Top News

Negotiating with a Criminal: The Kremlin’s War Crimes and the West’s Dilemma

The recent bombing of the civilian city of Kiev by Russia were to be expected, and by doing so, the Kremlin is trying to achieve the following:

1. To force Ukraine to capitulate – Russia knows that its demands are unrealistic, but it is trying to demoralize and break the Ukrainian government and people with air strikes;
2. To send a humiliating signal to the US – the Kremlin does not care what Washington or Brussels think. Even in all active phases of negotiations, Moscow is ready to bomb peaceful cities without expecting a response, signalling to the West that their vision is insignificant;
3. To normalize war crimes – if we look at it from the perspective of international law, Putin is a wanted war criminal. Nevertheless, they come to negotiate with him. This is already a problem. But in addition to this, he is committing additional war crimes during these negotiations. This serves to normalize these war crimes – “You come to me, shake my hand, sit in on negotiations, and I kill people at the same time.”

Ukraine will not surrender. Demoralizing Ukraine with air strikes will not be easy. This has been tried over the past four years. In addition, you can bomb the aggressor and manage to demoralize them, but when you bomb the defending side, it is very difficult to demoralize. Ukraine will continue to fight.

It is also clear to Europe that if Ukraine falls or a war of conquest is waged against it, Europe’s security will be in danger of collapse, because Russia will do everything to turn the European continent upside down with hybrid or direct military operations and support. That is why support for Ukraine will continue and even intensify in the near future.

The war has entered a difficult phase. But it was already clear from last year that this year would be and will be critical.

Ukraine’s Air Defenses Repel Unprecedented Aerial Assaults

In one of the most intense weeks of aerial warfare since the onset of the conflict, Ukraine’s Defense Forces demonstrated remarkable resilience and technological prowess, successfully destroying 841 air targets launched by Russia and its allied forces. This extraordinary defensive effort underscores not only Ukraine’s growing sophistication in air defense but also the unrelenting pressure it faces from an adversary determined to break its will through the skies.

According to official military reports, during the past week alone, Ukrainian air defense units neutralized an array of threats, showcasing their ability to adapt to a complex and multi-layered battlefield:

• 31 Kh-101/Kh-55SM cruise missiles were intercepted. These long-range precision missiles, designed to strike strategic infrastructure deep within Ukrainian territory, have been a persistent threat. Their neutralization significantly reduced the risk of further damage to Ukraine’s critical infrastructure.
• 7 Iskander-M (or North Korean-supplied KN-23) ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed. The Iskander system is one of the most lethal in Russia’s arsenal, capable of evading traditional radar detection due to its low-flight trajectory and maneuverability. Intercepting such missiles is a notable technical achievement.
• 6 Kalibr cruise missiles were downed. The Kalibr missiles, often launched from naval platforms in the Black Sea, have been a mainstay of Russian long-range strikes. Neutralizing them reflects the growing integration of Ukraine’s sea-based and land-based early-warning systems.
• 4 Kh-59/69 guided missiles were also intercepted. These air-to-ground precision weapons are typically launched from Russian bombers, designed to destroy key tactical targets.

However, it is in the domain of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) where Ukraine faced, and overcame, its most overwhelming threat:

• 442 Shahed drones — primarily the Iranian-designed Shahed-131 and Shahed-136 models — were shot down. These drones, cheap and numerous, are often used in “saturation attacks” intended to overwhelm air defenses and exhaust Ukraine’s anti-air missile supplies.
• 114 reconnaissance UAVs were destroyed, denying Russian forces crucial battlefield intelligence and helping to protect Ukrainian troop movements and supply lines.
• 237 other types of UAVs — a mix of surveillance, kamikaze, and electronic warfare drones — were also neutralized.

In parallel, Ukraine’s Air Force aviation carried out about 160 combat operations during the week, including strikes on Russian troop concentrations, air defense systems, ammunition depots, and logistics hubs. These sorties were critical in not only degrading the enemy’s offensive capabilities but also supporting ground operations across multiple sectors of the front line.

The scale of these air engagements illustrates a broader trend in the conflict: Russia’s increasing reliance on asymmetric aerial bombardments, particularly using large numbers of drones and precision missiles, in an attempt to exhaust Ukraine’s air defenses and strike civilian targets. Yet, the numbers also reveal a different story — a maturing, layered Ukrainian air defense architecture capable of withstanding these barrages with increasing effectiveness.

Western-supplied systems, such as the U.S. Patriot missile batteries, Germany’s IRIS-T systems, and NASAMS launchers, combined with Ukraine’s own upgraded Soviet-era platforms, have created a protective shield over much of the country. Nevertheless, the intensity of attacks raises critical questions about the sustainability of such defenses over time, especially as the need for constant resupply of missiles, drones, and radar components grows.

In the broader strategic picture, Ukraine’s success in defending its skies this week represents not just a military achievement but also a psychological one. It denies Russia the easy victories it seeks through terror and destruction and keeps hope alive for millions of Ukrainians on the ground.

As the war enters its next phase, the battle for control of the skies — through missiles, drones, and electronic warfare — will remain one of the most decisive arenas of the conflict.

Price of Recovery: Financing Ukraine’s Post-War Reconstruction

The devastating war in Ukraine has not only reshaped the geopolitical map of Europe but also inflicted catastrophic damage on the country’s infrastructure, economy, and human capital. As the guns begin to fall silent and diplomatic negotiations inch toward a possible ceasefire, the next monumental challenge looms: rebuilding a shattered nation.

According to The Times, current estimates put the cost of Ukraine’s reconstruction at approximately £400 billion — an astronomical figure that underscores the scale of destruction wrought by years of conflict. Entire cities have been reduced to rubble, critical energy networks destroyed, and vital sectors like healthcare, education, and transport severely crippled. Beyond physical damage, the war has displaced millions of people, disrupted agricultural production, and ravaged industries essential for Ukraine’s economic independence and growth.

Addressing this reconstruction task will require not just massive financial resources but also international coordination, political will, and long-term commitment. Against this daunting backdrop, a controversial but potentially decisive mechanism has entered serious discussion: the seizure and repurposing of Russia’s frozen assets abroad.

It is widely believed that, as part of the broader peace agreement, Russia could see £225 billion of its frozen assets seized and redirected toward Ukraine’s rebuilding efforts. These assets — held primarily in European, North American, and other allied financial systems — were frozen early in the conflict as part of sweeping international sanctions against the Russian government and affiliated entities.

The proposal to use these funds marks a historic precedent: rarely has the international community sought to directly reallocate the sovereign wealth of an aggressor state to finance the reconstruction of the nation it attacked. Advocates argue that it is only just for the perpetrator of such massive destruction to bear the financial responsibility for recovery. It would also significantly relieve the pressure on Western taxpayers and multilateral institutions, who might otherwise be called upon to foot a large part of the bill.

However, the path to seizing and reallocating these assets is legally and politically fraught. Concerns abound regarding international law, property rights, and the potential long-term consequences for global financial systems. Critics warn that bypassing traditional legal norms could unsettle global markets and set dangerous precedents, potentially inviting similar actions in other political contexts. There is also the risk of retaliation by Moscow, both diplomatically and economically.

Nonetheless, momentum is growing behind the idea. Several Western leaders have voiced support for innovative legal mechanisms to enable the transfer of frozen Russian assets into a special fund dedicated to Ukraine’s reconstruction. If successfully implemented, this approach could provide over half the necessary funds, offering Ukraine a much-needed lifeline as it embarks on the long road to recovery.

Rebuilding Ukraine will be about more than repairing roads and bridges. It will require restoring institutions, healing divided communities, attracting foreign investment, and ensuring security guarantees to prevent future aggression. It is a generational project — and one that will define the future of Europe and international law for decades to come.

In the coming months, decisions made about these frozen assets will not only shape Ukraine’s physical landscape but will also send a powerful message to the world: that aggressors will be held accountable not just in the courts of law, but in the rebuilding of what they tried to destroy.

A Strategic Analysis of the War in Ukraine

President Trump expressed hope that the negotiations with Ukraine and Iran will soon be successfully concluded. Successful negotiations are always based on interests and compromise. The Kremlin is not ready for compromise – Russia’s demands are more requirement of capitulation rather than peace negotiations.

Against the background that Russia is demanding the Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhia, Luhansk and Donetsk regions, Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO and a limit on its armament and its type, there is currently little chance of successful conclusion of the peace negotiations.

A key factor that must be acknowledged is that the Kremlin does not want peace. There are several reasons for this:

1. Russia is trying to create a precedent for a successful war of conquest;
2. The Kremlin believes that a total victory in the war and the occupation of all or a large part of Ukraine are still possible;
3. In Russia, serious discussions have begun on one interesting topic – the social, psychological and economic reintegration of the military, mobilized or conscripted who have been through the war will not happen soon. That is why they are not in a hurry to end the war quickly.
   Also Ukraine does not want a peace that would make it lose its statehood or allow its adversary to wage another war. Europe does not want such a peace either, because a belligerent Russia will start a hybrid war against it.
   
   The third issue is the most important – the successful completion of the negotiations also depends on how much the parties trust each other. Trust does not exist between Russia and Ukraine. In this changing world, the search for a solid guarantor and guarantee is excessive.
   There is one further concerning consideration: during the negotiations, four regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson – are often mentioned, but for some reason Crimea is not mentioned so often anymore. From Trump’s recent comments, the direction seems to be that the US intends to resolve the Crimea issue in Russia’s favour. Such an intention will not help negotiation process.
   
   Based on the above, it is difficult to imagine the end of the war at this stage, unless some large-scale or sudden change occurs on the front or in political terms.
   
   P.S. A few months ago, the consensus often heard was: “Russia must be defeated in order for the existing international and legal order to survive.” Now, a different assessment is slowly emerging – the old order no longer exists and what the new order will be like depends on the outcome of the war.