Путін — (не) злочинець. Невже США рятують російського диктатора від суду за воєнні злочини?

Over the past week, former President Donald Trump has mentioned various figures regarding the military aid the United States has provided to Ukraine over three years of war. He has cited amounts such as $500 billion and $350 billion.

According to estimates by the "Economists for Ukraine" group, the military aid transferred by the U.S. to Ukraine amounts to $18.3 billion. An additional $32.6 billion represents direct budgetary support in the form of reimbursements, which was distributed, among other means, through the World Bank. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has assessed the total volume of its military aid to Ukraine at $65.9 billion.

— We analyzed a vast amount of publicly available data and identified the reasons for discrepancies in the reported figures, — explains Anastassia Fedyk. — When considering only military aid, our experts assessed all the equipment and technology Ukraine was set to receive, taking into account their condition, age, and usability. It makes a significant difference whether equipment was newly manufactured by American companies last year or if it had been out of use for over a decade and was marked for decommissioning. Evaluating all such equipment at the same value is incorrect.

For instance, while the U.S. Department of Defense reports that it has transferred $31 billion worth of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine (under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to provide military aid from Pentagon stockpiles without congressional approval), the majority of this equipment was outdated and no longer in use by the U.S. Armed Forces. According to expert estimates, the actual value of this aid is around $12.5 billion.

Another crucial aspect to consider when calculating expenses is how much the United States has gained in profit or other benefits by providing aid to Ukraine.

— We plan to analyze this aspect in detail in our next study and evaluate the specific economic benefits the U.S. has gained from military and financial support to Ukraine. This includes increased profits for the defense industry and new contracts for American companies, — notes Anastassia Fedyk.

Scholars from the University of California, Berkeley, the Stockholm School of Economics, Minerva University, and the AI for Good Foundation worked on the report for approximately two months. "The main goal of this study is to prevent disinformation and the spread of false data regarding U.S. aid to Ukraine. It also aims to demonstrate, using concrete figures, that European countries and the United Kingdom have provided Ukraine with equipment, weapons, and other types of aid in proportions comparable to the U.S. contribution," Fedyk explains. Notably, the European Union estimates the total volume of its financial, military, and humanitarian assistance at $145 billion, while the United Kingdom has provided nearly $16 billion.

Why, then, does former U.S. President Donald Trump exaggerate the aid figures so drastically? According to Anastassia Fedyk, this may be an attempt to negotiate more favorable terms in upcoming resource agreements or a strategy to discredit the previous administration by portraying its policies as unprofessional and wasteful. Specifically, Trump may be trying to create the impression that his predecessors neglected American citizens while allegedly spending "enormous" amounts to support Ukraine, which is suffering from the war with Russia.

— That is why it was important for us to present accurate data — specific amounts, figures, and facts — to show the real state of affairs. We wanted to prove that American citizens were not deprived of access to social or government services due to aid to Ukraine, explains Anastassia Fedyk.

On the contrary, many people gained jobs, and companies involved in the production and supply of aid expanded their manufacturing capacities and contributed to budget revenues

In her opinion, the results of this analysis will also be useful for Ukraine, as they will allow for negotiations on equal terms, provide a better understanding of the real value of the aid received, and prevent manipulations regarding its scale.

The researchers from "Economists for Ukraine" also analyzed allegations of corruption and possible embezzlement of funds coming from the U.S.

They found that the level of corruption associated with the use of American aid is among the lowest compared to all other countries that have received support from the United States

— Accusations of corruption can harm Ukraine’s reputation as an aid recipient. However, thorough audits indicate that Ukraine has handled the provided funds responsibly. Moreover, budgetary assistance was granted in the form of expense reimbursements based on receipts. This should be emphasized to prevent the formation of a negative image, which some try to impose, notes Professor Fedyk.

In her view, American citizens' attitudes toward Ukraine have not deteriorated, but many still do not fully understand the actual scale of aid provided to Ukraine. Americans continue to support Ukraine and consider their assistance important and beneficial. Therefore, it is crucial to spread truthful information to avoid misunderstandings, even when high-ranking officials fuel such misunderstandings.

Economists for Ukraine is a non-partisan economic think-tank, part of the AI for Good Foundation, a US 501(c)(3) Public Charity whose mission is to promote economic and community resilience. The Economists for Ukraine network includes more than 400 economists representing the world’s leading academic, scientific, and economic institutions.

A herald of apocalypse or a much-needed disruptor of the current world order? Donald Trump spent his first three weeks as US president in turbo mode. Dozens of decisions and executive orders, even more statements and extended interviews - he has dominated the global news space and is ready for decisive action.

The absolute priority of the new Administration is ending the war in Ukraine. Is a swift peace possible, and how long-lasting might it be? Senior fellow and adviser at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), British writer and journalist Edward Lucas answered these and other questions in an exclusive interview with Sestry.

A spring truce

Maryna Stepanenko: According to The Independent, Donald Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine by spring. How realistic is such a plan?

Edward Lucas: I do not think even Trump himself seriously believes he can end the war by spring. He may be able to initiate some negotiations. Perhaps he will manage to alter the current parameters of the war, but he will not end it.

The US president has repeatedly stated that he will exert pressure on Moscow, including through sanctions, should the Kremlin refuse to negotiate. We can see that the first threat - lowering the price of oil - has already begun to materialise. Trump said that reducing prices would affect Putin’s ability to finance the war. How effective could this approach be, considering Russia’s ability to diversify its energy exports, for example, to China or India?

A collapse in oil prices is a good idea in terms of increasing economic pressure on Putin. However, I doubt that it will be a decisive factor. I think the Russian economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience, both in terms of physical endurance against Ukrainian attacks on infrastructure and in terms of its export stability, import substitution capability, and overall ability to cope with sanctions. Thus, I would be surprised if low oil prices forced Putin to the negotiating table in a weak position. Nevertheless, I still consider it a good move.

Do you believe that Trump’s «carrot-and-stick» strategy - combining pressure on Moscow with open offers of negotiations - could force Putin to make concessions?

It is possible if you have the right sticks and the right carrots, but I am not an optimist.

I believe there is a significant risk of wishful thinking. It is entirely possible that Putin will irritate Trump to such an extent that the latter will return to supporting Ukraine with all the necessary weaponry, apply real pressure on Russia, and deal the Kremlin a decisive defeat on the battlefield. We would all be delighted by this, but I think the chances of it happening are rather low.

It is more likely that America will huff and puff but will not fundamentally change the situation. I think it is quite probable that Trump will tell the Europeans: «If you are so concerned about Ukraine, then fix the situation yourselves». Meaning they will have to provide more money and weapons instead of coming to the United States expecting Washington to solve all their problems.

This fully aligns with Trump’s worldview. He needs one major deal in the coming months because he wants to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. And this could be a deal that at least temporarily halts Russia’s war against Ukraine

However, it could also be a deal between the Israelis and major Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. Thus, he is searching for a large-scale agreement, but it does not necessarily have to involve Ukraine. And I believe that a peace deal concerning Ukraine will be much harder to achieve than one in the Middle East.

So, if the new Administration fails to make progress in resolving the war in Ukraine in the coming months, what are the most likely scenarios? Could Washington lose interest? 

If Trump does not consider European security important for America and believes that Europeans should handle it themselves, then Ukraine, as a key issue of European security, may fall out of his agenda.

Europeans will have to make considerable efforts to convince Trump of Europe’s importance, as he perceives it rather negatively and seeks to exert pressure for economic and business reasons

Could one imagine Trump addressing Congress to request another 100 billion dollars for Ukraine? It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. Therefore, large volumes of American aid for Ukraine this year seem unrealistic. 

At the same time, Putin believes he has the advantage on the battlefield and that the West is losing unity. He sees a gradual decline in morale in Ukraine and is not inclined to negotiate. If he is convinced he can win by military means, why would he agree to talks? 

Coincidentally, in Putin’s recent statements, we hear that Russia is supposedly ready for negotiations. The Russian president is also flattering Trump, speaking about his «good relations» with the current US president. What signals is Moscow thus sending to the White House? 

I do not consider Putin an idiot. And he knows it is important not to offend Trump. Of course, he will say he is ready for negotiations. 

However, I do not believe that Russia currently sees a need for serious negotiations. I suspect that Putin will sit at the negotiating table and say: «We want a demilitarised Ukraine. We want guarantees that you will never join NATO». And another two or three demands, including the incorporation of temporarily occupied territories into Russia. 

Would Trump consider this unacceptable? Perhaps not. Would Ukrainians consider it unacceptable? Almost certainly. Would Europeans be willing to support Ukrainians in their continued resistance? Possibly. But I am not sure.

But I believe that this is the most likely scenario. From Ukraine’s perspective, we will see quite an unreasonable negotiating position from Putin. And this is not the same as the beginning of real negotiations

What can Ukraine do?

Trump has said he is ready to meet with Putin at any time. Is there a risk that Ukraine’s fate could be decided behind Kyiv’s back? 

There is always a risk of another Yalta (referring to the Yalta Conference of 1945, when the leaders of the USA (Roosevelt), the UK (Churchill) and the USSR (Stalin) determined the post-war world order, effectively dividing Europe into spheres of influence, leading to Soviet control over Eastern Europe, - Edit.). Trump may want to humiliate Europe and declare that he has decided everything, forcing others to accept his deal.

To prevent this, Ukraine and Europe must act as one entity and clearly state that they will not accept an agreement between Trump and Putin

Even if the US steps aside, Ukraine must demonstrate that it will continue to fight. This alone will strengthen its negotiating position. However, there are two realities: diplomatic manoeuvres and the situation on the battlefield. What happens at the negotiating table depends on events at the front. 

Ukraine is rightly asking its partners to guarantee its security to prevent another Russian attack should an agreement on a ceasefire be reached. Given the painful experience of the Budapest Memorandum, what should new guarantees for Ukraine look like, and what could ensure their real enforcement?

This is the key question: is a genuine truce possible, and how can Ukraine’s security and development be ensured? This requires strong military and security guarantees, but paper agreements do not work. NATO is not ready to accept Ukraine, and the deployment of 40-60 thousand troops to monitor the truce seems unrealistic. 

An alternative could be providing Ukraine with high-tech weaponry - for example, Taurus or Tomahawk missiles. But is the West truly ready to allow Ukraine to use them at its own discretion? This is a major question. 

My pessimistic forecast is that there will be a truce, but without reliable security. Russia will test these guarantees, they will prove weak, and the situation will eventually become even worse

The «Axis of Evil»

As soon as Trump concludes a peace agreement, a race between Russia and the West to prepare their armies for the next conflict will begin, - writes The Times, citing sources. Given the economic sanctions and the depletion of resources due to the prolonged war against Ukraine, will Russia be capable of competing with the West in modernising its armed forces? Could the Kremlin find support from a «new axis of aggressors» for this?

It is worth remembering that, ultimately, Russia has an economy comparable to or slightly smaller than Italy’s. And they have paid a terrible price for the first three years of the war. However, predictions of Russia’s economic collapse have turned out to be wishful thinking. 

Putin still has many options, both in terms of economic resilience and mobilisation. And as long as Russians believe this is an existential struggle for their country’s future, they will endure pain and sacrifices. Moreover, I think Putin sees that the West is still very weak, and he now has a great opportunity to capitalise on military successes in Ukraine, advance further, and possibly return after a ceasefire to completely eradicate the remnants of Ukrainian resistance, taking advantage of these, I fear, weak security guarantees.

He also has an opportunity to toy with NATO and the weakness of the Alliance’s northeastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states, where we still lack proper defences. There are plans, but no adequate defence capabilities. This is a very tempting target.

And it is not difficult to imagine that by the end of this year or next - Putin could secure a massive victory in Ukraine and dismantle NATO, making the economic and other pains caused by such a victory worthwhile.

Could a scenario arise in which Trump pressures China to, in turn, influence Russia into signing a deal with Ukraine?

China has a unique ability both to pressure and support Russia. But is Beijing interested in US mediation, after which Trump would take all the credit? Perhaps, if Beijing secures its own benefits.

However, China has no experience in international diplomacy that would suggest an ability to broker major deals. It prefers when Western countries ask it to influence Russia - this gives Beijing additional leverage

Given the trade disputes between the US and China, it is unlikely that Xi Jinping will consider providing Trump with a geopolitical favour regarding Ukraine a priority. 

Is there a tool for long-term containment of Russia? 

The only long-term hope is the transformation of Russia from an empire into a peaceful state. If this happens, resolving other problems will become significantly easier. However, as long as Russia remains imperial, the threats will not disappear.

NATO is no longer an effective response - it is too large, slow, and divided. Coalitions of countries that understand the threat and are ready to contain Russia in different regions are needed. This process should have begun 10-15 years ago. Now we are late, and perhaps even too late.

‍Do you believe that a coalition of willing countries could provide security guarantees for Ukraine? If NATO is not an option, could countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France collaborate by deploying their troops in Ukraine to prevent further Russian aggression? 

A coalition of allies could theoretically deploy troops in Ukraine as a deterrent force, but what happens when the time comes to actually use it? Are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland ready to go to war with Russia over an Odesa blockade or a new offensive? 

It is doubtful. To make guarantees truly reliable, 100 thousand troops would be needed, similar to West Germany during the Cold War. Europe does not have such resources - even 50 or 10 thousand would be hard to find. 

European allies and NATO simply lack the capacity to mobilise the massive forces necessary to defend Ukraine. They could protect Ukraine through modern weaponry.

Theoretically, nuclear weapons could be placed on the frontline in Ukraine as a guarantee

However, this is associated with enormous political challenges, and I am not sure they are ready for such a level of risk. Without sufficient strength and willingness to take risks, providing truly effective security guarantees is extremely difficult. 

The future of Putin’s Russia

Russia propagates the narrative that its economy is immune to Western sanctions. The EU claims this is untrue. How do you assess the situation inside Russia? How much longer can Moscow sustain its war against Ukraine under current sanctions pressure? 

We tend to engage in wishful thinking when speaking about Russia. It has managed to mobilise its resources, even at a tremendous cost to its own future. The economy is suffering serious blows, financial system problems are accumulating, including a rise in bad loans in the private sector. Yet, despite this, Russia continues to wage war. 

We want it to collapse, so we are inclined to believe it is already happening. However, Russia continues to find ways to sustain the war: it receives drones from Iran, recruits troops from North Korea, and circumvents sanctions through China. Moreover, it still has unused resources. 

Future generations of Russians will be forced to pay for Putin’s imperial ventures. But at the moment, Russia is not backed into a corner. It is likely to endure for at least another one or two years, and even if the situation becomes critical, the Kremlin will find ways to adapt.

Has the West exhausted its imagination regarding sanctions? Are there still powerful tools that have not yet been applied? 

Of course. We have not even used all available options. The West is looking for sanctions that will strike Russia without causing pain to itself. That is why we restrict pipeline oil and gas imports but not liquefied natural gas. We block crude oil supplies but not petroleum products. As a result, sanctions create difficulties for Russia but also open up a business model for those who help circumvent them - from Russians to businessmen in Dubai. 

I would impose strict secondary sanctions, particularly against the «shadow fleet», bankers, lawyers and accountants who facilitate the evasion of restrictions. For example, I would strip them of visa-free entry to the US, Europe, and Britain. If you are a lawyer or trader in Dubai engaged in sanction evasion schemes, then to travel to the West, you will now have to queue at consulates alongside students, nannies, and asylum seekers.

A comfortable life for such people must come to an end

There are still many possibilities, but political will is lacking. And Putin sees this. Ultimately, the West has grown tired, frightened, and distracted - and Ukraine is paying the price. This fills me with both sorrow and anger. 

What might Russia’s economy look like in 5-10 years if international isolation continues? 

In the long term, Russia is increasingly turning into a dependent vassal of China. Chinese companies are buying up assets for next to nothing, investing in strategic sectors, and Russia’s economy is becoming ever more oriented towards exports to China. Trade and investment ties between the countries are only strengthening. In the end, Russia risks becoming a raw material appendage of the Chinese Communist Party - hardly the future Putin promised his citizens.

Cover photo: Deposit/East News 

The project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

The Estonian politician has a reputation as a «Russophobe» because she can convincingly explain why Russia should not be trusted on land, in the Baltic Sea or at the negotiating table. It is rare to find someone in Brussels who calls things by their proper names. Kaja Kallas openly states that the war against Ukraine is not a minor regional conflict but rather a piece in a grand game where the ultimate prize is bringing Moscow’s subjects to heel.

The Estonian Prime Minister’s stance is so strong in the Western world that her name was among the finalists for the position of NATO’s new Secretary General

Here, an intriguing detail must be added: the refined blonde with a steely character is the Kremlin’s worst nightmare. She is not merely banned from entering Russia, as is the case with most rational EU politicians, but she is also the first government official whom Moscow has officially placed on a criminal wanted list for «desecration of a historical monument».

The reason - the decommunisation and removal of numerous monuments from the Soviet occupation period, carried out by Kallas’s government. Russia was particularly adamant about preserving a Soviet tank in the border town of Narva, where ethnic Russians significantly outnumber locals.

Previous Estonian governments had raised the issue of relocating the tank, which symbolised not so much the fight against Nazism as it did Russian militarism. However, fears lingered - the mass riots in Tallinn in 2007 (the so-called «Bronze Night»), carried out by local Russians and agitators from Russia in response to the relocation of a monument to a Soviet soldier in the Estonian capital, heightened concerns that another move could trigger a repeat of those events, from street clashes to cyberattacks on government websites. However, in the summer of 2022, after visiting the de-occupied town of Bucha, Kallas took the issue to a new level. In the end, despite the complaints of Russian speakers, the tank was sent to storage.

In 2023, when the politician was already being named among those who could join the new European top elite, she gave an interview to British hard-talker Stephen Sackur. At the time, the journalist asked whether her heart was open to the 25% of Russian speakers who complained of severe oppression - they were not allowed to enter Estonia with Russian car number plates. Interestingly, the loudest outcries came from the so-called Russian opposition. Kallas’s response was firm:

- You are confusing two things. Russians who live here, we call Russian-speaking Estonians. And Russia is a separate matter. I want to point out that, firstly, in the 1920s, Russians in Estonia made up 3%. By the end of the occupation, it was 30%. So it is not as if they had always lived here...

- Are you saying that they are not real Estonians? - Sackur clarified.

- No, no. I am saying that those who want to be part of Estonia, who consider Estonia their home, have applied for citizenship, learned the language and are part of our society - they constitute the majority of our Russian-speaking population. We ask for only one thing: learn our language, because that is who we are, we live here - and it is a way to integrate them. Furthermore, I want to emphasise that even if we have a different history, we share a common future, and we are focused on that.

It felt like a cold shower, as nothing like this had ever been heard on the BBC.

Kallas takes a very sober view of today's threats due to her poignant family history

In March 2022, she wrote a column for the New York Times explaining why Russia’s occupation of Ukraine and its repressive actions reveal its true face.

‍«My mother was just a six-month-old baby when, in 1949, the Soviet authorities deported her along with her mother and grandmother to Siberia. My grandfather was sent to a Siberian labour camp. They were lucky to survive and return to Estonia, but many did not. Today, the Kremlin is reviving methods of outright barbarism», - Kallas admitted.

Her father, Siim Kallas, played a central role in Estonia’s independence movement and was the president of the country’s central bank. When the young Kaja decided to try her hand at politics, many advised her against it. Some doubted that a model-like woman could also be intelligent, while others even called her a «daddy’s girl».

However, by 2014, Kallas, as a Member of the European Parliament, had already proven herself an expert in digitalisation and had become an advocate for Ukraine at the outset of the war with Russia. It is important to clarify - this was at a time when global leaders were reluctant to confront Moscow and saw no major issue with the annexation of Crimea. After all, there had been a referendum, people had chosen Russia. What was the problem?

As Europe's chief diplomat, Kallas has a very clear-eyed assessment of the risks facing Europe

Above all, these include various hybrid threats across the EU - sabotage, cyberattacks, the shadow fleet, GPS disruptions and damage to cables. She is pushing for increased funding for security and defence, as simply relying on Washington’s nuclear umbrella in the Trump era is akin to suicide.

Kaja Kallas is convinced that the European Union must launch its own defence industry, as she stated in an interview with Suspilne in December 2024:

- The defence industry is crucial because a war is raging on European soil, in Ukraine, and Putin shows no signs of abandoning his objectives.

As the rational voice of Brussels, she has subtly explained to the United States why supporting Ukraine is in America's best interests:

- If America is concerned about China, then it must first worry about Russia. We see that Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are working together. We also see what Putin is doing in other countries, actively expanding his influence. So, if the US wants to remain the world’s strongest power, it will ultimately have to deal with Russia. The easiest way to handle this is to support Ukraine so it wins the war.

Ukrainian diplomats who maintain close contact with Brussels all unanimously note that a new generation of competent and determined women has entered European politics. They are professional, steadfast in their positions and fully aware of their identity and purpose. The name Kaja Kallas is mentioned most often. She is not just a self-made woman but also a descendant of Estonians whom Russia deported like cattle to Siberia, hoping that no one would survive the lumber camps.

Yet Kallas’s mother survived and instilled in her daughter an understanding of why Russia is an enemy and why its favourite pastime is killing and looting

The Estonian with an unyielding character has become the loudest voice of Eastern Europe in Brussels, representing the very region that Moscow stubbornly considers its sphere of influence. However, as time and experience show, small nations also have a voice and teeth. They can bite the throat of the predator that pushes in uninvited.

The project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation as part of the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍