Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on 27 October, urging him to de-escalate Russia’s war against Ukraine and resume negotiations. The roughly 90-minute call was coordinated with Kyiv and came ahead of planned trilateral talks between Ukrainian, US, and Russian officials in Abu Dhabi in November.

The initiative marks a rare direct contact between Western European leaders and Putin since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The Nordic leaders are reportedly seeking to influence peace efforts increasingly shaped by US President Donald Trump, amid concerns in Europe that Washington is shifting toward Moscow’s position and sidelining Ukraine’s European partners.

Stubb and Støre said they discussed Russia’s war against Ukraine, upcoming negotiations, and security in Europe. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the two leaders had urged Putin to take concrete steps toward de-escalation, particularly regarding attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Zelenskyy says leaders urged energy de-escalation

After the call, Zelenskyy said he had spoken with Stubb and Støre to receive a detailed briefing. He thanked them for supporting Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts and said they had clearly told the Russian leader that real de-escalation steps were needed regarding Ukraine’s energy sector and infrastructure.

Zelenskyy also said the leaders discussed preparations for a trilateral meeting planned for November involving Ukrainian, US, and Russian negotiating teams.

In a joint statement, Stubb and Støre said the call followed their 20 October meeting in Oslo and was held in consultation with Ukraine. They emphasized that Finland and Norway, which both share borders with Russia, would continue their longstanding support for Ukraine.

“The discussion was frank and substantive,” Stubb said, adding that the war’s outcome would directly affect Nordic and broader European security. Støre stressed the war’s enormous human and material costs and said the leaders had emphasized the importance of de-escalation.

Moscow gives no sign of changing its position

The Kremlin’s account of the call offered no indication that Putin was prepared to soften his demands, according to Reuters. It said a just and lasting peace was possible only if Russia’s “legitimate interests” were fully taken into account, while blaming EU and NATO policies for prolonging the fighting.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the call as offering nothing new on the conflict and accused European countries of seeking a role in negotiations.

A source close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin had said the war must end while taking “the realities on the ground” into account. The source interpreted this as meaning Moscow would not compromise on its goal of capturing the entire Donbas region.

Russia has continued its attacks on Ukraine while demanding territorial concessions. Kyiv, meanwhile, has called for meaningful de-escalation and a settlement that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.

Nordic initiative draws criticism from European partners

The call comes as European governments seek a greater role in peace efforts led by Trump. Western European leaders have largely avoided direct contact with Putin since the invasion, hoping to isolate Moscow, but concerns have grown that Europe is being sidelined in negotiations.

Stubb said Ukraine had sought to open a new channel of communication and that Europe could no longer remain a bystander to peace efforts. He said the initiative had been discussed with Western allies.

However, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticized the move, saying she saw no signs that Russia wanted peace and arguing that Europe should act together rather than pursue separate initiatives, according to Reuters. 

Reuters added that Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said other European leaders had not been informed of the talks and expressed low expectations for the conversation. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also urged caution.

Stubb and Støre stressed that they had acted as leaders of Finland and Norway, not on behalf of Europe as a whole. They said their countries would continue supporting Ukraine while pursuing diplomatic efforts to end the war.

Ukraine has finished its share of FREYJA, a joint European project to build a system against ballistic missiles, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told journalists on 17 October, Ukrinform reported. He added that Kyiv wants to test the first system as soon as possible.

Ukraine still relies on US-made Patriot interceptors to stop Russian ballistic missiles. Zelenskyy told ABC News on 23 October that Ukraine had received only 24 of them from the US in three months, while it needs 350 a month on average. FREYJA can not close that gap soon, because the system is still in development.

Ukraine’s missile and launcher, partners’ radars and sensors

Zelenskyy said the partners’ share of the work, with 10 countries taking part, is still underway. He also said he had discussed the project with French President Emmanuel Macron, and he named Norway as a key partner.

Zelenskyy did not say what the partners still have to deliver. In August, he said Ukraine is capable of making the missile and launcher, while partners would supply critical components such as radars and sensors.

One part not made in Ukraine

In May, Fire Point co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilerman said all components of the FP-7.x interceptor are made in Ukraine except one. “As for that one part we don’t manufacture in Ukraine, we’ve contracted a certain quantity of it. We already have it,” he said, but did not name the part.

In June, however, Shtilerman told the Financial Times that mass production depended on an infrared seeker Fire Point hoped to get from Germany’s Diehl Defence. Neither statement says whether the seeker is that one part.

Fire Point co-founder Iryna Terekh said in September that FREYJA was going through testing and technical integration in combat conditions in Ukraine. The company plans its first intercept of a ballistic target by mid-2027.

The official timeline has since moved closer. On 21 October, Zelenskyy wrote that officials had identified where to speed up so FREYJA reaches testing by the end of this year. A test is still a step short of an intercept.

Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Ukraine surrender its remaining positions in Donetsk is not simply a dispute over territory. It is a demand that could dismantle Ukraine’s principal defensive barrier in the east, hand Moscow a military advantage it has struggled to achieve through years of fighting, and establish a precedent for further territorial concessions. The latest diplomatic contacts with European leaders have brought this question back to the centre of negotiations.

There are two ways for Russia to capture the remaining Ukrainian-held cities of Donbas. One is to fight its way through heavily fortified defensive positions, accepting substantial casualties, equipment losses and an uncertain timetable. The other is to secure their evacuation through diplomatic negotiations.

The second would achieve an important Russian military objective without requiring Moscow to bear the full cost of a prolonged offensive.

This distinction helps explain why Vladimir Putin continues to insist that Ukrainian forces withdraw from the remaining government-controlled territory of Donetsk region before a comprehensive settlement can be negotiated.

It also raises a more consequential question: would surrendering Donbas bring the war closer to an end, or would it improve Russia’s position in any subsequent confrontation?

A diplomatic opening without a strategic concession

The issue returned to prominence on 27 October when Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a rare telephone conversation with Putin.

According to the Finnish president’s official statement, the call followed discussions in Oslo on 20 October involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff.

The Nordic leaders sought to advance preparations for renewed American-mediated negotiations, expected in Abu Dhabi in November. They emphasised that they were acting on behalf of their respective countries rather than representing Europe collectively.

Stubb described the exchange as “frank and substantive”, arguing that direct communication with Moscow was necessary to address the security consequences of the war.

However, the Kremlin’s account offered little indication of movement on the fundamental disagreements.

Moscow insisted that any durable peace must fully accommodate Russian interests. A source close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin had reiterated his refusal to compromise on the objective of controlling the entire Donbas.

Following the conversation, Zelenskyy confirmed that the Nordic leaders had briefed him and stressed to Putin the need for concrete measures to reduce attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

The diplomatic process has therefore resumed without resolving the territorial dispute at its centre.

The military significance of the remaining Donbas

The territory Russia is demanding includes some of Ukraine’s most important surviving defensive positions.

Since fighting began in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukrainian forces have constructed and reinforced an extensive defensive system centred on Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka.

Known as the fortress belt, this network combines urban areas, industrial facilities, transport infrastructure, prepared defensive positions and terrain that complicates offensive operations.

The military importance of this system extends far beyond the administrative boundaries of Donetsk.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, surrendering these positions would allow Russian forces to occupy heavily defended territory without undertaking the prolonged operations otherwise required to capture it.

In its 26 October battlefield assessment, the institute continued to identify the capture of this defensive belt as Russia’s principal military objective in Donetsk. Ukrainian forces retained positions in parts of Kostiantynivka, while Russian operations towards other major cities remained contested.

The implications of a negotiated Ukrainian withdrawal would be substantial.

Russia could occupy the fortified urban corridor, reorganise its forces, establish new logistics routes and potentially redirect formations towards other sectors.

Ukraine, meanwhile, would have to construct or reinforce defensive positions further west, potentially under pressure and in less favourable terrain.

The resulting military imbalance would not necessarily lead to another Russian offensive. But it would change the conditions under which any renewed hostilities might take place.

That is why territory cannot be assessed solely by its surface area. A relatively small section of the front can possess strategic value disproportionate to its size.

Why Moscow prefers a negotiated withdrawal

Russia’s insistence on Donetsk also reflects the limits of what its military has achieved.

Despite years of fighting, Moscow has not secured complete control of the region. Successive offensives have produced territorial gains, but at considerable cost and without the rapid breakthrough originally anticipated.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged the central importance of the remaining Ukrainian-held territory.

In an interview published by the US State Department, Rubio characterised the dispute as centred on territory Russia wants but has been unable to capture militarily, while recognising Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term security concerns.

His remarks demonstrate how Donbas has become the principal territorial obstacle in Washington’s diplomatic calculations.

For Moscow, however, concentrating negotiations on this specific demand offers an additional advantage.

If Ukraine refuses to withdraw, the Kremlin can argue that Kyiv is preventing progress towards peace. If Ukraine agrees, Russia obtains strategically valuable territory without the military costs associated with conquering it.

The demand therefore serves a dual purpose: it establishes a public explanation for the absence of an agreement while offering Russia an immediate military benefit should negotiations succeed on its terms.

The problem with treating Donbas as the final concession

The central weakness in any settlement built around a Ukrainian withdrawal is the assumption that control of Donbas represents the limit of Russia’s territorial ambitions.

Moscow’s previously declared objectives suggest a more complicated picture.

In June 2024, Putin demanded Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions claimed by Russia: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Moscow does not fully control these regions, despite claiming to have annexed them in September 2022.

Russia has also demanded restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities and future security relationships.

As EU Today previously reported, renewed diplomatic engagement has not produced a clear abandonment of the Kremlin’s wider objectives.

Consequently, transferring the remaining territory of Donetsk would not necessarily satisfy Moscow’s other demands.

There is a significant difference between conceding territory as part of an enforceable settlement and withdrawing from defensive positions as a precondition for negotiating one.

In the first case, territorial arrangements form part of a wider agreement establishing obligations, verification procedures and security guarantees.

In the second, one party makes a potentially irreversible military concession before knowing whether an agreement will ultimately be reached.

This asymmetry is particularly important where the proposed concession directly affects the withdrawing country’s ability to defend itself.

The strategy of incremental gains

One interpretation of Moscow’s approach is that it reflects a strategy of incremental territorial expansion rather than an attempt to achieve all its objectives through a single decisive offensive.

After Russia failed to capture Kyiv in 2022, its military campaign increasingly concentrated on taking territory through successive, often prolonged operations.

The diplomatic equivalent would involve securing one concession, consolidating the resulting advantage and subsequently presenting additional demands.

Under such a scenario, Russia could obtain control of the remaining Donetsk territory, establish new positions closer to Dnipropetrovsk region and later argue that further territorial or security arrangements were necessary to protect its newly acquired frontier.

Moscow has already used the language of protective buffer zones to justify military operations elsewhere in Ukraine.

There is no evidence establishing that such a sequence would inevitably follow a Donbas settlement. Nevertheless, the possibility must be considered when assessing the military consequences of a withdrawal.

The concern is not merely that Russia might violate a future agreement. It is that the agreement itself could alter the strategic balance in ways that make renewed military pressure more effective.

There is also an internal Ukrainian dimension.

An agreement requiring the evacuation of cities defended for years would create substantial political controversy. Disagreements over territorial concessions, security guarantees and the credibility of Western commitments could complicate domestic political stability.

For Moscow, such divisions might provide another means of influencing Ukraine without immediate military escalation.

Donbas and the wider question of Ukrainian sovereignty

Donbas has considerable political significance for Putin beyond its military value.

The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Donetsk and Luhansk became central to the Kremlin’s justification for intervention, and their incorporation into Russia was later proclaimed as part of the 2022 annexations.

Control of the entire region would allow Putin to present a tangible achievement after years of warfare.

Yet the Kremlin’s objectives have never been confined exclusively to Donbas.

Putin has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s historical and political independence, while Russian negotiating demands have extended to the country’s military posture, international alliances and internal political arrangements.

These positions suggest that territorial control forms part of a broader attempt to determine Ukraine’s strategic orientation.

A settlement that ends fighting in Donetsk without resolving these wider disagreements might therefore suspend the conflict rather than settle its underlying causes.

What the next negotiations must establish

The planned talks in Abu Dhabi will test whether Moscow is prepared to distinguish between its territorial demands and the conditions necessary for a sustainable ceasefire.

An immediate halt to hostilities along existing lines would preserve the military status quo while allowing negotiations to proceed.

Russia has resisted this approach, arguing that a temporary ceasefire could enable Ukraine to rebuild its forces without resolving the conflict.

Ukraine, by contrast, argues that withdrawing from fortified territory without credible guarantees would expose it to renewed attack.

Neither side can be expected to disregard the military implications of the proposed arrangements.

For European governments, the principal question is consequently not simply whether Ukrainian and Russian representatives can be brought back to the negotiating table.

It is whether any agreement can prevent the territorial settlement from becoming the starting position for another war.

Stubb and Støre’s conversation with Putin demonstrated that diplomatic communication remains possible. It did not establish that Moscow is prepared to abandon its existing territorial objectives.

The distinction matters.

Putin’s demand for Donbas offers Russia two potential advantages: a justification for continuing the war if Kyiv refuses, and a substantial military gain if Kyiv accepts.

That does not prove the Kremlin has already decided to resume hostilities after a negotiated withdrawal. It does, however, explain why the terms, sequencing and enforceability of any agreement are as consequential as the territory itself.

The essential question facing negotiators is therefore not only whether Russia can obtain Donbas through diplomacy rather than force.

It is whether the price of that concession would be a lasting peace — or a weaker Ukrainian defensive position if peace fails.

Frontline near Russian-occupied city in southern Ukraine quiet for first time in years ahead of planned evacuation

A local ceasefire in a southern Ukrainian city under Russian occupation appeared to be holding on Tuesday, with both sides ceasing drone attacks ahead of an apparent evacuation of about 2,000 trapped and desperate civilians.

The temporary truce began at 3am in Russian-controlled Oleshky. The city sits on the Dnipro River and is about 3 miles (5km) from Kherson, a larger city on the opposite bank. Ukrainian troops recaptured Kherson in autumn 2022.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Frontline near Russian-occupied city in southern Ukraine quiet for first time in years ahead of planned evacuation

A local ceasefire in a southern Ukrainian city under Russian occupation appeared to be holding on Tuesday, with both sides ceasing drone attacks ahead of an apparent evacuation of about 2,000 trapped and desperate civilians.

The temporary truce began at 3am in Russian-controlled Oleshky. The city sits on the Dnipro River and is about 3 miles (5km) from Kherson, a larger city on the opposite bank. Ukrainian troops recaptured Kherson in autumn 2022.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre have spoken directly with Vladimir Putin before briefing Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The initiative, undertaken in consultation with Ukraine, comes ahead of planned negotiations in Abu Dhabi but has drawn criticism from other Nordic leaders.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, 27 October, marking an unusual direct diplomatic engagement between Moscow and two European NATO members since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The conversation, initiated by the two Nordic leaders from Helsinki, was followed by a separate call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to a joint statement released by the Norwegian government, the initiative had been prepared in consultation with Kyiv.

The objective was to communicate directly with Putin about efforts to end the war and the forthcoming negotiations involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States.

Stubb described the exchange as frank and substantive, arguing that Finland and Norway had particular reasons to participate in discussions concerning European security.

“We are neighbouring countries to Russia,” he said, adding that the war’s outcome would directly affect European security.

Both leaders reaffirmed their governments’ continuing support for Ukraine while calling for renewed negotiations. Støre emphasised the humanitarian and economic consequences of the conflict and the need for de-escalation.

Importantly, their statement specified that they were acting as national leaders rather than representatives of Europe collectively.

Zelenskyy briefed after discussions with Moscow

Following the conversation with Putin, Stubb and Støre spoke with Zelenskyy, who confirmed the exchange in a statement issued by his office.

The Ukrainian president thanked them for their detailed briefing and diplomatic engagement.

According to Zelenskyy, the two leaders had communicated Ukraine’s demand for concrete steps to reduce attacks against its energy facilities and other infrastructure.

The discussion also covered preparations for trilateral negotiations involving Ukrainian, American and Russian delegations, provisionally planned for November.

Kyiv’s confirmation that it had been consulted before the Putin conversation is significant. Ukraine has consistently maintained that decisions concerning its sovereignty, territory and security cannot be negotiated without its participation.

Oslo talks establish new diplomatic channel

Tuesday’s telephone diplomacy followed a meeting in Oslo on 20 October involving Zelenskyy, Stubb, Støre and representatives of US President Donald Trump.

American special envoy Steve Witkoff participated in person, while Jared Kushner joined remotely. European and NATO representatives also attended related discussions.

According to the Ukrainian presidency’s account, the consultations addressed possible steps towards ending the war and establishing security arrangements after a settlement.

Witkoff subsequently travelled to St Petersburg on 21 October for discussions with Putin.

The diplomatic contacts have produced plans for another round of talks in Abu Dhabi, expected after 4 November, although the precise date and representation remain subject to confirmation.

The European Commission has also sought involvement. During its 21 October press briefing, the Commission confirmed its participation in the Oslo consultations, which addressed territorial questions, security guarantees and post-war economic arrangements.

As EU Today previously reported, discussions about appointing a European representative to negotiations have exposed disagreements over who should speak for European governments and what authority such a representative would possess.

Moscow maintains its negotiating position

The Kremlin’s account of Tuesday’s conversation offered little indication of a change in Russia’s principal demands.

According to reports citing the Kremlin’s statement, Putin insisted that a lasting settlement would require what Moscow described as full recognition of Russia’s legitimate interests.

He also accused NATO and European Union countries of pursuing confrontational policies that prolonged the conflict.

These statements indicate that the reopening of direct communication has not, by itself, resolved the differences between the negotiating parties.

Russia continues to seek arrangements concerning Ukrainian territory and the European security order, while Kyiv maintains that its sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.

Denmark questions independent Nordic diplomacy

The initiative has also revealed differences among European governments over direct engagement with Moscow.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticised the Finnish-Norwegian approach, saying it had not been coordinated with Denmark and warning against individual European countries pursuing separate diplomatic initiatives.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also expressed reservations about contacts that might undermine a common European position.

Their objections highlight a distinction between consultation with Ukraine and agreement among European governments on the organisation of negotiations.

For Finland and Norway, both of which share borders with Russia, the outcome of the conflict carries direct implications for security in the Baltic Sea region and the High North.

The immediate question is whether their intervention can facilitate substantive negotiations without weakening coordination between Kyiv and its European partners.

With the next US-mediated talks expected in November, Tuesday’s contacts establish another channel of communication with Moscow. Whether that channel produces movement on territorial disputes, security guarantees or an eventual ceasefire remains unresolved.

Alexander Stubb and Jonas Gahr Støre held ‘substantive’ talk with Russian president on peace negotiations, but faced sceptical reactions from some European leaders

Meanwhile, Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, has warned that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is “testing us and testing Nato’s resolve” as he condemned hybrid threats and “state-sponsored terrorism” from Russia.

Streeting repeated his recent warnings that “we have to be ready for a scenario in which the United Kingdom and the Nato alliance finds itself at war with Russia”. He went on:

Not because we want war – we have no quarrel with the Russian people, and we have no desire for war with Russia; Nato is a defensive alliance – but when Putin gives assurances that he has no intentions to provoke a war with Nato, we are reminded of what he said about Ukraine only days before the invasion.

The more ready we are to face against Russia, to defend every inch of Nato territory, the less likely we are to find ourselves in that scenario.

Poland is one of our greatest and certainly our most reliable friend in Europe, and we value and treasure this friendship very much.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

Alexander Stubb and Jonas Gahr Støre held ‘substantive’ talk with Russian president on peace negotiations, but faced sceptical reactions from some European leaders

Meanwhile, Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, has warned that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is “testing us and testing Nato’s resolve” as he condemned hybrid threats and “state-sponsored terrorism” from Russia.

Streeting repeated his recent warnings that “we have to be ready for a scenario in which the United Kingdom and the Nato alliance finds itself at war with Russia”. He went on:

Not because we want war – we have no quarrel with the Russian people, and we have no desire for war with Russia; Nato is a defensive alliance – but when Putin gives assurances that he has no intentions to provoke a war with Nato, we are reminded of what he said about Ukraine only days before the invasion.

The more ready we are to face against Russia, to defend every inch of Nato territory, the less likely we are to find ourselves in that scenario.

Poland is one of our greatest and certainly our most reliable friend in Europe, and we value and treasure this friendship very much.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

© Photograph: Heiko Junge/Pool NTB/AP

At least one person has been killed and 15 injured in successive Russian attacks on the Ukrainian capital. Strikes damaged a university campus, residential buildings and the Southern Bridge, disrupting metro services, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Ukraine’s allies of delaying critical air defence supplies.

Russian forces launched successive attacks on Kyiv between Monday evening, 26th October, and Tuesday morning, striking a university campus, residential neighbourhoods and a major bridge across the Dnipro River, causing casualties and disrupting transport across the Ukrainian capital.

At least one person was killed and 15 injured, according to updated reports on Tuesday. The attacks damaged university buildings and student accommodation in eastern Kyiv, while a subsequent strike hit the Pivdennyi, or Southern, Bridge, interrupting road and underground railway services between the two banks of the city.

The first wave began shortly before 10pm on Monday, when Russian ballistic missiles struck the Desnianskyi district, near Lisova metro station and Kyoto Park.

Buildings belonging to the State University of Trade and Economics were damaged, including student dormitories. Residential properties, medical facilities and vehicles were also affected.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko initially reported ten injured, most of them students. Nine required hospital treatment, including three in serious condition.

In the neighbouring Dniprovskyi district, emergency workers recovered a body from a severely damaged building. Two ambulance workers responding to an emergency call were also injured.

Southern Bridge struck in renewed attack

A second wave of Russian attacks followed in the early hours of Tuesday.

The Southern Bridge was struck again, damaging infrastructure used by Kyiv’s underground railway system and forcing authorities to restrict traffic across the Dnipro.

Metro operations were disrupted on two lines. On the green line, trains operated only between Syrets and Vydubychi on the western bank and between Osokorky and Chervonyi Khutir on the eastern bank. Services across the bridge were suspended.

On the red line, Chernihivska and Lisova stations were temporarily closed, with trains operating between Akademmistechko and Darnytsia.

The bridge is one of Kyiv’s principal transport connections between its eastern and western districts, carrying both road traffic and part of the metro network.

The latest strike followed earlier damage to the same crossing on 22 October, when Russian ballistic attacks also disrupted traffic and underground services.

Repeated damage to transport crossings has complicated movement across the capital, particularly for residents travelling between the densely populated eastern districts and workplaces in central and western Kyiv.

Zelenskyy: Delays in air defence help Russian attacks

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded to Monday’s strikes by accusing Russia of targeting crowded civilian areas and warning that delays in Western air defence deliveries were increasing Ukraine’s vulnerability.

In a statement published on Telegram, he said Russian ballistic missiles had struck university grounds, Kyoto Park, areas near a metro station and residential buildings.

The president said there were no military installations near the affected sites and warned that further attacks remained possible.

He linked the casualties directly to Ukraine’s continuing difficulties obtaining sufficient air defence equipment.

“Artificial delays in providing air defence to Ukraine help terror,” Zelenskyy said.

He urged Western governments to ensure that political agreements on military assistance were implemented without administrative delays.

Zelenskyy also argued that Ukraine required weapons capable of destroying Russian ballistic missile launchers before missiles could be fired, rather than relying entirely on interception.

Such capabilities, he said, would offer a more effective means of protecting civilian lives.

Washington faces questions over interceptor deliveries

His criticism came hours after he publicly disclosed that Ukraine had been waiting almost a month for US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to approve deliveries of missiles for Patriot and NASAMS air defence systems.

“In particular, we have been waiting for nearly a month for Mr Hegseth to sign off on missiles for Patriots and NASAMS,” Zelenskyy said on 26th October.

He instructed Ukrainian officials to raise the matter again with Washington.

Ukraine is seeking additional PAC-2 and PAC-3 Patriot missiles from the United States, European countries and other partners.

Some of these weapons are purchased through NATO’s Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List, or PURL, which allows allied governments to finance American military equipment destined for Ukraine.

However, US-made weapons may remain subject to American export and transfer authorisations even when European governments have agreed to finance their procurement.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that a shipment of air-defence missiles may have been delayed, but said the delay was not politically motivated. Ukraine has said it is waiting for US approval for missiles for its Patriot and NASAMS systems, as its forces face shortages of the ammunition needed to intercept incoming attacks.

The precise effect of the outstanding approvals on Kyiv’s ability to defend itself during the latest strikes has not been established. The delay adds to the pressure on a country already trying to protect its cities and critical infrastructure with limited air-defence stocks.

Kyiv’s continuing ballistic missile vulnerability

Ballistic missiles present particular challenges for Ukrainian air defences because of their high speeds and the limited time available to detect, track and intercept incoming weapons.

Patriot systems equipped with appropriate interceptors are among Ukraine’s principal defences against such attacks. Their effectiveness depends not only on the availability of launchers and radar systems but also on adequate stocks of interceptor missiles.

Russia’s repeated attacks on the Southern Bridge also demonstrate the wider consequences of damage to urban infrastructure. Even when a transport crossing remains structurally intact, damage to railway equipment or nearby installations can interrupt services for thousands of passengers.

The latest bombardment followed another substantial Russian attack on Kyiv on 21st–22nd October, which killed one person and injured more than 20.

For Ukraine, the attacks have reinforced two immediate requirements: protecting essential infrastructure against further strikes and securing a reliable supply of interceptor missiles.

Whether Washington can accelerate the outstanding approvals, and whether European partners can provide additional ammunition from their own stocks, will be central to Ukraine’s air defence preparations as winter approaches.

Main Image: By Mitte27 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=113352288

For 14 years, Serbia’s government kept the country close to Moscow. Now, the opposition “Student List” has won the country’s snap parliamentary election, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Ukraine is ready to deepen its cooperation with Serbia, welcoming the result as “a new page” in a post on X.

The win could end the 14-year rule of President Aleksandar Vučić’s political force and weaken Moscow’s position in the Balkans. Serbia has remained an important Kremlin partner in Europe since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Belgrade never joined the EU's sanctions against Moscow.

“A new page”

In his post, written in Ukrainian, Zelenskyy said that "changes have taken place in Serbia, the victory of the Student List, and this is clearly a new page in the history of the country and its people."

“We wish Serbia success, real development, and warm relations with the European community,” he wrote.

He said Ukraine was grateful to Serbia “for the respect shown to our people and our state, our independence,” and added: “We are ready to keep increasing our cooperation, and may all the good hopes of the people of Serbia come true.”

But the winners rule out sanctions on Russia

Vučić had earlier predicted that a new government could impose restrictions on Moscow by March or April, according to Novosti. The Student List says otherwise: it has no plans to align with the EU or to sanction Russia over the war in Ukraine, according to Reuters.

Its candidates frame Serbia’s reliance on Russian gas, with Gazprom as the largest supplier at around 2.2 billion cubic meters a year at below-market prices, as an acute economic dependency rather than a geopolitical alignment.

The movement’s top candidates have also said a future government would end all arms exports to war zones, including sales to Western intermediaries who pass weapons to Ukraine. Around €800 million worth of Serbian ammunition has reached Ukraine through that route since 2022.

Ukraine will not discuss limits to its armed forces or enforced neutrality at November meeting, president says. What we know on day 1,706

A trilateral meeting between Kyiv, Washington and Moscow will take place in November aiming to restart stalled Russia-Ukraine peace talks, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said. “We are ready to talk. If it’s a territorial issue, it must be addressed at a leadership level. Other issues fall within the remit of the technical groups. All this can therefore be discussed in November,” the Ukrainian president said on Sunday in an interview. Zelenskyy also renewed his push ⁠for a meeting between him and Vladimir Putin, believing that Putin is the only person ​in Russia who can make major decisions to end ​the war.

Zelenskyy says that at the trilateral talks, Ukraine will not discuss limits to its armed forces, or enforced postwar neutrality. Kyiv has long sought entry into Nato despite the reticence of some members.

Meanwhile, US warnings about imminent ⁠Russian ballistic missile strikes, critical to Ukraine’s air defences, have been fully restored, according to Zelenskyy. He told Ukraine’s ⁠TSN television channel that SpaceX’s ​Starshield satellite internet had been working at speeds of up to 420km/h since early on Saturday, after a meeting with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff in Oslo. Starshield was throttled earlier in October amid diplomatic pressure on Kyiv from Washington.

The US has been trying to pressure Ukraine to suspend strikes on Russian oil refineries, which it says push energy prices higher. However, Zelenskyy has repeatedly said Kyiv will only stop the strikes if Moscow stops hitting Ukraine’s power infrastructure, or if the US allows Ukraine to use of Starshield ‌over Russia to detect launch places of its ballistic missiles, or if it supplies Ukraine with Patriot missiles.

Zelenskyy on Sunday said Russia had launched nearly 2,300 drones targeting Ukrainian cities over the past week, renewing his call on western allies to speed up deliveries of interceptors. “This week alone, Russia has launched about 1,600 guided bombs, 48 missiles of various types, including ballistic missiles, and almost 2,300 strike drones at Ukraine,” he wrote in an online post.

Russia’s defence ⁠ministry said on ⁠Sunday ​its drones had struck a ⁠cargo vessel bound for the Black Sea port of ⁠Chornomorsk in an overnight ​attack ‌and another cargo ‌vessel en route to the ‌port of Odesa during the day. The ministry said the vessels were being used to supply the Ukrainian army. Russian ‌forces also hit a logistics centre, a ​distribution centre and a logistics terminal in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv overnight. Reuters could not confirm the reports.

A Ukrainian drone attack overnight on the Russian border city ⁠of Belgorod killed ⁠three people ​and injured 13, local authorities said on Sunday, while ⁠a separate drone strike later in the day killed another person. The overnight attack on Belgorod ​damaged 30 apartment buildings, regional governor ⁠Alexander Shuvayev said.

The presidential election in Bulgaria on Sunday ended inconclusively, with the next head of state to be picked in a runoff. In a surprisingly strong performance, the candidate of the pro-western reformist opposition, Andrey Gyurov, will face the incumbent leftist president, Iliana Yotova. Iotova opposes military aid to Ukraine and favours dialogue with Russia, while Gyurov has often expressed firm support for Kyiv. The vote was held amid security concerns after a series of drone attacks on ships in the Black Sea.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Ukrinform/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Ukrinform/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Ukrinform/Shutterstock

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's former spokesperson urged him Sunday to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin face-to-face in Moscow, arguing that his past business and political connections in the Russian capital from years back could help him negotiate a peace deal there.

Iuliia Mendel, who served as Zelenskyy's spokesperson from 2019 to 2021, told Fox News Digital that the former comedian had also made his first millions in Russia and should perhaps leverage those ties to pursue lasting peace.

"When Zelenskyy was an entertainer, he often performed in Moscow," Mendel said, adding that the Ukrainian president "knows a lot of people from Putin's elite."

"He actually professionally grew in Moscow and earned his first millions in Moscow, and today he pretends that he has nothing in common with them," Mendel said.

RECOVERING FROM LUNG SURGERY, POPE LEO URGES PUTIN TO AGREE TO CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIAN-HELD UKRAINE CITY

"He needs to go to Moscow and needs to agree on compromises that are acceptable," she said, before adding that Zelenskyy "doesn't need to play his maximalist games and to play this noble actor."

Mendel's criticism came as Ukraine, Russia and the United States prepared for another round of technical-level peace talks, potentially in Abu Dhabi or Switzerland, in November.

U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have helped lay the groundwork for renewed negotiations that officials hope could finally lead to direct talks between the two leaders.

Before entering politics, Zelenskyy had built a successful entertainment career. Beginning in the late 1990s, he performed with the comedy troupe Kvartal 95, competed on the Russian-language comedy program KVN and later worked as an actor, writer and producer in television and movies. 

From the late 1990s, he performed on Russian stages and at private parties and appeared in movies shown across former Soviet republics, Mendel claimed. 

She said that after Russia annexed Crimea and launched its war in Donbas in early 2014, Zelenskyy traveled to Russia to work on the comedy film "Eight New Dates" which was released in Russian theaters in 2015.

ZELENSKYY TO SEEK OFFRAMP FOR YEARS-LONG RUSSIA WAR IN UN SPEECH AFTER TRUMP REVEALS PEACE DEAL IS CLOSE

According to a report by Business Insider, many of Zelenskyy's movies were also in Russian and were marketed to a Russian audience, David Dodson, an American movie editor who worked with Zelenskyy told the outlet.

"He was a well-loved comic, actor and performer in Russia, but after [the 2013-14] Maidan [Revolution], everything changed," Dodson said.

"People need to realize that Volodya’s movies were very big in Russia. Most of his market was in Russia. He’s always been a popular comedy star in Russia," Dobson also clarified to GQ when asked if he directed the former actor in "Eight First Dates" in Russia, released in 2012.

In 2013, the movie received the Russian National Movie Awards as the Best Russian Comedy of the Year.

In 2019, Zelenskyy also promised to relinquish ownership of a Cyprus-registered company operating a film studio in Russia after investigative journalists revealed that he and his business partners still owned three Russian companies, according to the Kyiv Post.

Zelenskyy's entertainment career made him a household name in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics before he entered politics and won Ukraine's 2019 presidential election with roughly 73% of the runoff vote on promises to fight corruption and pursue peace in eastern Ukraine.

Mendel argued that Zelenskyy's promise to bring peace at the time stands in stark contrast to the devastating war that has crippled the country and defined much of his presidency.

TRUMP ANNOUNCES IMMEDIATE ENERGY CEASEFIRE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

"Zelenskyy became the president with 73% record support," Mendel said. "Because he promised to bring peace to Ukraine."

"And now he has been presiding for almost five years (over) the largest war in Europe since World War II. This shows a lot."

"When his country is bleeding, he needs to make a peace deal for his people," she said before adding that the leader "needs to put the interests of his people first, just for Ukraine to exist as an independent state."

Whether Zelenskyy should travel to Moscow has, in fact, become a flashpoint in efforts to arrange direct peace talks.

In 2025, Putin offered to host Zelenskyy for talks in Moscow, but the Ukrainian president rejected the invitation as Russian forces continued attacking Ukraine.

"He can come to Kyiv," Zelenskyy told ABC News at the time, saying he could not visit Moscow while Ukraine remained under Russian missile attacks.

In September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Russian journalists pressed Zelenskyy on when he would visit Moscow. He replied, "On a missile."

ZELENSKYY CONGRATULATES TRUMP ON TURNING 80 IN BIRTHDAY CALL, VOWS MORE UKRAINE PEACE TALKS AT G7 ON TUESDAY

Mendel, however, argued that personal animosity between the two leaders has become the main obstacle to diplomacy.

"Today there are diplomatic efforts to try to stop this brutal and bloody war that Russia started," she said.

"But what we see now is a personal opposition between Zelenskyy and Putin that continues to grow into constant escalation in which people suffer tremendously, Ukraine's infrastructure, energy grid, and businesses are in ruins, and refugees are fleeing."

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More than four years later, peace negotiations are deadlocked over territory, security guarantees and the terms of a lasting ceasefire.

Moscow has demanded territorial concessions from Ukraine, including areas Russian forces do not fully control.

Kyiv has rejected ceding sovereign territory and insists that any agreement include enforceable security guarantees against another Russian attack.

RUSSIA RELEASES AMERICAN TEACHER IMPRISONED ON UKRAINE MERCENARY CHARGES AFTER TRUMP PRESSED PUTIN

Mendel went on to praise President Donald Trump's efforts to break the diplomatic deadlock, calling him the first Western leader to "challenge the status quo" and consistently push for an end to the war.

"For this reason, many Ukrainians place great hope in his ability to bring peace," she said.

"A sustainable peace deal cannot be reached solely between Zelensky and Putin; it requires the involvement and initiative of a strong third party to halt the ongoing devastation."

On Friday, the White House announced that first lady Melania Trump had helped broker a temporary ceasefire in Oleshky, a Russian-occupied town in southern Ukraine's Kherson region, to allow humanitarian aid deliveries, demining operations and civilian evacuations.

An estimated 1,700 to 2,000 people remain in the devastated front-line town, many of them facing severe shortages of food, medicine and other essentials.

The White House said the ceasefire would begin Oct. 29, although Ukrainian and Russian officials have indicated that operations could begin Oct. 27.

Pope Leo also reportedly spoke with Zelenskyy and Putin about the humanitarian crisis, according to Vatican News.

ZELENSKYY ACCUSES PUTIN OF DEFYING TRUMP'S CEASEFIRE PUSH, SENDS POINTED MESSAGE TO WHITE HOUSE

"Melania Trump has become synonymous with the words of a saver and a hero, since she has brokered the deal for Oleshky," Mendel said. "This is something that is going to save around 2,000 people and that neither Ukraine nor Russia could have solved for months and months."

"That is why, you know, what Melania Trump has done is actually a case to show that where two men are fighting, a woman can actually save lives," she added.

"And this is the new approach that would show that peace really should focus on human lives, not on maps and territories."

Mendel also criticized the influence of Zelenskyy's longtime ally Andriy Yermak on his diplomatic approach, arguing that the Ukrainian president has favored confrontation over compromise.

"Mr. Yermak was teaching Zelenskiy to be a strong man in diplomacy. And what today we see is actually diplomacy that doesn't exist," she said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It's a diplomacy of humiliation, diplomacy of constant threats, diplomacy of demands," Mendel added.

“Os termos de utilização do Starlink mantiveram-se consistentes: trata-se de um sistema civil, e não de um meio para matar. Qualquer violação destes termos resultará no encerramento do serviço”, avisou o magnata. O magnata norte-americano do setor tecnológico Elon Musk, responsável da SpaceX, acusou a Ucrânia de violar os termos de utilização do Starlink, após vários dias de limitação de velocidade, no meio de tensões com Washington. “Os termos de utilização do Starlink mantiveram-se consistentes: trata-se de um sistema civil, e não de um meio para matar. Qualquer violação destes termos resultará no encerramento do serviço”, escreveu Musk na rede

Ukraine's military satellite links work at full speed again after a cap that hobbled its drones, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said on 24 October. Hours later, SpaceX owner Elon Musk, who earlier pointed at Washington, said his company had enforced its own rules. A Ukrainian presidential adviser and a drone volunteer replied that civilian Starlink could not fly such missions.

Ukraine holds off Russia with American tools it doesn't control, so any pause decided abroad, like stalled Patriot deliveries or the Starlink cap, opens gaps in its defense. With no stated rule on what Ukraine's forces may do, the next cutoff could again come unannounced and unexplained.

Kyiv records full speed again

The ministry recorded stable connections above 400 km/h (250 mph). Before, Kyiv said, links on Starlink and its military version, Starshield, cut out above 161 km/h (100 mph).

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the restoration began overnight. "The speeds are now where they need to be," he said, citing defense against jet-powered Shahed drones. He thanked US lawmakers, the media, the State Department, and the US President, but not Musk or SpaceX.

Musk: "That loophole was closed last week"

Musk replied "Correct" to an X user who called Starlink "not a weapons system." "Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week," he wrote.

Correct.

Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.

Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them.

Ukraine military violated… https://t.co/ZXBB8bYfPn

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 24, 2026

He called Starshield "a different system" the US government controls, and warned: "Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact."

Musk named no evidence, cases, or time frames. Overnight, he answered a headline on the US financial blog ZeroHedge saying he "admits" SpaceX throttled Starlink.

"We simply enforced our terms of service when they were bypassed. There has been no change to our terms of service," Musk wrote.

When the cap hit on 14 October, Musk wrote that the US government owns and controls Starshield and that the US military and "ultimately POTUS" decide any limits. US President Donald Trump, who credited Musk with the fix while Kyiv still saw the cap, said on 24 October he had spoken to Musk about Ukraine but gave no details.

Ukrainians note contradiction to reality

Ukrainian presidential adviser on defense technology Serhii Beskrestnov, known by the callsign Flash, wrote:

"It is very strange that Elon Musk doesn't know about the restrictions on Starlink operations in Ukraine."

Since winter 2026, every Starlink terminal over Ukraine, occupied areas included, has been limited to 70–90 km/h (43–56 mph), he said, and over Russia, Starlink does not work. "So we PHYSICALLY CANNOT USE COMMERCIAL STARLINK for deep strikes and mid-range strikes," Beskrestnov wrote. Deep strikes hit targets far inside Russia, mid-range ones targets closer to the front.

Ukrainian activist and drone fundraiser Serhii Sternenko called Musk's claim untrue. He said Ukraine introduced whitelists of terminals in February, and any terminal used on the move had to be listed and connected to Starshield.

"So using civilian Starlink for drone missions was technically impossible. All drone missions that needed satellite communication could be carried out only with Starshield," Sternenko added.

European governments help pay for Ukraine's Starlink service. Germany funds it under a contract that runs until April 2027. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, whose country pays around $50 million a year for the service, said on 23 October: "Mixing business with politics usually ends badly, especially when we talk about Elon Musk."

But Elon Musk, whose company SpaceX owns Starlink, accuses Ukrainian military of violating ⁠the company’s terms

Ukraine’s military has a “stable connection to Starlink”, the Ukrainian government said, 10 days after its ability to use the satellite communications system was suddenly restricted.

But hours after the announcement, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose company owns Starlink, accused the Ukrainian military of violating ⁠the company’s terms. Neither Musk nor the US government, which operates Starshield using Starlink technology, took responsibility for imposing the curbs.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA

© Photograph: Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA

© Photograph: Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA

Ukraine and Russia have signaled their willingness to resume U.S.-brokered peace talks and are backing a humanitarian mission led by First lady Melania Trump.

Ukraine and Russia have signaled their willingness to resume U.S.-brokered peace talks and are backing a humanitarian mission led by First lady Melania Trump.

On 18 October, President Zelenskyy accused Donald Trump of trying to pressure Ukraine into capitulating to Russia.

Asked by NBC whether Ukraine could win the war without the US, he answered: "Without United States support it's very difficult. But if United States will support Putin, it's historic mistake and big tragedy.... If the United States officially will take the side of Russia, if these two countries will be together, of course we will not prevail and we will not be able to stand."

He said Ukraine hopes Trump will be on its side, or at least "in the middle," and that he will "change his decisions" on Russia, as "it's all mistakes, it will not help us, and it will not help United States." In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, when asked whether Trump is still an ally of Ukraine, Zelenskyy said: "I hope so." Not a definitive yes, but a weak maybe.

As diplomacy goes, statements do not come much stronger than this. What triggered them?

Probably the sum of all things. We all remember Trump and Vance humiliating Zelenskyy in the White House on 28 February 2025. Trump told the Ukrainian President that he was "gambling with" a third world war. Zelenskyy was told to come back "when he is ready for peace". Most will also remember that the USA enacted the decision to halt its aid to Ukraine across two separate, sweeping actions taken during the first months of the second Trump administration in early 2025. Presently, it is only delivering military aid decided by former President Biden.

Some might have forgotten that Trump called Zelenskyy a "dictator without elections," suggested Ukraine started the war, and pushed a "peace plan" whose original 28-point draft gave Russia terms more favorable than what Moscow sought at the 2022 Istanbul talks.

After 640 days in office, Trump's disdain for Ukraine and admiration for Russia seem to grow by the day, and his kakistocracy—government by the least qualified—keeps undermining Ukraine's defense. In less than two weeks:

• 9 October: the administration imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), an institution crucial for holding Putin and the Kremlin accountable for their atrocities in Ukraine.
  
• The same day, Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports, effectively helping fund Russia's wars.
  
• 10 October: Trump said of the elected president of a country fighting off Russia's full-scale invasion: "It's time for Ukraine to get a new president."
  
• 11 October: Trump declared on Truth Social an "energy ceasefire" between Russia and Ukraine that bound only Ukraine. Zelenskyy said it was "news to him."
  
• 14 October: SpaceX restricted Starshield, the classified, military-grade version of Starlink; Reuters reported on 15 October that the order came from the White House, undermining Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russian jet-powered drones and strike Russian forces in occupied territory.
  
• 15 October: the US suspended critical intelligence sharing for three days, Zelenskyy said on 18 October, leaving Ukraine without warnings of Russian ballistic missile launches against its citizens and energy infrastructure.
  
• 16 October: two days before they were due to take effect, Trump waived the sanctions, restrictions and tariffs on Russia required by the Graham Act, calling it in the US national interest, and put nearly all of the congressional sanctions package on hold.
  
• 18 October: the administration reportedly proposed that Europe resume buying Russian gas to help "entice Russia to end the war in Ukraine." Europe balked.
  
• 19 October: it emerged that the US is delaying Patriots procured by allies under NATO's Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), leaving Ukraine short of defenses against Russian ballistic missiles. Ukrainian officials say the shipment is stalled because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed the transfer documents on his desk.
  
• 19 October: Trump said that "Xi Jinping has been very fair on Ukraine. He hasn't been very much involved. Same with Russia. They haven't been nearly what they could've been," ignoring that Russia is waging an unjust, unprovoked and genocidal war against Ukraine.
  
• The same day, Trump claimed Zelenskyy targets Russian refineries knowing the attacks are seriously hurting world diesel markets, including in the US, and that he "doesn't want to end this war, and probably never did."
  
• Talking to reporters outside the White House, Trump said Zelenskyy should get someone else to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf, and that he is willing to meet Putin and Xi to discuss the war, without the Ukrainian president. Kyiv fears Washington might decide Ukraine's future without it.
  
• 20 October: Vice President JD Vance said Ukraine should not join NATO and should stop striking Russian energy. He refused to call Ukraine a US "ally," downgrading it to a "partner": "We don't have a formal alliance... they're not in NATO... we're going to work together on some things, but also we're going to be opposite on some things, too."
  
• 21 October: after four and a half years of genocidal full-scale war and amid persistent Russian air strikes on Ukrainians, US special envoy Steve Witkoff praised Putin as a "humanitarian," echoing Trump's claim that Russia had restrained itself.
  
• The same day, Trump said the end of the war is closer than ever. He may step up efforts to coerce Ukraine into a deal by the end of 2026, The Atlantic reports, with Ukraine's prospects shaped by the US midterms and possible Trump-Putin-Xi talks in November.
  

Less than two weeks, summarized.

This is how Trump's administration talks about, and acts towards, the victim of an unjustified, unprovoked and horrendous war. Trump's USA (TUSA) is siding with autocracy against democracy and the rules-based world order. It talks about America's former allies in a similar manner: derogatory and disrespectful. None of the above is the word or deed of an ally.

When one chooses to see the world as it is, Zelenskyy's statements become both necessary and important. This is not only about Ukraine's self-respect and survival. Once we acknowledge the realities—that Europe is in an undeclared war with Russia at a moment when the USA has chosen to become a strategic adversary—we stand better prepared to defend ourselves: to accept that our present security system does not work and new solutions are urgently needed, and that diplomacy alone does not work and military force is essential to protect freedom, democracy and international law.

More than a year ago, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that Europe is "not at war, but no longer at peace either" with Russia. Other heads of state have echoed him. NATO has since shifted from a peacetime alliance to one focused on urgent wartime readiness. Unfortunately, the process started years too late.

By seeing the world as it is, European leaders might reach the long-overdue conclusion that Russia's wars in Ukraine and Europe can only be stopped by a demonstration of strength: an alliance willing and capable of using military force to stop Russia. The alliance Russia fears isn't NATO. It's a coalition that will actually fight.

European courage and action are urgently needed. Ukraine is exposed to a two-front war, defending itself against both Russia and TUSA, and their attacks are increasing in scale and scope. Both Moscow and Washington want to end the war this year and are ramping up their assaults on Ukraine accordingly.

Irrespective of one's view of Ukraine, it is commonly understood that it is stopping Russia from advancing and increasing its border with NATO and the EU. Ukraine is defending European values and principles, ensuring the rest of us can continue living in something resembling peace. The consequences of its defeat would be truly devastating.

There can be no European strategic autonomy without Ukraine. There can be no European security and stability without Ukraine. Europe can never become a Great Power without Ukraine. And neither Russia nor the USA want Europe to achieve any of the above.

It is time to act according to the present-day realities and face down Europe's two strategic adversaries. In the worst case, Ukraine's destiny might be decided in November already.

Editor's note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press' editorial team may or may not share them.

Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press

Russia is ready to resume three-way talks with Ukraine and the US, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in an interview with Pavel Zarubin of state broadcaster VGTRK, published on 22 October. He said they should settle security for both countries after a final peace deal, not a brief pause.

Putin spoke a day after he hosted US envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he would accept freezing the war along the front line. In May, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov named Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbas and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts as the only condition for peace. Any new round would start from that gap: Kyiv offers to stop where the armies stand, while Moscow’s last stated terms demanded more land.

Talks in November

Putin stated that Moscow and Washington had agreed Russia was ready to resume trilateral contacts. He added that he generally agreed with a US point that European security architecture should also be discussed.

On 21 October, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov stated that the sides had settled on mid-November, with Abu Dhabi as the likely venue.

"Historical Russia"

In a 21 October Fox News interview, asked about a freeze leaving Ukraine 75% or more of its land, Zelenskyy answered: “Yes, right now, we have to freeze.”

Asked about the land Ukraine would give up, Putin replied that the occupied regions were not Ukraine’s but "historical Russia." He claimed their residents had voted for independence and then to join Russia, and called any talk of territorial losses inappropriate.

Putin linked Russia’s readiness to negotiate to Ukrainians being a people very close to Russians. He claimed the latest genetic studies show they are one people. Independent outlet Meduza noted it is unclear which studies he meant. Putin’s 12 July 2021 essay on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians made the same case, which Ukraine’s national memory institute rebutted.

He closed that answer by asserting Russia would achieve all the goals of what the Kremlin calls its special military operation. He made a similar vow on 17 December 2025.

Recent efforts to throttle Ukraine's access to satellite systems have created a blame game of sorts among Trump administration officials and their allies, who have offered mixed messages about what led to the sudden restrictions on Kyiv's ability to intercept Russian strikes.