For hours today, Kostyantynivka endured merciless Russian bombardment—a once-bustling city in Donetsk Oblast now scarred and shaken. More than 20 residential buildings were damaged, gas infrastructure crippled, and the last postal lifeline cut. Roughly 6,800 residents remain, holding on as the city edges closer to catastrophe.

Kostyantynivka is not just another dot on the map. It anchors the southern approach to the Donbas fortress belt—Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Pokrovsk. These cities together form Ukraine’s eastern bastion. If Kostyantynivka falls, the defensive ring could be flanked, leaving the heart of the Donbas vulnerable.

The warning signs are familiar. Mariupol, Bakhmut, Marinka, Avdiivka, Popasna—all were battered into ruins before Russian troops claimed them. Kostyantynivka is not yet rubble. But the smoke and broken glass already foreshadow that grim possibility.

Shelling erodes daily life

The bombardment lasted for hours. FPV drones and FAB-250 bombs smashed into residential neighborhoods, ripping through apartments, private homes, and civic buildings. Local officials counted more than 20 apartment blocks among the wreckage.

One of the most devastating strikes hit the gas distribution station, collapsing pressure in the system and plunging the city into a total gas blackout. Donetskoblgaz, the regional gas distribution company, confirmed repairs were impossible under current conditions, citing security risks for its crews.

“Restoration of gas supply is not possible at this time,” the company stated.

Life without gas—no heating, no cooking—leaves residents more exposed, forced to adapt to survival conditions while bombardment continues overhead.

Postal lifeline severed

As Russian forces edged closer, even the last traces of civil infrastructure disappeared. Kostyantynivka’s last Ukrposhta branch closed its doors, ending pensions and parcel services in the city.

“For a long time, we were the only ones here—no banks, no competitors, just Ukrposhta, supporting thousands. But it became too dangerous to stay,” CEO Ihor Smilianskyi explained.

The nearest branches are now in Druzhkivka and Olexievo-Druzhkivka, 5–7 km away—a distance that, under fire, can feel insurmountable.

Population hollowing out

Kostyantynivka once held nearly 15,000 residents. Today, fewer than 7,000 remain. Many are elderly or families unable to evacuate. Streets are quiet, windows are boarded, and shops shuttered.

The city is not yet destroyed like Mariupol or Avdiivka. But depopulation is already hollowing it out—a silent erosion that makes the devastation feel inevitable.

Russian push near Dobropillya—repelled, for now

The crisis around Kostyantynivka is compounded by Russian pressure further west. Near Dobropillya, Moscow launched a thrust, carving a salient toward Pokrovsk. For a moment, Ukrainian defenses bent under pressure.

But Ukraine hit back. The 1st Azov Corps led a counterattack that wiped out Russia’s 132nd Motor Rifle Brigade in a 16-day fight. Reinforcements from Ukrainian air assault, marine, and mechanized brigades stabilized the sector.

Still, the battle is far from over. As analyst David Axe observed, Russia is funneling fresh units, and momentum shifts quickly:

“Neither side can seize the initiative for long.”

Pokrovsk on the brink

Further west, Pokrovsk—the southernmost anchor of the Donbas fortress belt—is under threat of encirclement. Russian advances north and south aim to sever supply routes and trap the city. Its fall would not only endanger tens of thousands still inside—it would unravel Ukraine’s broader defensive belt from the south upward.

Pokrovsk, like Kostyantynivka, is not yet lost. But the pressure is mounting daily.

Syrskyi: “The breakthrough near Dobropillya is crushed”

Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi admitted that Russian troops briefly advanced near Dobropillia, but insists the situation has now been reversed:

“The enemy took advantage of gaps and advanced. But after decisive measures—redeploying forces and clearing villages—their victorious mood turned to despair.”

As for nearby Pokrovsk, Syrskyi emphasized that Ukrainian logistics remain intact, and that reinforcements, counter-attacks, and the advantage of terrain are helping blunt the Russian push—even amid relentless daily assaults.

Moscow’s terms: Donbas for “peace”?

As the battlefield burns, diplomacy shifted to Alaska, where US President Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin. While exact details remain uncertain, reports suggest Putin floated demands for Ukraine to withdraw from Donbas, renounce NATO, and bar Western troops in exchange for a ceasefire.

European officials and Kyiv dismiss the proposals as a trap—an attempt to freeze Russia’s gains while leaving Ukraine exposed to future assaults.

Between rubble and resolve

Kostyantynivka today is without gas, without postal service, and with only part of its pre-war population left. The city is not yet reduced to rubble, but it faces the same risk as Mariupol or Bakhmut if the assaults continue.

General Syrskyi insists that “the front is still holding,” and militarily that may be true. But for ordinary Ukrainians still in Kostyantynivka—living without utilities, services, or certainty—such statements feel distant from their daily reality.

What Russia presents as a path to “peace” already looks different on the ground: damaged homes, disrupted services, and families leaving under fire. Reports on Ukrainian military-linked Telegram channels now place Russian units within about 5 km of the city—evidence that Kostyantynivka has not fallen, but stands on the edge.

For over two centuries, Sweden was a nation defined by military neutrality. It avoided entanglement in great wars, instead cultivating a reputation as a mediator, peace broker, and humanitarian power. Yet Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 transformed Sweden’s strategic outlook almost overnight.

Within just a few years, Stockholm abandoned neutrality, joined NATO, and emerged as one of Kyiv’s most reliable defense and reconstruction partners. This is a historic shift: while Ukraine continues its long struggle to secure NATO membership, Sweden’s accession and its unprecedented support for Kyiv carry both symbolic and practical weight.

In collaboration with the Dnistrianskyi Center, Euromaidan Press presents this English-language adaptation of Dariia Cherniavska’s analysis on Sweden’s role in Ukraine’s defense, recovery, and pursuit of justice.

From neutrality to NATO

Russia’s aggression redrew Europe’s security map. Alongside Finland, Sweden applied to join NATO in 2022, breaking with its centuries-old neutrality. By March 2024, Stockholm became NATO’s 32nd member.

For Sweden, NATO membership offered the ultimate guarantee: collective defense under Article 5. For Ukraine, it meant new, powerful allies along Russia’s northern flank—even though Kyiv itself still stands outside the Alliance despite years of open aspiration.

The symbolism is clear: neutrality is no longer a shield, and solidarity has become survival.

Sweden’s pledge: a structured, long-term commitment

Sweden’s support for Ukraine is remarkable not just for its scale but also for its design. In 2024, Stockholm committed €6.5 billion in military support between 2024 and 2026—a massive pledge for a country of just 10 million people.

Unlike one-off donations, this funding is structured to guarantee predictability. Ukraine knows what to expect, quarter by quarter, allowing it to plan defense procurement and operations. In Europe, this places Sweden among the very top donors relative to its population and GDP.

Sweden–Ukraine security pact explained

On 31 May 2024, Sweden and Ukraine signed a 10-year Security Cooperation Agreement. This was the 13th pact under the G7 Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine, and among the most ambitious. By May 2025, Kyiv had signed 29 such agreements, yet the Swedish deal stands out for both symbolic and practical reasons.

The agreement covers:

• Military support, including predictable weapons transfers and training.
• Cybersecurity cooperation.
• Energy resilience projects.
• Justice initiatives and humanitarian recovery.

For Ukraine, locked in a war of attrition, predictability of aid is nearly as valuable as its volume. Stockholm’s 10-year commitment sends a message that Ukraine will not be left alone.

Sweden’s military aid to Ukraine

Since 2022, Sweden has become one of the most active suppliers of weapons to Ukraine. Its military aid ranges from cutting-edge artillery systems to armored vehicles, drones, and naval craft.

What weapons has Sweden sent to Ukraine?

Stockholm’s aid packages have included:

• Archer self-propelled howitzers and ARTHUR counter-battery radars.
• CV90 infantry fighting vehicles, co-produced with Ukraine.
• Combat Boat 90 vessels for river and coastal defense.
• Thousands of anti-tank weapons and drones.
• RBS 70 man-portable air defense systems.
• AT4 grenade launchers and ammunition.
• At least 1,500 TOW anti-tank missiles.
• Entire fleet of Pansarbandvagn 302 armored vehicles.
• Two Saab 340 AEW&C (ASC 890) airborne radar aircraft (still pending delivery as of mid-2025).

Delays and cooperation mechanisms

Not every pledged item has arrived. For example, Ukraine is still awaiting the ASC 890 radar planes, first announced in May 2024. Sweden explained the delay stems from integration work with partner states to ensure compatibility with F-16 fighters.

Meanwhile, Sweden has actively supported multinational defense coalitions, most notably the Drone Coalition. Together with the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Latvia, Stockholm co-financed the production of 30,000 drones worth $55 million. Within its 18th and 19th aid packages alone, Sweden allocated over $35 million to drones.

Artillery is another focus. In January 2025, Sweden signed contracts to supply Ukraine with 18 new Archer howitzers and five ARTHUR radars worth nearly $300 million. In May 2025, it pledged an additional $60 million for artillery shells, including through the Czech initiative to procure 155mm ammunition.

The Gripen question

One of the most discussed possibilities in Swedish aid has been the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet. The Gripen is valued for its unique flexibility: it can operate from short roadways instead of relying solely on airbases, a critical advantage for Ukraine where runways are prime targets. Light, cost-effective, and interoperable with NATO systems, many analysts consider it ideally suited for Ukraine’s conditions.

Yet, despite pilot training and political debate, Sweden has paused any transfer of Gripens. NATO partners have urged Stockholm to prioritize the delivery of F-16s, ensuring consistency across Ukraine’s future fleet. For now, Gripens remain out of reach — a reminder that even among allies, strategic reasoning sometimes outweighs battlefield logic.

Training Ukraine’s forces

Military hardware is only as powerful as the soldiers who operate it. Sweden made training a core pillar of its support, ensuring Ukrainian personnel can master advanced Western systems.

Training has covered:

• CV90 infantry fighting vehicles – complex platforms requiring highly trained crews.
• Archer howitzers – precision artillery that demands technical and logistical expertise.
• RBS 70 air-defense systems – crucial for intercepting drones and missiles.

Beyond skills transfer, this training builds NATO interoperability. Ukrainian forces learn not only how to operate the systems but also how to integrate with Western command and logistics standards. This accelerates Ukraine’s eventual path toward NATO integration.

Industrial cooperation: building Ukraine’s defense future

Perhaps the most forward-looking element of Swedish support is industrial cooperation. Rather than just donating weapons, Stockholm is helping Ukraine build its own defense industry capacity.

The landmark project is the co-production of CV90 infantry fighting vehicles. Through agreements with BAE Systems Hägglunds, Ukraine is establishing assembly lines, maintenance hubs, and training centers on its own soil.

This model offers three benefits:

1. Rapid battlefield repairs — damaged vehicles can be fixed locally.
2. Jobs and technology transfer — boosting Ukraine’s defense workforce and economy.
3. Integration into NATO supply chains — ensuring long-term compatibility.

Sweden’s industrial vision goes beyond armored vehicles. Its role in the Drone Coalition encourages Ukrainian manufacturers to scale unmanned systems. Future cooperation could also cover artillery production, radar technologies, and cybersecurity, positioning Ukraine as a hub of European defense innovation.

Non-military aid: humanitarian, energy, and sanctions

Sweden’s support for Ukraine has never been limited to weapons. Civilian and humanitarian assistance forms a critical second pillar of Stockholm’s strategy. By early 2025, Sweden had provided roughly $1.2 billion in non-military aid, complementing the billions already committed for defense.

This funding has taken many forms:

• Humanitarian relief and reconstruction — about $300 million directed toward rebuilding infrastructure, repairing homes, and supporting displaced families.
• Emergency response and crisis management — more than $220 million for humanitarian organizations, healthcare, and local authorities working under wartime conditions.
• Energy resilience — over $140 million to Ukraine’s Energy Support Fund, helping restore critical power facilities regularly targeted by Russian strikes.
• Special initiatives — including demining programs, medical training, and $9.5 million for the “Grain from Ukraine” initiative to deliver grain to food-insecure countries.

In March 2025 alone, Stockholm announced an additional $138 million civilian aid package focused on reconstruction, demining, and strengthening Ukraine’s health sector.

Beyond funding, Sweden has been a strong advocate for EU sanctions against Russia, pushing for tighter restrictions on critical technologies and energy revenues. Together, these measures show that Sweden views Ukraine’s survival not only as a military struggle but as a fight for the resilience of its society and economy.

Symbolism and strategy

Sweden’s transformation carries both symbolic and strategic meaning.

Symbolically, a nation that long prided itself on neutrality has chosen sides in Europe’s defining war of the 21st century. For Ukraine, this sends a powerful signal: neutrality is not an option when aggression threatens the foundations of European security.

Strategically, Sweden’s contributions fill key gaps:

• Air defense and situational awareness (ASC 890 planes, RBS 70 systems).
• Mobile firepower (Archer howitzers, CV90s, AT4s).
• Maritime defense (Combat Boat 90s).
• Technological edge (drones, radar systems, industrial partnerships).

Coupled with humanitarian aid and demining, Sweden’s support touches nearly every aspect of Ukraine’s survival and recovery.

The road ahead

As the war continues, Ukraine’s survival depends on sustained partnerships. Sweden has shown it is not just reacting to crises but planning for the long term:

• 10-year security pact.
• €6.5 billion structured support program.
• Industrial cooperation projects that outlast the war.

For Ukraine, Sweden provides more than weapons: it offers predictability, partnership, and proof that Europe’s security is indivisible.

Why Sweden’s support matters

Sweden’s military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine marks one of the most dramatic foreign policy transformations in modern Europe. From neutrality to NATO membership, from peace diplomacy to arms co-production, Stockholm has taken steps that would have seemed unthinkable just a decade ago.

For Ukraine, this partnership delivers more than immediate aid. It lays the foundations for a resilient defense industry, NATO interoperability, and eventual recovery from war.

For Europe, it demonstrates that even long-neutral nations can be compelled to act when aggression strikes at the heart of the continent’s security.

Drones may dominate the skies over Ukraine, but defense experts warn they cannot replace artillery, missiles, and tanks. As NATO plans for the future, some fear an overreliance on swarms of cheap drones could “play to Russia’s strengths” instead of deterring them.

Why build a $5 million tank when a $500 drone can destroy it? That question drives NATO’s debate — yet Ukraine’s experience shows the answer is complicated.

Kyiv’s dependence on drones reflects necessity, not strategy. With artillery shells and missiles in short supply, Ukraine turned to unmanned aerial systems to fill the gaps left by slow or limited weapons deliveries from allies.

“This attrition from drones has been occurring in the context of a Russian force that is still constrained by minefields and forced to disperse by Ukrainian artillery,” wrote Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute in Defense News.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has acknowledged that about 40% of Ukraine’s frontline weapons now come from domestic production, but commanders continue to clamor for Western systems such as HIMARS, ATACMS, guided shells — and, increasingly, glide bombs — to blunt Russian offensives.

Drones dominate, but don’t decide battles

On the battlefield, drones paralyze movement and inflict steady attrition. Yet most are destroyed before impact.

“Only a small fraction of the huge volumes of drones launched by Ukrainian forces reach their targets, and a still smaller proportion achieve decisive damage,” Bronk noted.

Russia has invested in jammers, nets, and armored cages, making its counter-drone defenses among “the most formidable in the world.” Despite constant innovation, Ukraine has struggled to turn drone use into strategic momentum.

Commanders still trust legacy firepower

Even as drones proliferate, Ukrainian units continue to prize artillery and missiles.

“High-end ATGMs, anti-tank BONUS artillery rounds and regular artillery are far more responsive and more reliably able to knock out vehicles and suppress massing infantry than FPV drones,” Bronk wrote.

This explains why Kyiv’s most urgent requests to allies remain long-range fires, not drones.

NATO’s strategic choices

For NATO, the lesson is clear: drones should augment, not replace, legacy weapons. Bronk points to glide bombs such as JDAMs, which cost around $25,000 — far cheaper than a $1 million ATACMS missile — and can destroy bunkers, command posts, and armored vehicles.

Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment reinforced the point: “Those are the advantages that are likely to prove much more significant than being second- or third-mover in the drone fight.”

The bottom line

Drones have changed warfare, but they work best when paired with artillery, missiles, and airpower. As Bronk concluded:

“It is far technically and tactically easier to counter a force that primarily relies on massed, cheap drones … than it is to counter well-employed airpower, long-range fires, armor, artillery and mortars within a professional joint force.”

Ukraine’s former Commander-in-Chief, now Ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, is reportedly positioning for a future presidential bid. American journalist Katie Livingstone claims he has already set up a campaign headquarters in London and begun recruiting a political team.

Speculation about elections is highly sensitive in Ukraine. National voting can only take place once the war ends, and any suggestion of campaigning carries the implication that a post-war transition is on the horizon. At the same time, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is widely seen as determined to hold on to power, making rumors of a challenge from Zaluzhnyi especially explosive.

Alleged key players in the report

Livingstone, a Pulitzer-nominated freelance reporter based in Kyiv, named several figures tied to the supposed effort:

• General Serhiy Naiev — allegedly leading the London office. His role is contentious: critics blame him for the swift loss of Ukraine’s southern territories in 2022, when Russian forces seized large areas almost without resistance.
• Oksana Torop — Zaluzhnyi’s adviser and former BBC journalist, said to be managing his “media operation.” Torop insists her involvement is limited to handling press contacts.
• Viktoria Syumar — opposition MP from European Solidarity, reportedly handling internal coordination. She has strongly denied the claim.
• Polina Lysenko — deputy director of NABU, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, and former head of the Center for Countering Disinformation. She was allegedly in charge of international outreach. NABU dismissed the report as stemming from “highly questionable sources.”
• Serhiy Pashynskyi — former head of Ukroboronprom, the state defense conglomerate. A veteran political operator and arms industry figure, he has faced corruption allegations but also emerged as a key wartime supplier.

Zaluzhnyi’s team pushes back

The ambassador’s advisers have rejected the claims outright. Oksana Torop told NV:

“I only assist Valerii Zaluzhnyi in media contacts. Nothing more.”

She stressed:

“As long as the war continues, we must preserve the country — not think about elections. Therefore, no campaign headquarters exists.”

Other figures mentioned in Livingstone’s report, including Syumar and NABU, also denied any involvement.

Criticism over his departure

Zaluzhnyi remains one of Ukraine’s most trusted public figures, often polling ahead of Zelenskyy. Yet his move abroad has sparked criticism. Many note that he accepted the ambassadorial post in London as soon as it was offered, a privilege not available to most Ukrainian men, who remain barred from leaving the country during wartime.

For some, this fuels skepticism about his motives—even as others see it as a strategic step by a capable leader preparing for a political future.

A rival in waiting

Denials aside, Zaluzhnyi’s reputation as a respected military leader and his broad public support keep him in the spotlight. Whether he is actively preparing a campaign or not, he is widely viewed as Zelenskyy’s most serious rival in any post-war election.

Polish prosecutors reported that a military drone of unknown origin likely exploded overnight in a cornfield near the village of Osiny in Lublin Voivodeship, about 100 km from Ukraine, 90 km from Belarus, and just 40 km from Warsaw. The blast, shortly after 2 a.m. local time, shattered windows in nearby houses and scorched an 8–10 meter patch of farmland, but caused no casualties.

The incident comes amid a pattern of Poland scrambling fighter jets almost every time Russia launches major strikes on Ukraine. These flights are intended as a precaution, though they have never resulted in interceptions, since NATO aircraft only act if an object directly threatens alliance territory.

Osiny, lubelszczyzna, ok. 100 km od granicy z Ukrainą. Policja odnalazła nadpalone, metalowe i plastikowe szczątki. https://t.co/tdwN6vQ0cq pic.twitter.com/zz3D7Wmi2V

— 1 Star (@PawelSokala) August 20, 2025

Remains point to Russian-style drone

At the site, authorities recovered burned fragments of metal, plastic, and a drone engine. Journalists from both Ukraine and Poland noted these parts resemble those used in Russian Shahed kamikaze drones.

Defense Express highlighted that investigators found a four-stroke MD550 engine, typical of Shahed drones, though with an unusual muffler—raising questions about whether the drone malfunctioned or lost its way.

Conflicting statements from authorities

Initially, Poland’s Armed Forces stated there were no violations of its airspace from Ukraine or Belarus that night. Later, Lublin prosecutor Grzegorz Trusiewicz said:

“The nature of the explosion shows this object was most likely a military drone. Its trajectory and origin remain undetermined.”

Linked to Russian strikes on Ukraine

The explosion coincided with air raid alerts in Ukraine’s Lviv and Volyn Oblasts. Russia had launched a barrage of drones—estimated at more than 90 Shahed drones—and two Iskander-M ballistic missiles.

In May 2023, a Russian Kh-55 cruise missile carrying a dummy nuclear warhead crashed near Bydgoszcz, 450 km from the Ukrainian border. Initially, officials denied any airspace violation, only later confirming the breach — sparking a domestic scandal.

Similar incidents have also occurred in Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Moldova, where Russian drones and missiles have landed since the start of the full-scale invasion. Ukraine has repeatedly warned that such events highlight how Moscow’s air campaign against it also endangers NATO members.

Poland points to Russia

By midday, Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak‑Kamysz stated the drone was believed linked to Russia.

“Once again, we are dealing with a provocation by Russia. We are dealing with it in a crucial moment, when discussions about peace (in Ukraine) are underway,” he said.

General Dariusz Malinowski added that intelligence pointed to a Russian origin, though the precise intent—malfunction or deliberate incursion—was still uncertain.

Diplomatic fallout

Poland’s Foreign Ministry announced it will send a formal protest note to Russia and brief NATO allies. Spokesperson Paweł Wroński stressed:

“We will inform our allies about this incident. Poland’s airspace is endangered by this war, and this proves NATO states are at risk.”

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski condemned the event as “another violation of our airspace”, emphasizing that Poland’s foremost NATO mission remains the defense of its territory.

When images of Ukraine’s new Flamingo cruise missile appeared, experts quickly pointed out the resemblance to another system.

The War Zone (TWZ) described Flamingo as “extremely similar, if not identical” to the FP-5 made by UAE-based Milanion. Its specifications — 3,000 km range, 950 km/h top speed, a one-ton warhead, and rail-trailer launchers — align almost exactly with Milanion’s brochure. Still, TWZ cautioned that “the exact relationship… is unknown,” leaving room for Ukrainian modifications.

Ukraine’s arsenal has long been defined by shortage. Western aid remains vital but insufficient, while domestic production struggles to match demand. Out of this gap came drones—not as a choice but as a necessity—allowing Kyiv to strike deep despite limited means. The Flamingo now represents a step beyond improvisation toward true strategic weapons.

A “behemoth” by design

Like the FP-5, Flamingo is no small weapon. Defense Express called it a “behemoth” with a six-meter wingspan and six-ton takeoff weight. Its simple, straight wings make it cheaper to produce but easier to detect.

“The larger the missile, the more noticeable it becomes,” they noted, though they stressed the lack of stealth is “not a critical one.” Ukraine has already used large, non-stealthy Tu-141 drones to strike deep into Russia, proving size is not an automatic disqualifier.

TWZ, however, added a sharper caveat: with “what looks like zero attempts at signature control, the Flamingo is far from immune to interception.” Yet this vulnerability is also part of its logic — a missile that blurs the line with drones, built for mass production and salvos rather than invisibility.

Fire Point’s bold comparison

Manufacturer Fire Point has gone further than analysts, telling Ukrinform and Kyiv Post that Flamingo is “better than the US Tomahawk.”

“Tomahawks… are outdated. They have absolutely everything worse than today’s Flamingos,” a company representative claimed, adding that Tomahawks are also “five times more expensive.”

On paper, Flamingo outranges most Tomahawk versions, carries more than double the payload, and flies slightly faster. Where Tomahawk still holds an edge is in its proven TERCOM guidance system, which allows it to resist GPS jamming — a crucial factor in Ukraine’s electronic warfare environment.

Thanks to your incredible support, we’ve raised 70% of our funding goal to launch a platform connecting Ukraine’s defense tech with the world – David vs. Goliath defense blog. It will support Ukrainian engineers who are creating innovative battlefield solutions and we are inviting you to join us on the journey.

Our platform will showcase the Ukrainian defense tech underdogs who are Ukraine’s hope to win in the war against Russia, giving them the much-needed visibility to connect them with crucial expertise, funding, and international support.

We’re one final push away from making this platform a reality.

Join us in building this platform on Patreon

Brief historical parallels

The Flamingo is not the first missile of its kind. Its reliance on ground-rail launchers recalls Germany’s V-1 flying bomb of World War II, while its bulk and range echo the US MGM-13 Mace fielded in Europe during the 1950s. More recently, it sits in the same strategic category as Russia’s Kalibr, which has been used extensively against Ukrainian cities.

Each of these weapons marked a shift in reach and destructive power. Flamingo may be Ukraine’s turn at the same playbook.

Political shock potential

The Telegraph framed Flamingo as more than a technical feat. Vladimir Putin’s political stability, it argued, rests on shielding Moscow and St. Petersburg from devastation.

“The Flamingo could potentially… visit the same sort of destruction on Putin’s core cities as Russian weapons have on those of Ukraine,” wrote Lewis Page. But he cautioned that Flamingo is “essentially just a faster drone” and would need to be deployed in large salvos with decoys to get through Russia’s formidable defenses.

On the eve of Trump–Zelenskyy talks, Ukraine unveiled footage of its new Flamingo missile — 3,000 km range, 1,150 kg warhead, now in mass production and used against targets in Russia.

Defense Minister Shmyhal: “This is very powerful, long-range weaponry — and it’s here.”… pic.twitter.com/N0f8YMgzVB

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 18, 2025

A symbol of independence

Whether Flamingo changes the battlefield will depend on production scale and its ability to survive modern air defenses. What is certain is that Ukraine now has a weapon that embodies strategic independence: a domestically produced missile, resembling Milanion’s FP-5, but aimed at taking the war much deeper into Russia than ever before.

A Ukrainian intelligence officer has warned that the Americans are being “unbelievably aggressive” in pressuring Kyiv to concede more territory to Russia. According to The Economist, Ukrainian officials fear Washington is aligning too closely with Moscow’s terms after last week’s Trump-Putin summit in Alaska.

His remarks come just days after Trump’s highly controversial meeting with Putin in Alaska, where the US president echoed elements of the Kremlin’s peace demands. That encounter alarmed European and Ukrainian leaders, who fear Washington may be edging closer to Moscow’s agenda and weakening Western unity.

“They want to maximise the package they will get in return—from sanctions relief, to the return of seized assets, to the re-opening of energy markets,” the officer said. “What… is far less clear is why the Trump administration was pushing so forcefully to promote Russia’s interests.”

Relief gives way to unease

Initial reaction in Ukraine was one of relief that Donald Trump had not struck a “grand bargain” with Vladimir Putin. “Disaster averted: Trump has not sold us down the river,” one MP commented. But optimism quickly turned to unease as it became clear that Trump had sided with Putin’s sequencing of peace talks.

Instead of insisting on a ceasefire first, Trump embraced the Russian president’s call for a “comprehensive peace.” Adviser Serhiy Leshchenko reiterated that “a ceasefire must come before a more general agreement,” but Washington’s stance appears to have shifted.

Putin’s demands

At the summit, Putin reportedly repeated demands for Ukraine to withdraw from parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts, in exchange for minor territorial concessions in Sumy and Kharkiv. Analysts note this would leave Russia in a stronger position to renew attacks in the future.

Former Ukrainian diplomat Roman Bezsmertny accused Putin of exploiting Trump’s ambitions: “Under Mr Putin’s spell, Trump is an incapacitated politician.”

Public opinion hardens

War fatigue has shifted opinion in Ukraine toward pragmatism. Polls show a majority willing to accept Russia’s current occupation in exchange for strong Western guarantees. But there are clear limits. Anton Hrushetskyi of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology said “less than one in five” Ukrainians would accept the land swaps Trump is said to favour.

Next steps

Zelensky will meet Trump in Washington on 18 August, ahead of a possible three-way summit with Putin later this week. But Ukrainians fear the outcome may already be tilted. As Trump put it on Fox News: “Make a deal. Russia is a very big power. [You] are not.”

After consultations with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Coalition of the Willing confirmed its readiness to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, including the deployment of a multinational military contingent on Ukrainian territory.

Earlier in the year, plans were floated for a 30,000-strong force, but without US participation, European governments were reluctant to commit. As recently as this week, The Times reported the plan was effectively off the table, replaced by scaled-back measures such as air patrols, training Ukrainian forces, and demining the Black Sea.

US role transforms the scenario

That changed when Donald Trump reportedly agreed to offer Ukraine an Article 5-style security guarantee. Unlike NATO membership, this would not make Ukraine part of the alliance but would still provide a collective-defense commitment resembling NATO’s core clause.

US envoy Steve Witkoff called it “game-changing”, noting that Vladimir Putin had, for the first time, agreed to such protections during talks in Alaska.

The official statement from Macron and Starmer, released by Downing Street, underlined the coalition’s new confidence:

“The leaders reaffirmed support for Ukraine, praised Zelenskyy’s push for peace, and welcomed Trump’s security guarantees—saying the Coalition of the Willing will play a vital role through the Multinational Force Ukraine.”

Leaders react

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated:

“Our support for Ukraine is unwavering—international borders must not be changed by force.”

French President Emmanuel Macron warned:

“If we are weak with Russia, we are preparing for tomorrow’s conflicts.”

What comes next

With US backing secured, the coalition now signals readiness to deploy a peacekeeping and reassurance force once fighting ends, while also securing Ukraine’s skies and seas and helping to rebuild its armed forces. UK Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed that British troops are prepared to take part.

European leaders—including Starmer and Macron—will now travel to Washington DC for talks with Trump and Zelenskyy, aiming to finalize the guarantees and shape the coalition’s role.

A Ukrainian sniper from the elite Pryvyd (“Ghost”) unit has reportedly killed two Russian soldiers with a single bullet through the window of an occupied building from an extraordinary 2.5 miles (4,000 m) away — believed to be the longest confirmed sniper kill ever recorded.

The shot took place on 14 August, between Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk in eastern Donetsk Oblast, just as Russia claimed a breakthrough near Pokrovsk. Although Ukrainian forces have pressed back with some success, the battle remains fierce. At the same time, President Vladimir Putin demanded that Ukraine withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk to end the war — a proposal Kyiv firmly rejected, insisting it will not surrender land still under its control.

A Ukrainian sniper may have set a world record.

From 4 km (2.5 miles), one round hit a window—
2 Russian soldiers fell instantly.

The rifle: a 14.5 mm Snipex Alligator.
The assist: drones + AI.

If confirmed, it’s the longest sniper shot ever reported.

Video: Butusov+ pic.twitter.com/zxB16TW0pa

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 17, 2025

How it happened: Tech meets precision

• Rifle Used: 14.5 mm Snipex Alligator, an anti-materiel rifle originally meant to destroy equipment, not personnel. Its official effective range is 2,000 m—only half the distance achieved in this shot.
• Guidance Tools: The sniper used AI-assisted targeting and drone surveillance to calibrate the record-breaking strike.

Journalist Yurii Butusov released the footage and praised the performance:

“Incredible accuracy and a new world record for the longest range!” he wrote on Telegram.

Shattering sniper records

If confirmed, this milestone surpasses the previous Ukrainian record of 3,800 m, set by Vyacheslav Kovalskyi in November 2023 with the Lord of the Horizon rifle.

Other historic long-range marks include:

• 3,540 m — Canadian sniper vs. ISIS fighter (2017)
• 2,478 m — British sniper Craig Harrison vs. Taliban fighter (2009)

Innovation born of necessity

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has become a testing ground for battlefield innovation. Sniper teams now regularly combine drones, AI software, and forward observers, often surpassing the original limits of their hardware.

As Defence Express noted:

“Real-life experience has shown … the actual capabilities of Ukrainian weapons, which have far exceeded their creators’ expectations.”

President Donald Trump’s top envoy, Steve Witkoff, said that last week’s Alaska summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin produced “significant progress” on security guarantees for Ukraine and potential compromises over territory.

His remarks come just days after Trump’s highly controversial meeting with Putin in Alaska, where the US president echoed elements of the Kremlin’s peace demands. That encounter alarmed European and Ukrainian leaders, who fear Washington may be edging closer to Moscow’s agenda and weakening Western unity.

Security guarantees: a “game-changer”

Witkoff told CNN that Putin agreed to “robust security guarantees” for Ukraine, similar to NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense commitment.

“We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as game changing,” Witkoff said, adding that Russia pledged to codify into law a commitment not to invade Ukraine—or any other European country—as part of a final peace deal.

Russian concessions on territory

According to Witkoff, Putin also made “some concessions” regarding his long-standing demands for Ukrainian land. While the envoy declined to name specific regions, he suggested Moscow is shifting toward negotiating around current front lines, rather than insisting on full administrative control of multiple Ukrainian provinces.

European outlets including Reuters and the Financial Times reported that Russia floated freezing the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, while potentially withdrawing from parts of Sumy and Kharkiv, in exchange for Ukrainian concessions in the Donbas.

“The Russians made some concessions at the table with regard to all five of those regions,” Witkoff noted. “Hopefully we can cut through and make some decisions right then and there” when Trump meets Ukraine’s leadership.

White House meeting with Zelenskyy and Europeans

On 18 August, Trump will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, joined by European leaders. Discussions are expected to center on both security guarantees and the territorial framework of a potential peace deal.

The meeting follows a late-night phone call after the Alaska summit in which Trump, Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and NATO allies coordinated on next steps.

US officials stress no pressure on Kyiv

Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back against speculation that Washington is pressuring Ukraine to surrender territory.

“No one is pressuring Ukraine to give up land,” Rubio told NBC. “Putin is asking for things Ukrainians are not willing to accept—and we’re not going to force them.”

Rubio also downplayed the effectiveness of fresh sanctions, warning they would not push Moscow toward peace:

“They’re already under very tough sanctions. More sanctions won’t make them agree to a ceasefire.”

Trump declares “BIG PROGRESS”

Shortly after the Alaska talks, Trump posted on Truth Social:

“BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!”

The president offered no details, but the message came ahead of Zelenskyy’s Oval Office visit and renewed efforts to shape a broader settlement.

The road ahead: fragile diplomatic terrain

Despite Witkoff’s upbeat assessment, Ukrainian officials remain wary. According to Financial Times, some in Kyiv described the Alaska summit as “horrible,” warning it could lead to a deal resembling capitulation. European leaders, too, worry that Trump’s closeness to Putin may erode solidarity within NATO.

Rubio tempered expectations, saying that while the summit produced “movement,” a comprehensive peace deal remains far off.

“There has to be talk about territories, about Ukraine’s long-term security, and about rebuilding the country,” Rubio said. “If there’s going to be a deal, each side will have to give up something.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will arrive in Washington on Monday accompanied by an extensive lineup of European leaders for talks with US President Donald Trump.

The meeting, set for 18 August in the Oval Office, comes just days after Trump’s controversial summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. That encounter, where Trump echoed parts of Putin’s peace demands, has alarmed European and Ukrainian leaders who fear Washington may be drifting toward Moscow’s agenda.

High-profile delegation

According to international media, the delegation includes:

• French President Emmanuel Macron
• German Chancellor Friedrich Merz
• UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer
• Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni
• Finnish President Alexander Stubb
• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
• NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Their joint appearance is widely seen as an effort to bolster Zelenskyy’s position in Washington, amid concerns that Trump’s rapport with Putin could undercut Ukraine’s leverage.

Trump eyes trilateral summit with Putin

Following the Oval Office talks, Trump reportedly wants to stage a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelenskyy on 22 August, according to Axios.

Anonymous sources say Trump has already discussed this idea in phone calls with Zelenskyy and European leaders. His warm embrace of Putin in Alaska raised alarms across Europe.

“European leaders fear Zelenskyy may not receive the same friendly treatment in Washington,” Politico reported.

A show of support

European capitals are calling this delegation a “desant of support.”

• Macron, Merz, and Starmer form the core of the so-called “coalition of the willing.”
• Meloni, ideologically close to Trump, is expected to add weight to the talks.
• Rutte, who enjoys good relations with Trump, will be present.
• Finland’s Stubb — a personal golfing partner of Trump — may serve as a mediator to keep discussions on track.

As BBC News Ukraine noted, Stubb once spent seven hours at Mar-a-Lago with Trump, using golf diplomacy to build trust.

Putin’s demands in Alaska

At the Alaska summit, Putin made sweeping demands, described by Reuters as:

• Ukraine’s withdrawal from all government-held Donbas territory, in exchange for Russia giving up small parts of Kharkiv and Sumy Oblasts it occupies.
• US recognition of Crimea as Russian.
• Partial sanctions relief.
• Expanded rights for the Russian language and Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
• A permanent ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, with vague promises of third-party guarantees.

“At least some of the demands represent an enormous challenge for Ukraine’s leadership,” Reuters wrote.

Journalist: “When will you stop killing civilians?”
Putin pretends not to hear.
Minutes later — he and Trump slip into the presidential Cadillac for talks. pic.twitter.com/z7mrfIfIgl

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 15, 2025

Zelenskyy: No trade on territory

Zelenskyy has firmly rejected any idea of surrendering land.

“Real negotiations must start from the current front line,” he said in Brussels after talks with von der Leyen. “The contact line is the best line for discussions.”

He stressed that under Ukraine’s Constitution, “trading land or surrendering territory is impossible.” If Russia refuses, he added, new sanctions must follow.

Von der Leyen: “Stop the killings”

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen underlined that ending civilian deaths is the top priority.

“The result must be an end to the killings. That is point number one,” she said.

She also expressed support for a trilateral meeting of Russia, the US, and Ukraine.

Security guarantees discussed

European officials confirmed that Trump floated the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine, possibly modeled on NATO’s Article 5.

Zelenskyy welcomed the move: “It is important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees. This is a significant step forward.”

Yet, details remain unclear. Who would enforce them? What role would the US and EU play? Putin, for his part, suggested China could be a guarantor — a proposal viewed skeptically in the West.

The “Finnish model” debate

Some Western analysts have floated the idea of Ukraine following a “Finnish path” — ceding territory in exchange for peace, as Finland did with the USSR in 1944.

But Finnish President Stubb rejected the comparison, arguing that Finland lost two of three pillars of its statehood under Stalin’s settlement. He insists such concessions would be disastrous for Ukraine.

Authorities in Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast have expanded the mandatory evacuation zone for families with children, adding five new settlements due to intensifying Russian attacks. The decision was announced by Vadym Filashkin, head of the Donetsk Regional Military Administration (RMA), on 14 August.

Why Druzhkivka matters

Druzhkivka, an industrial city of strategic importance, lies about 80 km northeast of Donetsk City and has remained under Ukrainian control since 2014. Once home to nearly 54,000 residents, its population has dropped sharply due to displacement. Its position along key transport routes makes it a vital defensive and logistical hub.

The new mandate covers Druzhkivka, Andriivka, Varvarivka, Novoandriivka, and Rohanske in the Andriivka community, where about 1,879 children currently live.

Escalating threats and governor’s warning

The evacuation decision followed a meeting of the regional commission on technogenic and environmental safety and emergency situations. Filashkin cited relentless Russian shelling—around 3,000 strikes daily—and urged parents to act:

“Take care of your loved ones — your children. Evacuate in time. Evacuate while it is still possible. Protect your loved ones and do not put them in danger.”

Children will be evacuated only with parents or legal guardians, using a coordinated process involving regional authorities, law enforcement, and local administrations.

Russian breakthrough near Pokrovsk raises alarm

Recent battlefield developments have amplified the urgency. Russian forces achieved a narrow but significant breakthrough north of Pokrovsk, advancing up to 17 km and seizing positions threatening Ukrainian supply lines. Another push near Dobropillia reached the Dobropillia–Kramatorsk highway, a key route for military logistics.

While Ukrainian commanders report stabilizing the front with reinforcements, analysts warn these advances could shift the strategic balance and increase risks for nearby civilian areas, including Druzhkivka.

Background on evacuations in Donetsk

Mandatory evacuations began in March 2023 in Bakhmut during heavy fighting. Since then, similar operations have taken place in Kryvorizka, Dobropilska, Druzhkivska, Lymanska, and Bilozerska communities as the front line has approached.

A Russian Su-30SM multirole fighter jet has likely crashed in the Black Sea southeast of Zmiinyi (Snake) Island (Odesa Oblast), according to the Ukrainian Navy.

Naval intelligence intercepted radio communications indicating the loss of contact with the aircraft during a mission. The cause of the incident remains unknown.

Russian forces have launched a search-and-rescue operation; debris has been spotted on the sea surface, but the pilot has not been found.

Why this loss matters for Russia’s air force

The Su-30SM is one of the Russian military’s most capable 4th-generation fighters, used for air superiority, long-range patrols, escort missions, radar surveillance, and command-and-control.

FlightGlobal’s 2025 world air forces directory lists 365 Su-27/30/35 fighters in Russian service (exact Su-30SM numbers are not public). Each Su-30SM is estimated to cost between $35 million and $50 million, making every loss a major hit to Russia’s high-value combat fleet.

The aircraft has been used extensively in the war against Ukraine, including for the launch of Kh-31P and Kh-58 anti-radiation missiles aimed at suppressing Ukrainian air defenses.

Documented Su-30SM losses since 2022

Ukraine has reported multiple Su-30SM shootdowns and ground destructions since the full-scale invasion began:

• Feb–Mar 2022: Several Su-30SMs downed over the Black Sea, Odesa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Mykolaiv regions — some crashed into the sea, and in one case a pilot was captured.
• Aug 9, 2022 — Saky/Novofedorivka, Crimea: Satellite imagery confirmed 8–9 aircraft destroyed, including around three Su-30SMs.
• Sept 2024 — Black Sea: Ukraine reported downing a Su-30SM that had just fired a Kh-31P missile.
• Apr 24, 2025 — Rostov-on-Don: Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) released video showing a Su-30SM (tail “35”) burning after a sabotage attack.
• Aug 4, 2025 — Saky airbase, Crimea: The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said one Su-30SM was destroyed and another damaged, alongside strikes on Su-24s and an ammunition depot.
• May 2, 2025 — Novorossiysk (claim): Ukraine claims naval drones armed with air-to-air missiles downed two Su-30s over the Black Sea — independent verification is pending.
• Aug 14, 2025 — Zmiinyi (Snake) Island area: The latest suspected Su-30SM loss.

Strategic шmplications

The possible downing of another Su-30SM underscores Ukraine’s ability to inflict attrition on Russia’s front-line combat aviation. With high unit costs and a shrinking pool of trained aircrews, each loss erodes Russia’s air combat capability — particularly in contested zones like the Black Sea.

Ukraine and Russia executed a major prisoner exchange today, each side returning 84 individuals. The exchange included Ukrainian soldiers, civilians, and Mariupol defenders, as well as Russian servicemen, and was facilitated by the United Arab Emirates.

The swap comes as the world turns its attention to a one-on‑one summit between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday, 15 August, at Joint Base Elmendorf‑Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Trump characterizes it as a “listening exercise”, aimed at exploring a ceasefire in Ukraine, though critics warn the meeting may sideline Ukraine and favor Russia.

Ukraine and Russia swapped 84 prisoners each in a UAE-brokered deal — releasing Mariupol defenders and civilians held since 2014.

The exchange, under the Istanbul framework, lands just 24 hours before Trump and Putin meet in Alaska to discuss a potential Ukraine ceasefire.… pic.twitter.com/KzKUwhHR3s

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 14, 2025

Captain Oleksandr Boychuk among freed

Among those released was Captain Oleksandr Boychuk, commander of Ukraine’s only minesweeper, Henichesk, who resisted Russian seizure of his ship during the 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Journalist and serviceman Bohdan Kutiepov hailed his release:

“Free! My friend, a defender of Mariupol, is finally home after years in captivity. Miracles happen!”

Boychuk had been missing since March 2022, last seen in a Russian “filtration camp” near Mariupol.

Civilians held for years among freed Ukrainians

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said many released civilians had been held since 2014, 2016, or 2017. Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets noted, “This return includes 51 civilians — political prisoners, men and women, some held for nearly a decade.” The youngest freed was 26, the oldest 74.

Mykola Fedorian released to enable swap

Ukraine handed Russia Mykola Fedorian, a Russian-appointed former deputy head of Crimea’s Interior Ministry. Convicted of treason in October 2024 and sentenced to 12 years in prison, he was released by a Kyiv court to allow the exchange.

Part of a series of recent swaps

This exchange is part of an ongoing series of prisoner swaps carried out under the framework agreed during the Istanbul talks earlier this year. In those negotiations, Ukraine and Russia committed to prioritizing specific humanitarian categories — such as severely wounded and gravely ill prisoners of war, young soldiers aged 18–25, and the return of thousands of bodies of fallen troops — over strict number matching.

Since then, multiple exchanges have been conducted, with mediators like the United Arab Emirates facilitating individual deals.

As the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska draws near, one demand threatens to overshadow diplomacy: Russia insists Ukraine withdraw entirely from Donbas as part of a ceasefire deal. At first glance, giving up this embattled region might seem a way to halt a war with no clear endpoint.

Yet the push for withdrawal raises a pressing question: can Ukraine truly afford to abandon Donbas? The stakes go beyond shifting lines on a map—it’s about the survival of Ukraine’s defenses, the fate of its heartland, and what kind of peace, if any, might follow.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been unequivocal:

“We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Donbas is a springboard for Russia’s future offensive… They want to take about 9,000 square kilometers—around 30% of Donetsk Oblast—and that will be a platform for new aggression.”

The term Donbas refers to two eastern Ukrainian regions: Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. As of mid-2025, Russia occupies nearly all of Luhansk—about 99%—and roughly 75% of Donetsk, leaving only a narrow stretch under Ukrainian control.

It is within this fractured and embattled landscape that Ukraine’s most critical defensive line—the fortress belt—has held firm.

The fortress belt: Ukraine’s eastern shield

The fortress belt stretches from Sloviansk through Kramatorsk to Druzhkivka and Kostyantynivka, a 50-kilometer chain of fortified towns and cities. It relies as much on geography as on engineering: Karachun Hill towers over the plain, rivers carve natural moats, and slag heaps, quarries, and railway embankments reinforce defensive positions.

Victor Taran, a Ukrainian Armed Forces officer and co-founder of the “KRUK” UAV training center, captures its essence:

“The paths into this agglomeration are mined, re-mined, and controlled with interlocking fire.”

Within these urban zones, streets are blocked by tank traps and trenches; anti-drone nets span chokepoints. Just behind the front line lie the arteries of resistance—supply depots, repair hubs, and medical evacuation routes—all seamlessly integrated into defense.

This fortress belt isn’t static—it’s a dynamic defense network, built over a decade. Recreating it farther west would mean starting from scratch, on flat, exposed steppe.

Why the fortress belt matters

According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russian forces have repeatedly failed to break through or encircle it. The belt’s cities aren’t mere strongpoints—they are the linchpin holding back the eastern advance. ISW notes that Russia’s demand for its surrender is a telling admission of its inability to take it by force alone.

If the belt falls: Why geography turns against Ukraine

Abandoning the fortress belt would push Ukraine’s front line 82 km west onto open fields—no hills, few settlements, no river buffers. This flat terrain is made for airpower and drones, not defense.

Again, Taran warns:

“Without the fortress belt, our troops would be in open fields. The Russians would kill them with bombs and missiles like in a shooting range.”

The rebuilding problem

To build a new defensive network farther west—in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, or Poltava oblasts—Ukraine would need months of engineering, vast resources, and unwavering Western support. And even then, the terrain offers no natural advantages like rivers, industrial strongpoints, or commanding elevations.

A front under intensifying pressure

Even without forced retreat, Ukrainian defenses are under growing strain. The situation in Donetsk Oblast worsens daily. Recently, Russian forces made their deepest breakthrough in more than a year near Pokrovsk, advancing 10–17 km into Ukrainian-held territory.

Though narrow, this salient threatens to sever supply routes feeding the fortress belt. If it widens, Ukrainian positions in Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka could face isolation and collapse—a risk that underscores how close the danger already is.

A launchpad for the next offensive

Without the fortress belt, Russia would gain a direct launchpad to strike deeper into Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, and Poltava. The terrain offers nothing to slow such an offensive—unless a strong, pre-prepared defense stands in the way.

The historical warning

In 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded its fortified Sudetenland to Nazi Germany, hoping for peace. Six months later, the entire country was occupied. History teaches us: surrendering fortified ground to an expansionist power rarely ends wars—it triggers the next.

What’s really at stake

Donbas is more than scarred land—it is the cradle of Ukraine’s eastern defense. Surrendering it isn’t neutral—it is giving up the very shield that has held since 2014.

The question remains: can Ukraine afford to abandon Donbas? Some may see it as a pathway to peace. But if peace means sacrificing its strongest defenses, it may be a peace paid for with its survival.

Russian troops have advanced roughly 10 kilometers north of Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast, seizing key villages and cutting the Dobropillia–Kramatorsk highway near Novovodiane, according to the Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState. The breakthrough threatens a major supply artery and risks a deeper advance that could split Ukraine’s defensive front in Donetsk.

DeepState reports the attack relied on sustained infantry pressure with superior numbers, allowing Russian units to capture Kucheriiv Yar and Zolotyi Kolodiaz. Both are now being used as staging grounds for further operations. From Kucheriiv Yar, Russian forces also infiltrated Vesele via treelines, with Ukrainian observers counting around two dozen enemy soldiers there in the past 24 hours.

One frontline defender, quoted by DeepState, summed up the risk bluntly:

“The worst part is that if they take these positions, we’ll never get them out.”

Moscow’s demands before peace talks

The advance comes just days before a planned Trump–Putin summit in Alaska on 15 August, where, according to Ukrainian and Western sources, Russia is expected to demand full control of Donetsk Oblast, including areas still under Ukrainian control.

Pokrovsk, the southernmost city in Ukraine’s heavily fortified “fortress belt”—which also includes Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka—has been under relentless Russian pressure for over a year. Its fall would threaten to unhinge the entire defensive line from the south.

While military analysts note that taking Sloviansk or Kramatorsk could require years of sustained fighting, bypassing or capturing Pokrovsk could allow Russia to envelop the belt from the west and render its strongest fortifications less relevant.

“This has been building for a long time”

Defense analyst Bohdan Myroshnykov rejects the notion that the offensive is merely timed for political leverage before the summit.

“I don’t believe the enemy threw everything into battle ahead of the Trump talks. This has been building for a long time,” he says.

He points out that Russian forces are approaching their peak operational capacity and have redeployed units from Sumy Oblast to reinforce the Pokrovsk–Dobropillia axis. This groundwork was laid months ago with the capture of Koptyeve and advances near Novoeconomichne—small settlements that drew little public attention but were crucial staging points for today’s breakthrough.

On Ukraine’s side, Myroshnykov cites disruption during the transfer of operational control from an operational-tactical group to corps-level command, creating “chaos in management.” Reinforcements have arrived, he says, but their full effect is still pending.

Matveev: A push to cut the front

Defense analyst Yan Matveev says the Russian advance began from Novotoretske, covering up to 10 kilometers in a single day to reach Kucheriiv Yar and Zolotyi Kolodiaz.

“The goal is to seize Dobropillia and possibly Bilozerske, cut Pokrovsk’s supply routes, and split the Donetsk front in its center,” he warns.

Matveev stresses that the situation in the center of the Donetsk front is becoming increasingly tense and difficult for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

“They still have a chance for counterattacks — the breakthrough is too narrow. But do they have the forces?”

Such a move could force Ukrainian forces in Pokrovsk to retreat to avoid encirclement, destabilizing defensive lines further north.

Mashovets: The 51st army at the fore

Military analyst Kostiantyn Mashovets identifies the 51st Combined Arms Army of Russia’s Central Grouping of Forces as the main strike formation here. It has been reinforced by the 39th Motor Rifle Brigade from the 68th Army Corps and elements of the 2nd and 8th Combined Arms Armies.

While the main push is toward Rodynske and Krasnyi Lyman, Russian commanders are also using small infiltration groups along the Novotoretske–Kucheriiv Yar line—a tactic they have refined through months of urban fighting.

Rodynske and Krasnyi Lyman remain in Ukrainian hands, but Russian forward units have already reached Novoe Shakhove and Biletske east of Dobropillia.

“If they continue north, they could undermine the defense not only of Dobropillia and Pokrovsk, but Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka as well,” Mashovets warns. “The corridor they’re using is still thin, but cutting it now would be ideal—if we have the forces.”

Multiple threat axes on Pokrovsk

Even as Russia drives toward Dobropillia, it is tightening pressure directly on Pokrovsk from several directions. From the northeast, Russian forces have taken Suvorove and are assaulting Rodynske. From the southwest, small assault teams are fixing Ukrainian defenders in place and probing city outskirts.

DeepState describes one infiltration attempt in detail: three Russian groups, each 50 soldiers strong, advanced over 10 days from Pishchane toward Zakhysnykiv Ukrainy Street in Pokrovsk. Supplied by drones with food, water, and communications equipment, they moved along pre-planned routes. Ukrainian drone strikes killed 120 of the 150 attackers before they reached their objectives. The survivors briefly occupied several buildings before being eliminated; a few remain unaccounted for.

Fortifications bypassed

Around Zolotyi Kolodiaz and Shakhove, Ukrainian engineers have built heavy fortifications—anti-tank ditches, earthworks, and reinforced positions (VOPs, ROPs). Instead of attacking them head-on, Russian forces have bypassed these defenses, leaving them intact and potentially usable if captured.

This is why the soldier quoted by DeepState warned that retaking such positions would be nearly impossible once occupied.

Drones in command of the battlefield

The opening phase of the offensive relied heavily on drones to establish fire control over Ukrainian supply lines. Now, with the Dobropillia–Kramatorsk highway under Russian control, drones are expected to play an even bigger role in disrupting resupply efforts and troop movements into the threatened area.

Strategic implications

The breach north of Pokrovsk is more than a local setback. Dobropillia’s fall would give Russia a platform to envelop Pokrovsk from the west or north, undermining Ukraine’s fortress belt from its southernmost point.

While Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are formidable objectives that could take years to capture, bypassing them through Pokrovsk and Dobropillia would neutralize much of their strategic value.

DeepState warns that without a timely counterattack, Dobropillia could fall before Pokrovsk, potentially forcing Ukraine into difficult decisions about holding ground versus preserving manpower.

A Ukrainian drone strike has forced the Saratov Oil Refinery—a major facility in southwestern Saratov Oblast owned by state-run Rosneft—to halt crude oil intake, Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter.

The 10 August attack triggered explosions and a fire on-site, abruptly halting operations at a plant capable of processing around 140,000 barrels of crude per day. Analysts warn that if the shutdown persists, Russia’s domestic gasoline supplies could face pressure just as seasonal demand climbs.

Escalation before high-stakes Alaska talks

The strike comes just five days before a planned 15 August summit in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The White House has said the meeting could expand into a trilateral peace negotiation if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attends, though Kyiv’s participation remains uncertain.

Despite the diplomatic push, fighting has intensified. Both sides are exchanging waves of drones and missiles, with Ukraine stepping up strikes deep inside Russian territory while Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities.

Part of a wider campaign against Russian energy infrastructure

The Saratov facility is the latest in a string of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries this month. On 2 August, strikes disabled the Ryazan and Novokuybyshevsk refineries. Five days later, Ukraine targeted the Afipsky refinery in the Krasnodar Krai, followed by a reported strike on a plant in Russia’s Komi Republic, some 2,000 kilometers from Ukraine.

The Saratov plant’s position along the Volga River makes it a strategic hub for both regional fuel distribution and exports—raising the stakes of its prolonged closure.

In the shadow of Europe’s largest war since World War II, few expected a small Western European nation to become one of Ukraine’s steady military partners. Yet Belgium has stepped up—pledging fighter jets, advanced air defense systems, ammunition, naval support, and a decade-long security pact.

Its influence is amplified by a unique role in Europe’s financial battlefield. Brussels-based Euroclear holds over €180 billion in frozen Russian assets—the largest cache in Europe. Taxes on the interest from these holdings fund much of the EU’s military aid to Ukraine, giving Belgium outsized leverage in sustaining Kyiv’s war effort.

The record, however, has gaps. As of mid-2025, Belgium’s pledge of 30 F-16s—the largest from any single country—remains undelivered. And while Brussels is central to the frozen-assets plan, it opposes full confiscation, limiting Ukraine’s access to the principal sum.

When President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Brussels in May 2024, he signed a landmark 10-year bilateral security agreement—the 11th such pact that year, launched after the G7’s 2023 Joint Declaration of Support. For Belgium, it was a promise that its backing would go beyond immediate aid, locking in a decade of military cooperation.

In collaboration with the Dnistrianskyi Center, Euromaidan Press presents this English-language adaptation of Dariia Cherniavska’s analysis on Belgium’s role in Ukraine’s defense, recovery, and pursuit of justice.

A quiet but strong hand

From the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Belgium’s contributions weren’t always front-page news. Unlike some larger NATO allies, its aid wasn’t accompanied by high-profile announcements or flashy military convoys. But behind the scenes, Belgium was delivering—and planning for the long haul.

That planning came into focus in May 2024, when Belgium and Ukraine formalized their cooperation under a 10-year security deal. The agreement wasn’t symbolic. It came with a promise: €977 million in military aid for 2024 alone, and a further €1 billion annually starting in 2025.

F-16 coalition: Record pledge, slow reality

One of Belgium’s most high-profile commitments is its role in the F-16 fighter jet coalition. Belgium has pledged 30 F-16s by 2028—more than any other single donor. These American-made aircraft symbolize Ukraine’s modernization and its fight to reclaim the skies.

Yet as of mid-2025, none have been delivered. Officially, the delay is due to Belgium’s own transition from F-16s to newer F-35s, creating bottlenecks in the transfer process.

To bridge the gap, Belgium has invested heavily in training. Since 2022, over 3,000 Ukrainian troops have been trained. In spring 2024, 50 flight instructors and two F-16B aircraft were sent to Denmark to prepare Ukrainian pilots, engineers, and mission planners. Meanwhile, Melsbroek airbase hosted intensive aircrew training—ensuring Ukraine’s defenders are ready the moment those jets arrive.

Air defense: Guarding the skies above Ukraine

Protecting Ukraine’s airspace is a matter of survival. Belgium has made air defense a cornerstone of its aid:

• €200 million in 2024 for Germany’s air defense initiative
• €150 million in 2025 via the German-led Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAAD) coalition
• Deliveries supported by Belgium’s A400M transport aircraft
• 20 modernized Cerberus systems announced in May 2025 to defend against drones and missiles

These systems are critical—but the scale of Russian missile and drone attacks means Ukraine’s needs outpace even the largest contributions. Every air defense battery or missile delivery helps, but the demand is unrelenting.

Naval support: Minehunter and maritime drones

Belgium’s support extends to the seas. In June 2025, it transferred the decommissioned minehunter Narcis—renamed Mariupol in honor of the city destroyed by Russian forces in 2022. Equipped with advanced unmanned underwater drones, the ship will help clear mines from the Black Sea and reopen vital trade routes.

Training has been central to this maritime support. In 2023, Belgium trained Ukrainian operators on 10 R7 underwater drones from ECA Robotics Belgium—later delivered for underwater inspection and maintenance. Training expanded in 2024 to various strike drones, and in 2025 to the Mariupol’s crew and air defense technicians.

Ammunition, armor, and battlefield logistics

When Ukraine’s frontlines started running dangerously low on ammunition, Belgium was one of the nations to step up. In 2024, it joined the Czech-led ammunition coalition, committing €200 million toward purchasing 50,000 artillery shells—each one a lifeline on the battlefield.

That same year, Belgium pledged three Caesar self-propelled howitzers, valued at €12 million, under the artillery coalition. Though delivery delays have been reported, the promise remains.

Belgium has also provided:

• Mistral air defense launchers
• AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for NASAMS
• Hundreds of Volvo military trucks
• M113 armored personnel carriers
• Lynx tactical armored vehicles

These contributions may lack the headline appeal of fighter jets, but they keep Ukraine’s forces operational under intense pressure.

Building Ukraine’s defense industry

Belgium’s assistance goes beyond delivering equipment to the front. In early 2024, the Ukrainian and Belgian defense ministries signed a Memorandum of Understanding, launching a collaborative effort to co-develop new defense technologies.

One of the first tangible results came from Belgian defense firm John Cockerill, which undertook the modernization of dozens of Bandvagn 206 all-terrain vehicles destined for Ukraine—building on its earlier work upgrading M113 armored personnel carriers before their transfer to the Ukrainian Army.

Belgium is also helping Ukraine expand its own defense manufacturing capacity. In partnership with Thales Belgium, work is underway to co-produce 70mm FZ275 LGR rockets, with a range of up to 3,000 meters. Designed for precision and rapid deployment, these rockets will strengthen Ukraine’s ability to intercept Russian drones and enhance short-range air defense.

Frozen Russian assets: Central role, clear limits

Belgium’s Euroclear holds the largest frozen Russian asset stockpile in Europe—over €180 billion. Since spring 2024, the EU has been transferring interest from these holdings to Ukraine, with the first €1.5 billion going toward air defense, ammunition, and defense industry projects.

By May 2025, Ukraine had received €6 billion via the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) program, with €35 billion planned for the year.

Belgium, however, opposes full confiscation of the assets, citing legal risks. Instead, it supports keeping them frozen indefinitely—even if some EU states refuse to renew sanctions—so that interest income continues to flow.

Reconstruction and recovery

Belgium’s role in Ukraine’s recovery goes hand in hand with its financial contributions from frozen Russian assets. Through the Belgian development agency Enabel, Ukraine will receive €150 million by 2028 for the comprehensive reconstruction of Chernihiv and Kyiv Oblasts. Funded from the profits of frozen Russian assets held in Belgian jurisdiction, this aid will rebuild schools, healthcare facilities, and energy infrastructure.

Separately, under the Chernobyl International Cooperation Account managed by the EBRR, Belgium contributed over €200,000 at the end of 2024 to restore equipment at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant damaged during Russia’s occupation.

A billion-euro blueprint for stability

In April 2025, the Belgian government unveiled a €1 billion military aid plan for Ukraine, to be renewed every year through 2029. It was one of the most ambitious announcements yet from a European country—and about two-thirds of that funding is being funneled through Belgian companies.

This dual-purpose strategy doesn’t just support Ukraine—it strengthens Belgium’s own defense industrial base, ensuring production remains efficient, scalable, and strategically aligned with EU and NATO goals.

Training, technology, and trust

Belgium’s training efforts go far beyond pilots. In 2023, it trained Ukrainian drone operators, including how to use 10 R7 underwater drones from ECA Robotics Belgium—systems later delivered as part of its military aid and used for inspection, surveillance, and maintenance of underwater infrastructure.

In 2025, that training expanded to include the minehunter crew, drone pilots, and technicians managing air defense systems.

Through the IT Coalition, Belgium has also invested heavily in Ukraine’s cyber and communications infrastructure, contributing to a €1.1 billion effort to modernize command centers, secure communications, and data infrastructure.

Why Belgium’s role matters

Belgium may not have the military scale of the US or economic might of Germany, but it offers something just as vital: reliability and long-term commitment. It is a partner that pairs battlefield support with industrial cooperation, reconstruction aid, and steady financial backing.

With 30 F-16s pledged, €1 billion per year committed, and a unique position at the heart of Europe’s frozen asset system, Belgium’s influence will remain significant as Ukraine’s fight continues.

Europe is “years away” from having the kit, personnel and supply chains to defend Ukraine, The Times warns, despite “bold talk” of protecting it. The paper says the continent “wholly lack[s] the means” to protect Kyiv’s territory, leaving it unable to credibly demand a role in the upcoming Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, which will take place with little or no European participation.

“Had Europe better invested in defense, it might be able to argue for some role in Alaska,” the editorial says. “The bald fact is that Europe is not credible.”

Europe lacks strength to shape or enforce peace

Even if Europe remains diplomatically united, The Times argues it “lacks the strength to back Kyiv in negotiating favourable terms… or enforcing a ceasefire.” Without sustained US backing, “its war effort will buckle.”

Reliance on US support

Instead of leading, Europe depends on American weapons, intelligence, and political will. US Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News that Americans are “sick” of paying for foreign wars and Washington is “done funding” Kyiv.

“If you care so much about this conflict,” he said, “you should be willing to play a more direct… substantial way in funding this war yourself”.

Coalition plan stalls

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s aim for a 64,000-strong “coalition of the willing” has faltered. The Times says “gathering a coalition of even 10,000 soldiers would be difficult… reaching 25,000 might be possible at a stretch.”

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has argued that 200,000 troops are needed to counter Russia’s 800,000-strong army. Lithuania’s defence minister Dovile Sakaliene warned: “If we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

“It is notable,” the paper writes, “that Poland… has declined to participate in any coalition.”

Spain and Italy have also refused; Finland fears deployments would “dilute” its own border defences; Estonia may send only a company-sized unit. The Kremlin has warned that any Western troops could “trigger a new world war.”

Aid totals mask dependence

In June, The Times reports, Europe overtook the US as Ukraine’s biggest donor of military aid — about €72 billion (roughly $78 billion) compared with the US’s $65 billion (around €60 billion). But “much of Europe’s aid finances the purchase of US-made weapons,” underscoring its dependence.

Zelenskyy has said “less than 30%” of Ukraine’s arms come from Europe, with “about 40%” from the US and a third produced domestically.

The EU’s €800 billion Readiness 2030 plan to modernise forces is, according to The Times, “too late for playing a credible role in the future of Ukraine.”

Urgent editorial warning

In its editorial, The Times accuses Starmer of focusing “too much on words instead of investment plans” and calls for urgent increases in defence spending. Quoting Stalin’s remark about the Vatican’s lack of “divisions,” it warns that Putin may look towards Europe and “raise the same smug question”:

“The best day to invest in defense was yesterday, the second best is today.”

Russian forces struck the major Ukrainian industrial city of Zaporizhzhia on Sunday evening, hitting its Central Bus Station and a medical university clinic with guided aerial bombs (KABs). The attack injured 20 people and damaged multiple buildings, according to local authorities.

The strikes occurred just days before a high-stakes meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on 15 August. The summit—expected to address the war in Ukraine—has prompted warnings from Kyiv and European leaders that no peace deal should be negotiated without Ukraine’s direct participation.

Two targets, significant damage

Zaporizhzhia Regional Military Administration head Ivan Fedorov said one KAB hit the Central Bus Station and another exploded near the Zaporizhzhia Medical University clinic. Both locations sustained structural damage. Initial reports suggest no one inside the clinic was hurt.

Russian forces hit Zaporizhzhia’s bus station & a medical clinic with 2 guided bombs, injuring 20.

Strike comes 5 days before the Trump–Putin summit.

Security video captures a glide bomb striking the station.

Video: Ivan Fedorov pic.twitter.com/iJSl2ssfhx

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 10, 2025

Casualties and emergency response

Authorities confirmed 20 civilians were injured, suffering multiple blast wounds to limbs, heads, and abdominal areas. Rescue workers, medics, and police are on the scene.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the strikes as part of Russia’s ongoing war of destruction:

“Across the entire front line and in our border cities, Russia continues to take lives. They are not seeking peace — they are seeking a way to kill Ukraine. If Russia does not want to stop the war, then its economy must be stopped.”

He called for stronger sanctions and greater international pressure, particularly from the United States and Europe.

Ongoing regional escalation

A day earlier, on 9 August, Russian shelling in Zaporizhzhia Oblast killed three people and wounded another, police said. Over the past 24 hours, Russian forces have attacked 15 settlements, launching nearly 500 strikes with aircraft, artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), and drones.

The United States will no longer finance the war in Ukraine and is determined to push for its swift conclusion, Vice President JD Vance said in a Fox News interview on Sunday.

Just days before a highly anticipated summit scheduled for 15 August in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Washington is working to explore a ceasefire and potential peace agreement. Trump has openly suggested the discussions may involve “some swapping of territory” — a proposal firmly rejected by Ukraine and its European allies.

“If Europeans want to take the lead and buy weapons from American manufacturers, we’re fine with that — but we won’t be funding it ourselves anymore,” Vance said.

Push for negotiations

Vance confirmed the US is working to coordinate talks between Trump, Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, though he said a Putin–Zelenskyy meeting before the Trump–Putin summit would likely be unproductive.

“Of course, we condemn the invasion and dislike the current situation, but peace must be achieved — and the only way to do that is to sit down and talk,” he said.

He added that while Trump is skeptical about the chances of success, the President believes talks should be given a chance.

Based on current front lines

Vance emphasized that Washington seeks a settlement based on the existing line of contact, noting that “both sides will likely be unhappy” — a sign, he said, of a real compromise.

Trump has claimed Russia and Ukraine are close to a ceasefire that could end the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict, potentially requiring Ukraine to cede significant territory. Discussions on a possible territorial exchange are expected to continue in the coming days.

Zelenskyy, however, insists Ukraine cannot violate its constitution on territorial matters and that “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupiers.”

China sanctions under consideration

Vance also said Trump is considering sanctions against China for importing Russian oil but has not yet made a final decision.

A White House official confirmed that Trump is open to a three-way summit with Putin and Zelenskyy but is currently preparing for the bilateral meeting requested by Putin.

A drone attack struck the Komi Republic, located about 2,000 km from Ukraine’s border, marking the first such incident since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. An air raid alert was declared in Ukhta, local officials confirmed.

The strike unfolded just days before a highly anticipated summit scheduled for 15 August in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, intended to explore a ceasefire and potential peace agreement. Trump has openly suggested the discussions may involve “some swapping of territory,” a proposal strongly rejected by Ukraine and its European allies.

Oil refinery targeted

Telegram channels and eyewitnesses said the Lukoil-Ukhtaneftepererabotka oil refinery was the target. Residents reported loud explosions, followed by the arrival of fire trucks, ambulances, and other emergency crews. One drone reportedly crashed near the plant, but no fires or hazardous emissions were recorded.

Ukraine hits Komi for the first time — 2,000 km from the front.

Drones struck the Lukoil refinery in Ukhta, damaging fuel tanks & a gas unit supplying Russian forces.

Analyst Yan Matveev notes the UAV had long wings, glider-like, clearly built for range. pic.twitter.com/5jdx6NNUUe

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 10, 2025

Evacuations and service disruptions

The Syktyvkar No. 12 channel reported evacuations at the Yarmarka shopping mall and the nearby refinery. Residents in Ukhta and Syktyvkar experienced mobile internet outages, and flights at Ukhta airport were temporarily restricted, according to Rosaviatsiya. Acting Komi head Rostislav Goldstein said no one was injured.

Ukrainian intelligence claims responsibility

RBC-Ukraine, citing sources at Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), reported the attack was part of a special operation against a facility supplying fuel and lubricants to Russian forces. Ukrainian sources said drones hit a fuel storage tank, causing a spill, and damaged a gas-condensate processing unit used for producing propane-butane and gasoline.

Part of a broader strike pattern

Recent days have seen multiple drone attacks deep inside Russia:

• Krasnodar Krai (Afipsky Refinery) – Damaged in a Ukrainian drone strike confirmed on 8 August, targeting a gas-condensate processing unit.
• Saratov Oblast – Explosions and fire at an oil refinery overnight 10 August.

Komi, until now untouched by the war, has become the latest target in a widening campaign of long-range strikes.

US President Donald Trump is currently speaking by phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, multiple sources report. The call comes at a critical moment in ongoing US diplomatic efforts related to the war in Ukraine.

The call follows a meeting in Moscow between Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. This marked Witkoff’s fifth meeting with Putin at the Kremlin. According to the Kremlin, the discussion was “very useful and constructive.”

Trump had earlier issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin, warning that if progress toward peace was not made, the US would impose devastating new sanctions on Russia by 8 August. This adds weight to both the Moscow talks and today’s Trump–Zelenskyy conversation.

Witkoff is now returning to Washington, D.C.

Sanctions decision may depend on ongoing talks

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that new statements may be made soon regarding possible sanctions against Russia. He confirmed speaking with Witkoff following the envoy’s return from Moscow.

“We’ll have more to say about that later on today,” Rubio told reporters. “It could be positive news — or not,” he added.

Rubio’s remarks signal that decisions on sanctions may depend on the outcomes of the Trump-Zelenskyy call and Witkoff’s diplomatic efforts.

Trump to deliver oval office statement

According to White House correspondent Reena Bhardwaj, President Trump is scheduled to deliver remarks from the Oval Office at 4:30 p.m. local time on 6 August. The statement will follow Witkoff’s return from Moscow and is expected to address the outcome of his meeting with Putin.

The timing of the address—just two days before Trump’s 8 August ceasefire ultimatum—highlights the significance of the moment. The content of the statement has not yet been disclosed.

The first shipments of US-manufactured weapons and ammunition to Ukraine under NATO’s Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) will arrive in the coming weeks, a NATO official told European Pravda on condition of anonymity.

Launched by NATO and the United States, PURL is a new funding mechanism that allows Alliance members to finance US weapons for Ukraine. The initiative is seen as a major evolution in how Western military assistance is structured.

First packages funded by the Netherlands, Nordics

The first two PURL assistance packages were financed by:

• The Netherlands ($500 million, including Patriot missile components) – announced 4 August
• Denmark, Finland, and Sweden (jointly contributing approximately $500 million) – announced 5 August

“New aid packages are being prepared quickly and on a regular basis,” the NATO official said. “We expect the first deliveries within weeks.”

More countries expected to join

According to NATO, more countries are set to join PURL soon. At a recent meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — the Ramstein-format coalition of over 50 countries — seven states expressed interest in funding US weapon purchases for Ukraine. Among them: Canada, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and several Nordic nations.

Delivery speed and artillery supply are key concerns

One of Ukraine’s most urgent challenges is how quickly weapons can be delivered. European nations are expected to send 2 million 155mm artillery shells this year.

With Western-backed domestic production ramping up inside Ukraine, this could partially compensate for declining US munitions exports.

Patriot missiles remain critical

However, air defense is a different story. Ukraine still urgently needs US-made Patriot surface-to-air missiles, which have no fast European substitute.

France and Italy have delivered SAMP/T systems, but deployment and production are slower — and questions remain about their effectiveness compared to Patriot.

Germany has pledged two more Patriot systems, but it’s unclear where additional units will come from. Other European operators of Patriots are hesitant to reduce their own air defenses.

Europe steps in as US role pauses under Trump

The PURL model emerges as the Biden-era military packages continue, but the Trump administration has not announced new aid commitments.

In July, President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte unveiled the PURL framework at a Washington meeting. While not a replacement for US government aid, it keeps American weapons flowing to Ukraine via European funding.

European countries have begun increasing their own defense production, but many are turning to US manufacturers like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to fill urgent gaps, particularly for Patriot systems and munitions.

Long-term viability of PURL in question

A central question remains: Can PURL sustain Ukraine over the long term?

At the NATO summit in The Hague, member states committed to spending 5% of their GDP on defense by 2034. Much of that increased funding is expected to cover weapons bound for Ukraine, placing long-term strategic and financial responsibility squarely on European shoulders.

Looking ahead: More clarity this fall

The next Ramstein meeting this fall may provide clarity on the scale and timeline of future deliveries. There is even consideration of holding the meeting in Ukraine — a symbolic move that would underscore NATO’s long-term support.

Meanwhile, NATO will assess costs based on Ukraine’s detailed “wish list,” which focuses heavily on air defense systems and ammunition.

The current distance between Russian flanks around Pokrovsk has shrunk to less than 15 kilometers, military expert and former Security Service officer Ivan Stupak says.

Ukrainian forces have defended the strategic city in Donetsk Oblast for over a year. But with nearby Dobropillia now under threat, Russian troops may soon complete the encirclement. Capturing Pokrovsk would represent a major advance toward full Russian control of Donetsk, one of Moscow’s key objectives in the war.

“Their objective is clear — to capture Pokrovsk through encirclement, not through costly urban warfare. They’re trying to create a ‘cauldron,’” Stupak told Radio NV.

He noted that Russian advances began as early as August 2024, with an assault expected by September. Yet only now, a year later, has Russia come close to surrounding the city.

Critical decision looms for Ukrainian forces

Stupak warned that if the gap between Russian positions closes further—from 15 km to under 10 kilometers—Ukrainian forces may be compelled to withdraw from Pokrovsk to prevent a catastrophic loss.

“We saw this before in Vuhledar. It could’ve been held longer, but once surrounded on three sides, our troops had to retreat urgently—sometimes abandoning equipment.

During that retreat, Russian shelling from both flanks caused heavy losses. We must avoid repeating that mistake in Pokrovsk.”

Humanitarian access severed

Donetsk Regional Governor Vadym Filashkin confirmed that entry into Pokrovsk is now nearly impossible due to continuous Russian shelling.

“Only 1,370 residents remain in the city. We can only access it with military escorts, and we rely on our defenders to help evacuate civilians,” he said in a national broadcast, as reported by RBC-Ukraine.

Filashkin added that no humanitarian or medical aid can be delivered. Despite the risks, municipal workers and police continue to operate inside the city to assist with evacuations.

A similar situation is unfolding in Kostiantynivka, where 8,261 residents remain under daily shelling.

According to Pokrovsk News, 1,342 people still reside in Pokrovsk, and 470 in nearby Rodynske. With evacuation routes blocked and humanitarian access cut, many civilians are fleeing on foot toward safer areas.

Ukraine denies full encirclement claims

In late July, Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi confirmed that a Russian sabotage group had briefly infiltrated Pokrovsk but was quickly repelled by Ukrainian forces.

The Ukrainian General Staff rejected claims of full encirclement, stating that troops still control defensive lines around the Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad urban zone and that measures have been taken to reinforce the sector.

Russian focus shifts to Rodynske

According to DeepState analysts, Russian forces are now concentrating efforts on Rodynske, a town positioned behind Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk. Capturing Rodynske would open a new axis of attack, potentially accelerating the encirclement.

Thanks to your incredible support, we’ve raised 70% of our funding goal to launch a platform connecting Ukraine’s defense tech with the world – David vs. Goliath defense blog. It will support Ukrainian engineers who are creating innovative battlefield solutions and we are inviting you to join us on the journey.

Our platform will showcase the Ukrainian defense tech underdogs who are Ukraine’s hope to win in the war against Russia, giving them the much-needed visibility to connect them with crucial expertise, funding, and international support.

We’re one final push away from making this platform a reality.

Join us in building this platform on Patreon

In a notable editorial convergence, The Telegraph has published two pieces suggesting a striking possibility: India may hold the key to ending the war in Ukraine.

As peace negotiations remain stalled, US President Donald Trump is pursuing a new strategy — one that aims to cut off Russia’s oil income, the financial lifeline that allows Moscow to continue its military campaign. The logic is simple but consequential: as long as countries keep buying Russian oil, Russia can keep funding its war. And two of the biggest buyers are India and China.

One Telegraph report, by Senior Foreign Correspondent Adrian Blomfield and Data Journalist Meike Eijsberg, details Trump’s sharp pivot. After months of shielding Putin from serious consequences, the president is now threatening 100% tariffs on nations that continue to purchase Russian oil — a move aimed squarely at throttling Russia’s war economy.

Yet despite China being Russia’s top energy customer, Trump has refrained from criticizing Beijing. Instead, he has singled out India, the second-largest buyer.

“They’re fuelling the war machine, and if they’re going to do that, then I’m not happy,” Trump told CNBC, vowing further penalties for Delhi’s oil purchases.

According to the Global Trade Research Initiative, India’s Russian oil imports surged from near-zero pre-war to 2.15 million barrels per day by mid-2023, now making up around 45% of its total supply. That translated to $51 billion in revenues for Russia last year alone.

Telegraph column: India may be forced to reassess old alliances

In a separate opinion column, Colonel Tim Collins, former British Army officer, builds on this geopolitical moment. He argues that India’s decades-old strategic relationship with Russia — forged during the Cold War — is coming under pressure from new realities, particularly China’s growing regional dominance.

“India sees itself increasingly surrounded by potential enemies,” Collins writes, citing China’s rising influence in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, including military cooperation and infrastructure encroachment.

India’s military, still heavily reliant on Russian-made equipment, has been tested — most recently in the brief “100-hour war” with Pakistan. According to Collins, that conflict exposed drone capability gaps and other vulnerabilities, many linked to Chinese support for Pakistan.

These military setbacks have pushed India to diversify its defense partnerships, turning to US, French, and Israeli suppliers while accelerating domestic arms production. Yet its longstanding relationship with Russia has made any meaningful cooperation with Ukraine politically off-limits.

The strategic dilemma: Russia’s oil or Western security?

Taken together, The Telegraph’s reporting outlines a core question: Can India keep buying Russian oil while preparing for a future aligned with Western powers?

India’s balancing act is becoming harder. As a member of The Quad (with the US, Japan, and Australia), India is seen as a critical counterweight to China. Yet its energy dependence on Russia has, in Trump’s view, become a liability to the West — and a lifeline to Putin.

“If energy goes down enough, Putin is going to stop killing people,” Trump said last week. “If you get energy down another $10 a barrel, he’s going to have no choice.”

Despite this, Trump has avoided confronting China, which buys even more Russian oil — about 47% of Moscow’s exports. Instead, The Telegraph suggests India has become the central target of Trump’s pressure campaign — and potentially a decisive lever in ending the war.

Pragmatism vs. principle: Which way will Modi lean?

According to both reports, the direction of travel may ultimately depend on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s calculation — between old loyalties to Moscow and new strategic needs.

“Perhaps a Trump charm offensive may be more decisive in the short term as opposed to any form of coercion or strong words,” Collins writes.

At stake is not just the global oil market or India’s own security posture, but possibly the trajectory of the war in Ukraine itself.

As The Telegraph implicitly argues, if India cuts or significantly reduces Russian oil imports — whether due to US pressure, regional insecurity, or long-term strategic shifts — the financial strain on the Kremlin could force a change in Putin’s calculus.

Russian state media confirmed that a meeting between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Vladimir Putin is currently underway at the Kremlin, just 48 hours before the expiration of Donald Trump’s ceasefire ultimatum.

Witkoff arrived in Moscow early Wednesday and was later seen walking through Zaryadye Park with Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s investment envoy. This marks Witkoff’s fifth visit to Moscow this year and fourth known face-to-face meeting with Putin.

Witkoff has emerged as Trump’s most visible backchannel to the Kremlin, with more face time with Putin this year than any other known American official.

Steve Witkoff — the American who’s met with Putin more than anyone this year — is back in Moscow for round 5.

Will Russia offer anything to avoid sanctions?

Trump’s ceasefire deadline: Friday, 8 August. pic.twitter.com/9FyHy4mFXv

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 6, 2025

Trump’s warning: Ceasefire or sanctions

President Trump has issued a 10-day deadline demanding that Russia agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine—or face sweeping sanctions. Originally a 50-day window, Trump cut the deadline in half during a recent visit to Scotland.

“We have a meeting with Russia tomorrow. Let’s see what happens,” Trump told CNBC on Tuesday night. “We’ll make that determination at that time.”

According to The Telegraph, Trump is also considering tariffs up to 100% on countries buying Russian energy—specifically India and China—to target those “fueling Russia’s war machine.”

“I never said a percentage,” Trump said, “but we’ll be doing quite a bit of that.”

Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly said:

“The President has made it clear: if Putin refuses to end the war, there will be severe sanctions. We won’t get ahead of the President by discussing details.”

Moscow floats “air truce” as concession

According to reporting by Bloomberg and The Telegraph, Putin may propose a limited ceasefire focused on halting missile and drone strikes—an “air truce”—as a gesture toward de-escalation. The offer would depend on Ukrainian agreement and fall short of a full ceasefire.

“Russian officials believe Mr Witkoff’s appearance in the Russian capital will provide Putin with an opportunity to restart talks with the US and head off threats of sanctions,” reported The Telegraph.

The idea was reportedly discussed during a meeting between Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko last Friday. Lukashenko later told reporters:

“As for an air ceasefire. I say, yes, Russia is interested in this, President Putin, but you don’t want it,” referring to US envoy Gen. Keith Kellogg. “Tell Zelenskyy to go along with it.”

Zelenskyy welcomes pressure, warns of Russian stalling

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly welcomed the threat of new US sanctions, saying Russia would only pursue peace when it “begins to run out of money.”

“Their economy continues to decline, and that’s exactly why Moscow is so sensitive to this prospect and President Trump’s resolve,” Zelenskyy said on his recent call with the US President.

The Ukrainian leader also confirmed a “productive” call with Trump this week. They discussed defense cooperation and a new European arms deal, where countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark pledged over $1 billion to fund air defenses and ammunition for Kyiv.

Russia keeps attacking: Energy infrastructure hit overnight

While peace is discussed in Moscow, Russia continues large-scale attacks on Ukraine. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy said a gas facility in Odesa Oblast had been struck by Russian missiles overnight, targeting the village of Novosilske near the Romanian border.

“This was a deliberate blow to our preparations for the heating season—absolutely cynical,” he wrote on Telegram. “Like every Russian blow to the energy sector.”

The area houses the Orlovka interconnector, a key gas transit point from the Transbalkan pipeline, used to import gas into Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Kyiv City Military Administration confirmed the death toll from last week’s missile strike had risen to 32—the deadliest attack on the capital since the war began.

Why this meeting matters

This fifth Putin–Witkoff meeting is seen as the final diplomatic window before Trump enacts potentially devastating measures.

“If Witkoff returns empty-handed, Trump will be furious,” a Financial Times source said.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov commented briefly:

“We consider such meetings to be very important, but we don’t comment on them in advance.”

Behind the scenes, Reuters reports that Putin remains doubtful fresh US sanctions would do serious damage, given the existing restrictions already in place. While he’s said to recognize the potential for improving ties with Washington, his military priorities continue to take precedence.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has officially appointed Lieutenant General Anatoliy Kryvonozhko as the new Commander of the Ukrainian Air Forces.

The appointment comes as peace talks with Russia remain stalled and missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities intensify. Hundreds of strikes in recent weeks have overwhelmed air defenses, damaged infrastructure and killed civilians, putting the Air Forces at the center of Ukraine’s defense strategy.

A year as acting commander

Kryvonozhko has been acting commander since 30 August 2024, following the dismissal of Mykola Oleschuk.

Zelenskyy removed Oleschuk a day after the Air Forces reported that on 26 August 2024, during a massive Russian attack, Ukrainian pilot Oleksii “Moonfish” Mes was killed—the first time Ukraine lost an F-16 fighter jet. As of August 2025, open sources report that four F-16s have been lost: three pilots killed and one who managed to eject.

In January 2025, after controversy over reassignment of Air Force specialists to infantry units, Zelenskyy instructed Kryvonozhko to ensure that the Air Forces retained all essential personnel.

His official confirmation was announced on Air Forces Day, a symbolic gesture intended to recognize the importance of those defending Ukraine’s skies.

Zelensky’s call for stronger air defense

Announcing the appointment, Zelenskyy emphasized closer coordination between all branches of Ukraine’s defense:

“It’s crucial that Ukrainian combat aviation and air defense develop in a coordinated way with the military, partners and experts who want strength and victory for Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said.

Who is Anatoliy Kryvonozhko?

• Commanded “Center” Air Command since 2015
• Hero of Ukraine: Awarded the Golden Star by Zelenskyy after Russia’s full-scale invasion
• Proven record: Oversaw the downing of hundreds of Russian missiles and drones

His experience managing air defenses during some of the heaviest Russian strikes of the war has made him a key figure in Ukraine’s military leadership.

Why this appointment matters

With Russian airstrikes intensifying and diplomatic negotiations stalled, the confirmation of a permanent Air Forces commander strengthens Ukraine’s ability to respond. The Air Forces will continue to play a decisive role in protecting civilian infrastructure and countering missile and drone attacks as the war enters another challenging phase.

Kyiv woke up to horror on 31 July after a night of massive Russian drone and missile strikes. In one of the war’s most dramatic and heartbreaking stories, 23‑year‑old Veronika miraculously survived being blown out of her ninth‑floor apartment when a Russian Iskander missile struck a residential building in the Sviatoshyn district. Sixteen people have been confirmed dead so far, and rescue operations continue.

After more than three years of war, as peace talks remain stalled, Russia is intensifying attacks on civilians. Ukrainian cities are increasingly vulnerable despite extensive air defense efforts – a reality Kyiv experienced again during this latest overnight assault.

Thrown from the 9th Floor – and survived

As rescue teams combed through the rubble, the story of Veronika stunned even experienced emergency workers.

“I heard an explosion, and a second later I was on the ground,” she told Ukrainian TV channel 1+1.

The blast was so strong it hurled her – still in bed – straight out of her ninth-floor window. She landed outside the building with a broken leg, a concussion, and severe shock. Doctors described her survival as “nothing short of a miracle.”

Hospital director Serhiy Dubrov told Reuters:

“It’s extraordinary. Falling from the ninth floor and sustaining only relatively minor injuries… But she is in deep psychological distress and does not yet know the fate of her parents.”

Her parents were later confirmed dead, their bodies recovered from the debris.

Night of terror in Kyiv

While Veronika’s survival is extraordinary, the wider destruction across Kyiv is overwhelming.

The missile that destroyed her building was part of a massive overnight Russian attack. One Iskander missile evaded air defenses and hit the high‑rise in Sviatoshyn, collapsing an entire section.

• At least 16 people are confirmed dead, including two children.
• More than 130 are injured, 14 of them children.

Mayor Vitali Klitschko said it was “the highest number of injured children in one night in Kyiv since the start of the full‑scale war.”

Reuters and ABC News published the moment of Russian strikes on Kyiv overnight on 31 July

As a result of the attack, 16 people were killed and 155 were injured, including 16 kids. Rescue operations in Kyiv are still ongoing

ABC pic.twitter.com/4KGmJpujvd

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) July 31, 2025

Day of mourning

1 August has been declared a day of mourning in Kyiv. Flags will be lowered, and memorial events will be held.

But as many Ukrainians quietly admit, in a country under everyday bombing, every day is a day of mourning.

Ongoing rescues

Rescuers worked through the morning, often tunneling through concrete to reach survivors. A man trapped between floors was freed after three hours, and several others were pulled out alive.

A five-month-old baby was also wounded. “The Russians hit her directly,” said Tymur Tkachenko of the Kyiv City Military Administration.

Victims and damage

Among the dead are:

• 6-year-old karate student Matvii Marchenko
• Senior police lieutenant Liliya Stepanchuk

The strike damaged more than 100 sites across Kyiv, including schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and a mosque. Other districts reported burning cars, shattered windows, and collapsed buildings.

Scale of the Attack

According to Ukraine’s Air Force:

• Russia launched 309 Shahed drones and 8 cruise missiles overnight.
• 288 drones and 3 missiles were intercepted.
• Five missiles hit their targets, including the deadly strike in Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote:

“Missile strike. Direct hit on a residential building. People are under the rubble.”

A glimmer of hope

As rescue teams continue to clear debris, Veronika’s miraculous survival has become a symbol of resilience amid devastation.

From the ninth floor to the ground – she lived. But Kyiv, once again, pays a terrible price.

Ukraine’s Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, voted to restore the independence of its main anti-corruption bodies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — by passing presidential draft law No. 13533.

The bill passed with 331 votes and was immediately signed in the chamber by Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

For a week leading up to the vote, thousands of Ukrainians across Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro and Odesa took to the streets — demanding the reversal of controversial changes even under martial law restrictions on public gatherings. It became the largest wave of protests since Russia’s full‑scale invasion.

Although the effectiveness of these anti-corruption bodies has often been questioned, the earlier law that weakened them was widely condemned at home and abroad as authoritarian and unacceptable, concentrating power in the President’s Office and threatening Ukraine’s reform commitments.

“This is a guarantee of the proper independent functioning of our state’s anti-corruption bodies and all law enforcement agencies. This is the right decision,” Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram.

Mass protests force a U-turn

The debate in the chamber was heated, with shouting, accusations, and visible anger.

MPs insisted that the Speaker and President sign the new law immediately, without delay, to quickly cancel the controversial changes adopted a week earlier.

Outside Parliament, in Mariinskyi Park, protesters gathered to listen to the live broadcast of the vote. When the result was announced, they cheered and shouted: “Power belongs to the people!”

Despite martial law restrictions on public gatherings, police did not disperse the rallies that took place in several Ukrainian cities, and the authorities seemed unprepared for such large‑scale resistance to the new law.

For the first time since the start of Russia’s full‑scale invasion, the session of the Verkhovna Rada was broadcast live on the Rada TV channel — a move widely seen as a concession to public pressure and a demand for transparency.

International pressure grows

After the vote, European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier confirmed that the EU has no plans to freeze financial aid for Ukraine.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos welcomed the move but noted on X:

“Today’s law restores key safeguards, but challenges remain. The EU supports the Ukrainian citizens’ demands for reform.”

Brussels emphasized that Ukraine must continue to strengthen reforms as part of its EU accession process.

What triggered the crisis

In July, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested a NABU detective on charges of spying for Russia, alleging that classified information had been passed to Russian intelligence. Critics said these arrests were used as a pretext to attack and weaken independent anti-corruption agencies.

Anti‑corruption activists further accused President Zelenskyy of retaliating against NABU and SAPO because they had investigated figures close to him, including former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov and businessman Timur Mindich, a long‑time associate and former partner in Zelenskyy’s media company Kvartal 95.

Soon after, on 22 July, Parliament passed law No. 12414, originally about missing persons. At the last minute, MPs added amendments that made NABU and SAPO dependent on the Prosecutor General, granting that office the power to seize cases, close investigations, and weaken the agencies’ independence.

The move provoked protests and drew sharp criticism from the US and EU. Despite the backlash, Zelenskyy signed the law the same day.

Reversal under pressure

A week later, under public pressure, threats to cut foreign funding, and continuing protests, Zelenskyy introduced draft law No. 13533, restoring NABU and SAPO’s full powers.

The bill was fast-tracked and adopted in full on 31 July.

Harsh words in Parliament

Before the vote, former Speaker Dmytro Razumkov criticized his colleagues:

“Aren’t you tired of eating excrement in this chamber and feeding it to people??!”

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze of the opposition party European Solidarity said Parliament is “run like a collective farm from the President’s Office.”

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of Batkivshchyna, opposed the bill and claimed Ukraine is under “external control.” Meanwhile, Dmytro Kostiuk, a member of the presidential party Servant of the People, announced he was leaving the faction because of the previous controversial vote.

Other members of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party admitted mistakes and even held up protest-style posters inside the chamber.

The episode also highlighted the growing centralization of power in the President’s Office in Kyiv. With elections suspended due to the war with Russia, Parliament is widely seen as following instructions from the presidential administration rather than acting as an independent branch of government.

What the new law changes

The new law cancels the 22 July amendments and returns NABU and SAPO to full independence.
It adds one condition: NABU staff with access to state secrets must pass a polygraph, carried out by NABU’s own internal control unit rather than the SBU.

According to NABU, more than 200 such tests were already conducted in 2024. NABU and SAPO said they took part in drafting the new law, are satisfied with its provisions, and strongly supported its swift adoption.

Criticism of NABU and SAPO

Ukraine’s anti‑corruption system includes NABU, SAPO, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and the High Anti‑Corruption Court (HACC).

Despite significant funding and Western support, their effectiveness remains debated. Critics point out that these bodies are costly, operate in a grey constitutional area, lack independent audits, and have brought few senior officials to justice in almost ten years.

Supporters argue that these problems cannot be solved by a single, quickly adopted law, but require long‑term reforms, stronger oversight and real political independence.

The creation of these institutions was one of the EU’s key conditions for granting Ukraine a visa‑free regime and a requirement for Western financial aid. Western partners helped launch and fund them after concluding that Ukraine’s “old” police and prosecution services had failed to eradicate top‑level corruption.

Ukraine turned wartime desperation into rapid defense innovation, fielding drones and autonomous systems at unprecedented speed. But the West isn’t learning fast enough, warns American investor Deborah Fairlamb, who co-founded Green Flag Ventures in Kyiv during the war.

Lacking long-range missiles and jets, Ukraine improvised an industry that rapidly designs, builds and fields everything from FPV drones to sea drones—closing capability gaps Russia once held.

“The lessons of success are being lost on or ignored by the US and NATO allies,” Fairlamb told The War Zone.

Battlefield innovation at breakneck speed

Fairlamb described how Ukraine’s defense ecosystem has evolved from almost nothing in 2022 to a network of small workshops and startups producing vast numbers of drones.

“The speed of iteration of everything is just extraordinary,” she said. “The Ukrainians have really had this incredible focus on homegrown drones… It’s navigation systems. It’s resistance to electronic warfare. It’s the ability to fly in GPS-denied environments.”

Unlike Western programs, these systems are created alongside soldiers at the front: build, test; build, test; build, test. By the time the Ministry of Defense sees them, they are already combat-proven. Procurement that once took years now takes three to four months.

What Ukraine does differently

Fairlamb pointed to four battlefield-proven practices that Western defense establishments are ignoring:

• Rapid adaptation – systems change monthly, not yearly
• Decentralized production – thousands of small shops making parts
• Mass, low-cost systems – FPV drones cost $500–$1,000 instead of $100,000+
• Empowering units – frontline units buy directly from vetted suppliers

A model the West isn’t following

Fairlamb believes this speed is something the United States and NATO need to copy – and soon.

“The speed at which things are happening is just completely and utterly incompatible with the processes that exist in most Western systems,” she warned. “This is how Russia and China are going to fight. It is going to be just vast numbers of relatively low-price-point things that are extremely destructive.”

Instead, she sees allies trapped in slow cycles, expensive platforms, and outdated assumptions about war.

Copying without learning

Fairlamb also described a more troubling pattern from early in the war: Western companies arriving in Ukraine under the pretext of partnership, only to walk away and later release similar technology of their own.

“There have been instances… yes, there are Western companies that have come to Ukraine under the guise of: ‘hey, we would like to invest. We would like to partner. Can we spend a couple of days with you, learning what you’re doing?’ … And then they would essentially disappear. And six months later, they would come out with something that was very, very similar to what they wanted to partner with a company about,” Fairlamb said.

She said she personally knows of at least four examples.

Low cost, high impact

The tools Ukraine has built are cheap and expendable. Most FPV drones cost between $500 and $1,000; larger fixed-wings cost a few thousand dollars. These drones are printed, assembled, modified and sent out in weeks, with new versions appearing on the front every month.

Fairlamb contrasted that with Western military systems, where a single drone might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and require years to reach the field. That, she said, will not work against adversaries who are willing to mass-produce millions of small, smart, disposable machines.

A final warning

“The speed at which this technology is evolving, and that the US, Europe and NATO are all really slow,” she said. “There are a lot of very scary scenarios that are out there that I am not seeing a lot of response to yet.”

For Ukraine, drones have become the answer to weapons it does not have. For the West, Fairlamb’s warning is clear: pay attention, or risk falling behind in a kind of war that is already here.

Portugal is the most geographically distant EU country from Ukraine, yet in the past year, it has become a steady partner. On 28 May 2024, the two nations signed a bilateral Security Cooperation Agreement, outlining how Portugal would support Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression and rebuilding after the war. This pact was the 12th in a series of bilateral agreements Ukraine began concluding in early 2024.

That series grew out of the G7 Joint Declaration of Support of 2023. By July 2025, Ukraine had signed 29 such agreements — 27 with G7‑aligned or European partners, one with the EU, and one with Croatia — all aimed at long‑term security cooperation. Some commitments come directly from Portugal, while others are delivered through EU-wide programs that Portugal supports collectively.

The agreement with Portugal is broad, extending far beyond the battlefield. It includes support for weapons and training, strengthening Ukraine’s defense industry, sanctioning Russia and using frozen Russian assets, humanitarian aid, and work to hold Moscow’s leadership accountable.

In collaboration with the Dnistrianskyi Center, Euromaidan Press presents this English-language adaptation of Dariia Cherniavska’s analysis on Portugal’s role in Ukraine’s defense, recovery, and pursuit of justice.

Portugal’s commitments

At the time of signing, Portugal pledged at least €126 million in military aid for 2024, aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s air and naval capabilities. Beyond this financial support, the agreement also envisaged:

• Participation in the EU training mission EUMAM
• Cooperation in defense industry development
• Using frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine’s defense
• Humanitarian support, including demining and reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure
• Joint efforts to prosecute Russia’s crimes

In essence, it laid out a ten-point roadmap that blends military, political, and humanitarian support.

A year of implementation

The first year proved that this partnership is much more than a statement. Portugal overdelivered on its military commitments while also supporting Ukraine’s defense production, reconstruction, and the pursuit of justice.

Key achievements between May 2024 and May 2025:

• €226 million in military aid, nearly double the initial pledge
• Helicopter deliveries: six Ka‑32 and eight SA‑330 Puma aircraft
• €100 million to the Czech-led initiative for artillery shells
• €52 million to the Drone Coalition to produce drones in Portugal
• Opening of a Tekever branch in Ukraine to expand drone support
• €6 billion from frozen Russian assets channeled to Ukraine through EU programs (collective funding)
• Training for tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers through EUMAM and the F‑16 pilot coalition
• Active support for four new EU sanction packages
• Reconstruction efforts including rebuilding schools and funding Superhero Schools
• Participation in coalitions for a special tribunal and the return of deported children

Military aid beyond expectations

Instead of the pledged €126 million, Portugal allocated €226 million to Ukraine in 2024. Early in the year, €100 million went to the Czech-led procurement of 155mm artillery shells, while €52 million funded drone production for Ukraine through the Drone Coalition.

Equipment followed as well. In September 2024, Ukraine received six Ka‑32 helicopters for transport and search-and-rescue missions. At the end of the year, eight SA‑330 Puma helicopters arrived, equipped with systems that allow them to launch Exocet anti-ship missiles.

Earlier contributions included M113 armored vehicles, three Leopard 2A6 tanks, five medical vehicles, 105mm howitzers, and ammunition. For 2025, Portugal has already pledged another €220 million.

Since 2022, Portugal has also joined three multinational “capability coalitions”—on armored vehicles, aviation, and naval power—each aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s defenses. Unlike many partners, however, it has not joined the IT Coalition (IT, communications, cybersecurity) or the Demining Coalition, which is the largest by number of participants.

Strengthening technological capabilities

Since 2022, Ukraine has worked closely with Tekever, a Portuguese company producing AR3 and AR5 reconnaissance drones. The AR5 model can fly longer and carry up to 50 kg of payload. These drones have already caused over $4 billion in losses to Russian forces, including the destruction of two S‑400 systems.

In April 2025, Tekever announced the opening of an office in Ukraine to speed up drone servicing and operator training.

Frozen assets turned into support

Portugal also supports the EU plan to direct profits from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. These ERA funds are EU-level resources, not Portugal’s national budget, but Portugal backed these measures as part of the collective effort.

The first €1.5 billion tranche arrived in mid‑2024, funding air defense, ammunition, and defense-industry investment.

By May 2025, €6 billion had been transferred through the ERA program. On 9 May 2025, in Lviv, EU leaders committed an additional €1 billion, part of a €1.9 billion package for weapons, artillery, and air defense.

In total, €35 billion is expected to be delivered during 2025 under ERA and the Ukraine Facility, with Portugal participating in these collective decisions.

Training Ukrainian forces

Portugal contributes actively to the EUMAM mission, which has trained over 75,000 Ukrainian soldiers since 2022.

The country also belongs to an 11-country coalition preparing Ukrainian pilots and crews for F‑16 fighter jets, with Norwegian instructors conducting the training on Portuguese Air Force bases.

Sanctions and political pressure

In the year following May 2024, the EU adopted four new sanctions packages, all backed by Portugal. These measures targeted Russia’s military and energy industries, over 340 shadow fleet ships, propaganda outlets, and senior officials, including those linked to the bombing of the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital in Kyiv.

They also extended restrictions to countries helping Russia evade sanctions or supplying drones and missiles, including China, North Korea, India, the UAE, Singapore, Uzbekistan, Iran, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, and Serbia.

Humanitarian and reconstruction support

Portugal has also helped Ukraine on humanitarian and reconstruction fronts.

Since 2023, it has contributed €7 million to the Grain from Ukraine Initiative to stabilize the global food supply. Economic ties have also grown through Portugal’s AICEP agency, which in 2024 ran programs to attract investment and support Ukrainian business.

In November 2024, at the third Joint Economic Cooperation Commission, both sides agreed to expand trade and involve Portuguese companies in rebuilding efforts.

Portugal is already involved in rebuilding schools in Zhytomyr, including School No. 25 destroyed in 2022, and in 2024 invested €160,000 to create Superhero Schools in Chernihiv and Cherkasy, allowing hospitalized children to continue their education.

Justice and accountability

Portugal is part of the Coalition for a Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression, which finalized draft statutes in May 2025 for a tribunal in The Hague. In June 2025, Ukraine and the Council of Europe signed an agreement to formally establish this Special Tribunal. Once it begins work in 2026, the tribunal will be able to prosecute 20–30 senior Russian and Belarusian leaders—including Vladimir Putin—even in absentia.

Portugal also participates in the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which in 2024 helped return almost 600 deported children. And in 2023, it contributed €75,000 to the International Criminal Court and sent an expert to help gather evidence of war crimes.

One year on, the Portugal–Ukraine security agreement has grown into a partnership that reaches well beyond geography. Portugal may be Europe’s far west, but its support—especially in military aid, training, sanctions, and justice—has brought it close as a committed ally.

Technology is Ukraine’s chance to win the war. This is why we’re launching the David vs. Goliath defense blog to support Ukrainian engineers who are creating innovative battlefield solutions and are inviting you to join us on the journey.

Our platform will showcase the Ukrainian defense tech underdogs who are Ukraine’s hope to win in the war against Russia, giving them the much-needed visibility to connect them with crucial expertise, funding, and international support. Together, we can give David the best fighting chance he has.

Join us in building this platform—become a Euromaidan Press Patron. As little as $5 monthly will boost strategic innovations that could succeed where traditional approaches have failed.