Publications

Kyiv Security Forum analyticsWestern partners and foreign media did not ignore Russia's large-scale missile and drone strike on Ukraine on the night of 9 January. They note that as part of this attack, Russia used the Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile against Ukraine for the second time, which Moscow positions as the latest weapon against Europe that cannot be shot down.According to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, these strikes show that ‘Putin does not want peace’ and ‘this deadly pattern of repeated large-scale Russian strikes will continue until we (the EU) help Ukraine break it.’Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys also says that Moscow's strikes demonstrate Russia's true attitude towards peace talks.Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna points out that this attack is evidence of Putin's ‘nervousness’ in response to the negotiations being conducted by Europeans and Americans with Ukraine.Reuters and Euronews emphasise that the Oreshnik strike was carried out near the border with NATO and the EU. It is highlighted that Moscow claimed that this was in response to Ukraine's alleged shelling of Putin's residence at the end of last year, which Ukraine has not confirmed, the EU has expressed doubts about, and the US has denied based on intelligence data.&nbsp; The Guardian also points out the absurdity of linking the Russian attack to a non-existent attack on Putin.Politico quotes Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sybiha as saying that the Oreshnik, which is a potential carrier of nuclear warheads, poses a significant threat to European security. Therefore, as The New York Times noted, the use of the missile was ‘an ominous warning to Ukraine and its Western allies.’The media emphasise that Moscow carried out this attack in the midst of active international efforts led by the United States to end the war. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Qatari Embassy, which also provides active mediation services, was damaged during the missile and drone attack on Kyiv.The media cite assumptions by Ukrainian journalists and analysts that the target of the Oreshnik strike was Ukraine's gas infrastructure, in particular its gas storage facilities. The Ukrainian authorities do not directly confirm this, limiting themselves to general information about the destruction of a ‘critical infrastructure facility.’ However, if the goal was indeed to destroy the gas storage facility that Ukraine offers for use by the EU and the US, including to ensure American imports of liquefied gas to Europe, this strike can be interpreted not only as a threat to European security, but also as an attack on the economic interests of European states and Washington. The response to Moscow's actions should be not only political, but also in the form of sanctions and military action, in particular through the intensification of long-range weapons supplies to Ukraine.

Western partners and foreign media did not ignore Russia's large-scale missile and drone strike on Ukraine on the night of 9 January. They note that as part of this attack, Russia used the Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile against Ukraine for the second time, which Moscow positions as the latest weapon against Europe that cannot be shot down.

The West's response to Oreshnik should be to impose new sanctions on Moscow and supply long-range weapons to Ukraine

Pressure is mounting on Сhair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Jerome Powell, in the United States. On January 11, he <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20260111a.htm">issued </a>a statement warning of the threat of criminal prosecution in connection with his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee regarding a long-term project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. However, it is clear that this pressure on Powell is coming from US President Donald Trump due to their differences on monetary policy. Powell hinted at this in his statement on the Fed's website: "These are the reasons. The threat of criminal prosecution is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, not based on the President's preferences."The conflict between them has existed for a long time. Trump often tried to pressure Powell on this issue during his first presidency. Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has insisted on lowering the Federal Reserve's key rate, while Powell prefers a more cautious and slow approach. Trump argues that he wants to achieve greater economic growth through cheap credit, while Powell fears that this will fuel inflation (low inflation is one of the Fed's goals, along with ensuring the highest possible level of employment under current conditions). US GDP grew by 4.3% in the first three quarters of last year. At the same time, the Federal Reserve has made considerable progress in combating inflation, which stood at 2.7% year-on-year in December last year, but this is still above the long-term target of 2%. Very rapid GDP growth – 4.3% – for the world's largest economy can only be described as such, as it usually provokes an acceleration of inflation, so the Fed's actions to curb it should be assessed as professionally sound.Once, a president who proposed an ambitious programme that included a significant strengthening of presidential powers won the US election. His decisions and a number of laws that were passed became the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court. Some were found to be unconstitutional, some were repealed, and some were approved. One member of the independent civil service did not support the president's policies, which initially prompted the president to demand the official's resignation. After two refusals, the president nevertheless dismissed the disloyal technocrat. The member of the independent government service did not comply with this decision and, despite his dismissal, continued to go to work. The fact is that the law allowed for his dismissal only in cases of obvious inefficiency, negligence or official misconduct. Political disagreement could not be such a reason.That president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The dismissed technocrat was William Humphrey, who was a member of the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court sided with Humphrey (although he had already died by that time, so the case is listed in the US Supreme Court's register of decisions as ‘Humphrey's Executor v. United States’), ruling that there is a difference between executive positions in the government and positions of members or heads of independent government agencies and commissions. The former are appointed purely at the discretion of the president and can therefore be dismissed for political reasons. The latter, although appointed by the president, are subject to rules and procedures regulated by specific laws or established by Congress, and can only be dismissed for specific reasons that do not include politics.The case dates back to 1935. However, the US Supreme Court's decision on it became important in view of the independent status of a number of institutions that perform technocratic rather than political functions. Once appointed, the heads of such institutions must be isolated from political influence and act independently of the ‘wind direction’ of politicians' preferences. The Federal Reserve is one such institution.For 90 years, the established rules were inviolable. Trump set out to change that. Upon coming to power, he dismissed several heads of such agencies and commissions without adequate reason (Trump's argument was quite Rooseveltian – they did not approve of the ‘president's policies’). The US Department of Justice supported Trump, stating that it would no longer defend the existing order and would ask the Supreme Court to review the 1935 decision. However, the Supreme Court did not issue a decision based on the Department of Justice's appeal.Returning to the Federal Reserve, it should be noted that the procedure for appointing members to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is very specific. It consists of seven members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a term of 14 years without the right to reappointment (although it is possible to ‘serve out’ the term of a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who has not served it to the end, and there are precedents for this, for example, one of the most influential Fed chairmen, Alan Greenspan, headed the Fed for almost 19 years, from 1987 to 2006, having ‘served out’ part of the term of his predecessor, Paul Volcker).Every two years, one seat on the Board is subject to change, ensuring smooth continuity. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may only be appointed from among those who are currently serving members of the Board. A member of the Federal Reserve Board may be appointed from among the current governors of the Federal Reserve Banks, of which there are twelve in the United States – this is the number into which the so-called ‘Federal Reserve districts’ are divided. At the same time, the representativeness of the Fed districts must be ensured: 7 out of 12 districts must be represented, and no district may be represented by two members on the Board. The Senate proposes the candidate to the President. After the President's approval, the Senate confirms the candidate.In other words, in order to appoint ‘his man’ to the Fed Board, Trump needs to wait until the term of one of the Board members expires (the nearest expiry date is Powell's, in May this year). Then he can appoint his own person to the Fed's Board of Governors, and only after that will he have the opportunity to try to make him chair through agreements with the Senate. Procedurally, this is much more complicated than finding a MAGA man in some other US federal agency.In the entire history of the Fed, no chairman has ever been dismissed before the end of his term. Trump is an unpredictable politician, but it seems that this will be difficult for him. However, it is not worth underestimating some of the current president's character traits.I would like to believe that he is pragmatic enough to understand the risks involved in the most pressing issues. Most likely, Trump will limit himself to another verbal attack on Powell, reinforced by the threat of criminal proceedings, thereby increasing pressure on the Federal Reserve (after all, in his rhetoric, it is the Federal Reserve's unchanged interest rate that is the main cause of all current woes).How will Powell respond? We won't have to wait long to find out — the next Fed meeting on the key rate will take place on 27-28 January.

Pressure is mounting on Сhair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Jerome Powell, in the United States. On January 11, he issued a statement warning of the threat of criminal prosecution in connection with his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee regarding a long-term project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. However, it is clear that this pressure on Powell is coming from US President Donald Trump due to their differences on monetary policy. Powell hinted at this in his statement on the Fed's website: "These are the reasons. The threat of criminal prosecution is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, not based on the President's preferences."

Vyacheslav BUTKO 

President Trump vs. Fed Chair Powell – a rocky road ahead

Kyiv Security Forum AnalyticsThe US National Defense Strategy, published on January 24, did not bring any strategic innovations. Like the National Security Strategy released in November 2025, it is fully subordinated to the current administration's ‘America First’ policy.The key US defence priorities are as follows:• &nbsp; &nbsp;defence of the United States' territory on land and at sea, in particular strengthening air defence through the deployment of the Golden Dome system, anti-drone protection, and safeguarding US interests in the Western Hemisphere; • &nbsp; &nbsp;containing China in the Indo-Pacific region not through direct confrontation, but through a demonstration of power and the maintenance of a balance that prevents Beijing from dominating the US and its allies; • &nbsp; &nbsp;increasing allies' and partners' responsibility for their own defence, with a gradual shift away from their former dependence on Washington, both in Europe and in the Indo-Pacific region; • &nbsp; &nbsp;‘recharging’ the American defence industry, in particular by returning strategic production to the US, reinvesting, supporting innovation and new technologies, including artificial intelligence, and removing outdated regulatory restrictions.Russia, Iran and North Korea are not considered separate strategic defence priorities. Threats from these countries are mentioned, but in a rather narrow and selective manner.It is noted that Russia will remain a constant but manageable threat to NATO's eastern members in the foreseeable future. At the same time, the intensification of aggressive tendencies in Moscow's policy in the context of the war against Ukraine is not directly recorded. The main emphasis is placed on the demographic and economic problems of the Russian Federation, as well as on the remaining reserves of its military and industrial potential.The list of threats to the United States includes Russia's nuclear arsenal, its submarine, space and cyber capabilities. It is assumed that the Ministry of Defence will focus primarily on countering these challenges, while continuing to play a vital role within NATO.It is separately emphasised that European allies should take primary responsibility for their own conventional defence, while the US will focus on China and the Western Hemisphere. This division of roles is justified not only by the ‘America First’ policy, but also by Europe's significantly higher combined economic and military potential compared to Russia, which, according to the authors of the document, makes Moscow's hegemony on the continent impossible.As in the National Security Strategy, Russia's aggression against Ukraine is not directly condemned. The authors limit themselves to stating that, as a result of the war, relations between European states and the Russian Federation have significantly weakened, and their normalisation will require active diplomatic involvement from the US.Washington's efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine are mentioned in the document, but the key role in ensuring the defence of our state is assigned to European partners. The strategy contains no hints of the possibility of providing even limited security guarantees to Ukraine from the United States.Thus, although the Defence Strategy, unlike the National Security Strategy, at least acknowledges the threats from Moscow, there has been no fundamental shift in the US administration's view of its role in ensuring European security.

The US National Defense Strategy, published on January 24, did not bring any strategic innovations. Like the National Security Strategy released in November 2025, it is fully subordinated to the current administration's ‘America First’ policy.

The New US National Defence Strategy: Old Priorities of the ‘America First’ Concept

Kyiv Security Forum AnalyticsIn his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney effectively proclaimed the collapse of the old world order based on the strategic partnership of the West, the primacy of international law and shared values. While not perfect and not ensuring complete equality between large and small states, this order nevertheless guaranteed relative stability and clear rules of the game, which ultimately contributed to global prosperity.The special rights of the major players were offset by their responsibility to abide by the rules – &nbsp;and that is why such asymmetries were considered acceptable. Similar thoughts and conclusions have recently been expressed by many politicians and analysts. However, Carney went further. He attempted to lay the ideological foundations for a new world order, which, in his view, should provide for the diversification of relations between medium and small states – &nbsp;both with major centres of power and among themselves. This refers to multi-format cooperation aimed at counteracting the dominance and impunity of global leaders. The configuration of such coalitions in different areas may vary, as the main goal is to ensure the survival of the weaker states, protect their interests and, at the same time, preserve respect for values.Although the Canadian Prime Minister does not directly mention US President Donald Trump when justifying the need for change, it is obvious to everyone that he is the main target. Everyone, including Trump himself.The policy of pressure chosen by the new American administration towards both opponents and allies undermines the West's strategic partnership – &nbsp;political, economic and military. Although not all forms of cooperation have been destroyed, neither Canadians nor Europeans are completely confident in their continued existence. The lack of trust in Washington has led to increased contacts between former US partners and other global players, including China, Latin American countries and India.Not only does Carney not downplay or hide Canada's diversification of economic ties in favour of other major players, including opponents of the West, but quite the contrary – &nbsp;he emphasises it as the only possible economic policy option for a country seeking to protect its interests from the pressure of its large neighbour.Canada's new trade agreement with China, signed in January 2026, radically reduces tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports – &nbsp;from 100% to 6.1% – &nbsp;and provides for a quota of 49,000 vehicles per year with the possibility of further increases. In return, China is abolishing high tariffs on Canadian canola (rapeseed) and peas, facilitating Canadian farmers' access to the Chinese market.This agreement continues last year's trend of diversifying Canadian exports, particularly energy products, in response to unfriendly tariff decisions and political statements by the United States. As Carney noted, Canada has also agreed on a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement mechanism. In addition, Ottawa is negotiating free trade areas with India, ASEAN countries, Thailand, the Philippines and the MERCOSUR bloc.President Trump's reaction to Carney's policy is emotional and demonstratively sensitive. Washington's inability to stand alone against the whole world will become even more apparent if Europeans begin to actively apply the new rules of the game. In fact, they are already moving in this direction. This is evidenced by the European Union's signing of a free trade agreement with the South American MERCOSUR bloc and the desire of European capitals for pragmatic economic relations with Beijing.At the same time, the strategic rift between Europe and Washington is currently held in check not only by the scale of mutual trade, but also by security interests. Europe is not yet capable of standing up to threats from Moscow on its own without US support. This also applies to Ukraine.The announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney of a new world order concept should be a loud wake-up call, not a death knell for the Western Partnership.

In his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney effectively proclaimed the collapse of the old world order based on the strategic partnership of the West, the primacy of international law and shared values. While not perfect and not ensuring complete equality between large and small states, this order nevertheless guaranteed relative stability and clear rules of the game, which ultimately contributed to global prosperity.

The new world order according to Carney – an SOS signal for the Western Partnership

For several decades now, one of the most important events in January has traditionally been the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. According to the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2026/">Global Risks Report</a> published by the WEF prior to this year's event, the world faces serious turmoil in the next two years, with geo-economic confrontation – trade wars, sanctions and mutual economic pressure between countries – topping the list of threats.From the end of World War II to President Trump's first term (January 2017 – January 2021), the global economy became increasingly integrated – a process referred to as ‘globalisation’. Thanks to simplified logistics, reduced trade barriers, the development of technology exchange, foreign investment, and the active development of the international division of labour, this integration contributed to increased economic productivity and living standards in most countries and for billions of people.The recent events – the trade war between the US and China, the sharp increase in trade restrictions around the world, restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic, economic sanctions against Russia after the start of the war in Ukraine, and the change in the US position on many issues with Trump's return to power – have reversed this process. It seems that the global economy is fragmenting into trade blocs based on foreign policy considerations.As a hypothesis, we can assume that the future of world trade may follow one of two paths: further fragmentation or diversification of trade relations. The current development of geopolitical and civilisational confrontation points to a high probability of fragmentation. In this context, two scenarios are possible.For a more convenient explanation, let us divide the world into three hypothetical blocs: Western (‘USA+’ – let us not go to extremes and assume that there will be no major rift among the ‘cultural West’), Eastern (‘China+’), and neutral. A possible approximate, non-rigid criterion for division would be the vote on the UN resolution in March 2002, ‘Aggression against Ukraine.’The first scenario is a sharp tightening of trade conditions between the Eastern and Western blocs, but maintaining trade conditions between the neutral bloc and the other two.The second scenario involves not only restrictions on trade policy in the countries of the Eastern and Western blocs, but also the abolition of trade agreements between them and the simultaneous withdrawal of the Eastern Bloc countries from the WTO.In the first scenario, there would be a noticeable reduction in trade between the Western and Eastern blocs. The neutral bloc could benefit from some growth in its exports to the Eastern Bloc countries. However, the gains could be offset by a reduction in imports from the Western and Eastern blocs due to a decline in production in these two blocs (due to their trade confrontation with each other).In the second scenario, the withdrawal of the Eastern Bloc from the WTO leads to a significant reduction in trade between the Eastern and Neutral Blocs and to a very sharp reduction between the Western and Eastern Blocs. The countries of the Neutral Bloc will also suffer, losing the benefits of trade under WTO agreements with the countries of the Eastern Bloc. Trade between the neutral and Western blocs and bilateral trade between countries within the Western and Eastern blocs may increase slightly.The losses of individual countries in all three blocs will vary significantly. The most open economies and states that have established strong trade links with states in the bloc that will become their adversary will suffer the most from trade fragmentation. For example, South Korea, Chile and Peru, which are part of the conditional ‘Western bloc’ and actively trade with China (Eastern bloc), will suffer significant economic losses. Hong Kong is in a similar situation: it represents the Eastern bloc, but actively trades with the West.Politically and security-motivated principles based on geopolitical proximity are coming to the fore in world trade. The world is entering a phase where trade liberalisation will take place not through universal agreements, but through regional and bilateral agreements. Global trade is likely to grow within the Western and Eastern blocs.On a global scale, this could lead to a decline in world trade and a slowdown in global economic growth. Due to the geopolitical fragmentation of the global economy, the importance of ‘neutral countries’ will grow – they will become a bridge through which countries from competing blocs will be able to gain indirect access to each other's markets (there is no doubt that there will be a desire to do so).According to IMF estimates, the collapse of the global economy into competing economic blocs could cost up to 7% of global GDP. Based on the fact that global GDP is estimated at $117 trillion in 2025, this represents a loss of $8.2 trillion, which is the combined GDP of Japan and the United Kingdom – the fourth and sixth largest economies in the world by GDP. This would mean a sharp reversal of the achievements of recent decades, when integration and cooperation have contributed to poverty reduction, cheaper goods and the creation of hundreds of millions of jobs.If globalisation is viewed solely as a threat to national interests, countries will continue to ‘build walls’. If it is seen as a platform for mutual benefits, innovation and division of labour, the focus will shift to making it fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive.The choice is between a future in which the world is fragmented, with higher costs and increased risks of additional wars to those already underway, and a future in which the world is once again committed to integration, learning from its past mistakes rather than rejecting the idea altogether.However, it is likely that foreign policy will determine the future of the global economy. This points to a high probability of fragmentation along geopolitical lines and security objectives. Therefore, there is little optimism about the qualitative development and quantitative growth of the global economy and trade, as well as the improvement of the living standards of the global population.Vyacheslav Butko,Economic Advisor to the Kyiv Security Forum

For several decades now, one of the most important events in January has traditionally been the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. According to the Global Risks Report published by the WEF prior to this year's event, the world faces serious turmoil in the next two years, with geo-economic confrontation – trade wars, sanctions and mutual economic pressure between countries – topping the list of threats.

On the geopolitical fragmentation of the global economy

Kyiv Security Forum AnalyticsUS President Donald Trump's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos highlighted the depth of the crisis that the modern world may find itself in.The world order based on respect for the territorial integrity of states, support for democracy, human rights and basic moral principles may become a thing of the past. The ‘rule of law’ may be replaced by the ‘law of force.’ This may happen if one of the potential key geopolitical players – Europe – does not move into the ranks of active players and begin to build its policy based not on the ‘power of values’ but on the ‘value of power.’Fortunately, Greenland did not trigger the final collapse of the Euro-Atlantic partnership. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte once again demonstrated his crisis management skills. Other actors, including those in the United States itself, also contributed to the constructive outcome.There is now a chance that this time the problem can be resolved without escalation. President Trump responded sympathetically to proposals for resolving the issue of Greenland's security put forward by the Europeans and the Alliance. According to media reports, these include the possibility of expanding the American military presence in Greenland, with the transfer of limited territories under military bases to US ownership; the right of Americans to invest in the extraction of the island's natural resources; and the expansion of cooperation within NATO on Arctic security issues.The ‘purchase’ of Greenland is currently off the agenda, as is Washington's raising of tariffs for Europeans.The situation in Ukraine is once again at the top of the European agenda, as confirmed by the informal EU summit on 23 January.However, neither the latest discussion within the EU on support for Ukraine, nor the latest ‘positive’ meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his American counterpart Trump, nor the latest visit by his representatives Vitkoff and Kushner to Moscow have brought us closer to peace.The reason is the same one that has been mentioned many times before: the lack of adequate pressure on the Kremlin from both the US and Europe.The solutions are also well known and entirely feasible if there is sufficient political will: supplying Ukraine with long-range weapons to systematically destroy Russia's military potential, as well as significantly strengthening sanctions and measures to enforce them, in particular by blocking Russia's shadow fleet. Regarding the latter, the US has provided excellent examples of how this can be done. But they need to be significantly scaled up, including near Europe, to become an effective tool.&nbsp; Unfortunately, instead of this, our partners are ready to significantly lower their ambitions in communicating with the Russian side in the near future. Today, on January 23, trilateral consultations between the negotiating teams of Ukraine, the US and Russia begin in the United Arab Emirates. And the decisions, if any, may not concern a ceasefire, but an ‘energy truce.’ Recently, this issue was highlighted in the media as the main topic for consultations in Abu Dhabi. However, doubts were expressed that Moscow would agree to this. The expediency of such a partial decision for Ukraine was also not considered indisputable, as it would mean the impossibility of further strikes on the Russian Federation's energy sector. And now this is one of the main levers of pressure on Moscow. Following President Zelenskyy's latest statements, the main focus is now on discussing territorial issues. However, after Putin's refusal yesterday to compromise with American representatives on Donbas, it is not entirely clear what can be discussed on this topic at the working level. Therefore, concrete decisions on territorial issues are unlikely. In other words, we are back where we were almost a year ago. During this time, it has not been possible to achieve even limited but stable results from the Russian Federation. Washington's significant shift in position towards Moscow has not helped either. Today, it is possible that some decisions may be taken. However, this will not be due to a hardening of the position of Western partners on Russian aggression, but thanks to Ukraine's intensified actions against Russian energy.Fundamental changes in achieving peace are possible, but only if Ukraine and the West join forces in good faith.

US President Donald Trump's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos highlighted the depth of the crisis that the modern world may find itself in.

The world order based on respect for the territorial integrity of states, support for democracy, human rights and basic moral principles may become a thing of the past. The ‘rule of law’ may be replaced by the ‘law of force.’ This may happen if one of the potential key geopolitical players – Europe – does not move into the ranks of active players and begin to build its policy based not on the ‘power of values’ but on the ‘value of power.’

Peace can only be achieved through the genuine cooperation of Ukraine and the West

This year, Ukraine is planning to produce seven million drones. Meanwhile, in the US, the so-called ‘arsenal of democracy’, we only produce 300,000 per year.Excerpt from the speech by General David Petraeus, Member of the KSF Security Council, Commander of U.S. Central Command (2008–2010), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2011–2012), at a Special Session of the KSF ‘12 Years of War. What Next?’, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://nv.ua/ukr/opinion/general-petreus-ukrajina-posilyuye-tisk-na-rosiyu-zbilshuye-virobnictvo-droniv-50581854.html">published </a>on the NV website.First of all, I would like to express my respect not only for the Ukrainian military, whom I greatly admire, but also for the Ukrainian people, the people of Ukraine. We are well aware of the hardships they are going through. Two days ago, I visited one of the units that specialises in drones. It was freezing cold there, the kind of cold that chills you deep down to your bones. I don't think I've experienced such cold weather since my days at military school in Georgia. What the Ukrainians have done, how they show their resilience and creativity, is truly impressive.This is my ninth visit to Ukraine since 2022.We met with Mr. Syrsky and with his deputies separately. We also visited the drone unit. We were at the newly established drone control centre. That is also extremely impressive. I also spoke with the head of DTEK, who told me about the enormous problems Ukraine is facing due to the shelling of its power grids and what is being done to restore them... We met with the Third Corps at the Zmiinyi Island Institute.We are observing how the situation changes every month. For me, as an old soldier, it is a great joy to see the creative approach that Ukrainians are taking.I agree with The Wall Street Journal — Putin will not win.I truly believe that this is the case. Ukraine, which has no military navy, has managed to force the Russian fleet into hiding, and most of this fleet has been destroyed. How was this achieved? Through ingenuity. And through intelligence, of course. They found out where the ships were, determined their location, and sank them. Even the flagship Moskva was sunk. It was an extraordinary sight.Ukraine is increasingly bringing the war to Russian territory, to critical military infrastructure and oil refineries. We are seeing the use of Flamingo cruise missiles, which have a longer range than their American counterparts — 3,000 km — and a larger warhead. This is another example of how Ukraine's industrial power is being realised. And it will cause enormous damage to Russia. I can say the same about Ukraine's shorter-range weapons — production is scaling up.We are following the negotiations. Their outcome is predictable.Ukraine is showing the willingness and skills to reach a compromise, but at the same time not to violate its Constitution and not to cross certain red lines in terms of territory exchange. I think that ultimately the United States will understand that Putin has no intention of agreeing to a ceasefire with Ukraine. It is very important that our European friends play a key role in developing security measures and guarantees for Ukraine. And that the United States is involved in this in terms of monitoring and confirming violations, if any.Medvedev, Putin and others continue to insist on their basic demands, primarily the demilitarisation of Ukraine, demanding that they be given land and fortified cities that they have been unable to capture for such a long time. I think they would be happy to see President Zelensky replaced by some pro-Russian figure.And I am sure that this is a miscalculation on their part.But right now, there is a unique opportunity.Russia has become much more vulnerable economically and socially. Their ‘national welfare fund’ will run out this year. India is going to buy much less oil and gas from them. The European Union has set a price cap. This means that they are receiving much less income and are doing enormous damage to their economy.There are no loan-based investments in Russia. The inflation rate is very high. They are now in a extremely difficult situation. And all this is happening in the midst of negotiations.We are all aware that Putin is not taking this seriously. Therefore, the US needs to re-approve the sanctions supported by Senator Lindsey Graham and more than 100 other senators. The European Union is also currently considering a 20th round of sanctions. It has approved a €90 billion support package for Ukraine. This changes the situation significantly. At the very least, it will help Ukraine improve its economic and financial situation, in particular by doubling the production of important drones. And I do not rule out that this will also begin to convince Putin that he may suffer more than Ukrainians, Europeans and Americans.Ukraine plans to produce 7 million drones. The US needs to learn from this.Of course, we need to provide Ukraine with much more, for example, in terms of air defence and ballistic missile defence. This is very difficult to do, but Ukraine needs it. This year, Ukraine may produce 7 million drones, somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 per day. And here in the United States, in the arsenal of democracy, we have 300,000 per year.They change the software almost every week and the hardware every few weeks. There has never been a procurement system like this before.We all need to recognise and understand what is happening here. We need to revise our approaches, our practices, and change our organisational structure. Because Ukraine already has unmanned systems forces and cyber forces. And we need to prepare and train our leaders. We need to procure materials. And many other things. We are not doing this quickly enough. We must learn from the experience of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.In fact, Ukraine is now developing tomorrow's technology for today's war. And in our case, in the United States, the process is taking too long, which ultimately leads to yesterday's technology being developed for tomorrow's war. So what you are doing now is a unique opportunity, given the great vulnerability of the Russian economy and the strong support of the European Union.We must take additional measures to help Ukraine stop the Russians on the front lines and counter missiles and swarms of drones. We must inflict even greater damage on the Russian economy, including sanctions, including secondary sanctions against countries that supply components to the Russian armed forces. China alone supplies a huge number of components, chips and motors to the Russian military-industrial complex.What comes next?You won't believe it, but I am also a former economics teacher. Of course, the answer to every question like this begins with the words: it depends…In this case, the answer should be formulated roughly as follows: it largely depends on how Europe continues to support Ukraine. If there is a 20th package of sanctions from Europe, if the US is able to impose the draconian sanctions proposed by Senator Graham, this will determine the situation for the future:will we be able to crush Russia's military economy,will we be able to cut off oil revenues,will we be able to deprive Russia of foreign components for weapons.Russia has already lost more than 1.2 million killed and wounded. That is more than the United States lost during the entire Second World War. Look at it in context. Yes, they do have a large country, but such levels of loss are unacceptable for any country.Providing Ukraine with long-range weapons, helping to produce weapons such as Flamingo to inflict serious damage on Russia's energy networks, oil refineries, etc. If these steps are taken and the Ukrainian military continues to approach its work with the same innovative approach it has demonstrated up to now, I believe that with the depletion of the ‘national welfare fund,’ Putin will be forced to engage in genuine negotiations to end the war.The more we do to bring that day closer, the better.For Ukraine, for its people, and for its army. &nbsp;

This year, Ukraine is planning to produce seven million drones. Meanwhile, in the US, the so-called ‘arsenal of democracy’, we only produce 300,000 per year.

Excerpt from the speech by General David Petraeus, Member of the KSF Security Council, Commander of U.S. Central Command (2008–2010), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2011–2012), at a Special Session of the KSF ‘12 Years of War. What Next?’, published on the NV website.

‘Ukrainians, I am impressed. This is where Putin will miscalculate.’ From General Petraeus’ speech at a KSF Special Session

Let’s face it, things are changing. This last year taught us that Europeans need to invest more in hard powerFrom the speech by British Ambassador to Ukraine Neil Crompton at a KSF Special Session, ‘Twelve Years of War. What Next?’, <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://nv.ua/ukr/opinion/bezpeka-ukrajini-ta-yevropi-posol-nil-krompton-pro-strategichni-vikliki-viyni-50582044.html">published</a> on the NV website.I was in Washington when Republican Senator John McCain was running for office. Back then, he said: ‘When I looked into Putin's eyes, I saw three letters — KGB.’In the United Kingdom, we believe that Putin will only be able to talk about peace in earnest when we put significantly more pressure on him. First and foremost, we must increase economic pressure on Russia through sanctions.We must take a more creative and unconventional approach to this issue in order to weaken Russia's strategic position.I am struck by the figures we have received recently, particularly regarding the losses of the Russian army. The Russians are spending billions on disinformation, on shaping their narrative that Ukraine's defeat is inevitable. But they have not been particularly successful. A striking example: when President Zelenskyy was in Kupiansk, just a few kilometres away from the front line, Putin met with Gerasimov in a bunker.Our strategy should be designed to demonstrate Ukraine's power, determination and resilience. With the support of the United States and Europe, we will be able to reach a position where Russia will face such problems internally that it will be in Russia's own interests to negotiate an end to the war.This past year has taught us that Europeans need to invest more in hard power, gain more strategic autonomy, and cultivate more productive partnerships.We must acknowledge that things are changing, and President Trump is adopting a new approach in his dealings with us. But every American president since John F. Kennedy — including Barack Obama — has said that we need to spend more on defence. The US is seeking a balance between Europe and East, and we are responding rather slowly to this.Europe is finally recognising that we need to take more responsibility for our own security.This is a matter of political awareness: Ukrainian security and our security are inseparable today. NATO members in Europe have increased their defence investments by 50% compared to the past. I can say that these are epoch-making political changes.So, undoubtedly, we need to maintain our relationship with the United States. We feel stronger because of this. But I think it is high time for us to invest even more in our defence expenditures, in strengthening our military-industrial complex capabilities. We need to coordinate our efforts with the Baltic states and France, at least in terms of security guarantees.I think Europe is finally responding to what a number of American presidents have been saying.We are openly looking at the risk posed by Russia. London says that we need to have the most modern nuclear deterrent system. We are modernising our submarines. We are discussing tactical weapons with our French friends. What happened in 2022 redirected Britain's strategic thinking and the restoration of our nuclear deterrent capability.We diplomats believe in solutions through negotiation. But we all understand your lesson from Budapest and the Minsk process: in order to achieve peace, you must be 100% sure that Russia will not attack again. And if it does attack, it will be met with a fitting response.Everyone understands this in my country's capital and in other European capital cities.

Let’s face it, things are changing. This last year taught us that Europeans need to invest more in hard power. From the speech by British Ambassador to Ukraine Neil Crompton at a KSF Special Session, ‘Twelve Years of War. What Next?’, published on the NV website.

“In Putin’s eyes, there are only three letters – KGB.” Excerpt from the speech by the British Ambassador to Ukraine at a KSF Special Session

<img src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/00000_2a777ae43f.jpeg" alt="00000.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_00000_2a777ae43f.jpeg 219w,https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_00000_2a777ae43f.jpeg 500w,https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_00000_2a777ae43f.jpeg 750w," sizes="100vw" width="750px">The sociological survey ‘Citizens' assessment of the situation in the country, vision of ways to solve security problems’ was conducted by the Razumkov Centre's sociological service on behalf of the Kyiv Security Forum from 31 January to 4 February 2026 using telephone interviews.&nbsp;A total of 1,003 respondents aged 18 and older living in all regions of Ukraine (except for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) were interviewed. The survey was conducted with citizens who, at the time of the survey, were located in the territory of Ukraine controlled by the Government of Ukraine and covered by the telephone networks of Ukrainian telephone operators.The structure of the sample population reflects the demographic structure of the adult population of the territories where the survey was conducted as of the beginning of 2022 (by macro-regions, age, gender, type of settlement).The theoretical sampling error does not exceed 3.2%. In the analysis, the results of this study are compared with the results of other studies conducted by the Razumkov Centre's sociological service.Key findings of the study• &nbsp; &nbsp;Ukrainians have a very high level of trust in the institutions directly responsible for the country's defence (the Armed Forces, the National Guard, the State Border Service, the Main Intelligence Directorate, and the Security Service of Ukraine), and this high level of trust has been maintained over the last three years.• &nbsp; &nbsp;The majority of respondents trust the President of Ukraine, which is partly due to his role as Commander-in-Chief.• &nbsp; &nbsp;More Ukrainians distrust the NABU, the police, the prosecutor's office, the judicial system, the government and the Verkhovna Rada than trust them. Over the past six months, the level of trust in the NABU and the judicial system has increased, while the level of trust in the police and the Verkhovna Rada has decreased.• &nbsp; &nbsp;Ukrainians have a positive attitude towards countries that consistently support Ukraine. Recently, the level of positive attitudes towards the United Kingdom and Canada has increased. Positive attitudes towards France, Germany and the EU have remained consistently high.• &nbsp; &nbsp;The majority of respondents express positive attitudes towards the US, although this share has decreased significantly over the past six months.• &nbsp; &nbsp;Negative attitudes towards China have decreased, although they remain very high (two-thirds of respondents express negative attitudes towards China).• &nbsp; &nbsp;The already extremely negative attitude towards Russia has worsened.• &nbsp; &nbsp;Almost three-quarters of respondents express a positive attitude towards NATO, but this figure has deteriorated over the past six months. &nbsp;However, support for Ukraine's accession to NATO has not declined and remains consistently high (71%).• &nbsp; &nbsp;Support for Ukraine's accession to the EU is even higher (83%).• &nbsp; &nbsp;84% of Ukrainians believe in Ukraine's victory in the war with Russia. This figure has increased significantly compared to 2025.• &nbsp; &nbsp;There is no consensus among Ukrainians on the minimum conditions necessary for concluding a peace agreement with Russia, but only 7% of respondents are willing to cede territories (in Donbas and southern Ukraine) currently controlled by Ukraine for the sake of peace.• &nbsp; &nbsp;The vast majority of respondents believe that in order to sign a peace agreement with Russia, it is impossible to compromise on real security guarantees, assistance in Ukraine's economic recovery, reparations from Russia in favour of Ukraine, control over Donbas, and Russia's responsibility for war crimes. A relative majority of respondents believe that Ukraine's course towards EU and NATO membership should not be compromised.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠Only a third of respondents believe that the Ukrainian government is successfully negotiating with the US, EU and Russia on a possible peace agreement.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠Three-quarters of respondents believe that if a peace agreement is signed between Ukraine and Russia, Russia will violate the agreement and attack Ukraine as soon as it suits them. This number has increased significantly compared to May and September 2025.• &nbsp;More than two-thirds of respondents are convinced that even if Ukraine withdraws its troops from the entire Donbas region, Russia will continue its aggression.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠As was the case six months ago, two-thirds of respondents believe that Russia is planning to attack one of the NATO countries.&nbsp; However, during this time, the proportion of those who believe that it definitely intends to do so has decreased, while the proportion of those who believe that it may intend to attack has increased.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠The vast majority of respondents believe that NATO is capable of effectively defending itself in the event of an attack by Russia.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠Three-quarters of respondents reported poor energy supply during the week before the survey, more than a third reported poor heating, and another 1-2% of respondents had no heating or energy supply at all. 60% of respondents had no problems with heating, and a quarter had no problems with energy supply.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠The vast majority of Ukrainians blame Russian troops for the prolonged disruption of electricity, water and heat supplies. However, at the same time, almost half of those surveyed also blame local authorities, which is significantly more than in December 2022.&nbsp;• &nbsp;Three-quarters of those surveyed said that their town or village had been affected by Russian attacks, and 8% said that they or their families had suffered physical or material damage as a result of Russian attacks.•⁠ &nbsp;⁠A relative majority of respondents believe that Ukraine should respond in kind to Russian attacks on critical infrastructure. More than a third of respondents believe that Ukraine should intensify its attacks on Russian critical infrastructure, and only 5% agree to accept all of Russia's conditions in order to end the war.The results of the sociological survey can be found here:<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Res0126tel1000_ENG_11_bez_numeracziyi_e643154057.pdf">Results of the sociological survey</a><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/dyn0226_ENG_11_5849c9ebd5.pdf">Dynamics of the sociological survey</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

The sociological survey ‘Citizens' assessment of the situation in the country, vision of ways to solve security problems’ was conducted by the Razumkov Centre's sociological service on behalf of the Kyiv Security Forum from 31 January to 4 February 2026 using telephone interviews. 

Results of a sociological survey conducted by the Razumkov Centre and commissioned by the Kyiv Security Forum


The Kyiv Security Forum co-organised an event at the Munich Security Conference for the first time, making energy security its key topic. The discussion ‘Energy Warfare: How to Unplug Tyranny’ brought together Ukrainian and international politicians, diplomats, experts and energy market leaders.<o:p></o:p>The context of the conversation is crucial: the energy situation in Ukraine is extremely difficult due to continuous Russian attacks. Since the beginning of 2026 alone, there have been 217 attacks on energy facilities, and during Russia's full-scale invasion, more than a thousand strikes have been carried out on Ukraine's energy system.<o:p></o:p>The massive strikes have led to regular large-scale power outages. The blackouts lasted 10-20 hours during the winter of 2022-2023 and 10-16 hours per day during peak periods in 2024-2025. However, these restrictions do not seem as severe as those experienced in January-February 2026.<o:p></o:p>Since the beginning of this year, more people have been leaving the country precisely because of the lack of stable electricity, heating and water. Some cities were temporarily left without water supply due to the power outages at pumping stations.According to the National Bank's forecasts, the destruction of the energy system will significantly slow down economic growth in 2026.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Energy genocide in figures<o:p></o:p>Chairman of the Kyiv&nbsp; Security Forum, Prime Minister of Ukraine in 2014-2016, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, began the discussion with <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://ksf.openukraine.org/en/categories/news/tri-chverti-ukrayinciv-mayut-problemi-z-elektropostachannyam-ta-opalennyam">shocking data</a> from a sociological study commissioned by the KSF: about 40% of Ukrainians have problems with heating in the midst of frosts, and 74% face unstable electricity supply.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.19 (1).jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1_750bc96d6d.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1_750bc96d6d.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1_750bc96d6d.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1_750bc96d6d.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1_750bc96d6d.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>The vast majority of Ukrainians (almost 80%) blame Russian troops for the prolonged disruption of electricity, water and heat supplies. At the same time, almost half of those surveyed blame local authorities (three times more than in December 2022). One in five respondents points to the responsibility of private and municipal service providers, while 17% blame the President and the Ukrainian government. The proportion of those who blame Western countries for insufficient assistance has fallen sharply over three years, from 25% to 4.3%. Ukrainians appreciate the help of their partners, in particular in the form of transformers and generators, which are coming to the aid of Ukrainian energy companies.<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>‘This is a war of attrition. What energy companies are doing is truly impressive — their work is heroic. But we must prepare for next winter. And only God knows how many more winters like this lie ahead,’ emphasised Arseniy Yatsenyuk.<o:p></o:p>Survival formula: air defence, finance and equipment<o:p></o:p>DTEK CEO Maksym Timchenko confirmed the complexity of the situation and explained what is needed to find a systematic solution to the issue.<o:p></o:p>According to Timchenko, the main priority at the moment is to protect the remaining energy facilities. Ukraine urgently needs interceptor missiles for air defence and powerful portable generators. Although Ukraine has the necessary launchers, there is an acute shortage of interceptor missiles. The CEO of DTEK explained that the existing counter-drone systems effectively cover the facilities, but they are not capable of repelling massive attacks.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.18.jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_18_8da671378b.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_18_8da671378b.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_18_8da671378b.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_18_8da671378b.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_18_8da671378b.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>Apart from air defence, the energy system needs support to increase electricity production. The supply of large mobile generators that can be connected to powerless apartment buildings will allow critical systems to be restored and buildings to remain functional.<o:p></o:p>Alongside international aid, DTEK specialists are sourcing used transformers and other equipment in European countries that can be adapted for the company's Ukrainian power plants.<o:p></o:p>According to Timchenko, these measures are critical for Ukraine to withstand Russia's pressure and survive the energy war.<o:p></o:p>He revealed that the restoration budget for DTEK's own power generation facilities alone would require €300 million, half of which the company has already covered with its own resources. Another €150 million is needed to restore 4,000 MW of capacity, which will be sufficient to get through the next heating season.<o:p></o:p>To stabilise the system for the next winter, energy experts have set a cut-off date of May. Equipment orders must be placed by then, as the supply cycle takes at least 10 months.<o:p></o:p>Oleksiy Ryabchyn, Director of International and Sustainable Development at Naftogaz Group, emphasised that in the context of the rejection of Russian energy resources, every energy facility on the European continent becomes a geopolitical target for Russia: ‘That is why we are here in Munich and at other venues communicating with our partners and holding joint consultations on how to counter the Russian threat. Because now energy companies are not only producers but also defenders of energy.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.16.jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_02c3364cde.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_02c3364cde.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_02c3364cde.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_02c3364cde.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_02c3364cde.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>The Naftogaz representative emphasised the importance of international partner's support: "On the one hand, we are mobilising resources — attracting grant funding, preferential loans, international support and financing for the restoration of destroyed equipment. Naftogaz is cooperating with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, the governments of the United States, Norway and various EU and G7 countries to raise funds for gas purchases to compensate for volumes that have been destroyed or lost. On the other hand, we are simultaneously pursuing an equally important business track regarding projects and attracting investments in joint projects with our foreign partners.<o:p></o:p>Ryabchyn noted that Russia has damaged a significant amount of extremely expensive equipment — compressor stations, gas turbines, oil and gas and power infrastructure. The strikes are carried out not only with drones and missiles, but also with artillery. It is impossible to quickly restore the equipment due to the scale of the destruction.<o:p></o:p>‘It takes at least 12 months to manufacture new equipment, yet it is needed urgently. Furthermore, the involvement of foreign technical specialists, who are required to provide engineering supervision and support for the implementation of such projects, poses a challenge,’ stated Oleksiy Ryabchyn.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>According to him, Naftogaz has already begun preparing for the next heating season, which, if Russian shelling continues, may also be difficult, especially given the limited operation of the power system.<o:p></o:p>The decentralisation strategy: Khrushchevkas with autonomous heating<o:p></o:p>Former Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolev has called for an end to any attempts to revive the Soviet model of large thermal power plants, which are ideal military targets. Instead, he suggests a path to diversification – a transition to small, autonomous generating capacities.<figure class="image"><img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.16 (1).jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_1_fc3c5008da.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_1_fc3c5008da.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_1_fc3c5008da.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_1_fc3c5008da.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_16_1_fc3c5008da.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"></figure>"If we take about 5,000 old Soviet Khrushchevkas (apartment buildings which were designed and constructed in the Soviet Union from the early 1960s onwards, when their namesake, Nikita Khrushchev, was leader of the Soviet Union –&nbsp;ed.) in Kyiv and convert them to autonomous systems, the cost of the project will be about €1.5 billion. This is cheaper than anti-aircraft defence and much more sustainable. If you have your own system, you control it," Kobolev explained.<o:p></o:p>He added that attracting private investors is possible even during wartime through military risk insurance mechanisms (DFC).<o:p></o:p>Military response: long-range capabilities as a means of deterrence<o:p></o:p>The participants agreed that it is impossible to defend oneself forever. Former US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker believes that Western leaders must provide the means to prevent attacks.<o:p></o:p>"Air defence is a necessary temporary measure.&nbsp;It is needed when other mechanisms do not work. But we must focus on preventing attacks. This is a combination of long-range weapons that can destroy rocket fuel manufacturing facilities, rocket and drone production plants, and airfields from which they are launched," Volker emphasised.<o:p></o:p>Former CIA Director and Member of the KSF Security Council, General David Petraeus, noted that Ukraine is already demonstrating incredible capabilities in the production of long-range weapons.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.17.jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_17_60986817b4.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_17_60986817b4.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_17_60986817b4.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_17_60986817b4.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_17_60986817b4.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>"The Flamingo cruise missile has a range of about 3,000 kilometres. That's a tremendous range.&nbsp;When it goes into serial production, it will be more effective than most of the possible supplies from the West," Petraeus noted.<o:p></o:p>Economic pressure and sanctions<o:p></o:p>Volker also stressed that in order to achieve a truce, pressure on Russia, primarily economic pressure, must be significantly stronger.<o:p></o:p>The head of the Permanent Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence, Yegor Cherniev, agreed with him and stressed that the energy war must also be waged in the economic sphere.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.15.jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_15_7514c8caf6.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_15_7514c8caf6.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_15_7514c8caf6.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_15_7514c8caf6.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_15_7514c8caf6.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>He noted that Russia is constantly changing its tactics and varying the trajectories of ballistic missiles. According to intelligence reports, there are no signs that Russia is willing to stop.<o:p></o:p>“On the contrary, their production is increasing and is aimed at increasing the volume and diversity of weapons – ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones. What we need now is to destroy their military potential. The second key point is to destroy their economy with sanctions. And this applies to their sources of budget revenue. Sanctions since 2022 have helped to reduce the potential of the Russian army. At the same time, the potential for new sanctions in the oil and gas, energy and related sectors remains significant. I am convinced that it is cheaper for our partners to restrict Russia's sources of income than to constantly spend money on air defence systems," emphasised Yegor Cherniev.<o:p></o:p>Joint Action Plan<o:p></o:p>Following the roundtable discussion, Arseniy Yatsenyuk initiated the preparation of a joint letter to the European Commission and the governments of EU countries.<img alt="WhatsApp Image 2026-02-14 at 19.35.19.jpeg" src="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1dfef843bf.jpeg" srcset="https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/thumbnail_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1dfef843bf.jpeg 235w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/small_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1dfef843bf.jpeg 500w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/medium_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1dfef843bf.jpeg 750w, https://ksf-openukraine.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/large_Whats_App_Image_2026_02_14_at_19_35_19_1dfef843bf.jpeg 1000w" sizes="100vw" width="1000"><o:p></o:p>This document will send a clear signal about the specific technologies, resources and financial instruments that the Ukrainian energy sector needs today.<o:p></o:p>The next stage of discussions is scheduled for the end of April in Kyiv, where a concrete action plan for the protection and modernisation of the Ukrainian energy sector will be presented.<o:p></o:p>The Kyiv Security Forum was founded in 2007 on the initiative of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The Munich Security Conference is the most influential international forum for discussing global security issues.<o:p></o:p>