During the first two weeks of January some 1,200 people applied to the force, four times as many as during the same period in 2023.
“Fifteen years ago many people viewed the Home Guard as a hobby, like hiking or hunting,” Raaum said. “Now they realize that it’s a crucial part of our security.”
Konrad Lindblad, who joined the Home Guard seven years ago after completing his military service in 2004, said friends and acquaintances had suddenly begun asking him how to join. Lindblad has also seen his own motivation evolve.
“When I joined, I wanted to do something different than what I do during the workday in the office, and I since I had enjoyed doing military service, I knew the Home Guard suited me,” he said. “But once I was part of it, I realized that that the Home Guard is also a serious undertaking, aligned with the rest of the armed forces. And I started thinking about why I was doing it. I do it because I’m able to contribute to our defense. If people like me don’t do it, who will? We can’t take for granted that Sweden will have freedom and democracy.”
So many people now want to join, in fact, that the Home Guard is having trouble keeping up.
Applicants must be assessed, and if they haven’t done military service (which many haven’t, although Sweden reinstated the draft on a limited basis in 2018), they have to undergo a military crash course. And then space must be found for them in nearby units.
“Our vacancies are not so numerous that we can accommodate lots of people,” Lindblad said. “We’d need new units in order to accommodate a significant number of new members, but that takes time, especially since you can’t stand up new units consisting only of new people. On the other hand, if you keep people waiting they lose interest.”
Parliament on Monday opened an internal probe into Latvian MEP Tatjana Ždanoka after an independent Russian investigative newspaper, the Insider, reported she had been working as an agent for the Russian secret services for years.
She was one of just 13 MEPs who in March 2022 voted against a resolution condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which caused her to be expelled from the Greens/EFA group. Ždanoka now sits as a non-attached MEP.
“We are convinced that Ždanoka is not an isolated case,” the three Latvian MEPs wrote, citing concerns over suspicious “public interventions, voting record[s], organised events, as well as covert activities.”
“The Greens/EFA group must bear a degree of responsibility for long-term cooperation, financial support, and informational exchange with Ždanoka from July 2004 till March 2022,” the group added.
The Latvian Socialists did not sign the MEPs’ letter — and there are no Latvian Greens in Parliament after Ždanoka’s expulsion from the group.
The Greens/EFA group released a statement Tuesday saying it was “deeply concerned” about the allegations and asked for Ždanoka to be banned from Parliament for the duration of the probe.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin will wage war elsewhere if Russia defeats Ukraine.
“If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there,” Stoltenberg told reporters during a meeting with Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico. “Our support is not charity. It is an investment in our security.”
Fico, who won September’s election, is skeptical of aiding Ukraine and has ended military deliveries to Kyiv.
But Stoltenberg wants the alliance to hold firm against Russia.
“The only way to reach a just and lasting solution is to convince President Putin that they will not win on the battlefield.And the only way to ensure that President Putin realizes that he is not winning on the battlefield is to continue to support Ukraine,” the NATO chief said.
His comments came on the same day the Russian leader made clear he has no intention of backing down in his war against Ukraine.
Think the location of this year’s global climate summit is contentious? Wait till you hear about the next one.
When COP28 kicks off next week in the United Arab Emirates, the oil kingdom presiding over the talks will face pressure to show its fossil fuel interests won’t capture negotiations.
But at least the conference has a host. Next year’s summit, COP29, is currently homeless.
That’s because regional tensions have created a deadlock. The conference is meant to take place in Eastern Europe, but Russia is preventing any European Union country from hosting, while warring neighbors Azerbaijan and Armenia are blocking each other, and no one has been able to agree on a way forward.
The result: COP29 is in limbo, and global efforts to secure a liveable future risk being left leaderless. If no one picks up the baton, the current host may remain in place until COP30 starts in 2025 — likely leaving the UAE in charge of talks on major decisions like a new finance goal and getting governments to commit to post-2030 climate targets.
Officially, Russia’s line of reasoning “is that they don’t believe that Bulgaria or any other EU country will be impartial in running COP29,” said Julian Popov, the environment minister for Bulgaria, which has offered to host next year’s climate summit.
But behind closed doors, “their argument is that they are being blocked by EU countries about various things in relation to the war against Ukraine,” he told POLITICO in an interview.
“They are,” he said, “basically retaliating.”
The dispute now risks disrupting both COP28 and COP29, as diplomats scramble to resolve the issue before departing Dubai in mid-December.
“Russia has chosen to hold these negotiations almost hostage,” said Tom Evans, policy advisor on climate diplomacy and geopolitics at think tank E3G.
Race against time
The hosting dispute is inflaming geopolitical tensions heading into COP28, which takes place amid growing global discord related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and an evolving debt crisis looming over developing nations.
The COP climate summits typically rotate among the United Nations’ five regional groups, and next year is Eastern Europe’s turn. The 23-country Eastern Europe group has to decide on the host country by consensus.
COP28 President-Designate Dr. Sultan Al Jaber | Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies
In the past, that wasn’t hard: The COP conference would just rubber-stamp the host chosen by the regional group. Now, however, the decision will have to be taken at the height of tricky talks on a host of issues ranging from the future of fossil fuels to financial help for poorer countries.
“It’s unfortunate,” said Popov, that the hosting dispute may “distract” from the actual negotiations in Dubai.
Then there’s the issue of preparation. COP locations are usually chosen well in advance — the UAE was announced as host in 2021, and COP30 will take place in Brazil — to allow host cities to ready themselves for the arrival of tens of thousands of delegates.
The host country usually, but not always, also takes on the COP presidency, which plays a crucial role in leading negotiations before, during and after the summit.
“We still don’t know who will run the process next year,” Popov said. “This is damaging the whole COP process and will inevitably have a negative impact on the quality of negotiations.”
Among the key issues to be settled at COP29 is a new financial target for funding climate action in developing countries from 2025 onward. Ahead of COP30, countries are meant to submit a new round of climate pledges, including targets to reduce emissions by 2035.
“You really need months of diplomacy in advance to set these COPs up for success,” Evans said.
Geopolitical stalemate
Besides Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Belarus and Armenia also said last year they would throw their hats in the ring for 2024.
Prague eventually withdrew, proposing instead to host the annual pre-COP summit ahead of the main event in Bulgaria. But this past spring, Russia sent an email to other Eastern European representatives saying it would prevent EU countries from hosting, accusing them of blocking Russia-backed countries.
The email, obtained by Reuters, read: “It is reasonable to believe that EU countries, driven by politics from Brussels, do not have the capacity to serve as honest and effective brokers of global climate negotiations under the UNFCCC,” the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In the summer, Azerbaijan joined the race to host COP29 — a few months before launching a large-scale offensive to retake the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region, forcing tens of thousands to flee to Armenia.
Azerbaijan and Armenia are now opposing each other’s bids, said Gayane Gabrielyan, Armenia’s deputy environment minister.
“Russia is blocking any EU country, and Armenia and Azerbaijan can’t find a solution,” she told POLITICO. “We have more than 100,000 refugees … In this situation, we will not be able to discuss anything with them.”
The foreign and environment ministries of Russia and Azerbaijan did not respond to requests for comment.
The Eastern Europeans could also swap with another regional group or a specific country outside the region to host — like Spain stepped in for Chile in 2019 — but that would also require consensus, as well as the formal withdrawal of all host candidates.
“The only option now is going to Bonn,” Gabrielyan said. “The motherland of the UNFCCC.”
Bonn-bound?
Bonn is where the U.N. climate body is headquartered. The conference guidelines indicate that the summit would default to the former West German capital if no agreement is found among the Eastern European group.
But hosting a climate conference “isn’t trivial,” Evans said. “There’s a cost involved, and there’s a huge logistical headache.”
Several European diplomats, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, told POLITICO that Germany was less than keen, something German officials would neither confirm nor deny.
Asked if Germany was prepared to host, a foreign office spokesperson said that discussions within the Eastern European group were ongoing, “with the aim of COP28 taking a decision.”
While Bonn may end up serving as the venue, the presidency would likely remain in the hands of the UAE if the Eastern Europeans can’t find consensus, a spokesperson for the U.N. climate body said.
Yet the UAE, which has faced a barrage of criticism since naming national oil company CEO Sultan al-Jaber as conference president, appears reluctant to continue in its role.
COP28 Director-General Majid al-Suwaidi said last month that his country would not host again. Asked to clarify whether that also meant not extending the presidency, a COP28 spokesperson declined to comment.
The predicament has prompted Bulgaria to suggest a novel solution to, as Popov put it, “save COP29” — splitting the mega-event across several nations in Eastern Europe.
“Here’s what we suggested: A distributed COP — have the pre-COP, the presidency and the COP held by three different countries, and have some events organized in different Eastern European countries,” he said.
But that, too, would need the backing of all regional group members. Gabrielyan said Armenia was “ready to discuss” this option, but that Azerbaijan had signaled opposition.
The uncertainty over who will host COP29 may come with one positive side-effect, however: Diplomats might be wary of postponing difficult decisions to next year.
“It’s not uncommon for COPs, when they reach some of the trickiest issues, to kick the can down the road,” said Evans. “I don’t feel like this is an option this time.”
BRUSSELS — Defense ministers flying into the Belgian capital for a NATO meeting starting Wednesday were expecting to spend their time backing Ukraine — instead, they find their intel briefings full of a region mostly forgotten in the past two years: the Middle East.
From the White House’s new military support for Israel to emergency meetings across European capitals, to a fumbled EU response to the crisis, NATO allies are grappling with a renewed sense of urgency over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip, with a record number of 300,000 reservists already drafted within 48 hours.
The timing is an inconvenience for the Ukrainians, who aim to galvanize further support from NATO countries in what will be the first defense ministers’ meeting following a NATO leaders’ summit in July that saw beefed-up pledges for Ukraine’s security and military support.
Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s committee on foreign policy, acknowledged the “fears” among his compatriots over whether the West can stay focused on Russia’s invasion while also dealing with the ongoing Israeli-Hamas situation.
“I can only speak for myself. Yes, there are such fears,” Merezhko told POLITICO. “But, at the same time, I think that in the end it will not be a problem, because the USA is such a powerful country in economic and military terms.”
While Ukraine’s new Defense Minister Rustem Umerov is scheduled to get hours of attention, Israel is also expected to be discussed — at least on the sidelines.
“I would be surprised if the situation in the Middle East isn’t mentioned at the meeting,” said a NATO diplomat granted anonymity to speak freely. A second diplomat said they expected strong interest in what U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had to say.
The interest isn’t unusual because Israel has a longtime partnership with NATO, another diplomat pointed out, so it would only be “natural” for the alliance to be concerned about its next steps.
Just a week before the Hamas attack, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, visited Israel to meet with President Isaac Herzog and military officials. Bauer also visited the Gaza border crossing, where he praised the Israeli military’s “unique expertise in underground counterterrorism activity.”
While the line from the White House is that the United States can deal with two regional crises at the same time, domestic skeptics of helping Ukraine are already piling on.
“Israel is facing existential threat. Any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator allied with former President Donald Trump, said on social media.
Pledges for Kyiv
U.S. officials are trying to dispel Ukrainian concerns, pointing out that the two countries have differing needs because they face very different threats.
“On the question of whether or not U.S. support for Israel could possibly come at the expense of U.S. support for Ukraine, we don’t anticipate any major challenges in that regard,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters on Tuesday. “I suspect the United States will be able to stay focused on our partnership and commitment to Israel’s security, while also meeting our commitments and promise to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends its territory.”
Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip | Eyad Baba/AFP via Getty Images
“I think allies no doubt will want to talk about what happened in Israel and express their solidarity. We’ve seen all members of the alliance issue their own national statements — really in real time almost as the attack was ongoing. And I suspect that will be part of our conversation,” Smith said.
Ukraine still remains a key focus for this week’s NATO meeting.
It begins on Wednesday with the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a regular gathering of NATO and Ukrainian ministers to discuss what weapons to give Ukraine. It will be followed by the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, a format that’s already in its fourth edition since it was created in July, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the NATO Summit in Lithuania.
“I anticipate that the emphasis will be mostly on air defense and ammunition although no doubt the Ukrainians will come in with a variety of other requests,” Smith said. “It always is an organic meeting where ministers step forward and offer assistance in real time.”
Shortly before the NATO meeting, Umerov, the Ukrainian defense minister, reached out to his Dutch counterpart, Kajsa Ollongren, on Ukraine’s “urgent needs” for air defense systems, long-range missiles and artillery. The Netherlands has also been leading on the F-16 fighter jet training for Ukraine’s pilots.
That’s a sign that the alliance can juggle both Ukraine and Israel, Ollongren told POLITICO.
“Splits? No. But I think of course there will also be attention and focus on Israel and how the situation is developing over there,” she said. “But I think it’s very important, it’s a good thing that we are meeting tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, to underline that the support for Ukraine is not affected.”
CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of the Dutch defense minister’s name: it is Kajsa Ollongren.
[ad_2]
Veronika Melkozerova, Stuart Lau, Paul McLeary and Laura Kayali
WARSAW — Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is in the fight of its political life ahead of next month’s general election — and in its scramble for votes it’s taking aim at the country’s alliance with Ukraine.
The latest blow came from Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who on Wednesday said that Poland has halted shipments of its own armaments to Ukraine.
“We are no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine, because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons,” Morawiecki told Poland’s Polsat television.
It’s true that Poland has sent most of its Soviet-era tanks, fighters and other weapons to Ukraine and doesn’t have much left in its stocks. Warsaw will also continue allowing arms shipments from other allies to pass through its territory.
“Poland still functions as a hub for international aid,” said government spokesperson Piotr Müller, adding that the country is fulfilling its existing military supply contracts with Ukraine.
But Morawiecki’s comments come at a time when relations between Warsaw and Kyiv are the frostiest since Russia’s invasion a year and a half ago, and add to the impression that the nationalist party is undermining its alliance with Ukraine for electoral gain.
“Morawiecki wasn’t saying anything that wasn’t obvious … but to say such a thing at such a time escalates the conflict,” said Marcin Zaborowski, a director with the Globsec think tank.
The catalyst is grain.
Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have closed their markets to Ukrainian grain imports, in violation of the rules of the European Union’s single market, arguing they need to protect their farmers from price drops.
Ukraine has retaliated by filing a lawsuit against them at the World Trade Organization. It has also threatened to block some Polish agricultural exports to Ukraine.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took a swipe at those countries at the United Nations this week, saying: “Alarmingly, some in Europe play out solidarity in a political theater — turning grain into a thriller … they’re helping set the stage for a Moscow actor.”
Polish President Andrzej Duda scrapped a meeting with Zelenskyy in New York due to a scheduling conflict, and the Ukrainian ambassador to Warsaw was summoned to the foreign ministry to explain. Morawiecki characterized relations with Kyiv as “difficult.”
Political calculation
In Poland, the core reason for the move is PiS’s need to shore up its support among rural voters and also to peel away supporters from the far-right Confederation party, many of whose backers are skeptical about helping Ukraine.
The Polish government sent tanks and jet fighters to Ukraine at a time when many other countries were balking at sending such equipment to Kyiv | Omar Marques/Getty Images
“Ukrainians ruthlessly took advantage of the Polish government being a sucker, emphasized their sympathy, which of course was not there, took the cash, and now they will declare a trade war on us,” Confederation leader Sławomir Mentzen told the Polish press.
Jacek Kucharczyk, head of the Institute for Public Affairs, a Warsaw-based think tank, characterized the shift in tone by the ruling party as “a desperate electoral ploy.”
In POLITICO’s poll of polls, PiS has the support of 38 percent of voters while Civic Coalition, the leading opposition party, is at 29 percent. If that holds, Law and Justice won’t have enough seats in parliament to rule on its own and so will have to try to form a coalition; Confederation is the likeliest target, although the party says it won’t join forces with PiS.
But the trends look worrying for PiS.
The government has been hit with a growing visas-for-bribes scandal that now has the European Commission asking for explanations. A new poll by United Surveys shows that if the main opposition parties join together, they would be able to cobble together a majority government after the October 15 election.
Shifting narrative
The U-turn on Ukraine may help shore up some of PiS’s electoral base. But it could cause other problems.
It undermines the government’s main foreign policy win. After years of bitter conflicts with the European Union and other key allies over rule of law, media freedom and backsliding on democratic standards, Poland’s strong support for Ukraine changed the narrative in Brussels and in Washington.
Millions of ordinary Poles helped Ukrainian refugees fleeing across the border in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack. The Polish government sent tanks and jet fighters to Ukraine at a time when many other countries were balking at sending such equipment to Kyiv, fearing Russian retaliation. Warsaw also took delight in pointing out the shortcomings of European countries like Germany and France.
Zelenskyy even called Poland a “sister.”
In an address to the Polish nation made last year in Polish, he said: “I will remember how you welcomed us, how you help us. Poles are our allies, your country is our sister. Your friendship forever. Our friendship forever. Our love forever. Together we will be victors.”
Opinion polls show there is still strong support for helping Ukraine, with about three-quarters of Poles wanting to accept refugees.
Millions of ordinary Poles helped Ukrainian refugees fleeing across the border in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack | Omar Marques/Getty Images
“The risk is that PiS voters broadly support the pro-Ukraine policy, and such a rapid policy change could be difficult to explain,” said Kucharczyk.
PiS has toyed with skepticism about Ukraine in the past — raising the issue of wartime massacres of Poles by Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas — but the overarching message was that Poland is Ukraine’s firmest friend.
The narrative shift is being welcomed in Moscow.
In New York, Duda compared Ukraine to a desperate, drowning person.
“A drowning person is extremely dangerous, he can pull you down to the depths … simply drown the rescuer,” Duda said.
That got a thumbs-up from the Kremlin.
“Never before did I agree with Duda as strongly as I did after this statement. Everything he said is correct,” said Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.
The Polish opposition is also going on the attack.
Radosław Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister and now a member of the European Parliament for the Civic Coalition, called Morawiecki’s comments “criminally stupid.”
“Even if we don’t have much more to give then why is he saying this in public! Does he really want [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to calculate that one or two more pushes and Ukraine will fall?” he tweeted.
Kyiv is now trying to downplay any rift with Warsaw.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of Ukraine’s parliament committee on foreign relations, said he felt Morawiecki’s weapons comments weren’t linked to the growing trade fight.
“Like every politician, I know that during an election campaign, rhetoric can be quite emotional,” he said.
Bartosz Brzeziński and Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting.
Kyiv is unlikely to renew a gas transit deal that allows Russia’s Gazprom to export natural gas to the EU using pipelines running across Ukraine, Energy Minister German Galushchenko told POLITICO.
The 2019 transit deals runs until the end of 2024 and allows Gazprom to export more than 40 million cubic meters of gas a year via Ukraine, which earns Kyiv about $7 billion.
“I believe, by the winter of 2024, Europe will not need Russian gas at all,” Galushchenko said in a telephone interview. “If now profits from Russian gas pay for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and Gazprom’s private army, the only thing they should pay for in the future shall be reparations.”
He added that the war means “bilateral negotiations are impossible.”
The land route across Ukraine is one of only two pipeline links between Russia and the West. It still accounts for around 5 percent of the bloc’s gas imports, but that’s only a third of the prewar level.
It’s not only Ukraine that’s casting doubt on the future of gas transit.
Gazprom chief Alexei Miller warned last week his company will stop exports if Ukraine doesn’t drop its efforts to seize Russian state assets to enforce a $5 billion award for the energy infrastructure Moscow illegally expropriated when it annexed Crimea in 2014. Gazprom and Ukraine’s Naftogaz are also at loggerheads over a dispute on transit fees.
“If Naftogaz continues such unfair actions, it cannot be ruled out that the Russian Federation will impose sanctions. Then, any relations between Russian companies and Naftogaz will be simply impossible,” Miller said, according to the TASS news agency.
Despite the bombs, missiles and drones wreaking havoc on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, the web of pipelines has kept pumping gas to the EU — where it ends up mainly in Austria, Slovakia, Italy and Hungary.
Russian pipeline gas is not subject to sanctions but the European Commission has plans to end the bloc’s reliance on Moscow’s fossil fuels by 2027.
However, there is growing criticism the EU countries still using Russian gas aren’t moving fast enough to diversify. Austria’s Russian gas imports are back to prewar levels. Hungary gets around 4.5 billion cubic meters a year. In April, its government signed a deal with Gazprom to secure additional volumes.
Kyiv ending the gas deal could cause problems for those countries.
“If Ukrainian transit stops, Gazprom pipeline gas deliveries to EU countries could drop to between 10 and 16 billion cubic meters (45 to 73 percent of current levels),” said a June analysis by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. That could leave Europe with a shortfall in 2025 before additional liquefied natural gas capacity from the U.S. and Qatar comes online.
“For Europe as a whole, it’s pretty manageable. But for some countries at the end of the pipeline, Austria, Hungary and so on, the picture is a bit different,” said Georg Zachmann, senior fellow at economic think tank Bruegel. “We’d have to see a reshuffle of physical capacities, physical flows. That might come with additional cost for them.”
It would represent a much more permanent potential break with Moscow.
“Keeping the thing alive means there’s maybe a chance in the future to go back to that. But if the flows are stopped there’s a risk it’s going to be completely dismantled, and the privilege these countries had in the past of getting access to cheap Siberian gas is going to be gone forever,” Zachmann said.
Ukraine’s long-term goal is to boost its own gas production to meet EU demand, Oleksiy Chernyshov, CEO of Naftogaz, told POLITICO in May.
KYIV – Ukrainian officials and intelligence officers warned Russia could be preparing to blow up a nuclear power station, leading to a radioactive environmental disaster.
After the Kakhovka dam destruction last month, Kyiv fears the Kremlin plans to organize an explosion at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant — the largest in Europe — located in the Russian-occupied city of Enerhodar.
According to Ukrainian intelligence, Russian workers have been told to leave the power station by July 5.
“There is a serious threat. Russia is technically ready to provoke a local explosion at the plant, which could lead to the release of dangerous substances into the air,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said to Spanish journalists in Kyiv over the weekend. “We are discussing all this with our partners so that everyone understands why Russia is doing this and put pressure on the Russian Federation politically so that they don’t even think about such a thing.”
Last week as the State Emergency Service of Ukraine conducted radioactive safety drills in the Zaporizhzhia region, Ukrainian Military Intelligence reported that a Russian military contingent, as well as Russian-backed nuclear power plant workers, were gradually leaving the plant.
“Among the first to leave the station were three Rosatom employees, who managed the actions of the Russians,” Ukrainian military intelligence said in a statement. They were advised to leave by July 5. “The personnel remaining at the station were instructed to blame Ukraine in case of any emergencies.”
Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement the fact that Ukrainian officials conducted radioactive safety drills and set additional radiation measurement devices in several cities means “Kyiv is preparing a false flag” operation. However Zakharova provided no evidence for her claim. The plant is currently Russian controlled.
Earlier last month Ukrainian spy chief Kyrylo Budanov said Russia was ready to orchestrate a technological disaster at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The part most likely to be blown up would be the artificial pond needed for cooling the power station, Budanov said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has not confirmed Ukraine’s information that the cooling pond has been mined, although it also said it has not had full access to all sites at the plant.
According to the IAEA, its experts were able to inspect parts of the plant’s cooling system, including some sections of the perimeter of the large cooling pond, which still has a stable level of water needed to cool down the reactors. The IAEA experts have also been conducting regular walk-downs across reactor units and other areas around the site. The IAEA said it still expected to gain access to other parts of the site including the cooling system.
In an earlier update on June 21, the IAEA said that while they did not see any visible mines around the cooling pond, experts were aware of previous placements of mines outside the plant perimeter and also at particular places inside, which Russian security personnel on site explained were for defensive purposes.
Zelenskyy has not backed down on his claims, saying Russians might blow up the power station at some point in future, even when it comes back under Ukrainian control, using mines that can be activated from a distance. “There can be remote mines — then to say that everything was fine under the control of the occupiers, but blew up as soon as it went back to Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said.
What to gift the man who is barred from receiving anything, and also is Vladimir Putin’s biggest political foe?
How about a mass demonstration?
That’s what supporters of Alexei Navalny are ginning up for the jailed Russian opposition leader’s 47th birthday on Sunday.
From exile, they are calling Russians to action, both inside and outside the country.
“Let’s show him on his birthday that he has not been forgotten,” Georgy Alburov, who works for Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), said in a YouTube video posted in mid-May. “Wherever you are, whichever country, go out to support Navalny.”
Sunday marks the third birthday that Navalny will spend in prison since he was arrested after recovering from a poison attack, which his team says was carried out on Russian President Putin’s direct orders.
“Putin wants Navalny to feel alone. Moreover, he wants every single one of us to feel that way,” Lyubov Sobol, another Navalny associate, said in the video calling for protests.
The Navalny team is counting on Russian exiles spread around the globe to participate in the protests. Demonstrations have been announced in dozens of countries, from Australia to Brazil to Japan.
‘The real heroes’
But Russians still in the country are given special status in the call to protest.
“Those who come out in protest [in Russia] are the real heroes,” another political activist, Ruslan Shaveddinov, said in the video.
The demonstration drive is designed to be a unifying moment, but it has exposed divisions among those Russians who have stayed in Russia and those who have left. And it has hit a nerve among some of Navalny’s staunchest supporters.
At stake is the question: Who has the right to ask Russians to take to the streets to protest their government, and is it worth the risk they run?
Some 2500 supporters of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny marched in Berlin earlier this year | Omer Messinger/Getty Images
Since Navalny’s jailing, his supporters still in Russia have been living on a knife edge.
A Russian court decision in June 2021 labeling his movement as “extremist” has led to his network of campaign offices being dissolved. His allies have fled, gone underground, or been locked up. Any day now, Lilia Chanysheva, a former regional coordinator of Navalny’s team, is expected to be sentenced to 12 years in prison on extremism charges.
The pressure on Navalny himself shows no sign of abating, either, now that he has been transferred to a maximum-security prison in Melekhovo, a town some 250 kilometers east of Moscow. New criminal charges are constantly being lodged against him, including for extremism and most recently terrorism, which could see his sentence of 11 and a half years extended by decades.
His team members say he is being harassed in jail and being denied food and access to medical care. The only way to save him, they argue, is to keep him in the public eye.
Irritating logic
Admitting the risk of prosecution for Russians inside the country, they have promised to provide legal and financial aid to those who are detained on Sunday.
But that has sparked further irritation, with some pointing out that in today’s Russia, any link to Navalny is toxic. Critics question the logic that to help one man, supporters must expose themselves to jail sentences; they accuse Navalny’s team-in-exile of being detached from the reality on the ground.
“[In Russia,] anyone who stages even a one-man picket can be slapped with criminal charges,” Alexei Vorsin, a former Navalny coordinator in Khabarovsk, wrote on Telegram on May 29. Vorsin has fled the country after being charged with extremism.
Vladimir Pastukhov, a Russian analyst based in London, drew a parallel with Bloody Sunday in 1905, when Father Gapon famously led a march of peaceful protesters right into the path of the Winter Palace’s guards’ bullets.
”It’s a question of responsibility [that Navalny has] toward his congregation, and the right to use it as cannon fodder against the Kremlin,” Pastukhov said in a YouTube video broadcast of “Khodorkovsky Live.”
Activists in Russia have been issued with pre-emptive warnings by the authorities not to act on the June 4 protest call, and several are already facing charges of organizing an unsanctioned event, for simply sharing information on the protest online.
Nonetheless, there are those like Moscow opposition politician Elvira Vikhareva, who has gone as far as publicly announcing her intention to take to the street.
Alexei Navalny embraces his wife Yulia in this photograph taken from a TV screen during a live broadcast of a court hearing in 2022 | Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images
“I am convinced that politically motivated murders, the persecution of dissidents, and assassination attempts will continue as long as we allow these scoundrels to continue making a fool out of people,” she said in a post on Telegram.
In a written comment to POLITICO, Vikhareva, who in March said traces of poison had been found in her blood, specified that she thought it was “up to every individual to decide” which risks they were prepared to take.
‘Monstrous ambivalence’
Faced with public backlash over the potential dangers, Navalny’s team has partially backtracked or at least softened its message. It recently released a second video saying there were other, less risky, ways of showing Navalny “that he is not alone.”
Leonid Volkov, one of Navalny’s closest allies, recently listed a number of such “in-between options” during a breakfast radio show hosted by the Russian journalist Alexander Plushev. They included putting up flyers at building entrances, “talking to acquaintances on social media,” or chalking Navalny a birthday message in a public place.
But Volkov defended his team’s overall strategy, saying that there was a demand for protest, and that excluding Russia from a worldwide demonstration would be “strange.”
Dmitry Oreshkin, a political analyst based in Riga, told POLITICO that even a high turnout in Russia, which he thought unlikely, would not impact the Kremlin’s current course.
“This type of regime does not listen to street protests, and easily suppresses them,” Oreshkin said.
And yet, he argued, the alternative is for Russians “to sit at home and do nothing,” normalizing their government’s politics of repression and war.
“That is the monstrous ambivalence facing Russians today.”
BRUSSELS — The EU has sent Ukraine 220,000 rounds of ammunition since pledging in March to get the war-stricken country 1 million shells in 12 months, putting the bloc on track to hit its target, top EU diplomat Josep Borrell said Tuesday.
Yet questions remain about whether EU countries can keep up the pace. The ammunition contributed so far is being pulled from existing stockpiles, and EU countries will soon have to switch to jointly purchasing new ammo for Kyiv, while boosting the capacity of defense industries, to continue making donations — a more challenging prospect.
Still, Borrell said, the current totals are promising.
“The latest figures actually are much better than we had just some 10 days ago,” he told reporters after a defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels, adding that EU countries had also sent Ukraine 1,300 missiles since the March pledge.
The total value of the donations is roughly €860 million, according to officials close to the dossier. The EU has vowed to reimburse roughly half of that value and has set aside €1 billion for the effort.
The donation total represents a significant jump from last week, when EU officials said countries had given Ukraine €650 million in supplies under the plan — a mere €50 million more than in April.
The earlier announcement had prompted concern about whether the bloc was meeting its promises to help keep Ukrainian soldiers stocked as they try to keep Russian invaders at bay. Ukraine has consistently warned its ammunition supplies are running low as the war drags on. In April, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba urged EU countries to speed up their deliveries.
Ultimately, the EU’s plan is to provide Ukraine with ammo and missiles in three phases.
The current phase is to simply donate any supplies that countries can spare. The second phase will then see countries band together and jointly buy new ammunition for Ukraine from defense firms, allowing for larger and less expensive orders. The third phase is aimed at expanding Europe’s overall capacity to produce military supplies.
In addition to the €1 billion set aside for current donation reimbursements, the EU has also earmarked €1 billion for the upcoming joint ammo purchases. But there are financial incentives for all three phases.
The deadline to file for donation reimbursements is the end of May, although officials have stressed that governments have six more weeks to send invoices.
Borrell said it’s not a surprise that receipts are flooding in as the deadline approaches.
“This is normal,” he said. “Often we see that the largest amount [of invoices] comes right at the end.”
And he reiterated: “At this rate, we’ll be able to achieve our target of 1 million” rounds.
Still, some diplomats doubt that Europe’s defense industry has the ability to expand production in time, despite constant reassurances from Brussels. That anxiety was present on Monday as defense ministers arrived for their meeting.
“To achieve 1 million rounds for Ukraine, everyone needs to do more,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told reporters.
Pevkur’s German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, similarly expressed a degree of skepticism.
“That remains to be seen, that’s something the producers will have to answer,” he said. “That doesn’t ride on whether we want to place orders and pay for them. It only depends on whether and over what time period it can be produced.”
The answers will emerge soon. EU countries say they are running out of supplies to donate, forcing them to soon turn to new purchases.
“We sent Stingers [missiles] to Ukraine even before [the] war started,” Latvian Defense Minister Ināra Mūrniece told reporters. “And quite recently, I have announced that all our Stingers we have left will be sent to Ukraine.”
A new law that allows Russia to seize foreign-owned energy assets should be a final warning to Western firms to cut their losses and leave the market for good, one of the country’s most prominent exiled businessmen has cautioned.
“There are no guarantees for the safety of investments anywhere, but Vladimir Putin’s regime has demonstratively built an illegitimate and lawless state,” former oil and gas magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky told POLITICO.
“The withdrawal of assets should have started a very long time ago, even before the war. And on February 24, 2022, the decision should certainly have been made,” he said.
Last Tuesday, Putin signed a decree that allows the government to take control of assets owned by foreign firms and individuals from “unfriendly nations” — a long list of apparently hostile governments that includes the U.S., the U.K., the entirety of the EU and all G7 member countries.
Ventures owned by Germany’s Uniper and Finland’s Fortum energy companies were the first to be targeted. While Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed that Moscow was only assuming “temporary” control of their day-to-day management, he argued that it would help create a pool of assets that Moscow could expropriate in retaliation for Russian property sequestered by European governments.
German oil and gas company Wintershall, meanwhile, has warned that while it intends to divest its shares in Siberian oil and gas production, rules requiring Kremlin approval mean getting its funds out will be “difficult.”
“Everything can happen in Russia these days in terms of direct interference with our rights to our assets,” CEO Mario Mehren explained at a press conference this week.
A number of Western energy firms have already announced their complete departure from Russia in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, including Norway’s Equinor and U.S. oil and gas giant Exxon Mobil. Others, including Shell, BP, TotalEnergies and Wintershall have announced their intent to fully or partially divest, but the terms of their exits are still being worked out.
While Khodorkovsky, who fled the country a decade ago, admitted that European firms might now find it “psychologically difficult” to accept making losses on their investments in major fossil fuel projects, he believes that as time goes on “foreign assets in Russia will continue to fall in price and the risk of their confiscation will increase.”
“Now the risks have become so high that they are no longer covered by profits from any legitimate activity,” he said.
As the founder of Siberian oil and gas conglomerate Yukos, Khodorkovsky was once believed to be Russia’s wealthiest man, having snapped up former state energy assets for a fraction of their worth after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, having emerged as a key political opponent to Putin, Khodorkovsky’s company was hit with a series of fraud charges, its assets were expropriated and he was imprisoned for almost eight years.
“That the Kremlin was not punished for this allowed Putin to conclude that this is an acceptable practice,” Khodorkovsky added, “and that the West is weak and ready to accept any lawlessness if he, Putin, is strong enough.”
Now, he is calling for Russian state assets to be confiscated as compensation for both the damage wrought on Ukraine and to pay back foreign investors.
“This will be fair, but the owners of private assets should be given the right to defend their innocence in court,” the exiled former oligarch said.
BRUSSELS — Pressure is building on France to fully cut ties with Russia’s atomic sector as the EU mulls its latest sanctions package against Moscow.
The European Commission is set to meet with diplomats from the EU’s 27 member countries on Friday to start discussions on the bloc’s 11th round of Russia sanctions. Hitting Moscow’s state-run nuclear company Rosatom — a divisive issue for some EU countries reliant on Russia for nuclear fuel — is likely come under the spotlight once again.
That means increased scrutiny of France’s ties to Rosatom, the Moscow-based atomic firm.
Although much commercial cooperation has been frozen or suspended in the past year, French state-controlled companies continue to maintain some ties with Rosatom.
That’s prompting calls by Ukraine and diplomats from several EU countries for Paris to sever all links with Rosatom, especially given its role in overseeing the Russia-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine.
“I am sure” that Paris has a moral duty to encourage its state-backed companies to cut ties with Rosatom, Ukraine’s Energy Minister German Galushchenko told POLITICO last month, adding that Kyiv wants all EU countries with links to Russian’s nuclear industry to cut them.
“All of our public scrutiny has been on Germany and not so much on France,” for ties with Russia, said a diplomat from one EU country, who spoke on condition of anonymity, “whereas I think if you look closely … they haven’t been the best kid in the class either.”
Paris should at least back long-standing demands from the Baltic countries and Poland to sanction Rosatom, Sven Giegold, a state secretary at Germany’s energy ministry, tweeted last week. “We will try to convince France.”
In late February, the U.S. slapped sanctions on Rosatom; both Washington and London have sanctioned some of its executives for “deep connections to the Russian military-industrial complex.”
A Rosatom spokesperson told POLITICO the company has “always taken the view that nuclear energy should remain outside of politics.”
Despite a strong push from some EU countries and the Commission to target Rosatom executives during previous sanctions discussions, those efforts floundered partly due to pressure from Hungary, where Rosatom is in charge of the expansion of its Paks nuclear power plant. France is also resisting sanctions.
Although other bigger countries have also not spoken up during discussions, diplomats from four EU countries argued Paris was hiding behind Budapest on nuclear sanctions.
Ukraine’s Energy Minister German Galushchenko said that Kyiv wants all EU countries to cut links to Russian’s nuclear industry | Stephanie Lecocq/EPA-EFE
“Because Hungary has been very clear, very vocal, very visible on that question, I think some other countries, including France … don’t really need to lobby for their cause,” said one of the diplomats.
The French foreign ministry told POLITICO: “The European Union and its member states have not adopted sanctions targeting civil nuclear power,” while adding that “France and the United States … continue to cooperate with Russia in the areas of nuclear safety and security.”
Close ties
For France, “Rosatom is above all a client,” said Valérie Faudon, general delegate with the French Nuclear Energy Society, while adding that Paris doesn’t depend on Russia for its security of supply.
Paris and Moscow’s nuclear ties, which date back to the Cold War, are most apparent in the links between Rosatom and state-controlled EDF, France’s largest utility that runs the country’s nuclear fleet. It signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Rosatom on green hydrogen in 2021, as well as a joint declaration to develop research cooperation.
The Rosatom spokesperson called it “a win-win partnership” that is “a driver of development both in the field of nuclear energy and scientific projects.”
“There are areas in which we mutually develop our relations, for example, projects in third countries, nuclear fuel cycle development, exchange of experience in nuclear safety development,” the spokesperson said.
That’s not the only link.
When Rosatom builds a nuclear plant abroad, it often relies on technology from French companies — typically spending up to €1 billion per project, Faudon said. Those orders usually include command and control systems from Framatome, which is majority-owned by EDF.
Framatome has an ongoing role in Russian nuclear construction projects around the world, including at Paks. The company aims to set up a joint venture with Rosatom to produce nuclear fuel in western Germany, a project that has been sharply criticized by local authorities.
The French firm also signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Rosatom in December 2021 to expand collaboration on fuel fabrication and other technologies.
Framatome didn’t comment on its ongoing contracts but with reference to the 2021 agreement, a company spokesperson said: “Everything has been postponed until further notice,” adding that Framatome will “re-examine the agreement if and when that is appropriate.”
EDF declined to comment.
French company Framatome has an ongoing role in Russian nuclear construction projects around the world | Pool photo by Laurent Cipriani/EPA-EFE
Orano, a French firm specializing in nuclear fuel that is partly state-owned, sold used uranium fuel stocks to Rosatom for reuse outside France until late last year. The company said this contract is “now settled” and it has “set up a specific process for monitoring and prior approval of activities” relating to any “Russian stakeholder.”
And while France isn’t dependent on Russia for its nuclear fuel and security of supply, it bought enriched uranium worth €359 million from Moscow last year, more than three times the amount it bought in 2021.
It’s not the only such sale to the West. The U.S. bought $830 million of enriched uranium from Russia last year. Moscow also supplies fuel to reactors in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia and Hungary.
Decontamination effort
Those close commercial links are leading to calls for action by lawmakers and diplomats.
“It would be the right thing to do for the French government to, like the German government, make great effort to … stop [nuclear] cooperation as long as Putin does not end the war against Ukraine,” said Engin Eroglu, a German MEP with the Renew grouping who has been vocal on Russian nuclear issues.
In February, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on Rosatom to face sanctions.
Although France hasn’t backed sanctions against Rosatom, it says it’s working to help other EU countries shift away from Russia on nuclear and the country said it would fall in line with any trade measures.
“The principle of sanctions is that they should do more damage to the Russians than to the Europeans,” said a senior official with the French energy ministry. “France, for its part, does not depend in any way on Russian natural uranium. We are working with our partners who are dependent on Russian uranium to put an end to this dependence.”
France last week also joined a G7-related alliance “aimed at displacing Putin from the international nuclear energy market” alongside Britain, the U.S., Canada and Japan.
Despite that, diplomats from five EU countries told POLITICO that French state firms have an ethical responsibility to fully sever links with Rosatom.
“State-backed companies have a moral duty to cut ties” with Moscow, said one of the diplomats, to avoid “supporting the system.”
There’s an Emmanuel Macron-shaped shadow hovering over this week’s U.S. visit by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
In contrast to the French president — who in an interview with POLITICO tried to put some distance between the U.S. and Europe in any future confrontation with China over Taiwan and called for strengthening the Continent’s “strategic autonomy” — the Polish leader is underlining the critical importance of the alliance between America and Europe, not least because his country is one of Kyiv’s strongest allies in the war with Russia.
“Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States,” he said before flying to Washington.
In the U.S. capital, Morawiecki continued with his under-the-table kicks at the French president.
“I see no alternative, and we are absolutely on the same wavelength here, to building an even closer alliance with the Americans. If countries to the west of Poland understand this less, it is probably because of historical circumstances,” he said on Tuesday in Washington.
Unlike France, which has spent decades bristling at Europe’s reliance on the U.S. for its security, Poland is one of the Continent’s keenest American allies. Warsaw has pushed hard for years for U.S. troops to be stationed on its territory, and many of its recent arms contracts have gone to American companies. It signed a $1.4 billion deal earlier this year to buy a second batch of Abrams tanks, and has also agreed to spend $4.6 billion on advanced F-35 fighter jets.
“I am glad that this proposal for an even deeper strategic partnership is something that finds such fertile ground here in the United States, because we know that there are various concepts formulated by others in Europe, concepts that create more threats, more question marks, more unknowns,” Morawiecki said. “Poland is trying to maintain the most commonsense policy based on a close alliance with the United States within the framework of the European Union, and this is the best path for Poland.”
Fast friends
Poland has become one of Ukraine’s most important allies, and access to its roads, railways and airports is crucial in funneling weapons, ammunition and other aid to Ukraine.
That’s helped shift perceptions of Poland — seen before the war as an increasingly marginal member of the Western club thanks to its issues with violating the rule of law, into a key country of the NATO alliance.
Warsaw also sees the Russian attack on Ukraine as justifying its long-held suspicion of its historical foe, and it hasn’t been shy in pointing the finger at Paris and Berlin for being wrong about the threat posed by the Kremlin.
“Old Europe believed in an agreement with Russia, and old Europe failed,” Morawiecki said in a joint news conference with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. “But there is a new Europe — Europe that remembers what Russian communism was. And Poland is the leader of this new Europe.”
That’s why Macron’s comments have been seized on by Warsaw.
According to Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki, Emmanuel Macron’s talks of distancing the EU from America “threatens to break up” the block | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
“I absolutely don’t agree with President Macron. We believe that more America is needed in Europe … We want more cooperation with the U.S. on a partnership basis,” Marcin Przydacz, a foreign policy adviser to Polish President Andrzej Duda, told Poland’s Radio Zet, adding that the strategic autonomy idea pushed by Macron “has the goal of cutting links between Europe and the United States.”
While Poland is keen on European countries hitting NATO’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense — a target that only seven alliance members, including Poland, but not France and Germany, are meeting — and has no problem with them building up military industries, it doesn’t want to weaken ties with the U.S., said Sławomir Dębski, head of the state-financed Polish Institute of International Affairs.
He warned that Macron’s talks of distancing Europe from America in the event of a conflict with China “threatens to break up the EU, which is against the interests not only of Poland, but also of most European countries.”
Europe has special forces on the ground in Ukraine. Poland and Slovenia are providing nearly half of the tanks heading to Kyiv. And Hungary may be letting arms through its airspace.
Those are just a few of the eye-catching details about Europe’s participation in the war buried in a 53-page dossier POLITICO reviewed from a leak of unverified U.S. military intelligence documents.
The disclosure has generated a tempest of head-spinning revelations that has the U.S. playing clean-up with allies. The documents detail American doubts about Ukraine’s spring offensive, suggest it was spying on South Korea and display intelligence accusing Egypt of plotting to prop up Russia’s quixotic war.
Yet Europe, for the most part, has been spared these relationship-damaging divulgences.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t knowledge to be gleaned about Europe’s war effort from the documents, however. The leaked files contain insights on everything from a U.K.-dominated special forces group in Ukraine to how — and when — France and Spain are getting a key missile system to the battlefield. The documents also contain allegations that Turkey is a potential source of arms for Russian mercenaries.
POLITICO has not independently verified the documents, and there have been indications that some of the leaked pages were doctored. But the U.S. has acknowledged the intelligence breach and arrested a suspect late on Thursday.
Here are a few of POLITICO’s findings after poring over the file.
Europe has boots on the ground
There is a Europe-heavy special forces group operating in Ukraine — at least as of March 23 — according to the documents.
The United Kingdom dominates the 97-person strong “US/NATO” contingent with 50 special forces members. The group also includes 17 people from Latvia, 15 from France and one from the Netherlands. Fourteen U.S. personnel round out the team.
The leaked information does not specify which activities the forces are carrying out or their location in Ukraine. The documents also show the U.S. has about 100 personnel in total in the country.
Predictably, governments have remained mostly mum on the subject. The Brits have refused to comment, while the White House has conceded there is a “small U.S. military presence” at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, stressing that the troops “are not fighting on the battlefield.” France previously denied that its forces were “engaged in operations in Ukraine.”
The rest of the countries did not reply to a request for comment.
Europe is providing the bulk of the tanks
A Ukrainian tank drives down a street in the heavily damaged town of Siversk | Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Tanks are one area where Europe — collectively — is outpacing America.
Within the file, one page gives an overview of the 200 tanks that U.S. allies have committed to sending Ukraine — 53 short of what the document says Ukraine needs for its spring offensive.
Poland and Slovenia appear to be the largest contributors, committing nearly half of the total, according to an assessment dated February 23. France and the U.K. are also key players, pitching in 14 tanks each.
Then there’s the Leopard 2 crew, which is donating versions of the modern German battle tanks that Ukraine spent months convincing allies it needed. That lineup includes Germany, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Finland.
The document indicates Germany had committed just four Leopard 2s — the most high-end model — but Berlin said in late March that it had delivered 18 Leopards to Ukraine. It also shows Sweden pledging 10 tanks of an “unknown type,” which media reports suggest may be Leopards.
Separately, the U.S. has said it will send Ukraine 31 of its modern tanks, though those aren’t expected to arrive until at least the fall.
Europe’s deliveries are lagging, too
The idea behind Europe taking the lead on tanks was partly that it could get the tanks to Ukraine and ready for battle swiftly — ideally in time for the spring offensive.
But the document shows that as of February 23, only 31 percent of the 200 tanks pledged had gotten to the battlefield. It did note, however, that the remaining 120 tanks were on track to be transferred.
Separately, another leaked page recounts that France told Italy on February 22 that a joint missile system would not be ready for Ukraine until June. That’s the very end of a timeline the Italian defense ministry laid out in February, when officials said the anti-aircraft defense system would be delivered to Ukraine “in the spring of 2023.”
Hungary sees America as the enemy — but might be letting allies use its airspace
Hungary pops up a couple of times in the pile of creased pages, offering more insights into a country that regularly perplexes its own allies.
The most eye-popping nugget is buried in a “top secret” CIA update from March 2, which says Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán branded the U.S. “one of his party’s top three adversaries during a political strategy session” on February 22.
The remarks, it notes, constitute “an escalation of the level of anti-American rhetoric” from Orbán.
Indeed, Orbán’s government has charted its own course during the war, promoting Russia-friendly narratives, essentially calling on Ukraine to quit and caustically dismissing allied efforts to isolate Russia’s economy.
However, the leaked U.S. documents also indicate Hungary — which shares a small border with Ukraine — may be secretly letting allies use its airspace to move arms toward the battlefield, despite pledges to bar such transfers.
Intelligence leaks suspect Jack Teixeira reflected in an image of the Pentagon in Washington, DC | Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
One of the leaked documents details a plan for Ukrainian pilots to fly donated helicopters from Croatia to Ukraine “through Hungarian air space.” If true, the information would not only show Hungary is letting arms pass through its skies, but also contradict press reports indicating the helicopters would be transferred on the ground or through flights into Poland.
Hungarian and Croatian officials didn’t reply to requests for comment.
Did the Brits downplay a confrontation with Russia?
Publicly, the U.K. has told a consistent story: A Russian fighter jet “released” a missile “in the vicinity” of a U.K. surveillance plane over the Black Sea last September. A close call, to be sure, but not a major incident.
The leaked U.S. dossier, however, hints at something more serious. It describes the incident as a “near shoot-down” of the British aircraft. The language appears to go beyond what U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told lawmakers last October. This week, The New York Times reported that the Russian pilot had locked on the British aircraft before the missile failed to fire properly.
The document also details several other close encounters in recent months between Russian fighter jets and U.S., U.K. and French surveillance aircraft — a subject that jumped into the news last month when a Russian fighter jet collided with a U.S. drone, sending it crashing into the Black Sea.
Wallace has not commented on the leaked description, and a ministry spokesperson on Thursday pointed to a prior statement saying there was a “serious level of inaccuracy” in the divulged dossier.
Turkey is the war’s middleman in Europe
Turkey has portrayed itself as a conciliator between Ukraine and Russia, helping negotiate a deal to keep grain shipments flowing through the Black Sea and maintaining diplomatic ties with Russia while also providing Ukraine with drones.
The leaked pile of clandestine U.S. intelligence reports, however, shows a darker side to Turkey’s position as a middleman that distinctly favors Russia.
One page describes how Turkey helped both Russia and its ally Belarus evade strict Western sanctions — a concern U.S. officials have expressed publicly.
For Belarus, the document says, “Turkish companies purchased sanctioned goods” and then “sold them in European markets.” In the opposite direction, it adds, these companies “resold goods from Europe to Russia.”
More alarming is another leaked document that describes a meeting in February between “Turkish contacts” and the Wagner Group, the private militia firm fighting for the Kremlin. It says Wagner was seeking “to purchase weapons and equipment from Turkey” for the group’s “efforts in Mali and Ukraine.”
The information, which the document says came from “signals intelligence” — a euphemism for digital surveillance — does not explain whether the purchases have occurred.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s marathon three-day visit to Moscow was hailed by the Kremlin as the dawn of a new age of “deeper” ties between the two countries, as Russia races to plug gaping holes left in its finances by Western energy sanctions.
But while Vladimir Putin insisted a new deal struck during the negotiations on Wednesday will ensure Russia can weather the consequences of its invasion of Ukraine, analysts and European lawmakers say he’s overestimating just how much Beijing can help him balance the books.
Prior to the full-blown invasion, Russia’s oil and gas sector accounted for almost half of its federal budget, but embargoes and restrictions imposed by Western countries have since created a multi-billion dollar deficit.
With the country’s ever-influential oligarchs estimated to be out of pocket to the tune of 20 percent of their wealth — and industry tycoon Oleg Deripaska warning the state could run out of money as soon as next year — Putin is seeking to reassure them he’s opened up a massive new market.
“Russian business is able to meet China’s growing demand for energy,” Putin declared Tuesday, ahead of an opulent state banquet.
But analysts and Ukrainian officials have been quick to point out that actually stepping up exports of oil and gas to China will be a technical challenge for Moscow, given most of its energy infrastructure runs to the West, not the East.
Putin on Wednesday announced a major new pipeline, Power-of-Siberia 2, that will carry 50 billion cubic meters of gas to China via Mongolia to fix that problem.
But “in reality, it’s pretty unclear what has actually been agreed,” said Jade McGlynn, a Russia expert at King’s College London. “When it comes to terms and pricing, Beijing drives a hard bargain at the best of times — right now they know Russia’s not got a strong hand.”
Details of the financing and construction of the project have not yet been revealed.
And with predictions of a financial downturn swirling, Beijing may not need more energy to power sluggish industries, McGlynn added.
Yuri Shafranik, a former energy minister under Boris Yeltsin who now heads Russia’s Union of Oil and Gas Producers, suggested China’s appetite for natural gas “will certainly increase” in the coming years, and pointed out that Beijing would not have signed a pipeline agreement if it didn’t need the resources.
But, if the Kremlin was hoping to replace Europe as a reliable customer, it may end up disappointed, said Nathalie Loiseau, a French MEP who serves as chair of the Parliament’s subcommittee on security and defense.
“They chose to use energy to blackmail Europe even before the war,” she said. “Now, Russia has to find new markets and must accept terms and conditions imposed by others. China is taking advantage of the situation.”
In a bid to sweeten the terms, Putin invited all of Asia, Africa and Latin America to buy Russian oil and gas in China’s domestic currency, the renminbi, at the close of Xi’s speech on Tuesday. This came after Xi had already indicated at the China-Arab Summit in December in Riyadh that he would welcome the opportunity to trade oil and gas with Saudi Arabia on similar terms.
The outreach is a nod to the 1974 pact between then-U.S. President Richard Nixon and the Saudi kingdom to accept dollars in exchange for oil, which would in turn be spent on Western goods, assets and services. Non-Western nations have, however, been threatening to move away from dollar pricing in energy markets for years to no effect.
Still, Russia’s efforts to peel away from Western-dominated energy markets are unlikely to make much difference to its fortunes in the long run, according to Simone Tagliapietra, a research fellow at the Bruegel think tank.
“What we are seeing is it’s proving extremely difficult for Russia to diversify away from Europe, and they’ve been forced to become a junior partner of China,” Tagliapietra said. “After this, Moscow won’t be an oil and gas superpower as it was before, not just because of sanctions but also because of the green transition.”
BERLIN — German prosecutors have found “traces”of evidence indicating that Ukrainians may have been involved in the explosions that blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022, according to German media reports Tuesday.
Investigators identified a boat that was potentially used for transporting a crew of six people, diving equipment and explosives into the Baltic Sea in early September. Charges were then placed on the pipelines, according to a joint investigation by German public broadcasters ARD and SWR as well as the newspaper Die Zeit.
The German reports said that the yacht had been rented from a company based in Poland that is “apparently owned by two Ukrainians.”
However, no clear evidence has been established so far on who ordered the attack, the reports said.
In its first reaction, Ukraine’s government dismissed the reports.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, denied the Ukrainian government had any involvement in the pipeline attacks. “Although I enjoy collecting amusing conspiracy theories about the Ukrainian government, I have to say: Ukraine has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea mishap and has no information about ‘pro-Ukraine sabotage groups,'” Podolyak wrote in a tweet.
Three of the four pipes making up the Nord Stream 1 and 2 undersea gas pipelines from Russia to Germany were destroyed by explosions last September. Germany, Sweden and Denmark launched investigations into an incident that was quickly established to be a case of “sabotage.”
The German media reports — which come on top of a New York Times report Tuesday which said that “intelligence suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group” sabotaged the pipelines — stress that there’s no proof that Ukrainian authorities ordered the attack or were involved in it.
Any potential involvement by Kyiv in the attack would risk straining relations between Ukraine and Germany, which is one of the most important suppliers of civilian and military assistance to the country as it fights against Russia’s full-scale invasion.
According to the investigation by German public prosecutors that is cited by the German outlets, the team which placed the explosive charges on the pipelines was comprised of five men — a captain, two divers and two diving assistants — as well as one woman doctor, all of them of unknown nationality and operating with false passports. They left the German port of Rostock on September 6 on the rented boat, the report said.
It added that the yacht was later returned to the owner “in uncleaned condition” and that “on the table in the cabin, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives.”
But the reports also said that investigators can’t exclude that the potential link to Ukraine was part of a “false flag” operation aiming to pin the blame on Kyiv for the attacks.
Contacted by POLITICO, a spokesperson for the German government referred to ongoing investigations by the German prosecutor general’s office, which declined to comment.
The government spokesperson also said: “a few days ago, Sweden, Denmark and Germany informed the United Nations Security Council that investigations were ongoing and that there was no result yet.”
Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova dismissed the reports of Ukrainian involvement in the Nord Stream bombings, saying in a post on the Telegram social media site that they were aimed at distracting attention from earlier, unsubstantiated, reports that the U.S. destroyed the pipelines.
Veronika Melkozerova in Kyiv contributed reporting.
MUNICH — French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday called out Vladimir Putin for telling him last year that the paramilitary Wagner Group had nothing to do with Russia.
“A year ago I spoke to Putin and he assured me Russia had nothing to do with the Wagner Group,” he told an audience at the Munich Security Conference. “I accepted that,” he said.
The Wagner Group has since provided military services supporting Russia’s war effort. It means Moscow “formalized the fact that Wagner was an explicit, direct, diplomatic-military, neo-mafia medium of Russia around the world,” Macron said.
Macron’s speech comes as country leaders and security officials gathered for a three-day event in the Bavarian capital, a conference dominated by the West’s efforts to allign on how to support Kyiv in its conflict with Russia.
The French president said the time isn’t right for dialogue with Russia and called on Western states to “intensify” their backing of a Ukrainian counter-offensive. But he suggested that — when negotiations would end the war on terms acceptable to Kyiv — Europe and Russia should “create an imperfect balance” on the Continent.
“It’s time for a transition,” he said, suggesting Russia and its adversaries will need to agree on a new regional security architecture, calling it an “imperfect balance.”
But he emphasized the time isn’t right for negotiations, noting it’s “too early” to formulate such a Europe-Russia understanding.
PARIS — Vladimir Putin is a “radically rational” leader who is betting that Western countries will grow tired of backing Ukraine and agree a negotiated end to the conflict that will be favorable to Russia, former French President François Hollande told POLITICO.
Hollande, who served from 2012 to 2017, has plenty of first-hand experience with Putin. He led negotiations with the Russian leader, along with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under the so-called Normandy format in 2014 after Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine and supported pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region.
But those efforts at dialogue proved fruitless, exposing Putin as a leader who only understands strength and casting doubt on all later attempts at talks — including a controversial solo effort led by current French President Emmanuel Macron, Hollande said in an interview at his Paris office.
“He [Putin] is a radically rational person, or a rationally radical person, as you like,” said the former French leader, when asked if Putin could seek to widen the conflict beyond Ukraine. “He’s got his own reasoning and within that framework, he’s ready to use force. He’s only able to understand the [power] dynamic that we’re able to set up against him.”
Ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, Hollande added that Putin would seek to “consolidate his gains to stabilize the conflict, hoping that public opinion will get tired and that Europeans will fear escalation in order to bring up at that stage the prospect of a negotiation.”
But unlike when he was in power and Paris and Berlin led talks with Putin, this time the job of mediating is likely to fall to Turkey or China — “which won’t be reassuring for anyone,” Hollande said.
Macron, who served as Hollande’s economy minister before leaving his government and going on to win the presidency in 2017, has tried his own hand at diplomacy with Russia, holding numerous one-on-one calls with Putin both before and after his invasion of Ukraine.
Hollande stopped short of criticizing his successor over the Putin outreach. It made sense to speak with Putin before the invasion to “deprive him of any arguments or pretexts,” he said. But after a “brief period of uncertainty” following the invasion, “the question [about the utility of dialogue] was unfortunately settled.”
Frustration with France and Germany’s leadership, or lack thereof, during the Ukraine war has bolstered arguments that power in Europe is moving eastward into the hands of countries like Poland, which have been most forthright in supporting Ukraine.
But Hollande wasn’t convinced, arguing that northern and eastern countries are casting in their lot with the United States at their own risk. “These countries, essentially the Baltics, the Scandinavians, are essentially tied to the United States. They see American protection as a shield.”
Former French President François Hollande | Antonio Cotrim/EFE via EPA
“Until today,” he continued, U.S. President Joe Biden has shown “exemplary solidarity and lived up to his role in the transatlantic alliance perfectly. But tomorrow, with a different American president and a more isolationist Congress, or at least less keen on spending, will the United States have the same attitude?”
“We must convince our partners that the European Union is about principles and political values. We should not deviate from them, but the partnership can also offer precious, and solid, security guarantees,” Hollande added.
Throwing shade
Hollande was one of France’s most unpopular presidents while in office, with approval ratings in the low single digits. But he has enjoyed something of a revival since leaving the Elysée and is now the country’s second-most popular politician behind former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, five spots ahead of Macron — in keeping with the adage that the French prefer their leaders when they are safely out of office.
His time in office was racked with crises. In addition to failed diplomacy over Ukraine, Hollande led France’s response to a series of terrorist attacks, presided over Europe’s sovereign debt crisis with Merkel, and faced massive street protests against labor reforms.
On that last point, Macron is now feeling some of the heat that Hollande felt during the last months of his presidency. More than a million French citizens have joined marches against a planned pension system reform, and further strikes are planned. Hollande criticized the reform plans, which would raise the age of retirement to 64, as poorly planned.
“Did the president choose the right time? Given the succession of crises and with elevated inflation, the French want to be reassured. Did the government propose the right reform? I don’t think so either — it’s seen as unfair and brutal,” said Hollande. “But now that a parliamentary process has been set into motion, the executive will have to strike a compromise or take the risk of going all the way and raising the level of anger.”
A notable difference between him and Macron is the quality of the Franco-German relationship. While Hollande and Merkel took pains to showcase a form of political friendship, the two sides have been plainly at odds under Macron — prompting a carefully-worded warning from the former commander-in-chief.
Former French President Francois Hollande with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel | Thierry Chesnot/Getty images
“In these moments when everything is being redefined, the Franco-German couple is the indispensable core that ensures the EU’s cohesion. But it needs to redefine the contributions of both parties and set new goals — including European defense,” said Hollande.
“It’s not about seeing one another more frequently, or speaking more plainly, but taking the new situation into account because if that work isn’t done, and if that political foundation isn’t secure, and if misunderstandings persist, it’s not just a bilateral disagreement between France and Germany that we’ll have, but a stalled European Union,” he said, adding that he “hoped” a recent Franco-German summit had “cleared up misunderstandings.”
The socialist leader also had some choice words for Macron over the way he’s trying to rally Europeans around a robust response to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which offers major subsidies to American green industry. Several EU countries have come out against plans, touted by Paris, to create a “Buy European Act” and raise new money to support EU industries.
During a joint press conference on Monday, Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte agreed to disagree on the EU’s response.
“On the IRA, France is discovering that its partners are, for the most part, liberal governments. When you tell the Dutch or the Scandinavians hear about direct aid [for companies], they hear something that goes against not just the spirit, but also the letter of the treaties,” Hollande said.
Another issue rattling European politics lately is the Qatargate corruption scandal, in which current and former MEPs as well as lobbyists are accused of taking cash in exchange for influencing the European Parliament’s work in favor of Qatar and Morocco.
Hollande recalled that his own administration had been hit by a scandal when his budget minister was found to be lying about Swiss bank accounts he’d failed to disclose from tax authorities. The scandal led to Hollande establishing the Haute autorité pour la transparence de la vie publique — an independent authority that audits public officials and has the power to refer any misdeeds to a prosecutor.
Now would be a good time for the EU to follow that example and establish an independent ethics body of its own, Hollande said.
“I think it’s a good institution that would have a role to play in Brussels,” he said. “Some countries will be totally in favor because integrity and transparency are part of their basic values. Others, like Poland and Hungary, will see a challenge to their sovereignty.”
PARIS — France will deliver “light” battle tanks to Ukraine, President Emmanuel Macron’s office announced Wednesday, adding that France would be the first country to send such Western-designed armored fighting vehicles to the war.
The Elysée said after a phone call between Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy that France will send AMX-10 RC armored fighting vehicles, which Paris has been gradually replacing with new Jaguar battle tanks.
Several countries have already sent Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine. Both France and Germany have been under pressure to supply tanks to Ukraine, but had refused Kyiv’s requests, until now.
An adviser to France’s Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu said Wednesday’s decision was made to help Ukraine prepare for “a possible Russian offensive” in the spring.
“Ukraine is at a tipping point now at the frontline … Russia is trying to terrorize the population with its drone attacks that sometimes reach as far as Kyiv, but Ukraine could also start a counter-offensive,” he said.
Zelenskyy thanked Macron on Twitter, saying the two leaders had “a long and detailed conversation” and that the French president’s “leadership brings our victory closer.”
However, Ukraine’s requests for more arms from allies have still not been fully satisfied: In December, Kyiv formally asked for another model of tank, the Leclerc — France’s main battle tank — rather than AMX-10 vehicles, which are being phased out. The AMX-10 is lighter, less protected and has a shorter range than the Leclerc.
However the delivery of French armoured vehicles, though not fully-fledged battle tanks, might encourage others to follow suit, argued retired French colonel and military consultant Michel Goya.
“We’ve made a gesture … we can now boast that we were the first to send tanks, even though they are not the same class as the battle tanks used in Ukraine. But the move can also have an incitement effect on others,” said Goya.
On Wednesday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz faced renewed calls to send Leopard-2 tanks to Ukraine.
“The argument constantly advanced by the chancellery that Germany must not go it alone is absolutely out of date,” said Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who heads Germany’s parliamentary defence committee in an interview with AFP.
“France is once again taking on the role that was expected of Germany, and is going ahead alone,” she said.
Macron’s government did not specify how many vehicles it will send. The French and Ukrainian defense ministries are expected to discuss the details of the equipment delivery soon.
For retired general Jérôme Pellistrandi, director of National Defense magazine, the rate of replacement of the AMX-10s by new generation vehicles within the French army gives an indication of the potential scale of the supplies.
“The land forces have received 38 Jaguar vehicles, that means that the same number of AMX-10s have been removed from service, so thirty thereabouts should be available to be transferred to Ukraine,” Pellistrandi said.
Built for Soviet times
The AMX-10 is a light, highly mobile, armoured vehicle equipped with a 105mm cannon. It has been used in reconnaissance missions for the French army and was deployed as recently as the Barkhane mission in Africa, which formally ended in November.
“It’s a vehicle that was designed in the 70s and 80s to track the advance of Soviet armed land forces. The paradox is that it will be used today for the purpose it was built for … because the Russians have shown their doctrine hasn’t shifted much since the Soviet times,” Pellistrandi said.
The light tanks are useful in operations and can be deployed ahead of Ukrainian battle tanks in the event of a renewed Russian offensive in the spring, according to Pellistrandi.
However, Goya argued that the delivery of several dozen French AMX-10s to the warzone is unlikely to change the dynamic on the Ukrainian battlefield.
“It can help, but in terms of numbers it’s not much given that there are hundreds of thousands of armoured vehicles in Ukraine. The Ukrainians will use them well, but they don’t fire as far as Russian tanks,” he said.
It’s likely that the Ukrainians will keep up the pressure on France and Germany to send battle tanks, alongside other high tech military equipment. But according to a French Armed Forces ministry adviser, the upkeep of France’s defense capacities has remained “a red line” for Macron, which limits the scope for deliveries.
For many officials, it’s a topic they won’t touch. When pressed, politicians give memorized, terse and robotic answers.
The verboten subject? Ukraine’s potential NATO membership.
It’s an issue so potentially combustible that many NATO allies try to avoid even talking about it. When Ukraine in September requested an accelerated process to join the military alliance, NATO publicly reiterated its open-door policybut didn’t give a concrete response. And last week, when NATO foreign ministers met, their final statement simply pointed toa vague2008 pledge that Ukraine would someday join the club.
Not mentioned: Ukraine’s recent request, any concrete steps toward membership or any timeline.
The reasons are manifold. NATO is fractured over how, when (and in a few cases even if) Ukraine should join. Big capitals also don’t want to provoke the Kremlin further, aware of Vladimir Putin’s hyper-sensitivity to NATO’s eastward expansion. And most notably, NATO membership would legally require allies to come to Ukraine’s aid in case of attack — a prospect many won’t broach.
The result is that while Europe and the U.S. have plowed through one taboo after another since Russia invaded Ukraine in February — funneling mountains of lethal military equipment to Kyiv, slapping once unthinkable sanctions on Moscow, defecting from Russian energy — the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO remains the third rail of international politics.
Touching the issue can leave you burned.
French President Emmanuel Macron sparked an outcry over the weekend when he said the West must consider security guarantees for Russia if it returns to the negotiating table — a gesture that enraged Kyiv and appeared to go against NATO’s open-door policy. And behind the scenes, Ukrainian officials themselves faced annoyed colleagues after making their public plea for swift membership.
“Some very good friends of Ukraine are more afraid of a positive reply to Ukraine’s bid for membership in NATO than of providing Ukraine with the most sophisticated weapons,” said Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister.
“There are still many psychological barriers that we have to overcome,” he told POLITICO in a recent interview. “The idea of membership is one of them.”
‘De facto’ ally
Ukraine’s leadership has argued that for all intents and purposes, it is already a member of the Western military alliance — and thus deserves a quick path to formal NATO membership.
“We are de facto allies,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared when announcing his country’s bid to join NATO | Alexey Furman/Getty Images
“We are de facto allies,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared in September when announcing his country’s bid to join NATO “under an accelerated procedure.”
“De facto, we have already completed our path to NATO. De facto, we have already proven interoperability with the alliance’s standards,” he added. “Ukraine is applying to make it de jure.”
The Ukrainian leader’s statement caught many of Kyiv’s closest partners by surprise — and left several grumbling.
The overture threatened to derail a plan the alliance’s most influential capitals had essentially settled on: Weapons now, membership talk later. It was an approach, they felt, that would deprive Moscow of a pretext to pull NATO directly into the conflict.
In their statement last week, ministers pledged to step up political and practical help for Ukraine while avoiding concrete plans for Kyiv’s future status.
Ultimately, however, few allies question Ukraine’s long-term membership prospects — at least in theory. The divisions are more over how and when the question of Kyiv’s membership should be addressed.
A number of Eastern allies are arguing for a closer political relationship between Ukraine and NATO, and they want a more concrete plan that sets the stage for membership.
“My thinking is that it is basically unavoidable,” said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, “that NATO will have to have a way to accept Ukraine.”
On the other end of the spectrum, France’s Macron wants to take Moscow’s perspective into account.
“One of the essential points we must address — as President [Vladimir] Putin has always said — is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” Macron told French television channel TF1 in an interview released Saturday.
Most other allies essentially evade the subject — not rejecting Ukraine’s NATO dreams but repeating a carefully crafted line about focusing on the current war.
Here’s NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s version, offered last week: “The most immediate and urgent task is to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent democratic nation in Europe.”
“The most immediate and urgent task is to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent democratic nation in Europe,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg | Armend Nimani/AFP via Getty
And here’s Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra’s take from the same week: “The task here is to make sure that the main thing continues to be the main thing — and that is helping out Ukraine on the battlefield.”
U.S. NATO Ambassador Julianne Smith echoed the point in an interview: “The focus right now is practical support to Ukraine.”
Analysts say the fault line lies between primarily Western European capitals such as Berlin and Paris — which see membership as an ultra-sensitive issue to be avoided at the moment — and some Eastern capitals that see Ukrainian accession as a goal the alliance can begin working toward.
Since the war began, that divide has only become more “exacerbated,” said Ben Schreer, executive director for Europe at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Some countries simply don’t want to even have a conversation about this because they feel it might further harden Russian responses.”
Another path
Ukrainian officials do recognize that NATO membership is not imminent, but they still want a gesture from the alliance.
“The ideal scenario would, of course, be a very simple sentence from NATO: ‘OK, we receive your application, we begin the process of considering it.’ That would already be a major milestone achievement,” said Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, ahead of last week’s meeting.
Smith, the U.S. ambassador, said the Ukrainians are aware they need to do more before they could become members.
Ukraine formally adopted a constitutional amendment in 2019 committing to pursue NATO membership. But even though the country has pursued some reforms over the past few years, experts and partner governments say there’s more Ukraine must do to integrate Kyiv into Western institutions.
“There’s more work to be done, I don’t think that’s a mystery,” said Smith, adding: “I think they’d be the first to tell you that.”
As an interim solution, Kyiv has presented what it calls a pragmatic proposal for Western countries to help protect Ukraine.
“Russia was able to start this war precisely because Ukraine remained in the gray zone — between the Euro-Atlantic world and the Russian imperialism,” Zelenskyy said when presenting a 10-point peace plan in November.
The West’s “psychological barriers” need to be “overcome by changing the optics” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said | Mads Claus Rasmussen/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images
“So, how can we prevent repetition of Russia’s such aggression against us? We need effective security assurances,” he said, calling for an international conference to sign off on the so-called Kyiv Security Compact, a new set of security guarantees for Ukraine.
But it remains unclear whether Ukraine’s Western partners would be willing to make any legally binding guarantees — or if anything short of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause would prove a sufficient deterrent down the line.
“Some of those countries,” said IISS’ Schreer, “would be very reluctant.” Any written security guarantee, he noted, “from their perspective would probably invite strong Russian response, but it also would make them at this point of time part of this conflict.”
A Ukrainian victory, of course, could shift the calculus.
“If Ukraine is stuck in a stalemate, then NATO membership isn’t gonna happen,” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But if it retakes its territory and accepts its borders — whatever those borders may be, whether it includes Crimea or does not, because that’s the fundamental question for Ukraine — then I think things can move very quickly.”
Asked if he is frustrated with Western partners, Kuleba was blunt.
“I know them too well to be frustrated with them — they are good friends,” he said. “It would be close to impossible for us to sustain the Russian pressure and to prevail on the battleground without them.”
But, the foreign minister added, the West’s “psychological barriers” need to be “overcome by changing the optics.”
Kyiv’s partners, he said, “have to begin to see Ukraine’s membership as an opportunity — and not as a threat.”
