Thursday, November 13, 2025

G7 Reaffirms Support for Ukraine vs Russia; Demands Ceasefire; Condemns Destruction of Energy Infrastructure 

The G7 countries meeting in Canada today reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine as its people fight for their existence against Russian invaders.

The statement makes particular reference to Ukraine defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence.  These are issues that the White House has been pointedly avoiding.

The G7 foreign ministers included Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union.

They also called for an immediate ceasefire and condemned Russia’s incessant bombardment of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The section that pertains to Ukraine states:

Ukraine’s long-term prosperity, security and defense

We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence. 

We reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed. We agreed that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. 

We are increasing the economic costs to Russia, and exploring measures against countries and entities that are helping finance Russia’s war efforts. 

We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war. 

We acknowledged the ongoing discussions on a wide range of financing options, including further leveraging immobilised Russian Sovereign Assets in our jurisdictions in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. 

We strongly condemned Russia’s recent direct attacks on energy infrastructure and reaffirmed our support for Ukraine’s energy security. 

Europe Launches New Tactic to Counter Russian Influence and Bolster Democracies

The European Commission presented on Wednesday, November 13, a new continental tactic that will counter Russian influence and subterfuge while bolstering democracies across Europe, the Commission announced.

Dubbed the European Democracy Shield, it is intended to set out a series of concrete measures to empower, protect, and promote strong and resilient democracies across the European Union. An open civic space is at the core of our democracies, and this is why the Commission has also put forward an EU Strategy for Civil Society, for stronger engagement, protection and support to civil society organizations that play essential roles in our societies. Both initiatives had been outlined in the political guidelines and this year’s State of the Union address by President Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Commission put into the cross hairs of program Russia, which, it said, has for decades sought to destabilize Europe. Recent elections demonstrated how damaging online campaigns can be to democratic processes.

President von der Leyen said: “Democracy is the foundation of our freedom, prosperity, and security. The European Democracy Shield will reinforce the core elements that allow citizens to live our shared democratic values every day - free speech, independent media, resilient institutions, and a vibrant civil society. This is Europe's strength and we must increase our collective capacity to protect it at all times.”

In an age of growing political confrontation, regional and international conflicts and rapid technological disruption, our democracies face internal and external pressures. Authoritarian regimes seek to exploit divisions, sow mistrust, and restrict democratic actors such as free media and civil society. In doing so, they erode trust in democratic institutions, undermine free and fair elections and challenge the very values on which the European Union is founded. These threats unfold against the backdrop of a deep digital transformation that brings both new opportunities and new vulnerabilities. At the same time, declining public trust and engagement, along with unprecedented risks faced by civil society organizations, further endanger the promotion of fundamental rights across the EU.

The European Democracy Shield and the EU Strategy for Civil Society will present measures to protect the key pillars of our democratic systems: free people, free and fair elections, free and independent media, a vibrant civil society and strong democratic institutions.

The actions under the European Democracy Shield will further boost our collective capacity to counter information manipulation and disinformation and strengthen our resilience through a whole-of-society approach. The European Democracy Shield will present actions across three main pillars: 1) safeguarding the integrity of the information space; 2) strengthening our institutions, fair and free elections, and free and independent media; and 3) boosting societal resilience and citizens' engagement.

An important deliverable from the European Democracy Shield will be a new European Centre for Democratic Resilience to bring together EU and Member States’ expertise and resources to increase our collective capacity to anticipate, detect and respond to threats and build democratic resilience. With Member States at its core, the Centre will act as a framework to facilitate information sharing and support capacity building to withstand evolving common threats, in particular foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation.

Supported by and in close coordination with the Rapid Alert System run by the European External Action Service, the Centre will link together existing networks and structures.

A Stakeholder Platform will be established within the Centre to facilitate dialogue with trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.

Safeguarding the integrity of the information space

Strengthening the integrity of the information space is essential for people to exercise their rights and engage in democracy. The Commission will further work with signatories under the Code of Conduct on Disinformation and prepare a Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol to facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations. An independent European Network of Fact-Checkers will be set up to boost fact-checking capacity in all EU official languages and the European Digital Media Observatory will develop new independent monitoring and analytical capabilities for situational awareness on elections or in situations of crises.

Strengthening our institutions, fair and free elections, and free and independent media

While the organization and conduct of elections are the competence of the Member States, strengthened cooperation at EU level is necessary to address common challenges in this field. The Commission will therefore reinforce the work under the European Cooperation Network on Elections, organizing systematic exchanges on key topics for the integrity of electoral processes. The Commission will also present guidance on the responsible use of AI in electoral processes and update the Digital 

Services Act (DSA) Elections Toolkit.

To help address growing violence against political candidates and elected representatives, the Commission will present a Recommendation and a guide of best practices in the Member States on the safety of political actors.

Reinforced financial support for independent and local journalism will be provided under the new Media Resilience Program, which will bridge current support to media with funding programs proposed in the new Multiannual Financial Framework. In the upcoming review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the Commission will assess ways to strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest and modernize advertising rules to foster the sustainability of EU media.

The Commission will present an update of the Commission's Recommendation on the Safety of Journalists and will step up action to support the EU's existing framework to combat abusive lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

Boosting societal resilience and citizens' engagement

To help recognize and counter information manipulation, the Commission will roll out measures to foster media and digital literacy for all ages. The Commission will develop an EU citizenship competence framework along with guidelines to strengthen citizenship education in schools.

It will also support citizens’ engagement in democratic life through participatory and consultative tools, with a focus on local levels and youth, and it will stimulate innovation in online platforms that enable participation in democracy via a new civic tech hub. To promote awareness of citizens' democratic rights under EU law, the Commission will present an EU democracy guide.

The Commission will also help further promote evidence-based decision-making, including through the adoption of a Recommendation on supporting scientific evidence in policymaking.

The EU Strategy for Civil Society

Civil society plays an essential role in our societies contributing to policymaking, delivering social and community services, raising awareness about important social issues, and representing diverse groups in vulnerable situations.

With the EU Strategy for Civil Society, the Commission is stepping up its engagement with civil society, and will further support and protect civil society organizations in their work. The Strategy proposes concrete actions at EU and national level.

The strategy covers three key objectives:

Fostering engagement: A new Civil Society Platform will be established by 2026 to further facilitate dialogue on the protection and promotion of EU values.

Support and protection: An online Knowledge Hub on Civic Space will be created to facilitate access to existing projects and tools, including available protection measures. On this basis, further protection measures will be explored, such as urgent assistance to organizations under threat, and coordination of available protection measures in Member States.

Sustainable and transparent funding: In its proposal for the new MFF, the Commission has proposed to significantly increase the financial support to CSOs, with 9 billion euros ($10.5 billion) earmarked for the AgoraEU program alone. In addition, the Commission is planning measures to facilitate access to different funding sources, creating stronger links with private donors and pro bono legal communities.


Wednesday, November 12, 2025

Trump Bucks World Opinion about Ukraine and Hedges Committing Support

President Donald J. Trump’s love-hate-love relationship with Russian führer Vladimir Putin, the recognized global terrorist, is not only throwing the international community into a state of stagnation, shock and confusion but it is contributing to Moscow’s continuing bloodshed in Ukraine.

As I stated in my previous blogpost, while the former captive nations of Russian aggression, having experienced its enslavement, are solidly in Ukraine’s corner, the United States under Trump does not want to commit itself, believing that its tepid or even cold support will sooner end the war.

According to the Kyiv Post and other news outlets, the Trump administration recently unexpectedly demanded a revision and removal from a UN resolution of formulations that affirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemn Russia’s occupation of Crimea and other regions. Details of such discussions were reported by two sources familiar with internal discussions at the UN. The annual resolution titled “The Human Rights Situation in the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine, Including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol” is considered an important diplomatic instrument that confirms support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and records human rights violations in the occupied territories.

This is not an example of the UN’s wishy-washy position about a Russian threat to Ukraine’s existence.

Rather the resolution highlights systematic human rights violations in the occupied territories, including the persecution of Crimean Tatars, pressure on pro-Ukrainian activists, journalists, and members of religious minorities. It also condemns Russia’s actions involving the forced deportation of Ukrainian children, including their illegal adoption or transfer into custody. The UN calls on Russia to immediately and unconditionally return all forcibly displaced children to Ukraine. Most notably, this document marks the first UN resolution in which the General Assembly explicitly refers to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a “war of aggression against Ukraine.”

The UN document explicitly affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and described the deteriorating human rights situation in the occupied territories. Washington is seeking to remove these formulations and proposes presenting the resolution in a broader format – under the title “The War in Ukraine” – without references to “territorial integrity” or “aggression.”

Western allies have expressed concerns that such a step would significantly weaken the UN’s main annual document, which has consistently condemned Russia’s invasion, and could mark a sharp departure from the bipartisan consensus that has existed since 2014.

Going back in time, the United Nations, thanks to the hard work of the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the UN, as well as allied member-states such as the United States and others, on December 20, 2016, officially condemned Russia, a member of the UN Security Council, as an “occupier” of foreign lands just like Nazi Germany and other tyrannical empires were.

What is significant about this resolution is that while Ukraine, the United States and a few other countries favorably inclined toward Ukraine have condemned Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea, a resolution by the UN, a global representative body, casts a different light on this crime. Just like the albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” Russia, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin have been publicly stigmatized as global lawbreakers, invaders and terrorists for current and future generations to see.

This resolution sends a clear message to Russia and Putin that as “occupying authorities” they are responsible for the persecutions and violations of the human rights of the residents of Crimea and will be brought to justice.

The 71st General Assembly adopted on Monday, December 19, a resolution on human rights in Crimea, titled “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),” which was initiated by Ukraine and supported by the UNGA Third Committee. Seventy-three UN member-states, including Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others backed the document, 76 abstained, and Russia plus 22 others voted against it.

The resolution cited the word “occupier” in relation to Russia’s enslavement of Crimea four times.

Most importantly, the resolution condemns “the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine —the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation.” It also notably reaffirmed its “non-recognition” of Russia’s unlawful annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea after a fabricated and rigged referendum. The use of “temporary” is significant but it underlines that the occupation of Crimea is not permanent, it is not legal and it should revert to its previous state as an indivisible part of Ukraine. By employing temporary, the international community composes and supports a concept of preeminence of national territorial integrity and sovereignty, wherein passive or aggressive foreign authorities have no rights whatsoever.

The General Assembly had called on the Russia “to take all measures necessary to bring an immediate end to all abuses against residents of Crimea, in particular reported discriminatory measures and practices, arbitrary detentions, torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and to revoke all discriminatory legislation.”

It also urged Russia to “immediately release Ukrainian citizens who were unlawfully detained and judged without regard for elementary standards of justice, as well as those transferred across internationally recognized borders from Crimea to the Russian Federation.”

Russia must also “address the issue of impunity and ensure that those found to be responsible for abuses are held accountable before an independent judiciary.”

The world body insisted that the Russian occupying authorities “create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for journalists and human rights defenders to perform their work independently and without undue interference in Crimea; to permit the reopening of cultural and religious institutions.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine had welcomed the resolution, pointing out that this important document provides a clear definition on the status of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine, condemns the temporary occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and does not recognize its attempted annexation by the occupying state.

“That’s why the fixation and condemnation by UN resolution of the systematic human rights violations carried out by the Russian occupation authorities, including extrajudicial executions, abductions, politically motivated persecution and restriction of basic political rights of Crimean residents should become an important step towards defending rights and civil liberties of citizens of Ukraine that live under this occupation.”

The trend continued. As countries and companies individually lined up to denounce Russia’s despot Putin for invading Ukraine, in 2022 the UN further added insult to injury by condemning Russia and its tyrant and overwhelmingly adopting a resolution demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine.

This resolution, which was not the first UN document that castigated Moscow’s aggression in recent years, demonstrated the global community’s ongoing extreme disapproval of Putin and his bloody, criminal belligerence.

After more than two days of extraordinary debate, 141 out of 193 member-states voted for the non-binding resolution seen as a severe rebuke of Moscow’s inhuman and lawless behavior. China was among the 35 countries which abstained, while just five voted against it – Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Eritrea.

The resolution “deplores” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “in the strongest terms” and condemns Putin’s decision to put his nuclear forces on alert.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued remarks following the vote and called for an end to the war raging in Ukraine. “The General Assembly has spoken. As Secretary-General, it is my duty to stand by this resolution and be guided by its call,” Guterres declared in comments delivered to the press.

“The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear: End hostilities in Ukraine – now. Silence the guns – now. Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy – now.”

The UN chief additionally expressed concern about the conflict’s implications for global stability as the world continues to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Today’s resolution reflects a central truth. The world wants an end to the tremendous human suffering in Ukraine,” he said.

Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya had said Russian forces “have come to the Ukrainian soil, not only to kill some of us ... they have come to deprive Ukraine of the very right to exist.” He added: “The crimes are so barbaric that it is difficult to comprehend.”

Turning to today’s events, according to The Kyiv Post: “For Kyiv, this document has significant implications – the resolution not only condemns Russia’s occupation but also creates a legal basis for future mechanisms to hold Russia accountable at the International Criminal Court and other venues. Along with this, the new UN report documents crimes in the occupied territories, including killings and forced displacement, corroborated by eyewitness testimony and video material from the Commission’s field missions.

“In the capital and beyond, concerns are growing among allies: many diplomats believe that Washington’s stance mirrors previous trends of drifting away from coalition lines – from suspending aid to Ukraine in 2019 to attempts to soften formulations on Russia’s accountability. While official statements continue to emphasize support for Ukraine, Western partners view these signals as part of a broader tendency to reduce mentions of Russian aggression in multilateral formats.

“Experts emphasize that the key issue is not only terminology, but how the international community will evaluate the occupation: whether to recognize it as illegal or to treat it as a fact. As the vote approaches, allies expect a revision of the position from the U.S. administration. Yet at the moment, signals from the White House are unequivocal: the commitment to defending Ukraine’s borders – previously a pillar of transatlantic unity – may come under pressure from political compromises.”

In other words, Ukraine may lose for the sake of global expediency as was the case numerous times in the past.

The Kyiv Post further observed: “The Donald Trump Administration has pushed for the removal of references in a UN resolution to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the condemnation of Russia’s occupation.” According to the newspaper, diplomatic sources at the United Nations say Washington wants to recast the resolution under the broader label “war in Ukraine” and omit wording such as “territorial integrity” or “aggression.” Such a shift in the U.S. position could affect allies’ trust and Ukraine’s support. It also sets a potential precedent in which aggression may be seen as more acceptable or inevitable.

"This is another example of Washington walking away from Ukraine's core interests at a critical diplomatic juncture," a European envoy told Kyiv Post. “If the language goes, the message to Moscow is that the US is no longer leading the defense of the international order.”

In February 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on UN member-states to support the US draft resolution on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which does not mention the occupied Ukrainian territories or Russian aggression. “This resolution is consistent with President Trump’s view that the UN must return to its founding purpose, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes,” Rubio said.

The US official further urged: “If the United Nations is truly committed to its original purpose, we must acknowledge that while challenges may arise, the goal of lasting peace remains achievable.  Through support of this resolution, we affirm that this conflict is awful, that the UN can help end it, and that peace is possible.”

Trump’s White House wants to tone down any criticism of Putin and Russia while erasing all uses of aggression and invasion. It also misguidedly calls the butchering of innocent Ukrainians by Russian cutthroats a mere “conflict” that is “awful.”

As ironic as it sounds, many member-states of the UN as well as the international body itself have been promoting a stronger condemnation of Russia, the age-old enemy and oppressor of Ukraine, while Trump’s United States has been avoiding such a step.

This will lead history to ask: Mr. Trump, “Who lost Ukraine?”

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

X-Captive Nations are Preparing while the USA is Hedging

The debates waging nowadays in the halls of Congress have more to do with partisan differences and recriminations rather than deciding America’s foreign policy and rescuing Ukraine and Europe from brutal Russian aggression.

But that doesn’t offer solace to Ukrainian civilians and military who at home or on the frontlines are singlehandedly fighting and dying for their country and saving fellow Ukrainians from assured Russian enslavement. This congressional stagnation is keeping Capitol Hill from debating and designating Russian an enemy of nations.

In the aftermath of Germany’s capitulation in 1945 there was a widespread fear that never having witnessed the realities of life under the Nazi heel, Americans were obstinately incredulous of the barbarity suffered by all Europeans notably those inside the concentration camps. And perhaps many were too lenient with those responsible.

Today, much to the disappointment of the contemporary former captive nations of Russian aggression, the Cold War drumbeat of dismantling the evil iron curtain and safeguarding innocent, recently freed nations has faded into antiquity. The annual Captive Nations Week Proclamation, Public Law 86-90, established by Congress in 1959, has become an historical relic. Even the victims aren’t mentioned. The ongoing Russian threat against the former captive nations and beyond gets merely passing recognition.

The US still provides substantial military, economic, and humanitarian support to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars since Russia’s full-scale invasion. This aid is a significant factor in Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian forces and includes direct military assistance like weapons and ammunition, along with economic aid for governance, infrastructure repair, and humanitarian relief. While US support has been consistent, public and political debate continues regarding its level and future continuation, furthering stagnation. The issue of military and political support for Ukraine isn’t rock solid because of President Donald J. Trump’s tepid, even flippant backing. His position is scaring Ukrainians and other former captive peoples as well as Western European allies.

Recent polls show that a majority of Americans continue to support providing aid to Ukraine, but there are partisan divides and differing views on the extent of that support. A recent poll from March 2025 indicated that 52% of Americans supported sending military aid and 55% backed economic assistance, though these numbers fluctuate and are sometimes lower. More recent polls, particularly from late 2024 and early 2025, indicate shifts in opinion, with some finding a slight majority favoring the US doing too much to help Ukraine, while others show support for continued aid. This drop in support stems from the unstable attitude of the White House.

With Russia’s massive invasion against Ukraine in February 2022 and the threat of Moscow’s further westward expansion beyond Eastern Europe, the former captive nations are understandably concerned, perhaps even scared, by Russia’s very real saber rattling. And regardless of Washington’s point of view, Eastern Europeans are sharpening their swords and preparing.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said on November 10 that his country’s geopolitical future looks optimistic, but it depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. In particular, if Ukraine loses, the situation in Poland will change dramatically for the worse. His observation echoes an age-old Polish adage that if Ukraine falls, Poland will be next. Both countries that experienced centuries of Russian oppression share the same border, which can be smashed by Russian tanks.

Tusk noted that Poland must strategically use its key position in the region and continue supporting Ukraine, as its defeat would mean a deterioration of the situation beyond the Vistula River.

He said Poland’s geopolitical future “will look very good if Ukraine does not lose and if we manage to overcome this historical Polish-Ukrainian resentment.”

He said, “Building strong, friendly and partnership relations with a sovereign Ukraine, of course without forgetting our interests, is a great opportunity for Poland.”

That resentment if not controlled or erased by the capitals and peoples, more than anything else, can lead to Moscow’s victory over both countries and the region.

That is why we must focus on helping Ukraine, because if it loses the war, the situation in Poland will radically change for the worse. Still, I remain a cautious optimist. There are no objective reasons why Ukraine should lose,” he observed.

Tusk also recalled the incident on the night of September 9-10, when Russian drones violated Polish airspace. He called it “a turning point in the conflict.” These dangerous Russian incidents have increased not only over Polish skies but across Eastern and Western Europe.

The prime minister described the decision to shoot down the drones as difficult. "It was not easy, because no one wants to overstep and accidentally start a third world war,” he said, noting that “giving in and tolerating provocations leads to nothing good.”

Is Russia testing its neighbors ‘preparedness, skills, armament or wisdom with drone flyovers?

Just in case Russian cutthroats cross the border in Poland and take up positions in its cities and villages, Warsaw hopes to prepare its citizens for the worse. A pilot program by the Polish Ministry of Defense aims to train 400,000 people in 2026. The Defense Minister of Poland told Reuters on November 6 the initiative is needed due to the threat from Russia.

Poland’s Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said the program, which he dubbed “the largest defense training in Polish history” would be available to “all Polish citizens from primary school children to old-age pensioners.”

“We are living in the most dangerous times since World War Two. A war is raging beyond our borders, there are acts of sabotage in the Baltic Sea and battles in cyberspace,” Kosiniak-Kamysz said.

Similar concerns and fears are felt across Eastern Europe.  Ukrainian author Serhiy Maidukov, in an article in the Estonian World warned that Europe is drifting toward the same moral trap that followed the First World War – but in reverse. One hundred and seven years ago, Germany’s humiliation bred resentment and war – World War Two; now, the risk is that Ukraine, the victim, will be left humiliated while Russia obnoxiously regains acceptance.

What began as a struggle for justice is turning into a negotiation for convenience. As Western attention shifts elsewhere, Ukraine’s suffering has receded from the headlines. The fear, Maidukov writes, is that Europe will once again choose “manageable silence” – rewarding the aggressor and abandoning the principle it once defended.

If that happens, the moral and political damage will not stop at Ukraine’s borders. It will mark the beginning of Europe’s own unravelling.

At a NATO Defense Ministers’ meeting in Brussels on October 15, Estonia’s Defense Moinioster Hanno Pevkur announced that Nordic and Baltic partners have raised 500 million euros ($578 million) for Ukraine through the NATO-US PURL initiative, which funds American military aid using allied contributions. Pevkur said four such packages have already been delivered since August, and more allies are preparing to join future rounds. Estonia’s own military assistance to Ukraine will exceed 0.3% of GDP next year. He also pressed for allies to meet the NATO target of investing 5% of defense budgets in capability development and called for faster action to strengthen air defense on the eastern flank, citing rising drone incursions. Italy has extended deployment of its SAMP/T system in Estonia as part of NATO’s air policing mission.

At the same meeting, the NATO-Ukraine Council and the Ukraine Defense Contact Group – co-chaired by the UK and Germany – discussed Kyiv’s urgent needs for air defense, ammunition and industry support. A separate Memorandum of Understanding was signed for Legio, a Nordic-Baltic initiative to train and equip a Ukrainian brigade to NATO standards. In this vein, the Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Brigade must be strengthened to battlefield readiness.

Estonia is contributing 10 million euros ($11.6 million) to an initiative through which NATO allies and partners purchase essential weapons systems and ammunition from the United States to support Ukraine. The “Prioritized Ukraine Requirement List” initiative enables the supply of US-produced weaponry to Ukraine, including air defense systems, ammunition and spare parts.

Europe must meet the challenges of Russian aggression as a “different kind of war,” Estonian President Alar Karis said during an interview with Newsweek on October 24.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and war has neighboring countries concerned, he said. Estonia borders Russia as part of the Baltic States, which also includes Latvia and Lithuania. The country is a little over 400 miles from Moscow and only around 97 miles from St. Petersburg. Over the past few months, Russia has allegedly harassed neighboring countries that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, most recently flying aircraft over Lithuania and Estonia’s airspace in what has been labeled a blatant breach of sovereignty and international law.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is “not only about territory” but also about rewiring global norms and “reestablishing a Russian vision of how things should be run,” Estonia's Ambassador to the US Kristjan Prikk told Axios.

According to leaders of the former captive nations, there has long been concern about Russia not stopping its bloody march at Ukraine’s borders, particularly within NATO’s eastern bloc.

What they’re saying: “We firmly believe that this war is not just about Ukraine,” Ambassador Kristjan Prikk said in an interview, echoing the view of many Ukrainian officials. They believe that Ukraine is the frontline of Europe’s defense. “If this war was to end with an outcome that would for Putin and his supporters in a way verify or vindicate what they have done, this is a recipe for further trouble.”

Exactly what or when that trouble would emerge, Prikk didn’t specify. But Moscow is already waging a surveillance-and-sabotage campaign across Europe.

Estonian officials this month closed a road that cuts through a part of Russia known as the Saatse Boot after spotting an unusually large contingent of troops nearby, and NATO forces in September ran off Russian warplanes as they neared the capital, Tallinn.

Nearby Finland is one of the few European countries to have long-range missiles in all three domains of air, sea, and land. Striking Moscow’s assets in Russia during any invasion – as Ukraine has shown great improvisation to do – is a key part of the Finnish defense strategy. Ultimately, this leads Finland to feel relatively relaxed. Few Finns think that Russia would choose its frontier as the location for its first test of NATO resolve — but they are prepared if it does.

Russian military planes briefly violated Lithuania’s airspace one recent evening, the Lithuanian president said, condemning what he called a blatant breach of the territorial integrity of his European Union and NATO-member country. Lithuania’s foreign ministry planned to summon Russian Embassy representatives in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius to protest the violation, President Gitanas Nausėda said in a post on the social media platform X.

“This is a blatant breach of international law and territorial integrity of Lithuania,” Nausėda wrote on X. “Once again, it confirms the importance of strengthening European air defense readiness.”

The Latvian Foreign Ministry issued a statement noting the war against Ukraine: “24 February 2025 marks three years since Russia launched its brutal full-scale war against Ukraine. Russia’s actions are a blatant violation of international law and order and are condemned by the entire democratic world. From the very first day of the war, Latvia has provided Ukraine with comprehensive political, military, financial, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

“Latvia stands with Ukraine. We will not weaken our support for the Ukrainian people in their struggle for independence and their homeland. Over the past three years, the support of the Latvian society for Ukraine has remained strong. A poll conducted at the end of 2024 shows that 61.7% of the Latvian population will support Ukraine until its victory, 64.2% want Ukraine to win the war and the same number believe that by helping Ukraine we are protecting Latvia from war.

“Latvia is committed to providing military assistance to Ukraine of no less than 0.25% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) both this year and in 2026. This year we will deliver 42 Latvian-made Patria AWV to Ukraine. Latvia will further provide various kinds of support for Ukraine in the future, including after a possible ceasefire.”

In addition to official support, on February 24 of this year, the people across Latvia demonstrated their solidarity with the people of Ukraine by gathering in various support and commemorative events.

Kaja Kallas, vice-president of the European Commission, which is the primary executive branch of the European Union, and an Estonian politician, said international efforts to end Russia’s war have stepped up in the last few months. But in all cases Russia’s response is more aggression. Putin has demonstrated that he has zero interest in peace in Ukraine, and he will not stop the war until he is forced to, Kallas observed. 

“This is why the European Union and our Member States have provided almost 169 billion euros ($196 billion) of financial support since the full-scale war started in 2022. This includes over 63 billion euros ($73 billion) in military support for Ukraine. This year alone, Member States will provide more than ever before – 25 billion euros ($29 billion) to date. They have now also provided 80 percent of our 2 million rounds of ammunition target. We aim for 100% by October. This is all so that Ukraine can defend itself, can defend its civilians and push back the aggression,” she said. 

Russia demands that Ukraine should surrender its national territory in order to secure peace and President Trump favors this notion. However, the former captive nations and old Europe are against it.

Ukraine shouldn’t have to give up territory as part of a peace deal with Russia, Kallas said after Trump pushed Kyiv to give up land to end the war.

“If we just give away the territories, then this gives a message to everybody that you can just use force against your neighbors and get what you want,” Kallas told journalists in Luxembourg after a meeting of foreign ministers. “I think this is very dangerous. That’s why we have the international law in place, [so] that nobody does that.”

“What you can conquer back is one question, but the other question is also what do you recognize as the territory of another country?” said Kallas, a former prime minister of Estonia. “I come from a country that was occupied for 50 years, but [a] majority of the countries in the world didn’t recognize them to be Russian territories. And that also meant a lot.”

A couple of recent salient observations by President Zelenskyy:

“I think this support will really strengthen the armed forces, I pray, and we will have a chance at victory if Ukraine really gets the weapons system, which we need so much, which thousands of soldiers need so much.”

“Probably it will be very, very, very difficult. And of course, in all the difficult situations, you have a chance … But we will have low chance, low chance, to survive without support of the United States. I think it’s very important, critical.”

The issue is whether the free world and its nominal leader are committed to protecting Ukraine and ensuring that it will exist as an independent, sovereign and democratic country or else face the painful question “Who lost Ukraine?