders of the democratic world are serious about achieving a lasting peace in Europe, they must move decisively to provide Ukraine with credible security guarantees without worrying whether Putin will agree or not.

Alyona Getmanchuk is director of the New Europe Center and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia’s Center.

Russian advance slows in March as Putin’s invasion loses momentum

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:16:38 +0000

Russia’s Ukraine invasion continued to lose momentum in March 2025, with the Kremlin’s territorial gains reportedly falling for a fourth consecutive month. According to new data from the Institute for the Study of War, Russian forces captured 240 square kilometers of Ukrainian land throughout March, representing the smallest monthly total since the current wave of offensive operations began in summer 2024.

News of Russia’s slowing advance comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that his invading army currently holds the “strategic initiative” along the entire front line of the war in Ukraine. “There are now reasons to believe we can finish off” the Ukrainian military, he told submarine crews last week during a visit to the north Russian port city of Murmansk.

While Putin predicts impending Russian victory, the evidence on the ground in Ukraine would seem to suggest otherwise. Far from being on the verge of crumbling, Ukraine’s defensive lines have strengthened significantly in recent months. As a result, advancing Russian forces continue to suffer heavy losses without achieving any meaningful breakthroughs.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukrainian commanders are well aware that the recent lull in Russian battlefield gains may only be a temporary phenomenon as Putin’s army regroups following months of intense fighting. Officials and analysts in Kyiv are now warning that preparations are likely well underway for a major new Russian offensive that is expected to begin in the coming weeks and last until late in 2025.

Putin hopes this new campaign can help strengthen his position as negotiations intensify over a possible compromise settlement to end the war. Speaking last week in Paris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused the Kremlin dictator of “dragging out talks and trying to get the United States stuck in endless and pointless discussions about fake conditions just to buy time and then try to grab more land.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s modest battlefield gains since the start of the current year provide important perspective at a time when international media coverage and Western commentaries often create the misleading impression that Ukraine’s position is hopeless. In reality, the Ukrainian army has stood up to the full might of the Russian military for more than three years and represents a formidable obstacle to Putin’s plans for the complete subjugation of the country.

Today’s Ukrainian army is by far the largest and most experienced force in Europe, and is backed by a rapidly expanding domestic defense industry that already accounts for around forty percent of Ukraine’s military needs. Since early 2022, Ukrainian troops have succeeded in liberating around half of all the territory occupied by Russia, and have won a string of famous victories in the Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson regions.

Over the past three years, Ukraine has also emerged as a technologically advanced drone warfare superpower. Ukrainian drone manufacturers now produce millions of drones each year and continue to innovate on a daily basis. This is having a huge impact on the battlefield, where drones now account for well over half of all Russian casualties.

At sea, marine drones have enabled Ukraine to sink or damage around one-third of Russia’s entire Black Sea Fleet. This has transformed the Battle of the Black Sea and forced the remainder of Russia’s warships to retreat from Crimea. Meanwhile, Ukrainian commanders are using the country’s expanding arsenal of long-range drones and domestically produced cruise missiles to bring Putin’s invasion home by striking military and energy industry infrastructure deep inside Russia.

The remarkable evolution of the Ukrainian Armed Forces since February 2022 should give pause to all those who insist that Ukraine “has no cards” to play in future negotiations. While Kyiv cannot realistically hope to match Russia’s overwhelming advantages in terms of manpower, firepower, funding, and industrial capacity, Ukraine is now a major military power in its own right and will not agree to any peace deal that leaves the continued existence of the country in doubt.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Peace on Putin’s terms would lead to a new era of international insecurity

Oleksandr Merezhko — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 15:47:56 +0000

As the new United States administration seeks to transform the country’s foreign policy, one of President Trump’s top priorities is a peace agreement to end the Russian war in Ukraine. However, there is a very real danger that the US leader’s eagerness to strike a deal with Vladimir Putin could lead to a flawed settlement that will undermine the foundations of international security for many years to come.

Trump aims to secure peace in Ukraine as part of a broader shift involving a reduced US commitment to Europe and a strategic pivot toward Asia. This goal is actually very much in line with longstanding United States foreign policy. However, with Putin’s Russia now an openly expansionist power and European nations dangerously weakened by decades of defense sector complacency, this is not the ideal time for an American withdrawal.

In the current climate of mounting international instability, maximum Western unity is required. This is essential in order to avert a descent into the geopolitical jungle and prevent the emergence of a new security environment shaped by the Kremlin where the rule of law is replaced by brute force. It is therefore in US interests to maintain Ukraine’s military strength as a bulwark against Russia while Europe rearms.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin has repeatedly signalled that he views the complete subjugation of Ukraine as only the first step toward reasserting Russian hegemony over the wider region. He has placed his entire country on a war footing, openly claims to be returning “historically Russian lands,” and declares his intention to establish a new multipolar world order. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, his position will become far stronger, while Europe will be more vulnerable than ever. There will then be little to prevent him from achieving his wider objectives.

Trump’s obvious haste to exit Ukraine is now encouraging the Russian dictator to pursue his most maximalist war aims. These include the outright annexation of five Ukrainian regions representating around twenty percent of the entire country, and the international isolation of the remaining Ukrainian state, which would be left neutral, disarmed, and defenseless. In such circumstances, it would only be a matter of time before Putin completed his conquest.

The destruction of Ukraine would set a disastrous precedent that would undo many decades of progress in international relations and mark a return to the diplomatic standards of the nineteenth century, complete with empires, invasions, and annexations. Putin himself would be emboldened to acquire more “historically Russian lands,” while his fellow autocrats in Beijing, Tehran, and beyond would draw the obvious conclusions and follow suit. Failure to confront one aggressive dictatorship would give rise to many more.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Some in Washington believe that by appeasing Putin in Ukraine, they can convince Russia to ally with the United States against China. This is dangerously naive and fails to appreciate the strength of the current strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing. China has played an important supporting role in the invasion of Ukraine and sees the current war as an opportunity to undermine the West. As long as Russia can deliver geopolitical success, cooperation between the two countries will continue to deepen.

In contrast, Russian defeat in Ukraine would set off alarm bells in Moscow and Beijing, causing both countries to reassess the nature of their partnership. Many Russian leaders in particular would become increasingly concerned over their growing dependence on China. With this in mind, it would probably make more sense for US officials to maintain or even increase their support for Ukraine if they are serious about creating the long-term conditions for closer cooperation with Russia in the coming confrontation with China.

Perhaps the gravest and most far-reaching geopolitical consequence of a Putin-friendly peace in Ukraine would be the spread of nuclear weapons. In 1994, Ukraine gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. These assurances have since proved worthless. To make matters worse, Russia has repeatedly used nuclear blackmail during the past three years to intimidate Ukraine’s Western allies and enable the invasion.

The lessons from Ukraine’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and Russia’s subsequent nuclear bullying are painfully clear: Any country that wishes to avoid a similar fate must acquire nuclear weapons of their own. This grim reality is likely to spark a new nuclear arms race, with governments from Berlin and Warsaw to Seoul and Tokyo already reportedly exploring their options. If the US backs a pro-Russian peace deal in Ukraine, unprecedented nuclear proliferation will become virtually inevitable.

It is still far too early to pass judgment on Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine, but the potentially disastrous consequences of a bad deal are already clear. Any peace on Putin’s terms would discredit the entire Western world and signal the dawn of a dangerous new era in global affairs marked by mounting instability, international aggression, and the looming threat of nuclear war.

This calamitous outcome can be avoided by backing Ukraine militarily and providing the country with the kind of NATO-style security guarantees that can prevent further Russian aggression and secure peace in Europe. Anything less will merely serve as a pause before the next stage in Russia’s war against the West and the unraveling of the current world order.

Oleksandr Merezhko is a member of the Ukrainian Parliament for the Servant of the People Party and Chair of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

Still no consensus on using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine

Mark Temnycky — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 14:16:15 +0000

A bipartisan group of United States senators have recently called on the Trump administration to consider handing Ukraine over $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. In a March 21 letter addressed to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, senior Republicans including Lindsey Graham joined their Democrat colleagues in pressing for the frozen funds to be allocated to the Ukrainian war effort.

The appeal is part of a lively ongoing discussion on both sides of the Atlantic over the fate of hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Over the past three years, many have advocated using the funds to back Ukraine’s defense or cover the costs of the country’s reconstruction, but a range of political, financial, and legal considerations have so far prevented any firm moves toward seizure.

Canada and the United States have both introduced legislation empowering governments to confiscate frozen Russian assets, while the French parliament recently passed a non-binding resolution on the use of frozen Russian funds to back Ukraine. Others such as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk have voiced their support for the initiative. For now, however, Ukraine’s international partners can only agree on using the interest from the frozen funds to cover loans for Kyiv.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Opponents say using Russia’s frozen assets to finance Ukraine’s defense and recovery could have far-reaching negative ramifications for the Western financial system that would outlast the current war. They warn that seizing Russia’s assets would undermine the international credibility of Western financial institutions, and may also lead to direct and indirect countermeasures from the Kremlin that could further fuel global instability.

Speaking at a gathering of EU leaders in Brussels in late March, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said any move to confiscate the Russian assets would be considered “an act of war.” The Belgian PM, whose country holds the largest share of the frozen Russian funds, warned that the proposed seizure would carry “systemic risks to the entire financial world system” and could spark retaliation, with any remaining Western assets located inside Russia likely to be targeted.

In addition to these considerations, the legal basis for the seizure of Russia’s frozen sovereign assets remains subject to considerable debate. Any court order commanding a government to seize Russian assets would be illegal under international law, Durham University professor of financial law Federico Luco Pasini told Euronews recently. However, if there was an executive decision by the government to seize the assets, “this could potentially bypass the issue,” Pasini stated. Others believe legal precedents exist, with some pointing to the use of frozen state assets to compensate victims of Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The idea of making Russia pay for the devastation it has caused in Ukraine has obvious appeal, with many seeing it as a form of international justice. Supporters believe the use of Russian funds would be particularly appropriate in this context, given the fact that few if any Kremlin officials are likely to be held legally accountable for war crimes committed in Ukraine. Using Russian money would also reduce the burden on taxpayers throughout the West and ease the political pressure on governments struggling to fund the largest European war since World War II.

Discussions over the possible transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine have gained considerable momentum in recent months following the return of Donald Trump to the White House. The Trump administration’s decision to briefly pause military aid to Ukraine and the broader US foreign policy pivot away from Europe have highlighted the need to find alternatives to continued United States support for Ukraine.

The emergence of an axis of authoritarian regimes centered on Moscow is also now helping to convince many in the West that unprecedented measures are required. With North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia against Ukraine and Iran providing the Kremlin with large quantities of attack drones to bomb Ukrainian cities, there is a growing sense of insecurity in Western capitals. “Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are hostile to democratic states’ interests and values. They are increasingly working together to undermine the international order,” noted former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in a recent article backing calls to hand Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine.

Faced with the new geopolitical realities of an expansionist Russia and an isolationist United States, many policymakers across Europe may soon become more sympathetic to the idea of using Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to fund Ukraine’s ongoing fight for survival. However, there is still no consensus on the issue amid widespread reluctance to set what opponents believe would be a dangerous precedent. While supporters argue that the seizure of Russia’s assets could be legally justified, any decision will ultimately be a test of Western resolve and a matter of political will.

Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and an accredited freelance journalist covering Eurasian affairs.

UN report: Russia is guilty of crimes against humanity in occupied Ukraine

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:46:38 +0000

A United Nations probe has concluded that Russia is guilty of committing crimes against humanity in the occupied regions of Ukraine. The investigation focused on the Kremlin’s large-scale program of detentions and deportations targeting Ukrainian civilians living under Russian occupation, and confirms earlier reports regarding the terror tactics being employed by Putin’s invasion force.

The March 19 report by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found that “the enforced disappearances against civilians were perpetrated pursuant to a coordinated state policy and amount to crimes against humanity.” The report details a climate of lawlessness throughout Russian-occupied Ukraine, with anyone viewed as a potential threat to the occupation authorities liable to be detained before disappearing into a network of detention facilities in the occupied regions or deported to the Russian Federation.

Similar evidence of mass detentions was uncovered throughout all the regions of Ukraine currently under Kremlin control, indicating what UN officials referred to as a “systematic attack against the civilian population.” Victims included local officials, journalists, civic activists, military veterans, and religious leaders. While exact figures are unknown, the UN report states that large numbers of Ukrainian civilians have been targeted in a “widespread and systematic manner.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The war crimes accusations leveled against the Russian authorities in occupied Ukraine extend far beyond the detentions highlighted by UN investigators. The most widely publicized charges relate to the mass abduction and ideological indoctrination of vulnerable Ukrainian children. Russia is believed to have kidnapped tens of thousands of young Ukrainians and placed them in camps or foster homes, where they are often subjected to brainwashing programs designed to rob them of their Ukrainian identity and transform them into Russians. In March 2023, the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his role in these mass abductions.

Throughout Russian-occupied Ukraine, the authorities are working methodically to remove all symbols of Ukrainian statehood and erase any traces of Ukrainian national identity. The Ukrainian language has been suppressed along with Ukrainian literature, history, and cultural heritage. Schools now teach a Kremlin-approved curriculum that glorifies Russian imperialism while demonizing Ukraine. Any parents who attempt to resist the indoctrination of their children risk losing custody.

Ukrainians living under Russian occupation are being pressured into accepting Russian citizenship. Those who refuse to take Russian passports are denied access to basic services such as healthcare and pensions, and are unable to register their property with the occupation authorities. This so-called passportization campaign recently entered a new phase, with the Kremlin announcing that anyone who fails to acquire Russian citizenship within the next six months will be subject to potential deportation from their own homes.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Fears over the future fate of Ukrainians in occupied regions of the country were heightened recently by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s apparent endorsement of sham referendums staged by the Kremlin in 2022 to justify the seizure of Ukrainian lands. “There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” he told Tucker Carlson in an interview that set off alarm bells across Europe.

The furor over Witkoff’s comments was hardly surprising. Russia’s fig leaf referendums in occupied Ukraine had been roundly rejected at the time by the vast majority of the international community, including many of Russia’s traditional supporters. “The United States will never recognize these illegal attempts to seize territory that does not belong to Russia,” the US State Department declared.

The September 2022 ballots lacked even a basic semblance of legitimacy, with voting taking place at gunpoint. Indeed, in many instances, the captive population were visited in their homes by election officials accompanied by armed soldiers. Such Kafkaesque scenes are nothing new for the Kremlin, which has been staging similarly farcical “referendums” to justify acts of international aggression since the Stalin era. Prior to Witkoff, however, no senior Western official had attempted to offer their stamp of approval.

The new UN report detailing Russian crimes against humanity in occupied Ukraine is particularly timely. Peace talks initiated by US President Donald Trump in recent weeks have focused largely on the possible partition of Ukraine, with negotiating teams working to determine potential boundaries. But while Trump talks of “dividing up the lands,” millions of lives are also at stake. It is therefore crucial to highlight the horrors unfolding in Russian-occupied Ukraine and the crimes being committed by the Kremlin. While it may not be militarily feasible to liberate these regions at present, safeguarding the basic human rights of Ukrainian residents living under Russian occupation should be an important aspect of any negotiated settlement.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The issue of removing existing sanctions in exchange for Russian compliance with peace-building steps is already under discussion. Even at this early stage in the US-led peace process, there are signs of diverging opinions on opposite sides of the Atlantic with regard to the use of sanctions as a tool to bring Russia to the negotiating table. Moving forward, unity on sanctions policy will be crucial.

Many if not most of the current sanctions measures imposed on Russia since 2022 in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are likely to remain in place until a peace agreement can be implemented. In the postwar period, it will be important to maintain or impose targeted sanctions that can restrict Kremlin access to cutting edge military technologies. This will help limit Russia’s ability to rearm.

Countries across Europe are already debating significant increases in defense spending, with many governments planning to invest in expensive air defense systems in order to guard against the kind of Russian bombing campaigns they have witnessed in Ukraine. While these air defense upgrades are clearly necessary, it would also make sense to take steps that could potentially prevent Russia from replenishing its missile and drone arsenals by denying Moscow the ability to acquire key components in large quantities.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In addition to baseline sanctions on military technologies, Western leaders should also explore the possibility of agreeing on comprehensive sanctions packages to be triggered in the event of renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine or elsewhere. A credible rapid response mechanism would send an unambiguous message to Moscow regarding the inevitable and severe economic consequences of further invasions.

This approach could build on the sanctions experience of the past three years. Western policymakers could increase collaboration to better identify Russia’s vulnerabilities and address potential loopholes, such as the role of third party intermediaries in bypassing sanctions measures. Much would depend on the readiness of participating countries to work together in order to present the Kremlin with a united front.

No sanctions measures, whether imposed or implied, can ever hope to fully replace the hard power of military deterrence. Russian expansionism and the isolationism of the current US administration mean that a high degree of European rearmament is already inevitable. This also means that the Ukrainian military will likely remain at the heart of Europe’s new security architecture for many years to come, and will be a major focus for defense sector investment. At the same time, tools such as sanctions can help further deter the Kremlin.

There is currently no consensus over the impact of sanctions on efforts to end Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, with sufficient political will and Western unity, sanctions can become an important component in postwar efforts to safeguard Ukraine’s security and provide Europe with a degree of stability. This approach is economically appealing. While expanding defense budgets will significantly increase the burden on European taxpayers, sanctions are the single most cost-effective way of containing Russia and enhancing international security. As such, they should be utilized to their maximum potential.

Dr. Ilona Khmeleva is the Secretary General of the Economic Security Council of Ukraine (ESCU).

If Trump wants peace in Ukraine, he must increase the pressure on Putin

Doug Klain — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 01:52:25 +0000

For months, US President Donald Trump and allies such as Senator Lindsey Graham have stated that if Russian President Vladimir Putin rejects peace efforts, the United States will impose new sanctions to bring Russia to the negotiating table. So far, however, the Kremlin has refused to join Ukraine in accepting a US-proposed ceasefire. Instead, Putin has this week demanded sanctions relief in exchange for a limited maritime ceasefire that favors Russia. It may now be time to consider putting more pressure on Moscow.

Putin certainly does not appear to be very interested in ending the war. Since agreeing to a pause on energy infrastructure attacks during a March 18 call with Trump, he has launched multiple large-scale drone and missile bombardments of Ukrainian civilian and energy targets.

If the US uses sanctions alone to pressure Putin, the impact will not be felt immediately. In order to get the Russian leader’s attention, new sanctions must be paired with tougher enforcement of existing sanctions and expanded military assistance to put Ukraine in a better position on the battlefield. More than anything else, the military reality on the ground in Ukraine is the deciding factor in efforts to end the war. Luckily, this is the area where Trump has the greatest ability to shape perceptions.

Republicans in Congress have shown an interest in expanding sanctions against Russia, particularly in going after Moscow’s energy revenues while boosting US energy exports to cut into Putin’s war chest. Any legislation to make good on these objectives should also include new appropriations for the Presidential Drawdown Authority so that Trump can send armored vehicles, long-range fires, air defenses, and more to Ukraine, while also backfilling US stocks with new replacements.

Legislative steps could also include funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This would allow the president to issue contracts for new weapons that will benefit Ukraine, while creating jobs for US manufacturers and revitalizing the domestic defense industrial base.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Passing new military assistance would send a much-needed signal of resolve after two months of softball tactics from the Trump administration toward Russia. A record high number of Americans currently think Trump is doing too little to help Ukraine and believe he is siding with Russia. Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently added to these concerns by uncritically repeating a series of false narratives used by the Kremlin to justify the invasion of Ukraine during an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Members of Trump’s team have already outlined arguments in favor of more military aid to Ukraine. Last April, Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg wrote that if Kyiv wouldn’t come to the table for talks, the US should withhold military assistance, while if Russia refused to negotiate, aid to Ukraine should be increased. Trump has since followed through on cutting aid to Ukraine, but resumed deliveries after Kyiv declared it was ready to accept Trump’s proposal for an unconditional ceasefire.

With Ukraine now backing Trump’s ceasefire proposal while Putin keeps finding new reasons to delay, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Russia is the main obstacle to peace. The recently announced ceasefire in the Black Sea is far from Trump’s original proposal, with the Russians requiring sanctions relief before implementing it. Putin has sought to introduce his own ceasefire conditions, while also demanding “the complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv.” This would leave Ukraine isolated and disarmed in exchange for a pause in the fighting.

Trump should respond to Putin’s stalling tactics by following the recommendations of his own secretary of state, who said back in January that Ukraine needed greater leverage over Russia. That means changing Putin’s calculus on the battlefield and stopping the Russian military’s grinding advances.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Strengthening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield could be politically advantageous for Trump. Former US President Joe Biden was long criticized for his flawed approach to providing Ukraine with military assistance. As a result of Biden’s cautious policies, Ukraine received enough to survive but not to win.

Trump could now correct Biden’s mistake by making an historic presidential drawdown and surging military assistance to Ukraine in order to bring Russia to the table. He could also use the REPO Act to make Russia’s own frozen assets pay for any new aid, an idea Speaker Mike Johnson has previously called “pure poetry.”

Russia is not yet ready to enter into serious peace talks, but Putin is in a vulnerable position. He is sacrificing huge numbers of soldiers for modest gains in Ukraine, and is struggling to replace the large quantities of military equipment being lost in costly frontal offensives. Domestically, the Russian economy is showing signs of strain, with high inflation and a shortage of workers.

Despite this deteriorating outlook, Putin is still betting that he can outlast the West in Ukraine. With continued US support for Ukraine in question and deep divisions emerging within the transatlantic alliance, he now has less reason than ever to compromise.

In Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, he argues that the best way to negotiate is to “just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I want.” So far, we’ve seen the president exert massive pressure on Ukraine by pausing aid, siding with Moscow at the UN, and even calling Zelenskyy a dictator. We’ve yet to see similar pressure on Russia.

Putin’s approach to negotiations currently resembles The Art of the Deal far more than Trump’s. The Russian dictator is pushing and pushing for further concessions, while offering very little in return. If Trump wants to achieve a genuine peace, he will need to put far more pressure on Moscow. Increased sanctions are a necessary step, but giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to push Russia back on the battlefield will likely prove far more effective.

Doug Klain is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a policy analyst for Razom for Ukraine, a US-based nonprofit humanitarian aid and advocacy organization.

Ukraine’s growing military strength is an underrated factor in peace talks

Serhii Kuzan — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:06:03 +0000

Can Ukraine survive without US military aid? Could Kyiv’s European partners potentially fill the gap in weapons deliveries? Policymakers, analysts, and commentators around the world have been wrestling with these questions in recent weeks as they come to terms with US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy pivot away from Europe and his administration’s overtures toward Russia.

While the urgency and importance of this debate cannot be overstated, there has been a tendency to overlook Ukraine’s own agency and the country’s ability to defend itself. It is true that the Ukrainian war effort since 2022 has relied heavily on Western support, but Ukraine’s military has also evolved dramatically over the past three years to become by far Europe’s biggest and most effective fighting force.

Ukraine currently has approximately one million people in arms defending the country against Russia’s invasion. This makes the Ukrainian Armed Forces more than four times larger than Europe’s next biggest military. Ukraine’s troops are also battle-hardened and have unmatched knowledge of the twenty-first century battlefield. Indeed, in many areas, they are now setting the standards for others to follow.

Crucially, Ukraine’s army is backed by a highly innovative and rapidly expanding domestic military-industrial complex that is harnessing the excellence of Ukraine’s prewar tech sector and reviving long neglected Soviet era capabilities. Any discussion on the likely future course of the war against Russia and the terms of any peace deal must therefore take into account the fact that Ukraine is a now major military power in its own right.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For the past year, international media coverage of Russia’s invasion has tended to create the impression that Putin’s army is slowly but surely grinding forward toward a costly but inevitable victory. The reality is less straightforward.

Russian troops reclaimed the battlefield initiative in early 2024 and have been advancing fairly steadily ever since, but they have only achieved relatively modest territorial gains while suffering record casualties. Analysts estimate that at the current pace, it would take Russia almost a century to complete the conquest of Ukraine.

Viewed from a broader perspective encompassing the entire full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s military performance becomes even more impressive. Since spring 2022, The Ukrainian Armed Forces have succeeded in liberating around half of all the territory seized by the Russian army, and have won a series of key battles in the Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson regions. Russia has been unable to capture and hold a single Ukrainian regional capital, and is still struggling to force Ukrainian troops out of Russia itself following Kyiv’s bold August 2024 cross-border incursion into the Kursk region.

Far beyond the battlefield, Ukraine has also overachieved. In the Black Sea, Ukrainian marine drones have revolutionized naval warfare and forced Putin to withdraw his fleet from Russian-occupied Crimea to the relative safety of Russian ports. Deep inside Russia, long-range Ukrainian drones strike at military assets, logistical hubs, and energy infrastructure with growing frequency.

Ukraine’s resilience owes much to the international military assistance the country has received. However, this support has often been subject to delays and has frequently fallen victim to political considerations that have cost Ukraine dearly. In order to minimize these vulnerabilities, the Ukrainian authorities have prioritized the development of the country’s domestic defense industry.

The results have been striking. In 2025, the overall capacity of Ukraine’s defense industry is expected to reach a new high of $35 billion, up from just $1 billion at the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. While this capacity is not yet being fully utilized due to defense budget limitations, Ukraine now produces around one-third of all weapons, ammunition, and equipment used by the country’s armed forces. In critical areas such as drone production, the figure is now close to one hundred percent.

Meanwhile, Kyiv is encouraging international partners to invest in Ukrainian defense sector companies and finance weapons production in Ukraine. A number of countries have already responded by committing large sums and promoting joint projects within the Ukrainian defense industry. This trend is expected to gain pace during 2025 as the US pivot away from Europe fuels increased defense spending across the continent.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s biggest defense industry success has been the development of the domestic drone manufacturing sector. On the eve of the full-scale invasion, the country boasted only a handful of drone producers. The sector has now mushroomed to include over 200 businesses producing millions of drones annually, with output expected to treble during the current year. In order to harness this rapidly growing strike potential and maximize battlefield impact, Ukraine last year established a special branch of the armed forces dedicated to drone warfare.

Ukraine’s emergence as a drone warfare superpower owes much to the country’s strong tech traditions and entrepreneurial spirit. Since 2022, Ukrainian drone developers have proved highly innovative and are now recognized internationally as world leaders in military drone technologies. “Foreign models are like Toyotas now, while Ukrainian drones are Mercedes. Ours are just leagues ahead,” one Ukrainian commander told Ukrainska Pravda recently.

Ukraine now has a formidable arsenal of drones for use on the battlefield, at sea, and for long-range attacks against targets across Russia. The country also has a growing collection of hybrid missile-drones and missiles. President Zelenskyy recently confirmed that Ukraine had carried out an attack with the domestically produced Long Neptune cruise missile for the first time, underlining the country’s growing potential to strike back at Russia. Further innovations are in the pipeline, with domestic missile production expected to increase in the coming months if Kyiv is able to secure the necessary additional funding.

The Ukrainian military still faces a range of major challenges. The biggest issue remains manpower shortages. So far, Kyiv has sought to address mobilization problems by updating training and offering recruits the opportunity to choose the unit they will serve in, but shortfalls persist. A new initiative aimed at potential recruits between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five was launched in February 2025, featuring attractive enlistment packages and one-year service contracts.

There is also no escaping the fact that Ukraine remains dependent on Western support in order to maintain the country’s war effort. While officials in Kyiv have spoken of increasing the share of domestically produced war materials to fifty percent, Ukraine cannot realistically expect to match Russia’s overwhelming advantages in manpower, firepower, industrial capacity, and financing without continued assistance from the West.

Despite these limitations, Ukraine’s growing military strength must be taken into consideration during coming negotiations over a potential compromise peace deal with Russia. While nobody in Kyiv would relish the grim prospect of fighting on without Western assistance, the country is far from defenseless and will not accept a bad peace that places Ukrainian statehood in jeopardy.

Russia made the mistake of underestimating Ukraine in 2022, and has since paid a terrible price. Three years on, there can be little doubt that the Ukrainian army is now the most powerful fighting force in Europe. This military reality will help shape the contours of any future peace deal. It should also guarantee Ukraine’s place at the heart of Europe’s changing security system as the continent adjusts to the new geopolitical realities of an isolationist United States and an expansionist Russia.

Serhii Kuzan is Chairman of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center (USCC). He formerly served as an adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (2022-2023) and advisor to the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (2014).

Putin is ruthlessly erasing Ukrainian identity in Russian-occupied Ukraine

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:27:42 +0000

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Ukrainians living under Russian occupation to “legalize” their status by September 10 or face deportation. In other words, those who have not yet done so must apply for Russian passports or risk being expelled from their homes as foreigners. This March 20 presidential decree is the latest step in a campaign to pressure Ukrainians into accepting Russian citizenship as the Kremlin seeks to strengthen its grip over areas of Ukraine currently under Russian control.

Kremlin officials say they have distributed around 3.5 million Russian passports in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine since the onset of the full-scale invasion just over three years ago. Residents are reportedly being forced to apply for Russian passports in order to access basic services such as healthcare and state pensions, while those without Russian documentation face the possibility of harassment and detention.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The enforced adoption of Russian citizenship is just one of the many tools being employed by the Kremlin to systematically erase all traces of Ukrainian statehood and national identity throughout Russian-occupied Ukraine. Wherever Russian troops advance, local populations are subjected to mass arrests designed to root out any potential dissenters. Those targeted typically include elected officials, military veterans, religious leaders, civil society activists, teachers, journalists, and patriots. Thousands have been abducted in this manner since 2022 and remain unaccounted for, with many thought to be languishing in a network of prisons in Russian-occupied Ukraine and Russia itself.

Those who remain are subjected to terror tactics in conditions that Britain’s The Economist has described as a “totalitarian hell.” All public symbols of Ukrainian statehood and cultural identity are being systematically dismantled. The Ukrainian language is suppressed, while any Christian denominations other than the Russian Orthodox Church face persecution or worse.

Moscow’s efforts to erase Ukrainian identity begin in the classroom. In schools throughout the occupied regions, Ukrainian children are being taught a new Kremlin-approved curriculum that praises Russian imperialism and glorifies the ongoing invasion of Ukraine while demonizing the entire concept of a separate and independent Ukrainian state. Any parents who dare to resist risk losing custody of their children.

The Kremlin is also accused of kidnapping tens of thousands of Ukrainian children from occupied regions and deporting them to Russia, where they are subjected to ideological indoctrination to rob them of their Ukrainian roots and impose an imperial Russian identity. In March 2023, the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for Putin due his personal involvement in these mass abductions of Ukrainian children.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The actions of the Russian occupation authorities are entirely in line with the vicious anti-Ukrainian rhetoric coming from Putin himself and other officials in Moscow. Putin has long insisted that Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”). Six months prior to the full-scale invasion, he took the highly unusual step of publishing a lengthy history essay that read like a declaration of war against Ukrainian statehood.

As Russian troops prepared to invade in February 2022, Putin sought to justify this act of international aggression by describing Ukraine as “an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” He has since compared his invasion to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian Czar Peter the Great, and has declared occupied Ukrainian territory to be “Russian forever.”

The Russian establishment has enthusiastically followed Putin’s lead. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has stated that “the existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians,” while top Putin aide Nikolai Patrushev recently suggested Ukraine may soon “cease to exist.” Meanwhile, poisonous anti-Ukrainian language has become so commonplace in the Kremlin-controlled Russian media that UN investigators believe it may constitute “incitement to genocide.”

This week’s presidential decree threatening to deport Ukrainians from their own homes is the latest reminder that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is no mere border dispute or attempt to address legitimate security concerns. It is a colonial war of the most brutal kind that aims to destroy Ukraine as a state and as a nation. In the heart of Europe and before the watching world, Putin is openly pursuing policies that almost certainly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing and may qualify as genocide.

The grim reality of Russia’s invasion should weigh heavily on the US officials who are currently charged with drawing lines on maps and attempting to create a realistic framework for a possible ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. While diplomatic compromises and temporary territorial concessions are now clearly inevitable, any future peace deal must also take into account the fate of the millions of Ukrainians who are likely to be left under Russian occupation.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Silencing Voice of America will only strengthen autocrats around the world

Mercedes Sapuppo — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:53:47 +0000

United States President Donald Trump has moved to shut down a series of prominent US-funded international media outlets including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as he continues efforts to cut government spending and reshape US foreign policy. In a March 15 statement, the White House said the decision “will ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.”

Critics fear the move will strengthen the position of authoritarian regimes around the world while leaving millions of people in closed societies without access to independent information. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty CEO Steve Capus called the step “a massive gift to America’s enemies.” He warned that the shutdown would make the United States weaker and would be celebrated by “the Iranian Ayatollahs, Chinese communist leaders, and autocrats in Moscow and Minsk.”

Russian opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza was one of numerous activists from the front lines of the fight against resurgent authoritarianism to voice their alarm over the closures. For many people living in authoritarian societies, outlets like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have provided an objective and trustworthy alternative to what is often a heavily censored domestic information space. Kara-Murza suggested the demise of these outlets would be toasted in Moscow and beyond. “One more champagne bottle opened in the Kremlin,” he quipped.

As expected, the shutdown of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America was enthusiastically welcomed on prime time Russian state TV. Margarita Simonyan, who heads Russia’s flagship international media platform RT and state-owned media group Rossiya Segodnya, called the news an “awesome decision by Trump.” Meanwhile, fellow Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov took time out from fantasizing about a nuclear attack on Britain to mock the more than one thousand journalists now facing an uncertain future. “You are nasty, lying, deplorable traitors to the motherland. Go and die in a ditch,” he commented.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For decades, authoritarian regimes ranging from Nazi Germany to Communist China have griped against the influence of US-funded independent media outlets, and have adopted various measures to try and block them. Voice of America was first set up in 1942 at the height of World War II, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was established in 1950 during the early years of the Cold War to provide uncensored information to people living behind the Iron Curtain.

Initially focused on radio broadcasts, these outlets and their numerous affiliates have evolved over time to become multimedia platforms reaching hundreds of millions of people every week. This has never been a purely altruistic endeavor; advocates maintain that providing access to objective information abroad strengthens the US position internationally.

Until their dramatic recent shutdown, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and many other regional pro-democracy platforms such as Radio Free Asia were all overseen by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). While often the subject of debate in the United States due to allegations of political bias and doubts over their continued effectiveness, recent studies have indicated that they remained widely recognized by international audiences as important sources of unfiltered information.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite being funded by the US government, the network adhered to a code of journalistic integrity and objectivity similar to the charters governing the work of other state-funded media such as the BBC. This independence from governmental editorial oversight had on occasion led to issues with United States officials. Some within the Trump White House attempted to justify the decision to cut funding by claiming that these state-funded broadcasters had become overly politicized and were no longer representative of the values the new administration wished to project.

The international impact of the USAGM stable of media outlets is perhaps most immediately apparent in the number of journalists jailed or otherwise targeted by authoritarian regimes for their professional activities. At present, ten journalists and staff members from USAGM-affiliated outlets are being held in countries including Belarus, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Myanmar. Following news of the shutdowns, Ukrainian journalist Stanislav Aseyev posted that while imprisoned by Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, he was subjected to electric shock torture specifically because he had previously worked for Radio Liberty.

The timing of Trump’s decision to shut down the United States international broadcasting network could hardly be worse. In today’s increasingly multipolar world, the information space is an critical front in the escalating global struggle between rival democratic and authoritarian camps. This has long been recognized by China and Russia, with both countries committing vast annual budgets to support sophisticated international media activities in a variety of guises. The US was previously seen as the world leader in this soft power contest, but that is suddenly no longer the case. Generations of autocratic regimes never did manage to silence Voice of America, but the Trump administration has now done so themselves.

Mercedes Sapuppo is assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Trump’s energy sector ceasefire could be good news for Putin’s war machine

David Kirichenko — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:49:46 +0000

US President Donald Trump’s hotly anticipated March 18 call with Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to achieve any major breakthroughs, but it did result in preliminary agreement on a partial ceasefire covering attacks on energy infrastructure. The news was hailed by the White House as a significant step toward a future peace agreement. However, critics have noted that any pause in energy sector attacks may actually benefit Putin while limiting Ukraine’s ability to hinder the Russian war effort.

Putin has so far refused to join Ukraine in accepting a US proposal for a full ceasefire. Instead, during Tuesday’s telephone conversation he agreed to halt attacks on energy infrastructure for a thirty-day period. This appears to be a very calculated concession. It gives Trump something tangible to show for his peacemaker efforts, but at the same time allows Putin to draw out the negotiating process further while continuing efforts to weaken Ukraine militarily and diplomatically.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Crucially, Russia may have much more to gain than Ukraine from a temporary energy sector ceasefire. While both countries have sought to target energy infrastructure, the timing of the proposed pause in attacks would appear to favor the Kremlin.

Since the first winter of the war, Russia has conducted a series of air offensives targeting Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure in a bid to break the country’s will to resist by leaving millions of Ukrainians without access to electricity and heating. These attacks have succeeded in destroying around half of Ukraine’s prewar power-generating capacity, and have resulted in periods of rolling blackouts across the country.

Faced with the unprecedented challenges presented by Russia’s ongoing bombardment, Ukraine has managed to adapt. The country has dramatically enhanced its air defenses since 2022, while the Ukrainian power grid has proved remarkably resilient. Kyiv has also received extensive financial and technical support from international partners, which has proved instrumental in the struggle to keep the lights on.

Seasonal changes are an additional factor shaping Russia’s bombing campaign. Despite multiple large-scale missile and drone attacks in recent months, Ukraine avoided a much feared energy collapse during the winter season. The arrival of spring is now expected to further undermine the effectiveness of Moscow’s energy sector offensive, with higher temperatures in Ukraine reducing demand for electricity, and longer days minimizing the psychological impact of blackouts.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

As the Kremlin struggles to destroy the Ukrainian power grid, Ukraine’s own campaign of airstrikes against Russia’s oil and gas industry has steadily accelerated. Ukrainian officials say these attacks are designed to weaken Russia’s wartime economy while also creating logistical headaches for Putin’s army in Ukraine.

The first attacks on Russian refineries took place during the early months of the war. However, Ukraine initially lacked the long-range firepower to mount a sustained air offensive, and was further hamstrung when the country’s international partners imposed restrictions on the use of Western weapons inside Russia.

The Ukrainian authorities responded to these limitations by prioritizing the development and domestic production of long-range drones and missiles. As Ukraine’s air arsenal has expanded, so have attacks on Russia’s vast energy industry. Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries first began making headlines in spring 2024. There has been a further escalation in attacks during the first three months of the current year, reflecting Ukraine’s increased long-range capabilities and growing drone production.

Assessing the scale of the damage caused by these Ukrainian strikes is challenging. Amid tightening wartime censorship, Russia no longer publishes refining figures or other key industry data. Meanwhile, Kremlin officials remain tight-lipped and typically claim that any blazes captured on video are the result of falling debris from intercepted drones. However, according to Reuters data published in early February, Ukrainian drone attacks since the start of 2025 had succeeded in knocking out around ten percent of Russia’s total refining capacity.

The recent uptick in attacks may only be the beginning. Ukraine has ambitious plans for dramatically increased drone production, and is also developing a number of long-range weapons including missile-drone hybrids capable of striking targets deep inside Russia.

On March 15, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the latest breakthrough for the country’s missile program with the successful deployment of a domestically produced cruise missile. Called the Long Neptune, this Ukrainian cruise missile is adapted from the earlier Neptune model, which was designed for use against warships and was famously responsible for the sinking of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet flagship, the Moskva, in April 2022. With a reported range of around one thousand kilometers, the Long Neptune has the potential to wreak havoc throughout Russia’s energy sector.

This is bad news for Putin, who is heavily dependent on the Russian oil and gas sector to fund and supply his war machine. With Russia’s air defenses already stretched thin in order to cover the front lines of the invasion in Ukraine, Putin now finds himself unable to adequately protect his energy industry from aerial assault. It is therefore hardly surprising that he has now agreed to a mutual pause in attacks that will keep his refineries, pipelines, and export hubs safe for at least a month. Any progress toward peace is certainly welcome, but Putin’s support for Trump’s partial ceasefire should be seen as a pragmatic move rather than an indication of his readiness to end the invasion of Ukraine.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin insistence on an end to all Western military support for Ukraine is not new. Since the very first days of the invasion, he has been warning the West not to arm Ukraine. He has also consistently identified the complete demilitarization of Ukraine as one of his primary war aims.

During failed peace talks in spring 2022, Russian negotiators demanded an approximately 95 percent reduction in the size of Ukraine’s army, which was to become a skeleton force of just fifty thousand troops. For the past three years, the Kremlin has repeated these calls for a drastic reduction in the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including severe restrictions on the categories of weapons Ukraine can possess.

Russian officials have also frequently pressed Ukraine’s Western allies to end all military assistance, while boasting to domestic audiences that this would soon force Kyiv to capitulate. Speaking in October 2023 at the annual Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Putin predicted that Ukraine would have “a week left to live” if the country’s Western partners ended weapons deliveries. “Imagine if supplies stopped tomorrow. They would have a week left to live until ammunition was exhausted,” he stated.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The Kremlin has been similarly insistent on the need to isolate Ukraine internationally and deprive the country of potential allies. In addition to a ban on all Western arms supplies, Moscow demands that Ukraine must voluntarily abandon its NATO ambitions and accept enforced neutrality. Putin claims this is necessary as NATO expansion poses a military threat to Russia. However, he himself said Russia had “no problem” when neighboring Finland announced plans to join the alliance in 2022.

Most recently, Russia has firmly rejected the idea of deploying peacekeepers from NATO member countries to Ukraine in order to monitor any future ceasefire agreement. This rejection is particularly revealing, given the fact that the same NATO troops are already present in six countries bordering Russia without sparking World War III. It would certainly seem that Putin’s real problem is with Ukraine rather than NATO.

Putin told Trump today that he wants a lasting peace, but his negotiating position suggests otherwise. The Kremlin dictator’s preferred peace terms envision a disarmed and defenseless Ukraine with virtually no army of its own and no chance of receiving any meaningful military aid from the international community. If he achieves this goal, it is surely only a matter of time before Putin renews his invasion and completes the conquest of Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Since the onset of Russia’s invasion in early 2022, the UK has been among Ukraine’s biggest backers. According to data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, British military aid up to the end of 2024 totaled $10.4 billion, putting the country in third place behind the United States and Germany among Ukraine’s international partners. Crucially, the UK has also often led by example in providing Ukraine with new categories of weapons including modern battle tanks and cruise missiles, paving the way for others to do likewise.

In addition to direct military aid, British support for Ukraine also extends to cooperation in areas including cybersecurity, intelligence, and countering hybrid threats. The UK continues to assist in the reform of the Ukrainian defense sector and provides training for Ukrainian military personnel. In the diplomatic arena, Britain advocates for tough sanctions measures against Russia and draws international attention to the Kremlin’s crimes in Ukraine.

This strategic support for Ukraine has enabled Britain to reassert its leadership position on the global stage following the country’s exit from the European Union. By supporting Ukraine, post-Brexit Britain has demonstrated that it remains a force in international affairs and a major contributor to European security. British support for the Ukrainian war effort has also made it possible to overcome Brexit-related tensions and build new partnerships with key European countries such as Germany, France, and Italy.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

British backing for Ukraine is about much more than mere power projection, of course. There is a broad cross-party consensus in Westminster that Europe’s collective security is inextricably linked to the outcome of the war in Ukraine. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has coincided with a particularly turbulent period in British politics, with four different prime ministers and a change in government since February 2022. Throughout all this, the country’s position on Ukraine has remained largely unchanged.

Ties between London and Kyiv are now poised to strengthen further. The exact nature and objectives of a potential international peacekeeping force for Ukraine are not yet clear, but if current plans proceed as anticipated, it seems all but certain that British troops will feature prominently in any deployment. This would deepen a bilateral relationship that looks set to be at the heart of Europe’s new security architecture in the coming years.

As Europe adjusts to the dramatic shifts in US foreign policy initiated by the Trump administration, Britain is playing an important role as a transatlantic intermediary, while also leading European efforts to bolster Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. Almost ten years after the country voted to leave the EU, Britain is now once again proving itself indispensable to European security.

Alina Hrytsenko is co-founder of the Kyiv-based Research Solutions analytical network. She was previously a senior consultant at the National Institute for Strategic Studies.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion just over three years ago, an improvised industry of defense tech startups has mushroomed in garages, workshops, and warehouses across Ukraine. This trend has benefited from the country’s vibrant prewar IT industry, with many existing IT businesses and tech entrepreneurs switching their focus in 2022 to support the Ukrainian army.

This has led to dramatic increases in the domestic production of key items such as surveillance and attack drones, with Ukrainian developers engaged in a relentless daily race to stay ahead of their Russian adversaries. Hundreds of Ukrainian companies are now engaged in drone manufacturing, compared to a mere handful in 2021. The Ukrainian government recently unveiled plans to purchase around 4.5 million first person view drones in 2025, more than doubling last year’s number. This is enhancing Ukraine’s reputation as a global defense tech hub and boosting the country’s efforts to reduce its reliance on military aid from the West.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukrainian drones are playing a key role in transforming the modern battlefield and are now responsible for around two-thirds of Russian losses, according to a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute. Ukraine’s progress has been so groundbreaking that leading Western defense companies are increasingly looking to learn from the country. For example, Silicon Valley companies are tapping into the know-how of Ukrainian drone makers, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The impact of Ukraine’s defense tech prowess is perhaps most evident in the Black Sea. At the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s navy was virtually nonexistent, while the dominance of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was taken for granted. Three years on, Ukraine has successfully leveraged low-cost, high-impact naval drones to offset Russia’s initial advantages and break the blockade of the country’s Black Sea ports.

Ukraine’s maritime drones have repeatedly proved their effectiveness, sinking or damaging numerous Russian warships and forcing Putin to withdraw the bulk of his fleet from Crimea to the safety of Russia itself. Despite the distances involved, Ukrainian naval drones are able to pose a threat to Russian shipping far from Crimea. In summer 2023, Ukraine launched a long-range drone attack that reportedly damaged a warship close the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, around six hundred kilometers from the nearest Ukrainian naval bases in the Odesa region.

Ukraine’s naval drone fleet continues to evolve at a rapid pace. In recent months, a new model equipped with missiles reportedly shot down a Russian helicopter over the Black Sea. Marine drones have also been developed as launch craft for aerial drones. Ukrainian officials claim these “miniature aircraft carriers” have already been used to hit Russian military targets in occupied Crimea and southern Ukraine. Looking ahead, the use of naval drones as platforms for aerial attacks could create opportunities for Ukraine to bypass Russian front line defenses and launch strikes from unexpected angles.

As Ukraine enters a fourth year of full-scale war against one of the world’s leading military powers, the need for continuous innovation on the battlefield and at sea remains critical. Ukraine’s remarkable success in the Battle for the Black Sea is an indication of what can be achieved when the Ukrainian military makes the most of the country’s innovative defense tech industry. Kyiv’s partners should take note of the key role being played by Ukrainian defense tech innovators and maximize their support for this strategically crucial sector.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The Trump White House is not the first to misjudge the extent of Putin’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine. On multiple occasions, the preceding Biden administration declared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “strategic failure” while pointing to the extremely high cost paid by the Kremlin in terms of military casualties and economic damage. This practical assessment of the invasion assumes that Putin is guided and constrained by the same logic as his Western contemporaries. In reality, however, he is not.

While democratic leaders must worry about approval ratings and economic indicators, Putin has removed virtually all possible sources of domestic opposition and is free to focus on securing his place in Russian history. Since the early years of his reign, he has made no secret of the fact that he views the collapse of the USSR as a tragedy, and regards the post-Cold War world order as an injustice. Crucially, Ukraine has come to embody both of these grievances. Putin firmly believes he cannot hope to achieve his historic mission of reversing the verdict of 1991 and reviving the Russian Empire without first extinguishing Ukrainian independence.

Putin’s obsession with Ukraine has become increasingly apparent over the past two decades as his campaign to subjugate the country has escalated from political interference to military intervention. In 2004, his efforts to rig Ukraine’s presidential election and install a Kremlin-friendly candidate backfired disastrously and helped spark the Orange Revolution. Ten years later, he responded to another Ukrainian pro-democracy revolution by seizing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine.

In the years following the onset of Russia’s military aggression, it gradually became more and more obvious that the limited invasion of 2014 was not delivering the desired outcome of a pro-Russian Ukraine. On the contrary, Russia’s attack was only strengthening Ukraine’s commitment to turn westward and pursue a Euro-Atlantic future. Rather than acknowledging the counter-productive consequences of his military campaign, Putin chose to raise the stakes even further by launching the largest European invasion since World War II.

Over the past three years, Putin has become increasingly open about his intention to erase Ukraine altogether. He has declared occupied Ukrainian regions to be “Russian forever,” and has compared his invasion to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian ruler Peter the Great. Vicious anti-Ukrainian rhetoric has become so normalized in the Russian state media that UN officials believe it may constitute “incitement to genocide.” Meanwhile, throughout areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control, Russia is systematically suppressing all traces of Ukrainian statehood and national identity.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite the horror and trauma of the Russian invasion, Ukrainians have so far refused to back down. This defiance is a personal humiliation for Putin. It directly undermines his carefully crafted strongman persona, and makes a complete mockery of his insistence that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” Rather than securing his place among the most celebrated rulers in Russian history, Putin is now at risk of being remembered as the man who lost Ukraine.

Losing Ukraine is Putin’s worst nightmare. Ever since witnessing the collapse of Soviet power while serving as a young KGB officer in East Germany, he has been haunted by visions of people power movements overthrowing empires. This helps explain his increasingly violent opposition to the robust and often unruly democratic culture that has taken root in post-Soviet Ukraine. Since the 2004 Orange Revolution, he has viewed the consolidation of Ukrainian democracy as an existential threat to his own authoritarian regime and a potential catalyst for the next stage in Russia’s retreat from empire.

Putin knows that the invasion of Ukraine will define his entire reign and decide the future fate of the Russian Federation. While he may be prepared to discuss a strategic pause in hostilities if ceasefire terms can be made to favor Moscow, he will never accept the existence of a separate and genuinely independent Ukrainian state on Russia’s border. This does not mean that current US-led peace efforts are entirely futile, but it is vital to recognize that freezing the conflict along the current front lines will not be enough to end the war.

For decades, Western leaders have made the mistake of viewing Putin through the prism of their own political pragmatism, while underestimating the importance of his revisionist imperial ideology. After three years of total war in the heart of Europe, there is no longer any excuse for such wishful thinking. Putin has bet everything on the destruction of Ukraine and is confident he will be judged favorably by the tribunal of history. Unless he is deterred by the overwhelming might of the collective West, he will continue to wage war against Ukraine until he achieves his chilling goal.

Pressure is now on Putin as Ukraine agrees to Trump’s ceasefire proposal

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 22:19:23 +0000

Ukraine has agreed to a United States proposal for a thirty-day ceasefire with Russia, representing a potentially significant breakthrough in US-led diplomatic efforts to end the largest European conflict since World War II. The agreement on a potential ceasefire came following eight hours of negotiations between high-level US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia.

In a joint statement issued following the talks in Jeddah, Ukraine expressed its readiness to accept the United States proposal to enact an immediate, interim thirty-day ceasefire, subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation. The United States will now communicate to the Kremlin that Russia’s readiness to accept the ceasefire proposal is the key to achieving peace. “We’ll take this offer to the Russians. We hope the Russians will reciprocate,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio commented.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There was more positive news for Ukraine from Saudi Arabia, with the US delegation announcing the immediate lifting of a freeze on military assistance and intelligence sharing. This decision to renew US support reflects a thaw in bilateral ties following weeks of increased tension including a disastrous Oval Office meeting in late February that saw US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance clash publicly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump responded to his White House confrontation with Zelenskyy by claiming that the Ukrainian leader was “not ready for peace.” The change in tone from US officials following today’s meeting was palpable. “The Ukrainian delegation today made something very clear, that they share President Trump’s vision for peace, they share his determination to end the fighting, to end the killing, to end the tragic meat grinder of people,” commented White House national security adviser Michael Waltz.

With Ukraine now clearly backing the US peace initiative, the world will be watching closely to see Russia’s reaction. Trump has stated that he may speak directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week. If Putin decides not to support the push for a temporary ceasefire, it will dramatically alter the optics of the war and position Russia as the main obstacle to peace.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Developments in the coming few days will reveal much about Trump’s personal relationship with Putin. The US leader has long claimed to be on good terms with the Russian dictator and has talked up the progress being made during initial negotiations with the Kremlin over a potential peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. If his efforts are now rebuffed, Trump will face mounting pressure to adopt a far tougher stance toward Moscow.

This places Putin in something of a quandary. Despite suffering heavy battlefield losses, his armies continue to advance slowly but steadily in Ukraine. Meanwhile, dramatic recent changes in US foreign policy have increased his sense of confidence that the international coalition supporting the Ukrainian war effort is finally fracturing. Putin will therefore be understandably reluctant to embrace US calls for an immediate ceasefire. At the same time, he knows that if he rejects Trump’s peace overtures, this will likely derail the broad reset in US-Russian relations that the new United States administration has been signaling since January.

The United States has been pushing for a ceasefire as the first step toward comprehensive negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to reach a peace agreement. While a peace deal is still a long way off, this initial step from the Ukrainian side could create much-needed momentum. If Russia chooses not to reciprocate, calls will grow for the United States and Europe to strengthen Ukraine’s position militarily while increasing sanctions pressure on Russia.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Watch more on the ceasefire

US peace initiative can help bring Ukraine’s abducted children home

By Kristina Hook, Iuliia Hoban

Civil Society Conflict

UkraineAlert Mar 4, 2025

Europe has the resources to defend itself and back Ukraine against Russia

By Agnia Grigas

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Feb 25, 2025

US sides with Russia against Ukraine and Europe at the United Nations

By Shelby Magid

Conflict Freedom and Prosperity

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Is Trump’s Russia reset overshadowing the Ukraine peace process?

Katherine Spencer — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 22:36:40 +0000

US President Donald Trump campaigned last year on a promise to end the Russia-Ukraine War. His efforts to achieve this goal are now rapidly transforming the geopolitical landscape.

Trump’s commitment to securing a peace deal clearly resonated with American voters, many of whom have long since grown tired of financing a brutal conflict that is now in its fourth year. Nevertheless, his apparent emphasis on rebuilding ties with Russia while pressuring Ukraine is sparking mounting alarm, both internationally and among domestic US audiences.

In the first days of his presidency, Trump’s initial diplomatic overtures seemed very much in line with his campaign trail talk of “peace through strength,” and included suggestions of tougher sanctions on Moscow. However, in recent weeks there has been a striking change in tone that has been accompanied by landmark news that the United States intends to dramatically reduce its role in European security.

The first sign of a major shift in US policy toward the war in Eastern Europe was the decision to embark on bilateral talks with Russia without Ukrainian or European participation. Then came a series of verbal attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who Trump branded a “dictator,” along with suggestions that Ukraine was to blame for Russia’s invasion.

This culminated on February 28, when Zelenskyy’s White House visit descended into a bitter and very public Oval Office spat that sent shock waves around the world. Although both sides have since indicated their readiness to reengage, the United States has underlined its displeasure by pausing all military assistance to Ukraine.

While Trump has adopted an increasingly uncompromising stance toward Ukraine, his Russian outreach has so far been marked by complimentary language, expressions of trust, and talk of new economic opportunities. Unsurprisingly, the signals coming from the new US administration have been warmly welcomed by the Kremlin. Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov noted on March 2 that Trump’s rapidly changing foreign policy configurations now “largely coincide with our own.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Across Europe, Trump’s pursuit of a radical Russian reset has seriously undermined faith in the transatlantic alliance and led to a flurry of summits calling for urgent European rearmament. Closer to home, there are growing signs of disquiet in the United States over what many see as the new administration’s unprecedented turn toward Moscow.

It is not difficult to imagine why some in the US may be feeling uneasy about Trump’s approach to reviving relations with Russia. While polls have shown gradually declining public support for Ukraine, most data indicates that a majority still back the country in its fight against Russia’s ongoing invasion. Meanwhile, there is very little evidence of any American enthusiasm for Putin’s Russia.

In a fairly typical February 2025 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans viewed Ukraine favorably, while the figure for Russia was just 17 percent. Another recent survey found that 69 percent of Republican voters believe Russia is the aggressor and 83 percent disapprove of Putin. In a Reuters poll conducted in early March, Republican respondents were similarly dismissive of attempts to shift responsibility for Putin’s invasion onto Ukraine, with just 11 percent agreeing that the country was more to blame for the war.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In recent weeks, there have been some rumblings of discontent from within the Republican Party itself. While Republicans largely remained quiet during the initial stages of Trump’s Russia policy shift, that may now be changing. When the United States sided with Moscow at the United Nations in late February to vote against a resolution condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins described the move as “shameful.”

Fellow Republican senator John Curtis said he was “deeply troubled” to see the US aligning with Russia and the likes of North Korea at the UN. “These are not our friends,” he commented. “This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy. We all want an end to the war, but it must be achieved on terms that ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and that deter Putin from pursuing further territorial ambitions.”

Some of the most pointed criticism of Trump’s efforts to broker negotiations between Russia and Ukraine has come from Republican congressman Don Bacon, who said the US leader should not have called Zelenskyy a dictator and also suggested he was far from alone in thinking so. “Many Republicans know what the president said was wrong,” Bacon commented. “Putin started this invasion. He is the dictator. He has killed all of his opponents. Zelenskyy was rightfully elected.”

There has also been push back from prominent Trump backers within the US media. As the president’s attacks on Ukraine’s Zelenskyy escalated in late February, Fox News host and longtime Trump loyalist Mark Levin responded by stating, “MAGA doesn’t support Putin.” Meanwhile, the normally pro-Trump New York Post ran a front page story featuring a giant portrait of Vladimir Putin alongside the banner headline: “President Trump: This is a dictator.”

The US Senate’s second most senior Republican woman, Lisa Murkowski, was one of the few party members to directly voice her concern following the disastrous recent Oval Office meeting. “I know foreign policy is not for the faint of heart, but right now, I am sick to my stomach,” she commented. “The administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and US values around the world.”

It is still far too early to talk about serious domestic opposition to Trump’s Russia strategy. After more than three years of relentless bloodshed in Ukraine, many welcome his efforts to break the diplomatic deadlock and will applaud loudly if he is able to broker some kind of deal. However, recent expressions of dissatisfaction from Trump’s Republican Party colleagues and his own support base should serve as a warning against any attempt to abandon Ukraine entirely or impose a Kremlin-friendly peace.

Katherine Spencer is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

US peace initiative can help bring Ukraine’s abducted children home

Kristina Hook, Iuliia Hoban — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 21:50:14 +0000

Among the many crimes Russia is accused of committing in Ukraine, few are as shocking as the mass abduction and ideological indoctrination of Ukrainian children. Ukraine has identified around 20,000 children subjected to forced deportations since the full-scale invasion began three years ago, but officials believe the true number of victims may be far higher. These allegations are so grave that the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s arrest in March 2023 on war crimes charges.

Securing the return of Ukraine’s kidnapped children must play a part in the peace efforts recently initiated by US President Donald Trump. Speaking in February, Trump acknowledged that he was aware of the situation and said he could potentially persuade Putin to release the children as part of a negotiated settlement to end the war. “I believe I could, yes,” he told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade.

Efforts to rescue the thousands of Ukrainian children held in Russia would likely receive strong public backing in the United States, including from Trump’s support base. Reverend Jason Charron, who prayed over Trump moments before his near-assassination in Pennsylvania during the 2024 election campaign, recently wrote to the US leader calling on him “to be a shield for the Ukrainian people and for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.”

The Kremlin’s illegal deportations have also sparked strong bipartisan condemnation in the US political arena. Less than a year ago, a resolution slamming Russia’s “illegal abductions” as a violation of the United Nations Genocide Convention was passed in the US House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin, with support coming from leading Republicans including Speaker Mike Johnson.

Meanwhile, research backed by the US Department of State has provided grim details of Russia’s deportation operations and linked them directly to Putin. According to a report by Yale’s School of Public Health released in December 2024, Russian presidential aircraft and funds were used in a program to take children from occupied Ukrainian territories, strip them of Ukrainian identity, and place them with Russian families.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Russia stands accused of instigating a large-scale, coordinated, and systematic policy designed to remove thousands of Ukrainian children from their homes and rob them of their Ukrainian roots via a network of camps and foster homes, where they are subjected to indoctrination and in many cases assigned new Russian names. Kremlin officials have attempted to justify the deportations by claiming to be motivated by wartime safety concerns, yet their actions still constitute violations of international law. Nor has there been any attempt to explain why children are subsequently brainwashed and forced to adopt Russian identities.

The abductions are causing profound harm to the victims, their families, and wider communities. The relatively few children who have so far returned to Ukraine have provided harrowing testimonies of their experience in Russia. Many have recounted being physically and mentally abused for their Ukrainian identity, or told that their family and country had abandoned them.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Presently, no international legal mechanism exists to facilitate the safe return of abducted Ukrainian children. However, the United States has many cards it can play in order to achieve this goal. US sanctions against Russia are not primarily linked to individual aspects of the invasion. Instead, they are focused on the illegal act of the invasion itself, which is in violation of the United Nations Charter. US negotiators can make it clear to their Kremlin counterparts that without the safe return of all abducted Ukrainian children, the Russian invasion cannot be considered over and sanctions cannot be lifted.

Sanctions could also be used to undermine the Kremlin’s ability to continue the abductions. The United States could follow the example of the British, who imposed targeted sanctions in late 2024 against individuals identified as “perpetrators of Russia’s forced deportation and brainwashing of Ukrainian children.” UK officials described the abductions as “a systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian cultural and national identity.”

By focusing on the distressing plight of the abducted Ukrainian children, Trump could generate much-needed international confidence in his peacemaking efforts. Meanwhile, given his close personal association with the mass abductions, Putin has the ability to stop this policy and order the return of Ukrainian children. With few public signs that Russia is committed to long-term peace, initiatives aimed at identifying victims and ensuring their return to Ukraine could serve as a key US demand to test this willingness.

Before sanctions are even partially lifted, the United States should insist on concrete steps from the Russian side to end the abductions and enable Ukraine to bring all the victims home. It should be made clear that this must be verified by independent monitoring mechanisms. If progress proves possible, this could serve as a first step toward addressing other grave human rights concerns such as the widespread torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians in Russian captivity.

Kristina Hook is assistant professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Iuliia Hoban, Ph.D. is an expert on children and childhoods in peace and security studies and the implications of the Russo-Ukrainian War for vulnerable populations.

Prospect of peace talks sparks fresh debate over Russia’s frozen assets

Ivan Horodyskyy — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:40:34 +0000

It was always likely that the fate of the $300 billion in frozen reserves of Russia’s Central Bank would become a key issue in negotiations over Ukraine’s future. With the new White House administration initiating fresh diplomatic efforts, these assets have now emerged as a potential bargaining chip in the broader push for a settlement.

Although the details of the negotiation process that began recently in Riyadh remain opaque, reports are already circulating about various potential formulas for using these funds. According to insiders, one proposal suggests allocating a portion of the reserves to support reconstruction in the approximately one-fifth of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russian forces. In practice, that would mean the return of the frozen assets to Russia.

Kyiv would strongly oppose any such move, as it would be seen as contradicting both Ukraine’s national interests and the interests of the victims of Russian aggression. This underlines the high stakes as negotiations evolve and the opposing sides debate the fate of Russia’s frozen assets.

Since February 24, 2022, reserves of the Russian Central Bank have represented the largest frozen pool of Russian sovereign assets. Kyiv has consistently called for their full transfer to fund the Ukrainian war effort and compensate for war damage inflicted by Russia. G7 countries have repeatedly reaffirmed their stance that the frozen assets will remain immobilized until Russia pays for the damage it has caused in Ukraine.

This position has effectively placed responsibility on Ukraine and Russia to negotiate a political settlement including war reparations. Over the past three years, significant work has been undertaken to elaborate legal grounds for the confiscation of the frozen Russian assets in Ukraine’s favor, but no decisive action has been taken to seize them outright.

Instead, as a temporary measure, Ukraine has received interest accrued on these funds, which were placed in deposit accounts in 2024. Additionally, G7 leaders agreed to provide a $50 billion loan to be repaid in the coming years using proceeds from the frozen reserves. This arrangement represents a substantial achievement. It has also fueled speculation that the Russian assets will remain untouched until the loan is fully repaid, which could take 10 to 15 years.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The start of peace talks in Saudi Arabia, spearheaded by the United States, has shifted the political calculus surrounding the use of the frozen Russian funds. Potential proposals to channel them into Ukraine’s reconstruction, including reconstruction projects in Russian-occupied territories, would mark a striking departure from previous policy. While this would no doubt be framed as a pragmatic step toward resolving the conflict, many would see it as a major concession to Moscow.

At first glance, this approach may appear designed to set a balance between competing interests. In reality, it risks undermining the very principles on which the international response to Russia’s aggression has been built.

Since 2022, there has been broad consensus that Russia, as the aggressor state, bears full responsibility for the consequences of the war, including the obligation to compensate for all damages, irrespective of the circumstances under which they occurred. This has been reaffirmed in a UN General Assembly resolution, one of Ukraine’s key diplomatic achievements at the United Nations.

Any compromise that allows Russia access to its frozen reserves, even indirectly, would set a dangerous precedent for the division of responsibility over war-related damages. While some might argue that the money ultimately belongs to Russia and that partial access does not amount to a strategic loss for Ukraine, this perspective ignores a fundamental reality: These frozen assets were supposed to serve as leverage to compel Russia to accept its legal obligations, including reparations. Allowing Moscow to regain control over even a fraction of the frozen assets would weaken that leverage and allow the aggressor to benefit at the expense of its victims.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The core issue remains clear. Any model for unlocking Russian sovereign assets must prioritize justice for Ukraine and the victims of Russian aggression. Allocating these funds to be used by the aggressor state without a formal reparations agreement would contradict the principles of accountability.

Since May 2022, Ukraine has consistently advocated for the creation of an international compensation mechanism based on the vision that victims of aggression must be the primary beneficiaries. The fate of the frozen Russian $300 billion has always been at the center of this process, as these funds were considered the main source for financing reparations. Under a framework led by the Council of Europe and supported by a coalition of international partners including the United States, a Compensation Fund could serve as the primary instrument for distributing these assets to those who have suffered direct harm from Russia’s aggression.

While the mechanism requires further refinement, supporters believe this format is the best path toward ensuring meaningful redress. The recently established Register of Damage for Ukraine, which is tasked with registering all eligible claims to be paid out through a Compensation Fund, is an initial step in this direction, demonstrating a tangible commitment to prioritizing victim compensation.

Transferring Russia’s frozen reserves to a future Compensation Fund appears the most logical and legally sound course of action. Moreover, the European Union, which administers $210 billion of the $300 billion in frozen Russian Central Bank reserves, reportedly backs the move. Without this transfer of assets, the entire idea of a reparations mechanism for Ukraine would be undermined.

While the operational details of any future decisions can be refined through multilateral negotiations with the participation of Ukraine and the EU, the guiding principles appear clear. These should include the use of frozen Russian assets to serve the interests of Ukraine as the victim of aggression. The primary purpose of these funds should be direct compensation for war damages suffered by Ukrainian individuals, businesses, and institutions. Meanwhile, any decision on their use must be grounded in principles of justice, ensuring that responsibility for war-related damages is not shifted onto Ukraine, and that a victim-centered approach remains at the core of the process.

Ivan Horodyskyy is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project and director of the Dnistryanskyi Center for Politics and Law.

Europe has the resources to defend itself and back Ukraine against Russia

Agnia Grigas — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 21:32:50 +0000

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled an unprecedented $840 billion plan to increase EU defense spending on March 4 as the continent continues to grapple with the dramatic changes taking place in the international security landscape amid US President Donald Trump’s new foreign policy agenda. “Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending,” she stated in Brussels, noting that this was necessary to back Ukraine against ongoing Russian aggression and also “to address the long-term need to take on much more responsibility for our own European security.”

EU leaders are expected to discuss the proposed package at an emergency meeting later this week, marking the latest in a flurry of recent summits held to bolster European security and expand support for Ukraine. This sense of urgency reflects mounting alarm in European capitals as the Trump administration signals its intention to reduce the United States commitment to Europe and announces a pause in military assistance to Ukraine. With faith in transatlantic unity now rapidly evaporating, Europe is waking up to a new geopolitical reality and recognizing that it must now be prepared to defend itself.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Throughout Europe, there is an acute awareness that the continent is not yet fully prepared to meet the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s revanchist Russia. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since World War II, is currently in its fourth year. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to escalate its broader hybrid war against the West. There are now growing concerns that unless Russia can be stopped in Ukraine, Moscow will seek to exploit uncertainly over the US position in order to expand its campaign against a vulnerable Europe.

In this fast-evolving geopolitical environment, European leaders must find the political resolve to translate recent statements of intent into the kind of bold policies necessary to safeguard the continent’s security. This will also require considerable powers of persuasion in order to convince complacent European audiences that security is now a priority. The good news is that on paper at least, Europe possesses the resources to assert its strength and stand alone against Russia.

The economic disparity between the European Union and Russia is particularly striking. In 2024, the combined GDP of EU member states reached $19 trillion, dwarfing Russia’s approximately $2 trillion economy. According to IMF data from February 2025, Russia does not even rank among the world’s top ten economies, trailing behind the United States, China, Germany, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Brazil. Although the Russian economy has withstood sanctions imposed in response to the invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing war has left it overextended.

In terms of population, the EU’s 449 million citizens significantly outnumber Russia’s 145 million. Moreover, Russia’s longstanding demographic crisis has worsened in recent years. Up to one million Russians are believed to have emigrated since 2022, representing the largest exodus since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Estimated Russian battlefield losses in Ukraine numbering hundreds of thousands are further undermining the country’s already deteriorating demographic outlook.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Europe holds a significant edge over Russia in military spending. In 2024, EU nations collectively spent $457 billion on defense compared to Russia’s $146 billion defense budget. While Russia has moved its economy to a wartime footing and is set to continue increasing military spending, many European countries have recently committed to boosting their own defense budgets. There has long been reluctance among some NATO members to meet the alliance’s two percent target, but French President Emmanuel Macron and others are now calling on Europeans to dramatically increase annual defense spending to over three percent of GDP.

While Russia retains a strategic advantage in nuclear capabilities, the UK and France possess nuclear arsenals that can provide Europe with a credible deterrent. Europe has been steadily boosting military output since 2022, with share prices in European weapons producers surging to new highs in recent days in expectation of further investment in the continent’s defense industries. In terms of conventional military strength, the balance of power is more nuanced. Europe, including the UK, fields around 1.47 million active duty military personnel, according to Bruegel and SIPRI data from 2024. In comparison, Russia is reportedly working to expand its active duty force to 1.5 million troops.

In the realm of economic warfare, Russia faces significant constraints. Russian energy exports to Europe were once a key Kremlin tool but this leverage has significantly diminished since the onset of the Ukraine invasion. Instead, the United States has emerged as a key exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), enabling European countries to diversify away from Russia. While Russian energy exports to Europe continue, the continent increasingly relies on US, Norwegian, and Algerian gas.

Given the overall balance of power between Europe and Russia, European leaders have ample reason to adopt a more resolute stance. By leveraging its economic strength, demographic advantage, and military potential, Europe can confidently counter Putin’s imperial ambitions and provide Ukraine with the support it needs to resist Russia’s invasion. The onus now is on European leaders to transform these strategic advantages into effective policies and actions. With sufficient political will, Europe can defend itself and back Ukraine against Russia.

Agnia Grigas is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and the author of The New Geopolitics of Natural Gas, Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire and other books.

In Ukraine, millions watched video footage of the White House argument in disbelief. Ukrainians were hoping the meeting would mark a welcome change in tone following weeks of mounting tensions that had seen their president branded a “dictator” by Trump and excluded from talks between the United States and Russia. Instead, they were faced with what appeared to be a complete breakdown in communication with their country’s most important ally and main supplier of critical military assistance.

Many Ukrainians were angered and dismayed by what they saw as Trump and Vance’s confrontational stance toward Zelenskyy. At various points in the heated exchange, the two US leaders appeared to question Ukraine’s war effort and suggest the country was in no position to be making demands, while also accusing Zelenskyy of being insufficiently grateful for US support.

Strikingly, neither man voiced any criticism of Russian ruler Vladimir Putin for launching the largest European invasion since World War II. On the contrary, Trump indicated that he did not welcome Zelenskyy’s hostility toward the Kremlin dictator. “You see the hatred he’s got for Putin,” Trump told the assembled press during the Zelenskyy meeting. “It’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He’s got tremendous hatred. And I understand that. But I can tell you the other side’s not exactly in love with him either.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

As news of the disastrous Oval Office meeting spread across Ukraine, there was a clear effort to demonstrate a united front and rally around the flag. This response was hardly surprising. After all, Ukrainians have been fighting for national survival ever since Russia’s attack began eleven years ago with the seizure of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine. Since 2014, they have become familiar with the significant challenges their country faces as Ukrainian officials seek to maintain support in Washington and other Western capitals.

Zelenskyy’s main political rival Petro Poroshenko led the way, vowing to refrain from any criticism and saying that Ukraine needed to respond to events in the US by demonstrating unity. Other politicians followed suit. “Under no circumstances should we agree to calls for the president to resign, and I’m saying that as an opposition Member of Parliament. That defies the very idea of democracy,” said Inna Sovsun.

Many Ukrainians expressed their pride in Zelenskyy for what they saw as his refusal to be intimidated and his insistence on pressing the issue of security guarantees. “If we are for real, we haven’t spoken with such dignity since writing to the sultan,” commented Ukrainian political activist Anastasiya Paraskevova, referencing a celebrated but likely apocryphal series of seventeenth century letters sent by the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Ottoman Sultan and immortalized in a painting by Ilya Repin. “This is the sentiment right now. Trump has actually made Zelenskyy even more popular in Ukraine.”

There were also widespread suggestions that the White House had deliberately provoked a confrontation in order to discredit Zelenskyy and undermine US support for Ukraine. “Zelenskyy could have just sat there in silence for 40 minutes without saying a word. The problem is, they would have found a reason to get offended and start a brawl anyway,” argued Ukrainian journalist and commentator Ilia Ponomorenko. “You simply can’t win with people who don’t actually want a standard, successful meeting.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While the overall mood in Ukraine was one of defiance, Zelenskyy’s handling of the Oval Office clash also came in for significant criticism. Ukrainian Member of Parliament Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of the opposition European Solidarity Party, called the meeting “catastrophic for Ukraine” and noted that the only winner was Putin. Commenting on Zelenskyy’s role in Friday’s confrontation, Goncharenko told CNN that the Ukrainian leader needed to be “much more diplomatic” and “constructive” in his future dealings with the country’s US partners. “Mr. Trump will be president of the United States for the next four years. We need to work with him, not argue with him,” Goncharenko commented.

A common complaint among Ukrainians was that while they are being asked by the Trump administration to make concession after concession, Russia faces no such pressure. The tone of the White House meeting certainly seemed to underline Ukraine’s limited leverage as it attempts to secure the backing of the United States for a sustainable peace settlement that can prevent further Russian aggression. “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out,” Trump told Zelenskyy at one point as tempers frayed.

Mariia Zolkina of Ukraine’s Democratic Initiatives Foundation think tank commented to the BBC that the war of words in Washington would add to a growing sense of injustice within Ukrainian society over the Trump administration’s strategy for ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. She accused the US leader of seeking to grant Putin almost all of the objectives he has sought but failed to achieve on the battlefield during three years of full-scale war, and warned that this one-sided approach would only strengthen Ukraine’s will to resist. “Trump does not understand that millions of Ukrainians are united by a shared sense of zero tolerance toward injustice. This is what led to the revolutions of 2004 and 2014,” she noted, referencing independent Ukraine’s two pro-democracy revolutions.

While most Ukrainians were clearly shaken by the spectacle of their president arguing so publicly with Trump and Vance, the sense of shock was not shared by everyone. Some viewed the Oval Office clash as yet another reality check in a long and painful national journey that has seen Ukraine navigate more than a decade of Russian aggression while adjusting to the limitations of international assistance. “Zelenskyy was brave, but we are supplicants now,” wrote Ukrainian author Andrey Kurkov in Britain’s Guardian newspaper. “Trump and the Kremlin have made it abundantly clear that Ukraine’s participation in these negotiations between the US and Russia is not necessary or desirable.”

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

No serious military analyst would argue that Ukraine poses a credible security threat to Russia itself. Likewise, no Ukrainian politician or public figure has ever harbored any territorial ambitions against their country’s far larger and wealthier neighbor. On the contrary, the sole purpose of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is to defend the country against Russian attack. The Kremlin’s emphasis on disarming Ukraine should therefore be seen as a massive red flag for the Trump White House and the wider international community that signals Putin’s determination to complete his conquest and extinguish Ukrainian statehood altogether.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There are worrying signs that this is not yet fully understood in Western capitals. Instead, US President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration have recently begun shifting responsibility for the war away from Russia and echoing the Kremlin’s own longstanding efforts to blame the invasion on NATO expansion. Predictably, Russian officials including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have welcomed this dramatic change in the US position regarding the causes of the war. However, Russia’s whole NATO narrative suffers from a number of obvious flaws that should spark skepticism among even the most credulous consumers of Kremlin propaganda.

According to Putin, Ukraine’s deepening ties with NATO forced him to launch the full-scale invasion of February 2022. In reality, Ukraine’s prospects of joining the alliance were virtually nonexistent at the time, and had not significantly improved since Kyiv was first fobbed off with platitudes at a landmark NATO summit way back in 2008. Even the Russian seizure of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 failed to produce any change of heart among alliance members, with key NATO countries including the United States and Germany openly expressing their opposition to Ukrainian accession. Indeed, on the eve of the full-scale invasion, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz assured Putin that Ukrainian NATO membership was out of the question for at least the next 30 years. This makes it difficult to accept Moscow’s claims that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations represented some kind of immediate danger to Russia.

There are also good reasons to question whether the Kremlin genuinely views NATO as a threat to Russian national security. Thanks to founding member Norway, the alliance has shared a border with Russia ever since its establishment in 1949. More recently, the accession of Poland and the Baltic states at the turn of the millennium dramatically expanded Russia’s shared border with NATO and placed the alliance a few hundred kilometers away from Moscow and Saint Petersburg. This close proximity to Russia’s two biggest cities did not lead to any discernible rise in border tensions.

The most revealing evidence of Russia’s true attitude toward NATO came in 2022 when Finland and Sweden reacted to the invasion of Ukraine by ending decades of neutrality and announcing plans to join the alliance. Putin responded to this landmark decision by declaring that Russia had “no problem” with the accession of the two Nordic nations, despite the fact that Finnish membership would more than double Russia’s border with NATO, while Swedish membership would turn the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. Putin has since underlined his indifference to this expanded NATO presence on his doorstep by withdrawing most Russian troops from the Finnish frontier and leaving this supposedly vulnerable border zone largely undefended.

So far, nobody has been able to adequately explain the glaring inconsistency in Putin’s logic. He appears to be unfazed by the presence of NATO troops along the Russian border in Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. And yet at the same time, he expects us to believe that the faint prospect of Ukraine joining the alliance at some point in the distant future is sufficiently alarming to justify the largest European invasion since World War II. Militarily, this makes no sense. The only reasonable conclusion is that Putin’s objections relate specifically to Ukraine and not to NATO in general. He knows perfectly well that the alliance poses no security threat to Russia itself, but does not want to risk a growing NATO presence that might prevent him from achieving his expansionist objective of subjugating Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While Putin moans to foreign leaders about the inequities of NATO expansion, when speaking to domestic audiences he is typically far more candid about the imperial ambitions that shaped his decision to invade Ukraine. For much of his reign, Putin has insisted that Ukrainians are really Russians (“one people”), and has repeatedly accused modern Ukraine of being a invented nation occupying historically Russian lands. On the eve of the full-scale invasion, he published a rambling 5,000-word history essay that many likened to a declaration of war against Ukrainian statehood. During the first summer of the war, he compared his invasion to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian Czar Peter the Great.

Putin’s frequent denials of Ukraine’s right to exist have set the tone throughout Russian society. Poisonous anti-Ukrainian rhetoric has become so commonplace in the Kremlin-controlled Russian media that UN investigators believe it may constitute “incitement to genocide.” Meanwhile, senior Kremlin officials have sought to demonstrate their loyalty to Putin by echoing his vicious attacks on Ukraine. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has declared that “the existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians,” while top Putin aide Nikolai Patrushev recently suggested Ukraine may soon “cease to exist.” These are not the words of rational politicians addressing legitimate national security concerns.

This genocidal rhetoric is being more than matched by the actions of the Russian army in Ukraine. Wherever the Kremlin has been able to establish control, Russian troops have systematically detained local officials, military veterans, journalists, religious leaders, civic activists, Ukrainian patriots, and anyone else deemed to be a potential threat. Thousands have disappeared into a vast network of prisons amid a climate of fear that has been described by Britain’s The Economist as a “totalitarian hell.” Many more, including thousands of children, have been subjected to forced deportation and sent to Russia. Those who remain are being pressured to accept Russian citizenship, while all reminders of Ukrainian statehood, culture, and national identity are being methodically removed. Needless to say, anyone who dares speak the Ukrainian language risks severe punishment.

These horrors make a complete mockery of attempts to appease the Russians with limited territorial concessions. US negotiators need to recognize that Putin is not fighting for land. He views the current invasion in far broader terms as an historic mission to erase Ukraine from the map of Europe. In Putin’s chilling worldview, extinguishing Ukrainian statehood is a vital step toward the reversal of the Soviet collapse and the revival of the Russian Empire. He has pursued this messianic vision with increasing violence ever since Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, and is now closer than ever to realizing his goal.

This is why peace negotiations with Russia must focus primarily on establishing long-term security guarantees that are sufficiently credible to convince the Kremlin. Anything less will be viewed in Moscow as yet more proof of Western weakness and interpreted as a tacit invitation to go further. After all, that has been the pattern ever since the Russian invasion first began in 2014. Putin’s campaign to destroy Ukraine has been gradually unfolding in plain sight for over a decade and already ranks among the worst crimes of the twenty-first century. If Western leaders choose to ignore this and push ahead with a bad peace while leaving Ukraine without the support and security it needs to survive, they will be complicit in all that follows.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Ukraine’s IT sector offers opportunities for pragmatic partnership with the US

Anatoly Motkin, Hanna Myshko — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:03:50 +0000

As the new Trump administration reassesses its foreign partnerships through a lens of transactional pragmatism, Ukraine’s IT sector presents a potentially compelling case for deepening bilateral cooperation.

While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has sought to maintain strong ties with the United States, the current shift away from aid-based diplomacy signals that Ukraine must further demonstrate its economic value. In this context, the thriving Ukrainian IT industry is a key asset. This sector not only drives domestic economic resilience, but also offers tangible benefits to American businesses through investment, technological innovation, and cybersecurity expertise.

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion three years ago, Ukraine’s IT industry has proven to be a resilient and dynamic force. Despite the ongoing war with Russia, the sector has demonstrated remarkable adaptability. In 2024, Ukraine’s IT services exports reached $6.45 billion, contributing 4.4 percent of the country’s GDP and accounting for approximately 38 percent of Ukraine’s total service exports. This strong performance has been possible despite the challenges posed by the largest European invasion since World War II, underscoring the Ukrainian IT sector’s ability to operate under extreme conditions.

Beyond its financial contribution, the Ukrainian IT industry also plays a crucial role in employment. By 2024, Ukraine’s IT workforce had grown to more than 300,000 specialists, solidifying its position as a major employer and a pillar of Ukrainian economic stability in today’s wartime environment.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The United States is already an important partner for Ukraine’s IT industry. In 2023, the US was the largest importer of Ukrainian IT services, accounting for $2.39 billion or 37.2 percent of the industry’s total exports. This presents opportunities for intensified bilateral collaboration in both the private and public sectors that have the potential to transcend the kind of aid-based relations found elsewhere in the region.

Ukrainian IT companies are not seeking handouts but are actively investing in the US market. Rather than displacing American jobs, they are creating new opportunities and fostering technological advancements. Importantly, these companies are not appropriating US technologies but are in many cases sharing their own advanced developments. This cooperative approach could strengthen both economies, reinforcing a business-driven relationship that aligns with the Trump administration’s strategic vision.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The knowledge-based economy benefits immensely from such international partnerships. Unlike resource-dependent models, this framework ensures a two-way exchange of expertise. Ukraine’s IT professionals are already playing a significant role in cybersecurity, actively defending against digital threats and ensuring the integrity of critical infrastructure. From the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, they have consistently delivered in even the most difficult of circumstances and have enhanced Ukraine’s global reputation as a leading tech nation.

Moreover, the war has propelled Ukrainian engineers to the forefront of innovation in autonomous systems including aerial, maritime, and other drone technologies. Many of Ukraine’s most recent innovations in the drone sphere leverage AI. The depth of experience gained in developing and deploying these systems under real combat conditions is unparalleled worldwide. For the US defense industry, collaboration with Ukraine in this domain could be invaluable, offering access to battle-tested innovations that have the potential to redefine modern warfare.

The obvious synergies between the US and Ukrainian tech industries extends beyond the private sector. Cooperation in areas such as dual-use technologies should be prioritized by both governments to enhance security and drive innovation. Strengthening this partnership could contribute to a safer and more prosperous future for both nations.

By leveraging Ukraine’s IT expertise, the United States can improve its own technological capabilities while supporting a partner nation at a critical time. This partnership can bring further economic and strategic benefits to both parties. As the Trump administration moves toward a business-driven approach to US foreign policy, strengthening ties with Ukraine’s IT sector could boost innovation and security while also offering a range of business opportunities.

Anatoly Motkin is president of StrategEast, a non-profit organization with offices in the United States, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan dedicated to developing knowledge-driven economies in the Eurasian region. Hanna Myshko is regional director for Ukraine, Moldova, and the Gulf at StrategEast.

In the decades after World War II, Finland was handcuffed to neutrality via a treaty with Moscow, but remained an independent state with a market economy. The constraints placed on Finland during this period prevented the country’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic community and came to be known as Finlandization. In essence, Finland was forced to cede land and accept a Kremlin-friendly form of geopolitical neutrality in exchange for nominal independence.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Some in Washington DC and elsewhere now see the Finlandization format of neutrality as a suitable model for Ukraine. This includes influential members of the Trump administration. However, supporters of this approach ignore the obvious differences between Soviet policy toward Finland and the Putin regime’s objectives in Ukraine. While the USSR had limited territorial ambitions in Finland and was far more focused on the Cold War competition with the United States and Western Europe, today’s Russia is fully committed to erasing Ukrainian statehood and national identity.

The most powerful indictment of Finlandization has come from Finland itself. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the Finns moved quickly to end decades of neutrality, joining the European Union in 1995. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Finnish authorities went even further and applied for NATO membership. Finland’s accession to the alliance in 2023 marked the final stage in the country’s rejection of Finlandization.

Instead of imposing neutrality on Ukraine, the country’s partners should seek to create a security environment that will prevent further Russian aggression and allow Ukrainians to define their own future. After eleven years of Russian military aggression and three years of full-scale invasion, pressuring Ukraine to accept Finlandization on the Kremlin’s terms would be the equivalent of forcing a victim of abuse to live with their abuser. Such an unjust settlement would be doomed to fail and could also significantly undermine the international standing of the United States for years to come.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite the evident problems with a peace deal that imposes neutrality on Ukraine, the new US administration has begun the negotiating process with Russia by proactively offering a series of concessions to the Kremlin such as ruling out Ukrainian NATO membership. US officials appear intent on avoiding anything that might offend the Russians as they seek to provide Putin with a face-saving off ramp. This approach is unlikely to result in a viable long-term peace deal. On the contrary, it risks emboldening Putin and encouraging him to increase his demands.

The alternative to Kremlin-friendly neutrality is clear. Ukraine seeks binding security guarantees from its Western partners and an invitation to join NATO. Kyiv’s vision for a sustainable peace offers obvious advantages for the West. At a time when the US is calling on Europeans to take greater responsibility for their own security, closer defense ties with Ukraine would be a major asset. With more than a million soldiers and unique combat experience on the twenty first century battlefield, the inclusion of Ukraine would dramatically increase the size and effectiveness of NATO forces in Europe while enabling the US to potentially withdraw troops.

Integrating Ukraine into the Western security architecture would bring lasting peace to Europe because it would project strength to Russia, which is the only language Vladimir Putin understands. Striking a temporary peace deal by appeasing aggression is easy, as Neville Chamberlain demonstrated at Munich in 1938. However, the long-term consequences are likely to be disastrous. The Trump administration appears well aware of this and says it is committed to achieving peace through strength. The question is whether this principle will now be applied to negotiations with Russia over the fate of Ukraine.

Brian Mefford is a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. He has lived and worked in Ukraine since 1999.

US sides with Russia against Ukraine and Europe at the United Nations

Shelby Magid — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:59:17 +0000

As the world marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a diplomatic clash at the United Nations illustrated the dramatic divide that has emerged between the United States and Europe since the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just over one month ago.

The cause of the clash was a disagreement over the wording of rival UN resolutions marking the anniversary of the Russian invasion. The resolution initiated by Ukraine and supported by most Western nations explicitly identified Russia as the aggressor, while a version promoted by the United States adopted a more neutral tone and emphasized the need for peace.

The United States voted against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine, siding with a handful of states including Russia, Belarus, and North Korea. The resolution passed thanks to backing from 93 nations including Ukraine and America’s traditional European allies.

The significance of this US realignment was widely noted. “If you want a measure of the scale of the transatlantic rift, consider this: I am told that yesterday was the first time since 1945 that the US voted with Russia and against Europe at the UN on an issue of European security,” commented BBC News diplomatic correspondent James Landale.

Hours later, the US successfully spearheaded a resolution at the UN Security Council calling for a “swift end” to the conflict and urging a “lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.” Notably, Russia was not named as the aggressor. This marked the first adoption of a Security Council resolution on Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Russia holds veto power in the Security Council and has effectively prevented the body from passing any resolutions on the invasion of Ukraine until now. Clearly, the Kremlin approved of the change in tone from US diplomats.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

While only United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding, the UN General Assembly is widely seen as a key diplomatic battleground. Ukrainian diplomats duly celebrated the adoption of their resolution. “Sometimes it is not easy to fight for the truth. But in the end, it is the truth that makes history,” wrote Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha. Meanwhile, the US-led Security Council resolution earned praise from the Kremlin, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcoming it as an indication that the causes of the war were being better understood in the West.

Speaking after the United Nations votes, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the United States position on the resolutions reflected President Trump’s emphasis on ending the war. “We didn’t feel it was conducive, frankly, to have something out there at the UN that’s antagonistic to either side,” he commented.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While many Americans back Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine, the decision to vote alongside Russia and other authoritarian powers has sparked concern and some bipartisan condemnation. “I was deeply troubled by the vote at the UN today which put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy,” commented Republican senator John Curtis. “Siding with Russia and North Korea over freedom and democracy? Unconscionable. Dangerous. Weak,” offered Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar.

Trump has repeatedly stated that his goal is peace in Ukraine. His team insists the recent UN maneuvers were aimed at creating a less confrontational climate and setting the stage for meaningful negotiations. Critics counter that any serious peace process must recognize the root causes of the war and acknowledge the central role played by Russia’s imperial ambitions. Refusing to name Russia as the aggressor may prove popular in Moscow, but this does not change the reality of Russia’s actions. On the contrary, it risks fueling the Kremlin’s sense of impunity.

This week’s efforts to avoid offending Russia at the United Nations will add to existing concerns that the Trump White House is siding with the Kremlin against Ukraine and the rest of the collective West. While a strong case can be made for seeking to engage Russia, it is unclear why an administration eager to project strength appears so willing to make concessions to an authoritarian dictator while pressuring the victim of Russian aggression. Few UN votes go down in history, but the intense interest in this week’s resolutions reflects a far deeper sense of international alarm over what many see as the transformation of US foreign policy under Donald Trump.

Shelby Magid is deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In addition to often conflicting foreign policy agendas, the leaders of the United States and Russia also operate in very different political realities. When US presidents are elected to office and their party controls Congress, they only have two surefire years to forge new policy, positively impact American lives, and set the course for their re-election. During that short time frame, US policymakers often face difficult decisions under extreme pressure from their constituents. Unfortunately, success through innovation requires a willingness to fail.

In comparison, Russian politicians do not compete against the clock in the same manner. They seldom face hard deadlines or constraints from public opinion when implementing their policies. Just as most Soviet leaders ruled until death, today’s Russian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov have remained in their roles for decades. Russia’s security apparatus, the true source of political power in the country, has been loyal to Putin since the very beginning of his reign.

Developing a holistic strategy toward Putin’s Russia has been more complicated than dealing with other regions because traditional playbooks do not apply. The United States has not been willing to pursue a Cold War-style policy of containment, as Russia is now a global power with an internationally integrated economy. Washington has also been reluctant to pursue strategic security cooperation as it did in the 1990s because Russia has proven to be an unreliable partner, has violated the international rules-based order, and has placed American lives directly at risk.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite the need to address the security challenges posed by Russia, a coordinated United States strategy to deal with the Kremlin remains elusive. Successive attempts to reset relations have failed and bilateral ties have deteriorated. It is true that the US has had a policy on Ukraine and a policy on Russia as it relates to Ukraine. However, a strategic plan to counter Russian actions globally through traditional soft and hard power tools has become politically toxic for successive US administrations.

This applies throughout US politics. While Congress maintains country-specific caucuses like the Ukraine Caucus or the Friends of Democratic Belarus Caucus, it has long been considered politically impossible to create a Friends of Democratic Russia Caucus. Until recently, no member of Congress has wanted to appear as though they were extending even a metaphorical hand toward Russia. However, that may now be changing.

Why is there such an apparent sense of urgency? Like US presidents before him, Trump is working against time. He ran for the presidency on a campaign of ending foreign wars. He also has an ambitious domestic agenda to both cut the federal workforce and drastically increase its output. Crucially, Congress must pass a budget by March 14 or the federal government will shut down, a scenario that would create explosive pressure on the Trump administration.

Trump needs a deal with Russia more than he fears the political fallout that a Russia reset could bring to his presidency. In an era where having a Russia policy has long been politically elusive, now may be the time for a dramatic shift in US-Russia relations. As the Trump administration reviews the US approach to international aid and diplomacy, all eyes will be on how they navigate relations with America’s long-time geopolitical rival and the potential consequences for the future of Ukraine.

Leah Nodvin is a national security specialist with extensive experience covering issues related to foreign affairs, defense, trade, and geopolitical risk.

Ukrainians are proudly democratic but resoundingly reject wartime elections

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 23:43:38 +0000

As the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion draws close, the chorus of voices calling for new elections in Ukraine is growing louder and louder. Curiously, however, these calls are not coming from the Ukrainians themselves, but from the Kremlin and the Trump White House.

Since his inauguration one month ago, US President Donald Trump has begun echoing Russian demands for fresh Ukrainian elections. This week, he sparked outrage by branding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections.” These attacks have proved popular in Moscow but have fallen flat in Kyiv, with most Ukrainians rejecting the US leader’s claims and rallying behind Zelenskyy.

The debate over Ukrainian elections reflects the challenging wartime realities in the partially occupied country. Ukraine was scheduled to hold presidential and parliamentary votes in 2024 but was forced to postpone both ballots as the Ukrainian Constitution does not allow national elections during martial law, which was introduced in 2022 and remains in place. Zelenskyy has vowed to hold elections as soon as the security situation allows, but argues that it would be impossible to stage free and fair votes in the current circumstances.

The majority of Ukrainians appear to agree. Two of Zelenskyy’s main political rivals, Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, have publicly rejected the idea of wartime elections as impractical and illegitimate. Ukraine’s vibrant civil society has also voiced its opposition to the return of elections before a peace agreement has been signed. Meanwhile, a new opinion poll conducted in February 2025 found that 63 percent of Ukrainians are against holding any national votes until the war with Russia is over.

This lack of appetite for wartime elections is not the product of apathy or oppression. On the contrary, Ukrainians are fiercely proud of their country’s democratic credentials, which were hard-won during two separate pro-democracy revolutions in 2004 and 2014. On both occasions, millions of Ukrainians took part in massive protest movements opposing Russian-backed attempts to subvert the country’s emerging democracy and place Ukraine on a trajectory toward Kremlin-style authoritarianism. This grassroots embrace of democratic values has become central to modern Ukraine’s sense of national identity.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For more than two decades, Ukraine’s burgeoning democratic culture has been one of the key triggers behind Moscow’s escalating campaign of aggression against the country. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s obsession with Ukraine can be traced back to the 2004 Orange Revolution, which was in part provoked by his botched intervention in the Ukrainian presidential election. This was to prove a watershed moment in relations between the two post-Soviet countries. Over the subsequent two decades, Ukraine has pursued a European democratic future, while Putin’s Russia has turned back toward the imperial past.

Putin’s fear of Ukrainian democracy is easy enough to understand. As a young KGB officer in East Germany, his formative political experience was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rapid collapse of the Soviet Empire as a wave of democratic uprisings swept across Eastern Europe. Ever since the Orange Revolution, Putin has been haunted by the idea that an increasingly democratic Ukraine could serve as a catalyst for the next stage in Russia’s imperial retreat and spark the breakup of the Russian Federation itself.

Mounting concern in Moscow over the possible impact of Ukraine’s democratic progress was a major contributing factor behind Putin’s fateful decision to invade Ukraine in 2014. When the occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region failed to prevent the consolidation of Ukrainian democracy or derail the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration, Putin felt compelled to launch the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukrainians would be the first to admit that their country’s democracy is still very much a work in progress that suffers from a wide range of imperfections including deeply entrenched institutional corruption and excessive oligarch influence. Temporary wartime security measures targeting Kremlin-linked political parties and institutions such as the Russian Orthodox Church have also raised concerns. At the same time, Ukrainians are acutely aware that their country’s recent history of internationally recognized elections and strengthening democratic culture set them apart from their Russian neighbors.

The fight for democracy has in many ways defined Ukraine’s post-Soviet journey, but the vast majority of Ukrainians do not support the idea of holding elections in the current wartime conditions. This skepticism is understandable. More than ten million Ukrainians, representing around a quarter of the population, have been internally displaced by Russia’s invasion or forced to flee abroad as refugees. Millions more are currently living under Russian occupation. Without their participation, any vote would lack legitimacy. Likewise, around one million Ukrainian men and women are now serving in the armed forces. Attempting to provide safe voting conditions for them would be a logistical and security nightmare.

It would be similarly impossible to organize a credible election campaign. With the entire country subject to virtually daily Russian bombardment, large-scale campaign events and election rallies would be out of the question. It would be even more reckless to open thousands of polling stations on election day and invite attacks from Russian drones and missiles. Over the past three years, the Kremlin has repeatedly bombed Ukrainian civilians at train stations, funerals, and other public gatherings. There is little reason to believe election day crowds would not also be targeted. Even if a ceasefire was introduced well before the vote, the threat of renewed Russian air strikes would loom large over the entire campaign and deter public participation.

In addition to these practical impediments, attempting to stage an election campaign prior to the signing of a peace treaty would risk sowing division within Ukrainian society at a pivotal moment in the country’s history. Many believe this is the true reason for the Kremlin’s sudden and otherwise inexplicable enthusiasm for Ukrainian democracy. After all, Russia is the world leader in election interference. While Putin’s army has been unable to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield, he may feel that he can still achieve his goal of dividing and subjugating the country via the ballot box. At the very least, if current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy failed to win reelection, this would remove a very high-profile obstacle to a peace agreement in Russia’s favor.

Democracy is at the very heart of Ukraine’s current fight for national survival and is destined to remain one of the core values in postwar Ukraine. For now, though, most Ukrainians acknowledge that any attempt to stage elections would be impractical and irresponsible in the extreme. For this reason, there is currently no clamor whatsoever for elections within Ukrainian society. The current generation of Ukrainians have fought long and hard for their democratic rights, but they also recognize that the country must be at peace before credible elections can take place. It would be absurd to ignore their wishes and impose premature elections on Ukraine as part of a Kremlin-friendly peace process.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

With few exceptions, international companies that left Russia in the aftermath of the full-scale invasion walked away from subsidiaries worth millions or billions of dollars. It is safe to assume that the majority had to write down most, if not all, of the value of their investments in Russia. Some companies managed to sell assets, often to Kremlin cronies at knock-down prices. A few retained an equity interest in the hopes of an eventual rebound in the market. Virtually nobody emerged unscathed.

Companies left Russia in the aftermath of the invasion for a variety of motives. To their credit, some simply found it morally indefensible to remain there while Russia’s tanks rolled across international borders and its troops committed war crimes in Ukraine. Many businesses were less concerned about the morality of continuing to operate in Russia, but were nevertheless sensitive to guilt by association and possible damage to their reputation. Others weighed the benefits of staying in Russia against the cost of complying with international sanctions.

The companies that left Russia for moral reasons are unlikely to go back in the foreseeable future. This is also the case for companies seeking to safeguard their brand reputations. However, when the pickings seem rich, some may jump at the opportunity or bottom fish for low-priced assets. If another reset in US-Russian relations comes about, the United States government might provide inducements for a resumption of bilateral business ties, such as export credit guarantees, political risk insurance, and official backing for equity participation in major projects.

Taking another chance on Russia might seem appealing to some. After all, memories can be short in the business world. It is easy to imagine a new wave of corporate titans overlooking the lessons that a previous generation of expat CEOs learned during the last period of enthusiasm for expansion into Russia. Before proceeding, however, they would be well advised to study the current realities. Today’s Russia is not the country of Boris Yeltsin, who saw the West as a partner. It is not even the Russia of the early 2000s, before Vladimir Putin had fully consolidated his grip on power and completed the transition from fledgling democracy to authoritarian regime. After twenty-five years of Putin’s rule, the Kremlin now dominates all aspects of Russian life, including the country’s business climate.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

As a diplomat and business executive in Moscow in the 1990s and 2000s, and later as head of the US-Russia Business Council, I had a front row seat to the evolution of Russia from a centralized, state-controlled economy into a free market with a vibrant private sector, followed by its devolution into an oligarch-controlled system that more closely resembled a organized crime syndicate than a developed economy. During this period, I encountered a wide range of investors seeking advice or support in coping with the predatory conduct of Russian business partners or the Russian state.

Back then, there was a tendency to attribute most of the problems facing international companies in Russia to the growing pains of an economy emerging from communism. However, the signs of institutionalized corruption gradually became undeniable, including the imprisonment of business leaders and the seizure of companies by state-linked groups. These issues have not gone away; in many cases, the challenges have become even greater.

If a peace agreement is forthcoming, senior executives in Europe and North America will have to assess whether the potential profits from renewing operations in Russia are worth the many risks this would involve. Will major international oil and gas companies that previously invested in Russia want to return to a country where the state must hold a majority stake in any project, and where they are required to sell their gas to a state monopoly? Will any investor want to be at the mercy of the Russian judicial system?

The non-Russian staff of international companies may also not be entirely safe living and working in Putin’s Russia. In recent years, the Kremlin has been accused of arresting numerous foreign nationals on dubious charges in order to use them as bargaining chips in negotiations for the release of Russian criminals and spies being held in Europe and the United States. Any businesses that choose to send staff to Russia will be well aware that they cannot count on the rule of law if their employees become pawns in Moscow’s geopolitical games.

The Kremlin’s efforts to entice Trump with the prospect of mutually beneficial business cooperation make sense. Russia certainly has much to offer, including a vast domestic market and access to unrivaled natural resource wealth. However, it would be naive to expect individual companies to immediately rush back to Russia in light of the very real concerns that exist over the rule of law and the overbearing influence of the Kremlin on the country’s business environment.

Edward Verona is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center covering Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.

Transatlantic alliance enters most challenging period since Suez crisis

Edward Verona — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:36:42 +0000

The conclusion that many observers are drawing from the 2025 Munich Security Conference is that the United States, at least during the Trump presidency, is no longer willing to guarantee European security. Whether this is actually the case, as opposed to being simply a tactic to motivate increased European defense spending, matters less than the fact that for the first time, doubt has been cast on the cohesion of the NATO alliance.

Until now, NATO’s deterrent power has been largely based on an article of faith, or more precisely on Article 5 of the alliance’s charter document, the “all for one and one for all” commitment to mutual defense. Americans would do well to remember that Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in the alliance’s history, by the United States in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. NATO members responded on that occasion by giving their unanimous support, with many member countries sending troops to fight alongside the United States in Afghanistan.

French President Emmanuel Macron responded to last week’s US statements by hosting an emergency meeting of his European colleagues in Paris. While this impromptu summit did not produce any major decisions, participants did agree on the need for the continent to take far greater responsibility for its own security. If US President Donald Trump’s objective is to ensure bigger European defense budgets, his approach may be working.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The recent change in tone from across the Atlantic has certainly jolted many European leaders out of their complacency, but awareness of the need for Europe to transition from trading bloc to military and geopolitical power has actually been growing for some time.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and annexation of Crimea in 2014 galvanized the nations of Eastern Europe and the Nordic region, but did not dissuade other European countries from increasing their dependence on Russian oil and gas. It was only after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that the European political establishment finally heard the alarm bells and begin to take concrete action, at least in the economic sphere. However, despite an overall rise in European defense spending over the past three years, the continent has remained largely dependent on the United States for its security.

Coming to terms with a new reality and doing something about it are two very different things, of course. Europe now appears to acknowledge its own vulnerability in the face of the threat posed by a revanchist and expansionist Russia, and recognizes the need to act in response to the apparent US foreign policy pivot away from Europe toward Asia. However, the questions raised by that epiphany are manifold.

Are Europeans really willing to vote for larger defense budgets at the expense of the social safety nets that so many rely on? Are European leaders ready to consolidate their defense manufacturing industries and eliminate wasteful redundancy in weapons programs by forming EU-wide consortia? Indeed, will any new collective European defense strategy be structured around the EU, with its notoriously cumbersome decision-making processes, or would it be more efficient to form some kind of new grouping specifically for military-related matters? The answers to these questions will provide an indication of Europe’s true commitment to defending itself.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Europe’s leaders are not the only ones who must answer tough questions. US policymakers should also carefully consider the implications of a new European security strategy. The United States, Britain, Germany, and most of the new NATO members in Eastern Europe have long opposed calls for a more autonomous European defense capability. Their reasoning has typically been that a separate European command would undermine NATO guarantees, dilute available military resources, and create a top-heavy bureaucratic structure that would add nothing to the continent’s security. Many in Europe now believe those arguments have been rendered moot by the stance of the new Trump administration.

How comfortable would the United States be with an independent European security policy? The US usually calls the shots within NATO, with European armies generally acquiescing to American weapons standardization. Could European defense manufacturing pose a challenge to US dominance? How would Washington react if an autonomous European military force chose to act independently in a regional crisis, such as in 2020 when France sent warships to back up Greece and Cyprus against Turkey over Aegean gas field discoveries?

The last major example of European powers acting independently of the United States was the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis, which illustrated the potential costs of a weakening in the transatlantic partnership. US President Dwight Eisenhower demanded the withdrawal of Anglo-French forces from Egypt, leading to the humiliation and resignation of British Prime Minister Anthony Eden. While the Suez crisis was underway the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, putting down a popular revolt against the country’s Kremlin-installed communist leadership. The divided West did nothing to support the Hungarian freedom fighters.

Edward Verona is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center covering Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.

Georgia’s pro-Kremlin authorities intensify crackdown on opposition

Mercedes Sapuppo — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:05:22 +0000

The Georgian authorities presented new legislation in early February that critics say will increase pressure on the country’s civil society and independent media while also placing additional restrictions on public gatherings. The move comes amid a wave of anti-government protests that began following Georgia’s disputed October 2024 parliamentary elections and escalated weeks later when the government took steps to suspend the country’s EU accession efforts.

The current crisis reflects widespread tensions in Georgian society, with the governing Georgian Dream party accused of attempting to turn the country away from decades of Euro-Atlantic integration and return to the Russian orbit. Government officials deny the charges, claiming instead that they seek to guard against undue Western influence while avoiding any involvement in the geopolitical confrontation over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Georgian Dream officials announced in early February that the party planned to draft legislation that would tighten restrictions on foreign-funded media outlets and establish a new code of journalistic ethics to be monitored by a government body. Similar legislative initiatives are being prepared targeting Georgian civil society organizations. Opponents have likened these steps to the draconian measures introduced by the Putin regime over the past twenty-five years to silence domestic opposition inside Russia.

With anti-government protests still taking place in cities across Georgia on an almost daily basis, the authorities have also recently introduced new laws limiting public gatherings and criminalizing minor protest actions such as placing stickers on public property. Since protests flared in late 2024, hundreds have been detained, with many reporting human rights abuses while in custody including beatings and torture.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Critics say these latest steps serve as further confirmation of the Georgian government’s intention to establish a Kremlin-style authoritarian state. In early February, Transparency International Georgia executive director Eka Gigauri told the Associated Press that she believed the authorities were using the same tactics employed by the Putin regime against opponents. “There is nothing new in how they attack civic activists,” she said. “This was happening in Russia years ago.”

Similar sentiments have been expressed by international human rights watchdogs monitoring the current crisis. “The government is relentlessly taking the country into a repressive era that is uncharted for Georgia but all too familiar in authoritarian states,” commented Human Rights Watch Europe and Central Asia Director Hugh Williamson in January 2025.

In recent months, Georgia’s Western partners have become more vocal in their criticism of the country’s increasingly authoritarian policies and apparent turn toward Moscow. This Western response has included imposing sanctions against a number of Georgian officials including billionaire Georgian Dream founder Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is widely seen as the country’s de facto leader and architect of Georgia’s current pro-Kremlin policies. On February 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution questioning the legitimacy of the current Georgian authorities and calling for fresh elections in the coming months monitored by international observers.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Meanwhile, relations with Russia continue to improve. Georgia has won favor in Moscow in recent years by refusing to participate in Western sanctions over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Instead, Georgia has welcomed Russian businesses and has been accused of helping the Kremlin bypass international restrictions put in place in response to the war.

Members of the Georgian Dream party have positioned themselves as the only political force capable of establishing pragmatic relations with Russia. With around twenty percent of Georgia currently under Russian occupation, the threat of renewed Russian military aggression is a highly sensitive issue for Georgian society. In the run-up to Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary election, Georgian Dream sparked controversy by using campaign posters contrasting peaceful Georgia with war-torn Ukraine as part of election messaging that sought to position the vote as a choice between war and peace.

With international attention now firmly fixed on developments in and around Ukraine, the political crisis in Georgia has slipped out of the headlines. However, this small nation in the southern Caucasus has a geopolitical significance that far outweighs its size. For the past two decades, Georgia has been widely seen in Western capitals as a post-Soviet success story, but the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations now hang in the balance. This represents a significant foreign policy challenge for the new Trump administration and for Europe.

Recent repressive measures indicate that the Georgian authorities are intent on escalating their clampdown against domestic opponents and strengthening ties with the Kremlin. If they succeed, it would represent a major victory for Vladimir Putin in the confrontation between the democratic world and an emerging alliance of authoritarian powers including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

Mercedes Sapuppo is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Ukrainian drones reportedly knock out 10 percent of Russian refining capacity

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:17:50 +0000

Ukraine’s recent campaign of drone strikes on Russian energy infrastructure has succeeded in knocking out around one-tenth of Russia’s refining capacity, according to analysis by news agency Reuters.

Since the beginning of 2025, Ukraine has launched a wave of long-range drone attacks against military and industrial targets inside Russia. The Kremlin remains tight-lipped over the impact of these air strikes, but open source data and media reports point to significant damage to at least eight Russian refineries along with a number of oil depots and key logistical points such as pumping stations and ports used for oil and gas exports. The range of targets suggests a well-planned Ukrainian campaign to methodically dismantle Russia’s energy infrastructure.

Ukraine’s bombing offensive is proving effective. Calculations by Reuters analysts based on oil industry trading figures covering the period from January to early February 2025 indicate that Ukrainian drone attacks have disabled approximately 10 percent of Russia’s refining capacity. Coupled with the impact of recently imposed United States sanctions against the Kremlin’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, this is expected to leave Moscow with no choice but to slow oil production in the coming months.

Reports of significant disruption to Russia’s energy industry will be welcomed in Kyiv. Ukrainian officials have made no secret of their intention to target the Russian oil and gas sector, which serves as the economic engine of Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The first Ukrainian attacks took place during the initial months of the war, with a marked increase in frequency during 2024. Ukraine’s air offensive against Russia’s energy industry now appears to be entering a new phase of heightened intensity.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s efforts to bring Putin’s invasion home to Russia have been hampered by restrictions imposed on the use of Western-supplied weapons amid a reluctance among Kyiv’s partners to risk escalating the conflict. The Kremlin has skillfully exploited these fears, with Putin warning explicitly in September 2024 that any attempt to lift restrictions on long-range strikes would mean NATO and Russia were “at war.”

In order to bypass Western restrictions, Ukraine has prioritized the domestic production of long-range drones and missiles capable of striking targets deep inside Russia. Thanks to Ukraine’s innovative defense tech sector and the country’s strong aerospace legacy from the Soviet era, progress has been rapid. In late 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy showcased a number of new domestically produced drones and missiles with expanded ranges and payloads.

Ukrainian officials have stated that they intend to manufacture 30,000 long-range drones and 3000 missiles during the current year. Some of Kyiv’s Western partners also appear to recognize the strategic importance of Ukraine’s growing long-range arsenal, and are providing financing for production along with technical support. However, it will still be some time before Ukraine has sufficient long-range firepower to seriously threaten Russia’s ability to wage war.

At present, Ukraine’s air offensive is achieving the more limited goals of disrupting Russia’s energy industry, stretching the Kremlin’s limited air defenses, and undermining Moscow’s efforts to insulate ordinary Russians from the war. Since the onset of the full-scale invasion three years ago, Putin has been careful to cultivate a business-as-usual climate within Russia itself. Ukraine’s eye-catching daily strikes on oil refineries and storage depots are now sending a powerful message to the Russian public that the war unleashed by the Kremlin in February 2022 will not be fought exclusively on foreign soil.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s expanding arsenal of domestically produced long-range weapons is particularly important at a time of growing uncertainty over the future of US military aid for the country. Throughout the war, the Ukrainian military has been heavily reliant on the United States and other Western partners for vital weapons supplies. However, there are now mounting concerns in Kyiv that US President Donald Trump’s efforts to reach a compromise peace deal with Putin could leave Ukraine isolated and vulnerable to further Russian aggression.

In the absence of credible NATO-style security guarantees, Ukrainian leaders believe one of the few reliable deterrents would be the proven ability to strike back powerfully at targets inside Russia. Zelenskyy’s “victory plan,” which he presented to Western partners in the final months of 2024, included a call for the supply of long-range missiles as part of a “non-nuclear deterrence package” designed to prevent a fresh Russian invasion. In his traditional New Year address, Zelenskyy spoke at length about Ukraine’s numerous new missile models, calling them “arguments for a just peace.”

There is currently very little to suggest that Putin is interested in any kind of peace with Ukraine, of course. On the contrary, he looks to be more confident of victory than ever, and appears unwilling to compromise on his original war aim of extinguishing Ukrainian statehood. However, if Ukraine can continue escalating its current wave of attacks on Russia’s economically vital but vulnerable energy industry, the Russian dictator may be forced to reassess the prospects of his invasion.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

A Putin-friendly peace deal would be disastrous for global security

Ihor Smeshko — Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:39:06 +0000

Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea was a watershed moment in modern European history. The Kremlin’s subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 brought the world to the brink of World War III. With negotiations over a possible peace deal now reportedly set to begin in earnest, we are approaching a critical juncture that will shape the future of international relations for decades to come.

In hindsight, it is now clear that the threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine could have been eliminated almost immediately. As soon as Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, Ukraine could have declared war and ordered its military to defend the peninsula. Putting NATO forces on alert would have further cooled the heads of the more hawkish Russian officials in the Kremlin.

This did not happen. Instead, the international community stood by and watched the Russian invasion unfold, while Ukraine’s Western partners advocated passivity and cautioned Kyiv against doing anything that might risk provoking Putin. The opportunity to end Russia’s invasion in the early stages was therefore missed, paving the way for a series of further Kremlin escalations that ultimately led to the full-scale invasion of 2022.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Over the past eleven years, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has done serious damage to the foundations of the international security system. It has undermined the inviolability of international borders that was first established in the aftermath of World War II. Russia’s invasion has also seriously discredited the cause of nuclear disarmament, with Ukraine’s 1994 decision to surrender its vast nuclear arsenal now widely recognized as one of the costliest mistakes in modern history.

Given the global implications of any negotiated settlement reached over Russia’s war in Ukraine, it is vital that the entire peace process focus on Russia’s existing international commitments. These include the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and Moscow’s recognition of Ukraine’s 1991 borders. After all, what is the point of signing any new treaties with Russia if Moscow refuses to acknowledge or adhere to the terms of the many agreements and documents it has previously signed?

At stake is the credibility of the entire treaty system governing international relations, such as the 1969 Vienna Convention. Known as the “treaty on treaties,” the Vienna Convention sets out clear guidelines for how international treaties should be drafted, defined, amended, and interpreted. Russia’s invasion poses a similarly grave threat to the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which confirmed the principle of territorial integrity.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

It is also important that the peace process specifically address the issue of nuclear non-proliferation. By giving up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, Ukraine rendered an unparalleled service to the cause of global security. Over the past three decades, this unilateral Ukrainian step in support of nuclear non-proliferation has translated into savings worth trillions of dollars for countries around the world.

Unfortunately, however, the security commitments that Ukraine believed it had received in the Budapest Memorandum have proved worthless. Instead, Russia has launched the largest European invasion since World War II, bringing untold death and devastation to Ukraine.

Adding insult to injury, the Kremlin has used nuclear blackmail against non-nuclear Ukraine as a tool to enable the invasion and deter the West from providing Kyiv with desperately needed military aid. Understandably, many in Ukraine now feel they have every right to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty unless the country is able to obtain genuine security guarantees.

A bad peace deal will compound the damage that Russia’s invasion has already done to the current international security architecture. It would legitimize international aggression and set a dangerous precedent that could have catastrophic consequences for global stability. In order to avoid this, Western leaders should return to Russia’s existing international treaty obligations with regard to the sanctity of borders and the use of force.

Crucially, Ukraine must also receive credible long-term security guarantees that can prevent any repeat of the current Russian invasion in the years to come. Failure to do so will set the stage for a new era of geopolitical lawlessness that will be felt far beyond the violated borders of Ukraine.

Ihor Smeshko is a Ukrainian politician and former head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence and Security Service.

Europe must prepare to defend itself in an increasingly multipolar world

Mykola Bielieskov — Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:27:41 +0000

US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine has yet to be made public, but it is already abundantly clear that he expects Europe to play a far bigger role in the continent’s future security and the fight against Russian aggression. With the United States now looking to scale back its transatlantic commitments at a time when an openly revisionist Russia is embracing an expansionist agenda, European leaders must urgently adjust to the new geopolitical realities and prioritize security.

The Trump administration has moved rapidly to underline its expectations regarding an increased European role in the continent’s defense. Just days after his inauguration, Trump used an appearance at the World Economic Forum to reiterate his call for European NATO members to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio then spoke at length on the return of a multipolar world and how this will shape future United States security policy toward Europe. “I do think, long term, there’s a conversation to be had about whether the United States needs to be at the front end of securing the continent or as a backstop to securing the continent,” he commented in a January 30 appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show.

Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz has also indicated that the United States expects Europe to take greater responsibility for preventing further Russian aggression against Ukraine and securing a viable peace. “An underlying principle here is that the Europeans have to own this conflict going forward,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Trump is going to end it. And then in terms of security guarantees, that is squarely going to be with the Europeans.”

The starkest message so far has come from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO,” he told a February 12 meeting of Ukraine’s Western allies in Brussels. “Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The new US administration is not the first to signal a strategic shift away from Europe. This process has actually been underway since the end of the Cold War, and has remained the long-term goal of policymakers in Washington DC despite Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Trump’s messaging on the issue of European security has been characteristically direct, his position is actually very much in line with longstanding trends in United States foreign policy.

As the new transatlantic security relationship takes shape, European countries will be expected to make a far bigger commitment to financing the security of the continent. This will include providing the majority of military support for Ukraine. Europe’s defense industry is not yet in a position to meet this challenge, with only limited progress in the production of critical arms and equipment in the three years since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Key deficits include essential items such as air defense systems, precision guided munitions, multiple launch rocket systems, and armored infantry fighting vehicles.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

One practical solution to current shortfalls would be for European countries to procure more weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the Ukrainian war effort directly from the United States. However, this would spark an intense debate across the continent, with advocates of Europe’s long-term economic and security interests likely to encounter opposition from those prioritizing the more immediate need to support Ukraine.

Purchasing greater quantities of US arms would certainly help strengthen transatlantic security ties. This would serve as a strong incentive for the United States to maintain a high level of defense sector engagement with European partners. In fact, European countries are already purchasing more from the United States defense sector. Increased European spending was a key factor driving record US arms sales of $318.7 billion in 2024, as countries sought to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine and prepare for the possibility of further international instability.

The changing rhetoric coming out of European capitals in recent months suggests that Europe’s leaders are well aware of the new security realities and the necessity of dedicating considerably more resources to the task of arming themselves. Nevertheless, mounting talk of the need for greater European defense sector autonomy has yet to be matched by increases in military spending and arms manufacturing output. Indeed, a new report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies indicates that Russian military expenditure is currently higher than all European countries combined when calculated in purchasing power parity terms.

As the transatlantic security relationship evolves in the coming months, Europe will face growing pressure to safeguard the continent’s fragile security in a much more decisive manner. The EU is already preparing plans to encourage increased defense spending among member countries as officials in Brussels adapt to changing geopolitical realities. However, the real test of Europe’s determination to defend itself will be in Ukraine. US officials are now unambiguously signalling that Russia’s invasion is primarily a European security issue. Europe’s response to this will reveal much about the future role of the continent in an increasingly multipolar world.

The perpetrators who committed and abetted each of these individual crimes must face legal accountability. However, this month’s progress in the quest to establish an international tribunal is aimed at filling another glaring gap in legal accountability. Presently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is authorized to prosecute Russian nationals for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but it is unable to hold Russia’s leaders accountable for the decision to launch the invasion.

This inability to prosecute Russian leaders for the crime of aggression is a significant problem. After all, the attempt by Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders to subjugate Ukraine is a test case with profound consequences for the future of international security. The outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine will reveal whether citizens of all countries can expect to live securely within their recognized borders without threat of invasion, occupation, and annexation.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Enshrined in the United Nations Charter as “territorial integrity” and “state sovereignty,” the principles challenged by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have stood the test of time since World War II. In the past, even when allegations were levied that a country was violating these principles, there was never any serious question that such rules protecting a country’s borders existed.

These basic rules serve as the cornerstone of today’s international security architecture. They quietly uphold every existing diplomatic, economic, and military arrangement in the world, shaping the environment around us in ways that few notice and almost everybody takes for granted. If Russia is allowed to claim victory or even succeed in holding any of Ukraine’s recognized territory, the entire world will face a shift toward a dark new period in international relations governed by the principle of “might makes right.” A global arms race will likely follow.

Russia’s invasion and attempted illegal annexation of five Ukrainian provinces in a war of conquest is widely recognized by the international community as a crime of aggression. In March 2022, for example, a United Nations General Assembly resolution supported by an overwhelming 141-5 majority condemned Russia’s “aggression against Ukraine in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Critically, the crime of aggression is a leadership crime. Those prosecuted must be military or political leaders. This has fueled speculation that figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials in the Russian Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs could potentially be charged. It remains unlikely that any high-ranking Russians could be forced to stand trial in person, but even prosecutions in absentia could have serious repercussions for Russia itself and for the future framework of international security.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Significant questions remain about the legal format of a possible tribunal, as different options including a fully international tribunal or a so-called hybrid tribunal established under Ukrainian law would face different limitations. The United States has not yet prioritized support for an international tribunal. Instead, Europe is currently playing a leading role in the push for justice. The proposed legal framework will now be scrutinized closely to see if it precludes the prosecution of key leaders while they remain in office, including Russia’s head of state and other senior Kremlin officials.

Additional issues include the financing of any future tribunal and its location. Presently, The Hague appears to be the most likely option as it hosts the ICC, the International Court of Justice, and the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression, which was established by Eurojust (the European Union’s judicial cooperation agency) in 2023.

This month’s agreement on the framework for a potential tribunal was welcomed in Kyiv. The Ukrainian authorities have proven adept at leveraging international legal mechanisms to pursue justice and accountability for Russian crimes ever since Moscow first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Legal scholars have extolled Ukrainian legal efforts as exemplars of post-colonial nations securing their due rights through such institutions and “countering imperialism through international law.”

Beyond the real legal importance of this progress toward a tribunal for Russian crimes against Ukraine, an accompanying narrative corrective is no less significant. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not a faraway “border issue,” but rather a direct assault on the US-led system of international rules. It is therefore a direct referendum of US credibility on the world stage. Senior officials in the Trump administration have recently framed Russia’s invasion as an issue in which “both sides” must make concessions. Recognizing the one-sided nature of Russian criminal aggression reminds of the many sacrifices Ukraine and Ukrainians have already made in the fight to uphold the core principles underpinning international relations.

Recent announcements regarding a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression should serve as a reminder to US leaders that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains the world’s most documented war. Too much evidence exists in the public record to deny the reality of Russian crimes. Legal battles to hold Russia accountable will result in multiple highly detailed timelines of crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. Failure to bring Russia to justice for these crimes could pose serious challenges to the future of international security and to US President Donald Trump’s own historical legacy.

Kristina Hook is assistant professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

While the exact structure of Ukraine’s resistance movement is necessarily shrouded in secrecy, it is possible to divide the country’s resistance efforts into three broad categories: civil resistance, partisan activities, and covert military operations.

The “Yellow Ribbon” movement and the “Zla Mavka” resistance group are two prominent examples of Ukrainian civil resistance in action. The “Yellow Ribbon” movement first emerged during the initial months of the full-scale invasion in spring 2022. As the name suggests, it allows activists to display their opposition to the Russian occupation by leaving yellow ribbons in public spaces or painting other symbols associated with the movement. Activists have also engaged in a wide range of information operations designed to intimidate Russian troops or lift the spirits of fellow Ukrainians living under Russian occupation.

The all-female “Zla Mavka” group takes its name from a traditional woodland spirit in Ukrainian folklore who is famed for luring unsuspecting men to their deaths. Members of this loosely knit group are known for using satire and engaging in creative mockery as they seek to boost Ukrainian morale and undermine the legitimacy of the Russian occupation forces.

A number of partisan groups are currently engaged in more direct acts of resistance including intelligence gathering, sabotage operations, and armed attacks on Russian forces in occupied Ukraine. One prominent example is “Atesh,” a partisan group that was founded in September 2022 in Russian-occupied Crimea but claims to have carried out attacks throughout the occupied regions of Ukraine.

The name “Atesh” comes from the Crimean Tatar word for “fire,” reflecting the group’s strong links with the Crimean Tatar community. In a July 2023 interview, Crimean Tatar community leader Mustafa Dzemilev said “Atesh” was able to operate “very deep underground” to avoid detection, but claimed that it could form the basis of a far larger partisan force in Crimea if Ukrainian troops were able to advance toward the peninsula.

Numerous other partisan groups are active across Russian-occupied Ukraine, often focusing on a particular city or region. These include the “Popular Resistance of Ukraine,” an umbrella organisation that claims to have conducted dozens of operations in occupied eastern Ukraine. Another example is the “Berdyansk Partisan Army,” which is active in and around the port city of Berdyansk in southern Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Unsurprisingly, the main source of resistance activities in Russian-occupied Ukraine is the Ukrainian military. Ukraine first created a covert resistance force back in 2014 during the early stages of Russia’s invasion. In 2021, this was formally established as a unit within Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces. Known as the “Rukh Oporu” (“Resistance Movement”), it is currently engaged in a wide range of support functions that include training, supplying, and funding activists and partisan groups, while also conducting its own extensive operations against the Russian occupation forces. These activities are thought to include the assassination of Russian officials and collaborators.

In addition to “Rukh Oporu,” Ukraine’s SBU (State Security Service) and HUR (Military Intelligence Directorate) are also thought to be heavily involved in military activities behind enemy lines. This includes operations in Russian-occupied territory inside Ukraine and across the border in Russia itself.

It is difficult to assess the overall impact that resistance activities are having on morale within the ranks of the occupying Russian forces or among local collaborators. At the same time, numerous specific attacks on officials, soldiers, equipment, and infrastructure have been confirmed via multiple sources. Resistance groups also support the Ukrainian military with critical intelligence on everything from Russian troop movements to the deployment of air defense batteries. This has enabled a large number of precision strikes on high value targets, while also proving important for the conduct of major operations such as Ukraine’s successful September 2022 counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region.

Ukraine’s efforts to resist the Russian occupation have become markedly more sophisticated over the past three years and are unlikely to end any time soon. If talks progress in the coming months and a compromise peace agreement begins to take shape that would allow Russia to retain control over currently occupied regions of Ukraine, the issue of further Ukrainian resistance operations will likely become the subject of heated discussions as Moscow seeks assurances that Kyiv will be reluctant to provide.

Omar Ashour is a professor of security and military studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies in Qatar. He is an honorary professor at the Security and Strategy Institute at the University of Exeter in the UK, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation in Ukraine.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Europe’s energy ecosystem is currently undergoing major changes. At the start of 2025, decades of Russian gas transit through Ukraine came to an end after Kyiv chose not to renew an expiring five-year agreement with the Kremlin’s flagship energy company Gazprom. The loss of gas transit via Ukraine has had a negative impact on the Russian economy at a time when Moscow’s gas export volumes were already far below pre-war levels.

So far, the ending of gas deliveries through Ukraine’s pipeline system has not led to dramatic rises in gas prices for European consumers. Nevertheless, Kyiv’s decision to end transit has caused considerable tension with some of the country’s neighbours.

Slovakia and Hungary rely heavily on Russia for gas supplies and have voiced their displeasure over Ukraine’s stance. Both countries were given ample warning of the impending end of transit deliveries but chose not to act. In contrast, Austrian energy giant OMV used the past two years to prepare for potential supply disruptions and has therefore proved far more resilient, despite being even more dependent on Russian gas at the start of the invasion.

Since 2022, Ukraine’s efforts to limit Russian influence in the energy sphere have continued despite wartime conditions in the country. This has included decoupling the national power grid from the Russian system and joining Europe’s ENTSO-E network.

This historic move has given Ukraine more options in the energy sector and has helped the country to address the challenges created by frequent Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid. Ukraine has benefited from enhanced connectivity to the European network, making it possible to import more electricity from the country’s EU neighbours, while also exporting in the opposite direction during periods of power surpluses.

Kyiv has also succeeded in accessing new sources of energy. Following an intensive Russian bombing campaign targeting Ukrainian power stations in spring 2024, Ukraine was able to receive LNG from the United States for the first time via Greece. A number of European countries including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and Ukraine are now looking to develop a vertical gas corridor to facilitate bidirectional gas flows between Greece’s LNG terminal and Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While there are positive signs that Europe is responding constructively to recent developments in the energy sector, it is clear that more infrastructure innovations, flexibility, and connectivity are needed in order to prepare for possible future crises and address the rise of new energy sources. For example, the advance of green energy requires the right mix of baseload supply options to avoid imbalances and blackouts. This will require a more integrated approach to European energy security and efficiency.

In the coming years, Ukraine can play a key role in efforts to improve European energy security and connectivity. The country is thought to have the second highest gas reserves in Europe. It also has the continent’s largest gas storage facilities and an extensive pipeline system for oil and gas transit. In order to make the most of this potential, Ukraine should look to establish multifunctional energy production and transportation hubs capable of integrating with global LNG, hydrogen, and green ammonia infrastructure.

Improving the connectivity between Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States would strengthen overall energy security and make the European energy system considerably more robust. Needless to say, this requires security and an end to hostilities in Ukraine. Many of the advantages a more integrated Ukraine can offer would depend on the secure passage of ships to the country’s Black Sea ports, for example, while Russia has repeatedly targeted Ukrainian gas storage facilities in the west of the country.

For now, the ongoing Russian invasion places severe limitations on Ukraine’s ability to contribute to improved European energy flexibility and connectivity. However, the country’s huge potential should be taken into consideration as European leaders prepare for the postwar period and explore options to strengthen the continent’s long-term energy resilience.

Nataliya Katser-Buchkovska is the founder of the Green Resilience Facility and a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament (2014-19).

Russian foreign minister compares Trump’s ‘America First’ to Nazi propaganda

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 06 Feb 2025 13:59:42 +0000

In a move likely to cause considerable offense in the White House, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has compared US President Donald Trump’s “America First” concept to Nazi propaganda. This provocative statement from Russia’s top diplomat offers an indication of the mood in Moscow as the United States and Russia engage in preliminary talks over a possible deal to end the invasion of Ukraine.

In an article published on February 4 by the Russia in Global Affairs journal, Lavrov accused the US of undermining the international order with “cowboy attacks,” and claimed that the rhetoric of the Trump administration was reminiscent of Nazi Germany. “The ‘America First’ concept has disturbing similarities to the ‘Germany Above All’ slogan of the Hitler period,” he wrote.

Such attacks are nothing new, of course. The Kremlin has a long history of branding critics and adversaries as Nazis that can be traced all the way back to the height of the Cold War. When the Hungarians rebelled against Soviet occupation in 1956, Moscow condemned the uprising as a “fascist rebellion” before sending in the tanks. It was a similar story during the Soviet suppression of the Prague Spring of 1968. Communist officials even referred to the Berlin Wall itself as “the Anti-Fascist Protective Wall.”

This trend survived the Soviet collapse and has been enthusiastically embraced by the Putin regime. Labeling opponents as Nazis is regarded as a particularly effective tactic in modern Russia as it strikes an emotive chord among audiences raised to revere the staggering Soviet sacrifices in the fight against Hitler’s Germany.

Throughout Putin’s reign, domestic political opponents including Alexei Navalny have been routinely demonized as Nazis. The same strategy is frequently employed in the international arena. When Estonia sought to remove a Soviet World War II monument from Tallinn city center in 2007, the Kremlin media went into a frenzy about “Fascist Estonia,” sparking riots among Estonia’s sizable ethnic Russian population. A long list of other international critics and adversaries have faced the same Nazi slurs.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The most notorious Russian accusations of Nazism have been leveled at Ukraine. Ever since Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, Russian state propaganda has sought to portray Ukrainian national identity as a modern form of fascism that is virtually indistinguishable from Nazism. This propaganda campaign is rooted in Soviet era attempts to discredit Ukraine’s independence movement via association with World War II collaboration. It reached new lows in 2014 as Putin attempted to legitimize the occupation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and Donbas region.

Moscow’s efforts to portray Ukraine as a Nazi state escalated further following the onset of the full-scale invasion three years ago, with a massive spike in references to “Nazi Ukraine” throughout the Kremlin-controlled Russian media. In this increasingly unhinged environment, few were surprised when Putin announced that one of his two principle war aims was the “denazification” of Ukraine.

It has since become abundantly clear that Putin’s frequent talk of “denazification” is actually Kremlin code for “deukrainianization.” In other words, the ultimate goal of Russia’s current invasion is to create a Ukraine without Ukrainians, with false accusations of Nazism serving as a convenient excuse to justify the destruction of the Ukrainian state and nation.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The history of nationalist politics in independent Ukraine is far removed from the Kremlin’s fascist fantasies. In reality, Ukrainian far-right parties have never come close to holding political power and typically receive far fewer votes than nationalist candidates in most other European countries.

When Ukraine’s frustrated and marginalized nationalists banded together into a single bloc for the country’s last prewar parliamentary election in 2019, they managed to secure a meager 2.16 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Russian-speaking Jewish comedian Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s landslide victory in Ukraine’s presidential election of the same year served to further highlight the absurdity of Russia’s entire “Nazi Ukraine” narrative.

Ever since Zelenskyy’s election, Russian officials have been tying themselves in knots attempting to explain how a supposedly Nazi state could elect a Jewish leader. In one particularly infamous incident during a spring 2022 interview with Italian TV show Zona Bianca, foreign minister Lavrov responded to questioning about Zelenskyy’s Jewish heritage by claiming that Adolf Hitler “also had Jewish blood.”

Lavrov’s latest comments do not signal a significant shift in the Kremlin position toward the United States and should not be blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, it is always worth paying attention when Russia plays the Nazi card. In this instance, the decision to target Trump personally with Nazi slurs by comparing one of his core political messages to Hitler’s propaganda suggests a degree of unease in Moscow over what the Kremlin can expect from the new US administration.

If Trump follows through on his threats to pressure Putin into peace talks, this unease may soon give way to outright hostility. At that point, we can expect to see yet more lurid Russian accusations of Nazism, this time aimed at the United States. That, after all, is how the Kremlin propaganda machine works. Putin claims to venerate the memory of World War II, but he has done more than anyone to distort the legacy of the conflict for his own political gain.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Russia’s war against the West will continue until Putin tastes defeat

Andriy Zagorodnyuk — Tue, 04 Feb 2025 22:23:34 +0000

As speculation mounts over possible negotiations to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is important to understand the nature of the war unleashed by Vladimir Putin almost three years ago. Crucially, this is not a conventional war for land that can be resolved by offering limited territorial concessions. Putin’s goals are far more ambitious. He is waging the current war in order to undermine the existing international security architecture and replace it with a new world order where a handful of great powers are able to dominate their neighbors.

Since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin has repeatedly outlined his vision for a “multipolar world order” that would reverse the verdict of the Cold War and create a world divided into spheres of influence. By challenging the sanctity of borders with his invasion of Ukraine, Putin aims to remove a central pillar of today’s global security system and normalize the use of military force in international affairs. If his efforts are perceived as successful, this will set a disastrous precedent that will embolden authoritarian regimes around the world.

Putin’s dream of establishing a new world order is reflected in his push for bilateral talks with the United States to discuss the fate of Ukraine and Europe without Ukrainian or European participation. He wants to demonstrate that sovereignty is negotiable and convey the message that some nations are more equal than others. The consequences of this approach could be catastrophic for both Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

The world order Putin hopes to usher in would be governed by the laws of the geopolitical jungle and defined by insecurity and aggression. Armed conflicts would proliferate around the world as previously accepted rules of international relations were replaced by the overriding principle that “might is right.” The unprecedented global economic prosperity of the past three decades would also be threatened amid mounting barriers to trade and record levels of defense spending. The only obvious beneficiaries would be nations like Russia that seek to embrace revisionist or expansionist agendas.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The international security situation is now so grave and has escalated to such a level that it can no longer be resolved by appeasing Russia or seeking some kind of compromise peace. Instead, Russia must lose in Ukraine, and must be seen to lose.

At present, that is not the case. On the contrary, Putin is more confident than ever of victory and sees no reason to end the war. He is projecting strength around the world and is successfully building a coalition of fellow authoritarian powers including China, Iran, and North Korea, who all provide support for the war in Ukraine and share Moscow’s objective of overthrowing the current world order.

On the home front, Putin has succeeded in shifting the Russian economy onto a wartime footing, and has found new partners to compensate for the collapse in ties with the West. He is openly preparing for a long war and is counting on a lack of Western resolve to confront him.

In order to stop the war, Putin must be persuaded that continuing the invasion of Ukraine will lead to disaster for Russia. This requires a range of measures designed to weaken Russia’s position both economically and militarily.

Russia’s economic outlook is already worsening as a result of the war and could become far more serious if Western leaders take the necessary steps. There is an obvious need for greater coordination between the United States, UK, EU, and other countries engaged in sanctioning the Russian war effort. Implementation of existing sanctions remains inadequate, while tougher measures are needed to target intermediaries.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Economic hardships alone will not bring Putin to the negotiating table. He must also be forced to confront the prospect of military defeat. This will require a major shift in thinking among Ukraine’s partners. At present, Ukraine finds itself forced to fight a defensive war of attrition with the aim of inflicting unacceptable losses on the invading Russians. However, Putin clearly has a very high tolerance for losses, and can also call upon huge untapped reserves of manpower to replenish the depleted ranks of his army. If the current war of attrition continues, Russia will eventually and inevitably win.

Instead, Ukraine must be equipped to defeat Russia on the battlefield. The Ukrainian military has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to beat Russia, but currently lacks the military capabilities to turn local victories into a war-winning position. This needs to change.

Western fears of escalation mean Kyiv is still being denied a wide range of weapons and faces restrictions on its ability to defend itself. As a result of this overly cautious approach, the Kremlin is able to wage a total war against Ukraine with little fear of major counterattacks inside Russia. Putin also enjoys overwhelming advantages in firepower, including a far larger and more advanced air force. No NATO member state would even consider fighting a war without adequate air power, but that is exactly what Ukraine is currently being expected to do.

So far, the West has been arming Ukraine to survive. Putin will not end the invasion until he becomes convinced that Western leaders are determined to arm Ukraine for victory. Ukraine’s military requirements are well known. All that is missing is the requisite political will to act. This means providing fighter jets, long-range missiles, armor, and artillery in large quantities along with dramatically enhanced drone and electronic warfare capabilities.

By supplying Ukraine with sufficient military aid, the West could finally oblige Putin to rethink the current war while also creating a powerful deterrence force capable of preventing further Russian aggression. Anything less will merely create a pause in hostilities that Putin will use to rearm and prepare for the next phase of his war against the West. The price of stopping Russia in Ukraine is high, but it will be dwarfed by the costs of a new authoritarian world order if Putin’s invasion is allowed to succeed.

Andriy Zagorodnyuk is chairman of the Center for Defence Strategies and an advisor to the Ukrainian Government. He previously served as Ukraine’s minister of defense (2019–2020).

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Schwarzman’s comments serve as a timely reminder of Russia’s extreme objectives in Ukraine. In recent months, there has been mounting international speculation over the potential territorial concessions Ukraine may be obliged to make in order to end the invasion of their country. In reality, however, the war unleashed by Putin in February 2022 was never about limited territorial gains. From the very beginning, it has been a war to extinguish Ukrainian independence entirely.

Putin’s Ukraine obsession has dominated his reign and can be traced all the way back to Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution. He has always viewed the emergence of an independent Ukraine as an historical injustice and a bitterly resented symbol of the Soviet collapse, which he has described as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century” and “the disintegration of historical Russia.” The Kremlin dictator’s desire to reverse this breakup of “historical Russia” has long focused on Ukraine, and has been given additional impetus by his fears that Ukraine’s fledgling democracy could serve as a catalyst for similar change within his own authoritarian state and spark a new phase in Russia’s retreat from empire.

Putin made his intentions obvious during the buildup to the invasion when he published a rambling 5,000-word history essay arguing against Ukraine’s right to exist and insisting that Ukrainians were in fact Russians (“one people”). As Russian troops massed along the Ukrainian border in February 2022, he described Ukraine as “an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” He has since compared his invasion to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian ruler Peter the Great, and has declared occupied regions of Ukraine to be “Russian forever.”

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Putin’s contempt for Ukrainian statehood has set the tone throughout wartime Russian society. Vicious anti-Ukrainian rhetoric has become a daily feature of the Kremlin-controlled Russian media space, with Ukrainians routinely demonized and dehumanized. This has led United Nations investigators to note that some content “may constitute incitement to genocide.”

Following Putin’s lead, numerous senior Kremlin officials have also indicated that Russia’s ultimate goal is the complete disappearance of the Ukrainian state. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in particular has become notorious for his unhinged rants. “The existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians,” he declared on one occasion in early 2024. More recently, close Putin aide Nikolai Patrushev has predicted that Ukraine “may cease to exist” in 2025.

This genocidal language has been matched by the actions of the invading Russian army. In areas of Ukraine currently under Kremlin control, Russia has systematically targeted anyone deemed a potential threat to the regime. Thousands have been detained and imprisoned, with victims including elected local officials, journalists, civil society activists, army veterans, cultural figures, and anyone regarded as a potential Ukrainian patriot. Those who remain are subjected to ruthless russification including the forced adoption of Russian citizenship. Meanwhile, all traces of Ukrainian national identity, statehood, and culture are being methodically erased.

Russia’s determination to destroy the Ukrainian state and nation is unprecedented in modern European history and makes a complete mockery of calls for a compromise peace. In words and deeds, Putin has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate the continued existence of an independent Ukraine, and regards the country’s destruction as an historic mission that will define his reign. Any efforts to broker a sustainable settlement must take this chilling vision into account.

Nobody wants the current war to end more than the Ukrainians themselves, but they are also painfully aware that the survival of their nation is at stake. Unless measures are put in place to prevent the resumption of Russian aggression once Putin has had an opportunity to rearm and regroup, a bad peace deal will merely set the stage for genocide in the heart of Europe.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

The West must study the success of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces

Doug Livermore — Thu, 30 Jan 2025 01:32:53 +0000

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, much has been written about the extensive training provided to the Ukrainian military by the country’s Western partners. However, the West also has much to learn from Ukraine’s unique military experience. In particular, the successes of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces provide a range of valuable lessons for their Western counterparts that will shape military doctrines for years to come.

The effectiveness of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces can be largely attributed to their exceptional adaptability in rapidly changing battlefield conditions. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukrainian SOF units quickly adjusted to meet the immediate challenges of high-intensity conflict against a far larger and better armed enemy.

This adaptability has manifested in several crucial ways. The rapid reconfiguration of small unit tactics to counter Russian mechanized forces has been particularly noteworthy, as has the development of innovative solutions to overcome numerical disadvantages. Ukrainian SOF units have consistently shown their ability to adopt new technologies and tactics based on battlefield feedback. Perhaps most importantly, they have implemented flexible command structures that enable decentralized decision-making, allowing for rapid responses to emerging threats and opportunities.

Ukraine’s ability to adapt has been further demonstrated through the innovative use of civilian infrastructure and technologies. Ukrainian SOF units have effectively incorporated commercial drones, civilian communications networks, and other non-military technologies, showing remarkable creativity in overcoming resource constraints.

One of the most significant lessons from the conflict has been the effective integration of SOF units with conventional military forces engaged in large-scale combat operations. Ukrainian SOF units also played a vital role in preparing the battlefield before and during the initial phases of the invasion. They established networks of resistance, gathered intelligence, and identified key targets that would later prove crucial for conventional forces.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s achievements since 2022 have owed much to years of solid preparations. Following Russia’s occupation of Crimea in 2014, Ukrainian Special Operations Forces underwent significant transformation with assistance from NATO countries, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Between 2015 and 2021, Ukraine also implemented major structural reforms to align with NATO standards, including the establishment of dedicated SOF training centers.

These steps helped lay the foundations for a sophisticated network of resistance capabilities across potential invasion routes by early 2022. Ukrainian SOF units mapped key infrastructure, identified potential targets, and established relationships with local civilian networks, while developing protocols for rapid information sharing between SOF units, conventional forces, and civilian resistance elements. These preparations proved vital, enabling Ukrainian forces to target Russian supply lines, command nodes, and communications systems using real-time intelligence.

Throughout the invasion, coordination between Ukrainian SOF units and conventional forces has enabled effective combined arms operations. SOF units frequently act as forward observers, providing targeting data to artillery units and conducting battle damage assessments. The ability to rapidly share intelligence has been particularly important in urban environments, where the complexity of the battlefield requires close cooperation between different military elements.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s invasion has reinforced the importance of unconventional warfare in modern conflicts. Ukrainian SOF units have successfully employed various unconventional warfare techniques that have had strategic impacts far beyond their tactical execution.

Ukraine’s implementation of guerrilla tactics and sabotage alongside partisans has been highly effective, with numerous successful operations conducted behind enemy lines. This has included the disruption of Russian supply lines, targeting of key military infrastructure and command centers, and the execution of precision strikes on high-value targets.

The psychological aspect of warfare has proven equally important, with Ukrainian SOF units making significant contributions to information warfare campaigns that have influenced both domestic and international audiences. They have conducted deception operations that have complicated Russian planning and operations, while also executing morale operations targeting both enemy forces and occupied populations.

The successful integration of modern technology has been a key characteristic of Ukrainian SOF operations. Despite facing a far wealthier and numerically superior adversary, Ukrainian SOF units have leveraged various technological capabilities to maintain operational effectiveness. They have utilized commercial technologies for reconnaissance and surveillance, integrated drone operations into tactical planning and execution, and leveraged artificial intelligence and big data analytics for targeting and planning.

Ukraine’s SOF operations provide several critical lessons for the country’s Western partners. In terms of doctrine development, it is clear that military organizations must emphasize flexibility and adaptability in force structure and training, while integrating SOF capabilities more deeply in support of conventional forces.

The importance of technological integration and adaptation cannot be overstated. Future military forces must be prepared to operate in environments where commercial technology plays an increasingly important role, and where the ability to utilize these technologies can provide crucial advantages. In terms of equipment, Western planners should focus on communications jamming and interception, improved surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and integrating AI tools to aid in intelligence collection and analysis.

The role of Ukrainian SOF operations in the current war provides valuable insights for military forces worldwide. Their impact demonstrates the critical importance of adaptability and the effective use of technology in modern warfare. These lessons are particularly relevant as military organizations prepare for future high-intensity conflicts in increasingly complex operational environments.

Doug Livermore is national vice president for the Special Operations Association of America and deputy commander for Special Operations Detachment–Joint Special Operations Command in the North Carolina Army National Guard. The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent official US Government, Department of Defense, or Department of the Army positions.

Can increased energy sector sanctions pressure Putin into peace talks?

Aura Sabadus — Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:20:24 +0000

US President Donald Trump has warned Russia that he will impose economic measures including taxes, tariffs, and sanctions unless Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees to end the war in Ukraine. While it is far from clear whether economic pressure alone can bring Putin to the negotiating table, Russia’s oil and gas industry looks to be the most vulnerable sector of his wartime economy.

United States sanctions on Russia’s energy industry have already been tightened in the first weeks of 2025. Just before leaving the White House, outgoing US President Joe Biden fired a parting salvo of comprehensive new sanctions on Russian oil producers, intermediaries, tankers, traders, and ports handling both oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

This package was widely seen as one of the most aggressive since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The impact is already being felt globally. Some banks in India, which currently takes around 40 percent of all Russian oil supplied to international markets, are reportedly blocking payments for Russian oil imports. Meanwhile, fleet capacity to service Russian crude exports is expected to shrink significantly due to the latest restrictions.

With oil sanctions also targeting major producers such as Surgutneftegaz and Gazprom Neft as well as more than 180 vessels in the Russian oil fleet, some observers are now predicting that the Kremlin could lose up to $24 billion during the coming year. This would be equal to around one percent of the country’s projected GDP.

These latest sanctions come as Moscow is already adjusting to the end of gas transit through Ukraine, after Kyiv refused to extend a five-year deal that expired at the start of the current year. With the termination of this gas transit agreement, Russia has lost another sizable chunk of the European market.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Trump vowed during his January 20 inaugural address to “drill, baby, drill.” Since then, initial steps in support of the United States fossil fuels sector have included lifting the Biden administration’s freeze on export permits for LNG projects.

Many now expect to see more LNG being exported from the United States to Europe, potentially replacing remaining Russian gas deliveries. Increasing US exports at a time when the Russian gas industry is already facing growing obstacles would place Trump in a strong position ahead of negotiations over a possible settlement of the war in Ukraine.

Trump could potentially increase the pressure on Putin by urging the Ukrainian authorities to ban the transit of Russian crude via Ukraine to Hungary. There is currently a bill in the Ukrainian parliament calling on the government to stop oil transit and deprive the Kremlin of up to $6 billion in sales to European buyers. Additional options include a lower price cap, further sanctions on remaining shipments, and expanded secondary sanctions.

The United States may have fewer options in terms of gas-related sanctions. With demand from key LNG importers such as China and India projected to recover in 2025, US exports may be diverted to Asia, leaving Europe more reliant on Russian LNG and pipeline gas. Additional LNG production from Canada’s western coast could create greater supply options later this year, but that may not be enough to satisfy European consumers or address concerns over rising energy bills.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

While Trump’s efforts to undermine Russia economically will face a range of practical challenges, there is no question that Putin’s energy empire is looking increasingly fragile.

Russia’s Gazprom in particular appears to be in a difficult position. The Kremlin’s flagship energy company has reported multi-billion dollar losses in the past two years, with this trend likely to worsen in 2025 due to the end of Ukrainian gas transit. The outlook for Gazprom is currently so troubled that the company is reportedly seeking to increase domestic gas prices.

The new United States administration has been quick to signal that it sees the Russian economy as the Putin regime’s most vulnerable point. Trump clearly aims to exploit this weakness in order to end the war in Ukraine. US efforts are likely to focus on the energy industry, which serves as the engine of the Russian war machine.

Ideally, the United States will work closely with the EU and UK in the coming months to expand current sanctions on the Russian energy sector while also working to tighten up the implementation of existing measures. This would send an unambiguous message to Moscow that Russia’s current economic woes will only worsen if Putin rejects a negotiated settlement and refuses to end the invasion of Ukraine.

Dr. Aura Sabadus is a senior energy journalist who writes about Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Ukraine for Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), a London-based global energy and petrochemicals news and market data provider. Her views are her own.

Ukrainian drones and missiles target Putin’s war machine inside Russia

David Kirichenko — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:04:22 +0000

As the Trump administration outlines plans to pressure Vladimir Putin with economic measures against Russia’s energy sector, Ukraine is taking an altogether more direct approach. Since the start of 2025, Ukrainian forces have conducted a series of bombing raids on oil refineries and other energy infrastructure deep inside Russia. The attacks are part of an ambitious Ukrainian air offensive that is also targeting Russian military logistics and defense production sites.

Ukraine’s expanding airstrike campaign highlights the country’s growing long-range capabilities thanks to the rapid evolution of domestic drone and missile production since 2022. The attacks come at a time when Russian troops are making slow but steady progress in eastern Ukraine. By bringing Putin’s invasion home to Russia, Kyiv aims to disrupt Moscow’s battlefield operations, expose Russia’s vulnerability, and establish the kind of deterrence that could eventually help set the stage for a durable peace.

Russia remains tight-lipped over the impact of Ukraine’s recent bombing raids, with Kremlin officials typically attributing any evidence of successful strikes to “debris” from Ukrainian drones shot down by Russian air defenses. In reality, however, there are growing indications the campaign is causing significant damage. On January 28, Reuters reported that work at Russia’s Ryazan oil refinery had been suspended following a series of drone attacks. The refinery is one of the four largest in the country and supplies the Russian military.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently used his daily video address to emphasize the importance of his country’s air offensive. “I would like to thank all developers and producers of our long-range drones and missiles,” he said on January 26. “Everyone can see their effectiveness. Our weapons are bringing the war back to Russia and reducing Russia’s military potential.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s early 2025 bombing campaign owes much to advances made in the development of the country’s drone fleet. Speaking in January, Ukrainian officials claimed the military now has drone models capable of reaching targets located up to 2000 kilometers inside Russia. “Our main goal is to conduct strikes to hit logistics hubs in the rear, ammunition warehouses, and decrease our enemy’s pressure on the front,” commented a battalion commander of Ukraine’s 14th Unmanned Aerial Systems Regiment, which is focused specifically on long-range strikes.

In addition to drones, Ukraine’s air offensive is also utilizing the country’s growing missile arsenal. Since 2022, the Ukrainian authorities have revived the domestic missile industry following decades of stagnation as part of efforts to boost firepower and reduce reliance on Western arms supplies. This has resulted in the development of numerous new models including the Palianytsia, Peklo, Ruta, Neptune, and Sapsan missiles. However, scaling production remains a major challenge requiring significant investment, foreign partnerships, and secure manufacturing locations to evade Russian attacks.

A number of Western allies such as Britain and Denmark are already stepping up support for Kyiv’s missile program, which is seen as a cost-effective way of supporting the Ukrainian war effort. Deploying domestically produced Ukrainian missiles also reduces the risk of potential escalations from the use of Western-supplied weapons against targets inside Russia, a key concern among Kyiv’s partners. While this offers obvious advantages, progress is unlikely to be rapid. On the contrary, some experts believe Ukraine will need at least another year before it can increase missile production to levels that could pose a serious threat to Russia.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s bombing campaign has a number of strategic goals. Most immediately, it disrupts the logistics of Russia’s invasion and increases the cumulative strain on supply chains while reducing the output of Putin’s defense industry. Attacks on energy infrastructure such as ports and refineries are designed to weaken a central pillar of Russia’s war economy, limiting the Kremlin’s ability to generate vital energy export revenues.

Airstrikes deep inside Russia also play a significant role in shaping perceptions of the war. For the Ukrainian public and international audiences, these attacks are convincing evidence of Ukraine’s mounting ability to strike back against Russia despite the Kremlin’s overwhelming advantages in both manpower and firepower. The lack of an emphatic response from Moscow is also further eroding notions of Russian red lines and encouraging Ukraine’s Western allies to overcome their fear of escalation.

Meanwhile, increasing Ukrainian drone and missile strikes are sparking public alarm in Russia and directly undermining the Kremlin’s painstaking efforts to shield ordinary Russians from the consequences of the invasion. Much like Ukraine’s ongoing incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, the attacks confirm that the war cannot be contained within the borders of Ukraine and will increasingly spread to Russia itself.

From a longer term perspective, officials in Kyiv hope Ukraine’s proven ability to strike targets deep inside Russia can strengthen the country’s position in possible negotiations and serve as a powerful deterrent against future Russian aggression. With this in mind, Zelenskyy has stated that Ukraine’s rapidly evolving drone and missile programs are “our arguments for a just peace.” In order for that argument to be truly persuasive, Ukraine will need to continue increasing the frequency of long-range drone strikes, while also significantly expanding the country’s domestic missile industry.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

NATO chief: Cost of Russian victory in Ukraine would be ‘trillions not billions’

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:14:45 +0000

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has warned alliance members that if the Russian invasion of Ukraine is allowed to succeed, the cost of reestablishing NATO’s international credibility would be measured in the trillions of dollars.

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Rutte highlighted the economic argument for increased military spending in support of the Ukrainian war effort. “If Ukraine loses then to restore the deterrence of the rest of NATO again, it will be a much, much higher price than what we are contemplating at this moment in terms of ramping up our spending and ramping up our industrial production,” commented Rutte. “It will not be billions extra. It will be trillions extra.”

Underscoring his warning, the NATO chief conjured up images of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian allies celebrating victory over the West. “If we get a bad deal, it would only mean that we will see the President of Russia high-fiving with the leaders from North Korea, Iran, and China. We cannot accept that. It would be a big, big geopolitical mistake.”

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Rutte’s alarming forecast comes as NATO leaders grapple with new US President Donald Trump’s calls for member states to increase defense spending from today’s two percent of GDP to five percent. Trump is also pushing for Europe to play a far more prominent role in the coalition of countries backing Ukraine. He argues that the Russian invasion is primarily a problem for European leaders to address, and has also long been critical of what he sees as the uneven security relationship between Europe and the United States.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has echoed Trump’s position on the need for dramatically increased European defense spending. In a strongly worded address to the World Economic Forum this week, he suggested that the continent was in danger of sliding into geopolitical irrelevance and must be able to defend itself. “All European countries must be willing to spend as much on security as is truly needed, not just as much as they’ve gotten used to during years of neglect. If it takes five percent of GDP to cover defense, then so be it,” the Ukrainian leader stated.

A number of senior European figures have already voiced their opposition to Trump’s vision for sharp rises in defense spending. While defense budgets across the continent have been growing in recent years against the backdrop of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many NATO members are still struggling to meet the current two percent guidelines and see talk of a leap to five percent as wholly unrealistic.

European countries have also struggled to expand domestic military production in response to Russia’s invasion. During the initial stages of the war, existing stockpiles of weapons and equipment across Europe were sent to Ukraine. However, these reserves have now been largely exhausted. While Russia has managed to make the transition to a wartime economy, Europe’s defense sector is still unable to keep the Ukrainian military adequately supplied despite some progress.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Critics of the Western response to Russia’s invasion say there is still no sense of urgency in many European capitals, despite the unprecedented security challenges presented by the continent’s largest armed conflict since World War II. Instead, decisions regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine often remain subject to extended delays, while measures to boost Europe’s defense manufacturing capacity have frequently fallen victim to domestic politics or internal EU rivalries.

Europe’s hesitancy over defense spending is short-sighted, to say the least. As the NATO Secretary-General pointed out this week in Switzerland, the cost of supporting Ukraine’s defense will be dwarfed by the price of confronting a triumphant Russia if Putin is permitted to complete the conquest and subjugation of Ukraine.

Even if a victorious Russia did not immediately go further, Europe’s sense of security would be shattered and the balance of power on the continent transformed. Putin’s war machine would be greatly strengthened by the acquisition of Ukraine’s immense military strength, its vast industrial capacities, and the country’s natural resources. He would have Europe’s two largest armies under his control, and would be firmly established along the eastern borders of the European Union.

In such favorable circumstances, it is dangerously delusional to suggest that Putin might stop voluntarily or adopt a conciliatory approach toward the largely undefended nations of Europe. He has made no secret of his desire to reverse the verdict of 1991 and overturn the current world order. Victory in Ukraine would present Putin with a once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve these historic goals. Europe’s current levels of defense spending would be unlikely to deter him.

The debate over European defense budgets looks set to escalate during the coming months, with the new Trump administration and officials in Kyiv making the case for a radical rethink. Many across Europe will support them in principle, but past experience suggests that not all of these allies will have the requisite political will to act accordingly.

The importance of this debate cannot be overstated, with the outcome set to shape the course of the war in Ukraine and define the future of European security. For anyone who recognizes the threat posed by Putin’s Russia, the arguments for larger European defense budgets and expanded industrial production seem overwhelming. Supporting Ukraine today may be expensive, but it is a lot cheaper than facing an emboldened Russia tomorrow.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

North Korea is using Russia’s Ukraine invasion to upgrade its army

Alina Hrytsenko — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:09:38 +0000

The first North Korean soldiers were taken prisoner by Ukraine in early January, providing final confirmation of the Hermit Kingdom’s involvement in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine following initial reports in late 2024. The participation of North Korean troops represents a dangerous escalation in what is already the largest European war since World War II, with potentially alarming implications for global security.

Pyongyang’s support for the Russian war effort began in late 2022 with the delivery of artillery shells. The list of armaments was subsequently expanded to include ballistic missiles. These supplies have helped Russia maintain the momentum of its invasion despite the country’s significantly depleted stores of munitions. With Moscow now also facing manpower shortages and reluctant to order a fresh round of mobilization, the arrival of North Korean troops helps relieve domestic pressure to recruit more Russians for the war.

While no official data is available, Ukrainian, US, and South Korean sources have estimated that North Korea has sent at least 11,000 soldiers to join Russia’s invasion. Some are believed to be drawn from highly trained elite units. Materials found on dead North Korean troops and battlefield accounts from Ukrainian forces indicate that the heavily indoctrinated North Koreans have been ordered to kill themselves if necessary to avoid being captured alive and taken prisoner.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Pyongyang has a very specific interest in sending troops to fight against Ukraine. While the deployment is unlikely to dramatically alter the battlefield situation in the Kremlin’s favor, it allows the North Koreans to acquire priceless combat experience, test weapons systems, gain access to Russian military technologies, and secure Moscow’s further assistance in countering UN sanctions.

North Korea currently boasts one of the world’s largest armies with around 1.3 million active soldiers. However, unlike Russia, the Korean People’s Army (KPA) has not been directly involved in any major wars for many years. This lack of battlefield experience is a source of considerable concern for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who is anxious to counter South Korea’s more technologically advanced military.

Sending thousands of troops to fight in the Russian invasion of Ukraine provides the KPA with valuable insights into what is widely recognized as the most technologically advanced battlefield environment in the history of warfare. North Korean soldiers are now learning the realities of modern drone warfare first-hand. As a result, North Korea will be “more capable of waging war against its neighbors,” senior US officials have warned.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukrainians have been impressed by the skill and tenacity of the North Koreans they have encountered, including their ability to shoot down drones. “They are young, motivated, physically fit, brave, and good at using small arms. They are also disciplined. They have everything you need for a good infantryman,” Ukrainian army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Yaroslav Chepurnyi told POLITICO.

North Korea is believed to receive significant financial and technological incentives for supplying Putin with soldiers. South Korean intelligence officials estimate that Moscow is paying Pyongyang $2000 per solder each month. While this money is no doubt welcome, the real prize is access to advanced Russian military tech. In exchange for troops, North Korea is believed to be receiving support from Moscow that will help upgrade its military, including the country’s anti-aircraft, submarine, and missile capabilities.

The Ukrainian front also serves as a valuable testing ground for North Korea, allowing the country to assess the effectiveness of the weapons it supplies to Russia. This will make it possible for Pyongyang to improve the quality of its own domestic arms industry and adapt future output to the realities of the modern battlefield. Meanwhile, the troops who survive their time on the Ukrainian front lines are expected to return home and become instructors, sharing their knowledge of modern warfare with colleagues.

At this point, North Korea’s participation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine looks to be less about supporting Putin’s imperial ambitions and more about upgrading Kim Jong Un’s war machine. In the short term, the presence of North Korean soldiers is allowing Russia to overcome mounting manpower shortages. But with Russia believed to be losing tens of thousands of troops each month, there is little chance that Pyongyang will be able to fully satisfy Moscow’s insatiable demand for additional manpower.

Looking ahead, the historically unprecedented appearance of North Korean soldiers on the battlefields of Europe could alter the security equation on the Korean peninsula and beyond. “For the first time in decades, the North Korean army is gaining real military experience,” commented Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Andrii Yusov. “This is a global challenge. Not just for Ukraine and Europe, but for the entire world.”

Alina Hrytsenko is an analyst at Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies.

UkraineAlert - Atlantic Council

Putin’s Kyiv blitz sends message to G7 leaders: Russia does not want peace

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Russia and Ukraine are locked in an economic war of attrition

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

Ukrainian innovations are redefining the role of drones in modern war

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

Modern Ukraine’s national journey can be traced on Kyiv’s central square

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Ukraine is shaping the future of drone warfare at sea as well as on land

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

Trump’s Russia policy must be rooted in realism

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Modern Ukraine’s national journey can be traced on Kyiv’s central square

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

Trump’s Russia policy must be rooted in realism

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Ukrainian innovations are redefining the role of drones in modern war

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Russia is extinguishing all traces of Ukrainian identity in occupied Ukraine

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Russian hybrid warfare: Ukraine’s success offers lessons for Europe

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Further reading

Russia’s coming summer offensive could be deadliest of the entire war

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

Read more from UkraineAlert

Follow us on social media and support our work

Trump’s Russia policy must be rooted in realism

Stay updated

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work

Follow us on social media
and support our work