Weekly Update #100
January 29, 2024

Courtesy of People in Need

6 obstacles to peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow

Why is there still no negotiated end to the war, and why is there unlikely to be one in the near future? There are, at least, six circumstances that hinder a compromise between Kyiv and Moscow.

Obstacles 1 and 2: The constitutions of Ukraine and Russia

In March 2014, Russia formally annexed Crimea and, in September 2022, four southeastern Ukrainian mainland regions. As a result, there are now five administrative units of Ukraine to which the Ukrainian and Russian constitutions lay claim to. Neither of these constitutions can be changed easily. In fact, Ukraine will never relinquish its rightful territory. The prospect of a Russian reversal of the constitutional reforms of 2014 and 2022, which implemented the annexations, is politically less fantastic than Ukraine renouncing its temporarily occupied territories. Nevertheless, a Russian fulfillment of its obligations under international law — if and when such an intention arises in the Kremlin — will not be easy to implement and follow rather than precede the liberation of the occupied territories.

Obstacles 3 and 4: Two different hawkish camps

In Ukraine and Russia, there are two ethically distinct, but, in domestic political terms, significant groups strictly opposed to any territorial and political compromise with the enemy. A majority of Ukrainians want to defend their country’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty while Russian hawks want to either keep or increase the war booty. Due to the high blood toll that the war is taking in both countries, concessions to the other side would pose major domestic political challenges for both the Ukrainian and Russian governments. Even small compromises, as a result of hypothetical negotiations, would be branded as treason. Large sections of the population and entire parties would oppose them. They would make their voices heard and become politically and perhaps even physically active.

Obstacle 5: The Crimean challenge

For Ukraine, Crimea’s liberation is not only a matter of sovereignty, but also of strategy. While Kyiv needs the peninsula for securing the Ukrainian mainland, Moscow wants to keep Crimea to threaten it. Moreover, Crimea was and is the most popular territorial acquisition that Russian President Vladimir Putin has presented to the Russian nation. This not only makes a Russian return of Crimea to Ukraine as a result of negotiations unlikely; it also creates a strategic dilemma for the Kremlin. Crimea is part of a larger economic and historical space that also includes large parts of southern mainland Ukraine. In a hypothetical Russian-Ukrainian negotiation on the currently occupied territories, it is therefore a question of all or nothing not only for Kyiv, but also for Moscow. A peace plan in which Russia partially accepts that Ukraine regains its currently occupied mainland territories but leaves Crimea behind as a consolation prize for Moscow, would be unacceptable not only for Kyiv, but also for the Kremlin. Crimea as an isolated exclave far away and difficult to reach from Russia would make neither economic nor strategic sense for Moscow.

Obstacle 6: East-central European skepticism toward Moscow

The most important factor preventing Kyiv from premature negotiations with Moscow is its historical experience with Russia and the comparative interpretation of the current conflict. Ukrainian history, as well as the past of other East-central European states, suggests that Russia will not abide by an agreement reached through diplomatic compromise rather than military victory. Independent Ukraine has signed hundreds of agreements with Russia over the last 30 years, most of which are now invalid. Ukrainians, as well as other nations and ethnicities of the former czarist and Soviet empires, have had many bitter experiences over the centuries with Russian imperialism, which is today once again Moscow’s barely disguised foreign policy doctrine. These historical lessons advise Kyiv to wait for an — at least partial — Ukrainian victory before meaningful negotiations can begin.

Conclusions

At some point, negotiations may once again play a role in Russian-Ukrainian relations. However, it will be necessary to wait until the situation on the ground and in Moscow has changed sufficiently for talks to make sense for Kyiv. An agreement that is signed before Ukraine has at least gained a significant military advantage and a stronger negotiating position would be a farce. A resulting compromise will at best bring about a postponement and not an end to the armed conflict.

As soon as a meaningful agreement is signed between Kyiv and Moscow, its functioning must be ensured. In light of Russia’s behavior in the post-Soviet space over the past 30 years, securing future peace will only be possible with plausible deterrence against a renewed escalation. Provision of military support for Kyiv is therefore the right strategy in three respects: First, it will help to prepare for peace now. Second, it will enable a meaningful agreement between Kyiv and Moscow at a future date. And third, it will keep the peace intact afterward.

Source: The Hill

___________________________________________________

U.S. war plans for Ukraine don’t foresee retaking lost territory

This is a Washington Post Exclusive article that presents a scenario by the US administration on the way forward for Ukraine.  Significant excerpts are featured below.  Reference to the full article is at the end.

The Biden administration is working on a long-term strategy for supporting Kyiv — despite the funding impasse in Congress. But those plans do not anticipate significant gains by Ukraine against Russia in 2024, officials say.

Still smarting from last year’s failed counteroffensive in Ukraine, the Biden administration is putting together a new strategy that will de-emphasize winning back territory and focus instead on helping Ukraine fend off new Russian advances while moving toward a long-term goal of strengthening its fighting force and economy.

The emerging plan is a sharp change from last year, when the U.S. and allied militaries rushed training and sophisticated equipment to Kyiv in hopes that it could quickly push back Russian forces occupying eastern and southern Ukraine. That effort foundered, largely on Russia’s heavily fortified minefields and front-line trenches.

The idea now is to position Ukraine to hold its position on the battlefield for now, but “put them on a different trajectory to be much stronger by the end of 2024 … and get them on a more sustainable path,” said the senior official, one of several who described the internal policymaking on the condition of anonymity.

The U.S. planning is part of a multilateral effort by nearly three dozen countries backing Ukraine to pledge long-term security and economic support — both out of necessity, given the disappointing results of last year’s counteroffensive and the conviction that a similar effort this year would likely bring the same outcome, and as a demonstration of enduring resolve to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Each is preparing a document outlining its specific commitments spanning up to a decade in the future. Britain made its 10-year agreement with Ukraine public last week, signed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv. It outlined contributions to “Maritime Security, Air, Air Defense, Artillery and Armor” as well as fiscal support and access to its financial sector. France is expected to be next, with an upcoming visit to Ukraine by President Emmanuel Macron.

But the success of the strategy depends almost entirely on the United States, by far Ukraine’s largest donor of money and equipment, and coordinator of the multilateral effort. This spring the administration hopes to release its own 10-year commitment, now being compiled by the State Department with the blessing of the White House — assuming that President Biden’s $61 billion request for supplemental Ukraine funding is approved by a recalcitrant Congress.

The shaky ground on which that assumption currently rests — with House Republicans appearing to dig in ever deeper in refusing the money — has worried both Western allies and Ukraine itself.

Future-proofing Ukraine against Trump

According to U.S. officials, the American document will guarantee support for short-term military operations as well as build a future Ukrainian military force that can deter Russian aggression. It will include specific promises and programs to help protect, reconstitute and expand Ukraine’s industrial and export base, and assist the country with political reforms needed for full integration into Western institutions.

Not incidentally, a U.S. official said, the hope is that the long-term promise — again assuming congressional buy-in — will also “future-proof” aid for Ukraine against the possibility that former president Donald Trump wins his reelection bid.

As the White House continues to try to persuade lawmakers, a second senior administration official emphasized that the strategy doesn’t mean that the Ukrainians are just going to build their own defensive trenches “and sit behind them” all year. “There is still going to be swapping of territory” in small cities and villages with minimal strategic value, “missile launches and drones” from both sides, and Russian “attacks on civilian infrastructure,” this official said.

Rather than the massive artillery duels that dominated much of the fighting in the second half of 2022 and much of 2023, the West’s hope for 2024 is that Ukraine will avoid losing any more territory than the one-fifth of the country now occupied by Russia. Additionally, Western governments want Kyiv to concentrate on tactics where its forces have had greater recent success — longer-distance fires, including with French cruise missiles promised for delivery within the next few months; holding back Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to protect naval transit from Ukraine’s ports; and tying up Russian forces inside Crimea with missile strikes and special operations sabotage.

Even those who believe that Ukraine could eventually beat back Russia concede that 2024 will be lean and dangerous. “Most probably there are not going to be huge territorial gains,” Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics said in an interview. “The only strategy is to get as much as you can to Ukraine to help them first of all to defend their own cities ... and second to help them simply not to lose ground.”

“We are a little taken hostage by time,” agreed Kusti Salm, permanent secretary of the Estonian Defense Ministry. “It’s just a question of whether we can walk through this valley of death.”

Along the front line, the Ukrainian military has started preparing accordingly, aiming to replicate Russia’s layered defenses of trenches and minefields in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region that hampered last year’s counteroffensive.

U.S. policymakers say they expect the war will eventually end through negotiations — but also that they don’t think Putin will be serious about talks this year, in part because he holds out hope that Trump will win back the presidency in November and dial back support to Kyiv.

Trump, who has long touted a special relationship with Putin, said months ago that if he is returned to the White House, he “will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.” Zelensky, in last week’s television interview, called that claim “very dangerous” and invited Trump to Kyiv to share whatever plan he might have.

The long-term strategy to transform Ukraine for the future has its roots in a G-7 declaration of support last summer in which Western leaders promised to build a “sustainable” military force interoperable with the West, and to strengthen Ukraine’s “economic stability and resilience.”

Even so, the policy holds risks, including political ones, if Ukrainians begin to blame their government for stagnant front lines. Likewise, in Western capitals, officials are keenly aware that their citizens’ patience with funding Ukraine’s war is not infinite.

Amid the planning, Washington also seems to be readying the argument that, even if Ukraine is not going to regain all of its territory in the near term, it needs significant ongoing assistance to be able to defend itself and become an integral part of the West.

“We can see what Ukraine’s future can and should be, irrespective of exactly where lines are drawn,” Blinken said earlier this month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “And that’s a future where it stands strongly on its own two feet militarily, economically, democratically.”

‘No silver bullet’ for arming Ukraine

In conversations with lawmakers, administration officials have emphasized that only about half of the requested $61 billion is targeted at the current battlefield, while the rest is directed toward helping Ukraine undergird a secure future without massive Western aid.

The U.S. document, according to U.S. officials closely involved in the planning, is being written with four phases in mind: fight, build, recover and reform.

What is needed most immediately for the “fight” phase is “artillery ammunition, some replacement of vehicles” lost in the counteroffensive, “a lot more drones,” said Eric Ciaramella, a former CIA intelligence analyst and now a senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has consulted with administration officials. “A lot of electronic warfare and counter-drone technology — where the Russians have achieved an edge. They need more air defense systems to cover more cities.”

Although Ukraine is still anxiously awaiting the promised delivery of fighter aircraft and more armored vehicles this year, these are “expensive systems with single points of failure,” Ciaramella said. “I think the Ukrainians are realizing there is no silver bullet, having seen a million-dollar tank destroyed by a $10,000 mine” during the counteroffensive.

The “build” phase of the strategy is focused on pledges for Ukraine’s future security force on land, sea and air, so that the Ukrainians “can see what they’re getting from the global community over a 10-year period and ... come out of 2024 with a road map to a highly deterrent military,” the first senior administration official said. At the same time, some of the requested supplemental money is targeted at developing Ukraine’s industrial base for weapons production that, along with U.S. and allied increases, can “at least keep pace with Russian” production.

The plan also includes additional air defense to create protective “bubbles” around Ukrainian cities beyond Kyiv and Odessa and to allow key parts of the Ukrainian economy and exports, including steel and agriculture, to recover. Biden last fall named former commerce secretary Penny Pritzker as U.S. envoy to lead an effort to rebuild Ukraine’s economy and mobilize public and private investment.

Enticing foreign investment back into Ukraine will also require additional efforts to stem corruption, U.S. officials acknowledge. Zelensky has taken some steps, including firing and in some cases arresting allegedly corrupt military procurement officials and judges; other initiatives have been demanded by the European Union as it considers eventual E.U. membership for Ukraine.

But as conversations and planning for the future continue, not every Ukraine backer thinks this is the right moment to shift focus away from sending Ukraine what is necessary to confront the Russians as quickly and decisively as possible on the battlefield this year.

“Whatever strategy you use, you need all the weapons you can think of,” former NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a visit last week to press Republican lawmakers to approve Ukraine funding.

“You cannot win a war by pursuing an incremental step-by-step approach,” he said. “You have to surprise and overwhelm your adversary.”

Source: Washington Post

___________________________________________________

As the mood darkens in Ukraine, the majority still oppose negotiation

From 2014, when Vladimir Putin first invaded Ukraine, until a few months ago, Western opinion was virtually unanimous. “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” the saying went, meaning there could be no negotiations with Russia and no concessions except those agreed to by Ukrainians. 

Today, that consensus is eroding. No one is talking about negotiating without Kyiv, but there is growing sentiment, especially among Republicans who question U.S. support for the war, that Ukraine should be pressured, whether by a withdrawal of U.S. aid or other means. 

What these hardliners forget: unlike Russia, Ukraine is a democracy. The U.S. and other Western allies providing military and financial aid hold enormous sway in a country where their assistance is a de facto lifeline. 

But Ukrainian public opinion also counts, and as history shows — decades of popular uprisings and mass street protests — Ukrainians are anything but shy about expressing their views. President Volodymyr Zelensky serves at the pleasure of Ukrainian voters, and tired as they are after nearly two years of grinding war, the majority remain opposed to negotiating with Russia. 

The full-scale war has done nothing to dampen public debate in Ukraine. Under martial law, Kyiv controls television content, but fewer than one-third of Ukrainians get their news from television. Three-quarters rely on social media, most commonly Telegram chat channels that compress the news to snappy headlines but allow for robust public discussion. 

It isn’t unusual for online petitions to gather tens of thousands of signatures. Public opinion polling is extensive, with a half-dozen major outlets providing regular updates on the nation’s mood. And of course, everyone has opinions about the war — usually strong opinions. 

The mood has shifted perceptibly in recent months. 

Almost everyone now acknowledges that last summer’s counteroffensive fell short of expectations. Hardly any territory changed hands, leaving the two sides pinned down in deadly trench warfare. Parliament is debating legislation that would mobilize another half million men for active duty. Moscow has escalated its daily missile attacks on Ukrainian cities. It’s uncertain if or when the U.S. or the European Union will send further aid and Ukrainian fighters — those on the front lines and those defending civilians against air attacks — are running out of ammunition.  

No wonder people are exhausted, and there’s been a small shift in the share willing to consider negotiations with Moscow.  

From February 2022, when the full-scale war began, through May 2023, most polls showed little vacillation. Depending on how the question was phrased, between 80 and 95 percent of respondents agreed that winning meant pushing the invaders back to the status quo before the 2014 invasion. A similar share agreed that there could be no negotiating with Russia before victory. 

Recent surveys show that 5 to 10 percent of the population have softened their views. 

According to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, which has been asking the same questions every few months since the start of the war, 19 percent — up from 9 percent last May — are now willing to consider territorial concessions. 

Gallup also sees a small shift. In 2022, 26 percent of Ukrainian respondents told the U.S. pollster that their country should “seek to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible.” By summer 2023, 31 percent held that view. 

But both these polls and others continue to show a strong majority opposed to trading land for peace. According to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 74 percent still believe that “under no circumstances should Ukraine give up any of its territory.” Gallup found that those willing to consider negotiations were outnumbered 2 to 1 by those who think Ukraine “should continue fighting until it wins the war.” 

How to understand the thinking behind these numbers? Telegram is a good place to start. 

The chat channels come in many flavors — there’s an online forum for every social niche and every political opinion. The most popular feature is a mix of content: news headlines, minute-by-minute accounts of incoming missile trajectories and graphic images of explosions on the front line, along with heart-warming videos of fighters reuniting with their families. Many also air rapid-fire video forums: A cameraman stands in the street and asks a dozen passersby what they think about a topic.  

One of the most widely read channels, Trukha Ukrayina, has 2.6 million subscribers, and it’s not unusual to see 350 of them respond when a foreign commentator suggests negotiating with Moscow. 

“If he’s so smart, let him give part of his country to the [Russians],” one recent post read, using a common derogatory term for Russians. Many of the other reactions were unprintable. 

But there are a few common threads — the most frequently voiced arguments against negotiating. 

The case starts with practicality. “There’s no one to talk to,” a well-dressed matron recently told an inquiring videographer. There is no reason to believe that Putin is prepared for meaningful negotiations.  

Other skeptics argue from the experience of the past two years. “After all the boys we’ve lost?” someone asked on Telegram. “We can’t betray that sacrifice.” 

“We can’t give up now,” a friend agreed, “that’s what the war is all about — asserting our right to exist in our own territory.” 

“Negotiate about what?” a pedestrian asked a cameraman in Kyiv. “Are we going to give them part of our country?” 

Still, others reluctant to make concessions don’t trust the Russians to keep their word. 

“You can’t negotiate with terrorists,” a young woman told a roving photographer. “They’ll just regroup and strike again.” 

History bears her out. Since Ukrainian independence in 1991 and indeed for centuries before, Moscow violated truce after truce and trampled on virtually all its agreements with Kyiv. 

“Russians will negotiate, but they won’t retreat,” someone else noted in a Telegram chat. “Power is the only language they understand. If we negotiate without victory, the war will spread to Europe.”  

But perhaps the most powerful argument against negotiating springs from hope. The same Kyiv International Institute of Sociology survey that found a 10 percent shift in opinion asked respondents how they thought the war would end and found their views strongly correlated with whether they were open to negotiations. 

But even among those who were willing to make concessions, 71 percent believed that with enough Western aid, Kyiv would ultimately prevail, and 91 percent of those reluctant to begin talks were convinced Ukraine could win with the right Western weapons.  

“A stalemate is not the same as failure,” a friend explained to me. “The Russians want to wipe us off the map. They’re the ones who have failed. And Ukrainians aren’t going to negotiate unless and until it’s the last option.” 

Source: The Hill

The UN refugee chief says that he’s worried that the war in Ukraine is being forgotten

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said Wednesday that he’s worried that the war in Ukraine has been forgotten as the country prepares to mark two years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi also told The Associated Press in an interview that it was important to remind the international community that Ukrainians were living through a brutal war despite other global crises taking the spotlight.

Speaking at the end of a weeklong visit to Ukraine, Grandi said that the invasion, which was launched by Moscow on Feb. 24, 2022, continues to bring devastation to civilians with houses destroyed, health centers hit and many facilities not functioning.

UNHCR put the latest figure of people who have been displaced from the war at 10 million — 3.7 million are considered to be internally displaced, while another 6.3 million are categorized as refugees.

The agency has called for $4.2 billion to help Ukraine this year — slightly less than last year.

The U.N. refugee chief said that he was concerned that discussion over the issue of humanitarian aid to Ukraine had now become held up by political wrangling. He urged the United States and the European Union to pass their aid packages saying it was his duty to “remind everybody that humanitarian aid should not be hostage of politics.”

In December, EU leaders failed to agree on a four-year, $52 billion package of assistance for Ukraine. Hungary blocked the agreement, which requires unanimity from all 27 EU members. The bloc is working, however, to find a way for the remaining 26 countries to come up with the money before an EU summit on Feb. 1.

In Washington, senators are trying for a bipartisan deal that would include nearly $61 billion in aid for Ukraine and make changes to U.S. border policy. But Republicans are renewing a push to scale back the amount of assistance for Ukraine, targeting money that would go to Ukraine’s civil sector and arguing that European nations could step in to fund those needs.

Source: AP News

___________________________________________________

NATO signs key artillery ammunition contract to replenish allied supplies and help Ukraine

NATO signed on Tuesday a $1.2-billion contract to make tens of thousands of artillery rounds to replenish the dwindling stocks of its member countries as they supply ammunition to Ukraine to help it defeat Russia’s invasion.

The contract will allow for the purchase of 220,000 rounds of 155-millimeter ammunition, the most widely sought after artillery shell, according to NATO’s support and procurement agency. It will allow allies to backfill their arsenals and to provide Ukraine with more ammunition.

“This is important to defend our own territory, to build up our own stocks, but also to continue to support Ukraine,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters.

Ukraine was firing around 4,000 to 7,000 artillery shells each day last summer, while Russia was launching more than 20,000 shells daily in its neighbor’s territory, according to European Union estimates.

Russia’s arms industry far outweighs Ukraine’s and Kyiv needs help to match Moscow’s firepower.

But the shells will not arrive quickly — delivery on orders takes anywhere from 24 to 36 months, the NATO agency said.

The European Union plans to produce 1 million artillery rounds for Ukraine have fallen short, with only about a third of the target met. Senior EU officials have said that they now expect the European defense industry to be producing around one million shells annually by the end of this year.

Source: AP News

___________________________________________________

Nations form new ‘capability coalitions’ to help confront Ukraine’s long-term military needs

Certain nations participating in the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) are launching six new “capability coalitions” to help strengthen the Ukrainian military’s air force, ground-based air defenses, artillery, maritime security, de-mining and information technology assets as it continues to combat Russian aggression, according to senior Pentagon officials.

Plans for these coalitions’ establishment and functions were in focus at the 18th UDCG meeting on Tuesday, which Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin hosted virtually from his home where he’s recovering from complications associated with prostate cancer treatment that recently resulted in his secret hospitalization.

As chairman of the contact group, Austin has been hosting these meetings in-person on a monthly basis with dozens of international counterparts in the U.S. and abroad since April 2022 — shortly after Russia’s latest invasion of Ukraine. 

The meetings are a venue through which the nations involved coordinate security assistance and international support for Kyiv’s military forces.

While the U.S. typically announces major investments and capabilities for Ukraine that are timed around UDCG meetings, the most recent international aid package proposing billions for the nation is currently held up in congressional limbo. 

Still, on a call with reporters after attending the virtual UDCG meeting on Tuesday (January 23, 2024) , Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander said the forum allowed those involved to intensify their “common efforts to forge long-term security for Ukraine.”

The focus was on Ukraine’s furture force and the standing up of capability coalitions to support Ukraine’s defense forces, according to Secretary Wallander.  Furthermore, she announced that these coalitions focuse don Ukraine’s air force, artillery, maritime security, ground-based air defenses, de-mining and information technology.

During this meeting, Germany announced that it would lead the armor capability coalition and Latvia has announced that it will lead a drone coalition.

Though he didn’t provide explicit details on the ultimate aim and intent, in his prepared remarks for the meeting attendees on Tuesday, Austin thanked Estonia, Germany, the U.K. and several other nations for committing to helping lead the new hubs. 

Estonia and Luxembourg are leading the IT coalition, a Pentagon spokesperson told DefenseScoop on Wednesday

Wallander didn’t supply in-depth information about all the new coalitions’ impending pursuits, during her briefing with reporters — but she did mention that the drone-focused team will be looking at multi-domain and multifunctional aspects in which uncrewed aerial vehicles play an evolving role on the battlefield.

Source: Defense Scoop

___________________________________________________

European support continues

Scholz says Europeans must step up support for Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz again called on European countries to provide more financial and military aid to Ukraine. In light of US President Joe Biden's difficulties in getting a new aid package for Ukraine through Congress, Kyiv's supporters "are now in a very decisive position," Scholz said at the SPD's European delegates' conference in Berlin. That is why he said he wants to "talk in Europe about how everyone can increase and expand their contributions."

Military support for Ukraine in other European countries is often "limited," Scholz said. The German government has already earmarked more than €7 billion for Ukraine in this year's budget, which is currently more than half of the total contributions from European states, he said. Germany wanted to do a lot, but it was "only a middle power," Scholz said, adding that it must now be "the contribution of all the others to do a lot."

Russian President Vladimir Putin must realize that his calculations will not work if he simply waits for support for Ukraine to wane, Scholz stressed, adding that persistence is also an important factor in bringing peace to Ukraine more quickly.

Scholz has been under pressure for months to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. On Sunday, he reiterated that support for the country would continue to be "cautious" and "internationally coordinated. There will continue to be no German "unilateral efforts."

________________________________________________

The European Union (EU) will provide Ukraine with an additional five billion euros to meet “urgent military needs” in the near future. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Joseph Borrell announced on January 26 that EU member states should reach an agreement to provide an additional five billion euros ($5.4 billion) from the European Peace Fund to Ukraine in the coming days.[25] Borrell added that the EU will discuss the use of frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine before the next EU Council on Foreign Affairs meeting in early 2024. The 50 billion euros would reportedly be dispensed over 2024-2027.

 ________________________________________________

The Netherlands has joined the IT coalition to aid Ukraine in its war efforts, Ukraine’s defence ministry said today.

The IT coalition is a group of states within the contact group on defence of Ukraine that operates under the leadership of Estonia and Luxembourg in supporting Ukraine’s defence ministry and armed forces in the field of IT, communication and cyber security.

In addition to the Netherlands, 11 more countries are participating in the initiative: Ukraine, Belgium, UK, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Japan.

Denmark has allocated 91m Danish kroner (over €12m) for the cyber defence of Ukraine within the IT coalition. Previously, Estonia had allocated €500,000 and Luxembourg had allocated €10m.

“Technology can help turn positional warfare into maneuverable warfare,” said Kateryna Chernogorenko, Ukraine’s deputy minister of defence for digital development, digital transformation and digitalisation. “The IT coalition is designed to provide the necessary digital foundation for the deployment of any new technological solutions.”

Sources: DW

The Guardian

Reuters

IOM Director General, Ms. Amy Pope, and the Holy Father speak about migration issues during their recent audience (courtesy of Vatican News)