Photos

July 8, 2025 10:13am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

At least nine civilians were killed and 81 others injured in Russian attacks across Ukraine over the past 24 hours, regional authorities reported on July 8.

Ukraine’s Air Force said Russia launched 54 drones overnight, including Iranian-designed Shahed-type attack drones, and fired four S-300/400 guided missiles.

Air defenses intercepted 34 drones, while another eight were likely used as radar-jamming decoys. Drones struck five locations across the country.

The overnight assault was repelled using aircraft, electronic warfare, mobile fire groups, and missile defense systems, the military said.

In Kharkiv Oblast, one person was killed and 40 others were injured, including three children, as the city of Kharkiv and seven other settlements came under attack, Governor Oleh Syniehubov reported.

Russian strikes on Zaporizhzhia Oblast injured 20 people and damaged at least 64 houses and apartment buildings, Governor Ivan Fedorov said.

In Donetsk Oblast, three civilians were killed — two in Oleksiyevo-Druzhkivka and one in Novotroitske — and 10 more were injured, according to Governor Vadym Filashkin.

In Sumy Oblast, four people were killed and four more injured in Russian strikes, the local administration reported.

One person was killed and four others were injured in Kherson Oblast, where Russian forces hit residential areas and public infrastructure, damaging two apartment buildings and 17 houses, according to Governor Oleksandr Prokudin.

Three people were injured in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, where Russian troops attacked with first-person-view (FPV) drones, Governor Serhii Lysak said.

The wave of attacks follows Russia’s ongoing refusal to accept a ceasefire and comes amid rising use of drone and missile strikes against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.

‘They have to be able to defend themselves’ — Trump says US will send additional weapons shipments to Ukraine, criticizes Putin

“They’re getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons primarily,” U.S. President Donald Trump said.

The Kyiv IndependentVolodymyr Ivanyshyn

July 8, 2025 10:02am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) identified Russian Armed Forces Major Denis Sheynov as allegedly involved in the July 2024 missile strike on Kyiv’s Okhmatdyt children’s hospital, HUR reported on July 8.

The strike, which killed two adults and injured at least 34 people, directly hit the country’s largest pediatric medical center, where 627 children were receiving treatment at the time.

According to HUR, Sheynov is the head of the special engineering service of the 121st Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment, part of Russia’s 22nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Division, tasked with executing the strike.

Sheynov, born in Saratov on Jan. 30, 1978, was reportedly responsible for the technical preparation of the X-101 air-launched cruise missiles used in the attack.

He graduated from the Saratov Higher Military Command Engineering School Missile Forces, and previously served in Syria in 2018. Sheynov has been awarded several medals by the Russian government, including for participation in the Syrian war.

Ukrainian authorities previously charged Russian Lieutenant General Sergey Kobylash in absentia for ordering the strike, which was widely condemned internationally.

Kobylash gave the order at around 9:15 a.m., while the hospital was struck at 10:45 a.m.

‘They have to be able to defend themselves’ — Trump says US will send additional weapons shipments to Ukraine, criticizes Putin

“They’re getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons primarily,” U.S. President Donald Trump said.

The Kyiv IndependentVolodymyr Ivanyshyn

July 8, 2025 8:56am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

Striletska Bay in occupied Sevastopol, once a key base for Russian warships in Crimea, is now nearly empty and used primarily for mooring tugboats and small patrol craft, the Atesh partisan group reported on July 8.

According to the group, Russia now uses the bay mainly for maintenance work and rare anti-sabotage defense drills, having pulled most major vessels from the area.

“Recently, the bay has been practically empty… The degradation of the occupation fleet in Sevastopol is becoming increasingly obvious. Striletska Bay, which previously housed a large number of combat vessels, is now idle.” Atesh said.

The remaining combat units are periodically rotated and redeployed in an apparent effort to avoid detection by Ukrainian reconnaissance.

“Every object is under control — no ship will go unnoticed,” Atesh said, adding that all ship movements are being tracked and shared with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Sevastopol has served as the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Repeated Ukrainian attacks using naval drones, missiles, and long-range drones have forced the Kremlin to reduce its naval presence in occupied Crimea.

Ukraine has destroyed several Russian vessels, including the Caesar Kunikov landing ship, the Sergei Kotov patrol ship, the Ivanovets missile corvette, and multiple high-speed landing crafts.

The shrinking Russian presence in Sevastopol comes as Ukraine steps up drone attacks against other Black Sea Fleet locations. On July 6, drones struck the fleet’s facilities in Novorossiysk, Krasnodar Krai, a key port east of Crimea across the Kerch Strait.

‘They have to be able to defend themselves’ — Trump says US will send additional weapons shipments to Ukraine, criticizes Putin

“They’re getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons primarily,” U.S. President Donald Trump said.

The Kyiv IndependentVolodymyr Ivanyshyn

July 8, 2025 8:19am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

U.S. President Donald Trump told President Volodymyr Zelensky during a phone call on July 4 that he was not responsible for the suspension of U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on July 7, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

The suspension of aid, which includes Patriot air defense missiles and precision-guided munitions, has drawn criticism from Kyiv amid an intensifying Russian aerial campaign that has killed and injured hundreds of civilians in recent weeks.

According to WSJ, Trump told the Ukrainian president that he had ordered a review of Pentagon munitions stockpiles following last month’s U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, but he did not direct the military to halt weapons deliveries.

NBC News reported on July 4 that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unilaterally halted the shipment to Ukraine on July 2, despite internal Pentagon assessments showing the aid would not compromise U.S. military readiness.

According to Politico, U.S. Special Envoy Keith Kellogg and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov are scheduled to meet in Rome later this week to discuss restarting U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

Trump did not acknowledge a halt in U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine. On July 7, he said the U.S. would provide Ukraine with “more weapons,” pointing to the scale of Russia’s attacks.

“They have to be able to defend themselves, they’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump told reporters alongside a U.S. and Israeli delegation at the White House.

The comments follow Trump’s July 3 call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after which he said he was “very disappointed” with the Kremlin’s continued refusal to end hostilities.

The following day, Trump and Zelensky spoke by phone in what the U.S. president described as a “very strategic” conversation focused on Ukraine’s need for air defenses.

Two rounds of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine held in Istanbul in May and June led only to prisoner exchanges, with no breakthrough on ending hostilities. Moscow has maintained maximalist conditions while rejecting calls for an unconditional ceasefire.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

July 8, 2025 7:17am

Ukraine Russia Photos

Ben Borges

Russia has lost 1,028,610 troops in Ukraine since the beginning of its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces reported on July 8.

The number includes 1,070 casualties that Russian forces suffered over the past day.

According to the report, Russia has also lost 10,995 tanks, 22,967 armored fighting vehicles, 54,456 vehicles and fuel tanks, 30,034 artillery systems, 1,434 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,192 air defense systems, 421 airplanes, 340 helicopters, 44,230 drones, 28 ships and boats, and one submarine.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

July 8, 2025 6:56am

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

The EU will introduce the “toughest sanctions… imposed (on Russia) in the last three years” in coordination with U.S. senators, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in a television interview on July 7.

Russian Presidident Vladimir “Putin is no longer advancing on the front and is now limited to shelling residential areas with drones and missiles. This is leading to numerous casualties among the civilian population. This must stop,” Barrot said.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said on June 29 that U.S. President Donald Trump was ready for the Senate to vote on a bill to impose new sanctions on Russia. The Republican senator has repeatedly called for implementing additional sanctions against Moscow.

Barrot noted the EU is planning to impose the strongest sanctions against Russia that the bloc has introduced since 2022.

“This (war) cannot continue; it must stop. To achieve this, in coordination with American senators, Europe is preparing to introduce, based on French proposals, the toughest sanctions we have imposed in the last three years,” he said.

“They will directly deplete the resources that allow Vladimir Putin to continue his war,” Barrot added.

In the U.S., senators have been working on a sanctions bill, with Graham saying voting on a bill is expected to begin following the end of the July congressional break.

Graham, earlier on July 7, said he expects “the Senate will move the bipartisan Russian sanctions bill that will allow tariffs and sanctions to be placed on countries who prop up Putin’s war machine and do not help Ukraine."

The bill led by Graham has been in the works for several months as the White House has failed attempts to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

“Ukraine has said yes to ceasefires and to any and all meeting requests while Putin continues to defy peace efforts. It is now time to put more tools in President Trump’s toolbox in order to end the war,” he said.

Russia has relied on its partners, including Belarus, China, and Iran, for trade and to bypass Western sanctions meant to inhibit Moscow’s ability to continue its war against Ukraine.

Ukraine war latest: Russian airports cancel nearly 300 flights amid drone attacks on Russia

Key developments on July 7: * Russian airports cancel nearly 300 flights amid drone attacks on Russia * BRICS summit statement condemns attacks on Russian railways, avoids urging Russia to cease war efforts in Ukraine * Ukrainian drone strike hits major oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar Krai, HUR source claims * Ukraine confirms drone strike on Russian chemical plant near Moscow * Russia strikes conscription offices in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine says Several Russian airports have

The Kyiv IndependentThe Kyiv Independent news desk

July 8, 2025 5:25am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

U.S. Special Envoy Keith Kellogg and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov are set to meet at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome later this week to discuss the resumption of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, Politico reported on July 7.

Following the talks between Kellogg and Umerov in Rome, Politico reported that more meetings are set to take place in Kyiv over the next two weeks.

The United States halted weapons shipments to Ukraine amid a capability review, the White House and Pentagon previously confirmed, with U.S. President Donald Trump on July 3 denying the pause.

Days later, Trump said that the United States would provide Ukraine with additional shipments of weapons amid intensified Russian attacks.

“We’re gonna send some more weapons we have to them, they have to be able to defend themselves, they’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump said on July 7.

The halted U.S. military assistance to Ukraine could be resumed following planned high-level meetings at the conference, two people familiar with the matter told Politico.

A Kyiv meeting between Kellogg and Umerov following the Ukraine Recovery Conference was planned before the U.S. halted military assistance to Ukraine.

Kellogg’s spokesperson Morgan Murphy said the meeting was “set up before news of the arms pause came to light last week."

Ukraine would like to promptly resume supplies of air defense and precision munitions, while the U.S. has signalled that the delivery of armored vehicles and engineering equipment may resume soon, the two sources said.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell confirmed on July 2 that some military assistance to Ukraine has been halted as the U.S. Defense Department conducts a review of foreign aid deliveries.

“This capability review… is being conducted to ensure U.S. military aid aligns with our defense priorities… We see this as a common-sense, pragmatic step towards having a framework to evaluate what munitions are sent and where,” Parnell said.

Despite the Pentagon announcement, Trump did not acknowledge a halt in U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine.

“Why did you pause weapons shipments to Ukraine?” a reporter asked Trump as the U.S. president prepared to board Air Force One on July 3.

“We haven’t,” Trump replied. “We’re giving weapons."

The Ukraine Recovery Conference is set to take place July 10-11, with leaders, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, set to attend.

Exclusive: Ukraine pitches deepwater gas, oil refinery projects to US under landmark minerals deal

Projects Kyiv has submitted to the U.S. for consideration as part of a profit-sharing deal for Ukraine’s resources include a shelf and deepwater project and an oil refinery that comes under frequent attack by Russia, Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko told the Kyiv Independent in an interview published on July 7. After months of hard-fought negotiations around the investment agreement — known more widely as the “minerals deal” for its focus on Ukraine’s critical minerals — the two sid

The Kyiv IndependentLiliane Bivings

July 8, 2025 3:15am

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

The United States will send “more weapons” to Ukraine amid intensified Russian strikes, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on July 7, adding that he is disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We’re gonna send some more weapons we have to them, they have to be able to defend themselves, they’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump said alongside U.S. and Israeli delegations at the White House.

The U.S. halted weapons shipments to Ukraine amid a capability review, the White House and Pentagon previously said, with Trump later denying the pause.

Trump previously said he was disappointed in Putin for not making progress to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, following a phone call between the two leaders on July 3.

On July 7, Trump again said he was unhappy with Putin for failing to cooperate with U.S. efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

“It’s a horrible thing, and I’m not happy with President Putin at all,” Trump said. “I’m disappointed frankly that President Putin hasn’t stopped."

He noted that the additional assistance the U.S. will supply to Ukraine will mainly consist of defense weapons amid increased Russian attacks.

“They’re getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons primarily, but they’re getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess,” Trump said.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has previously said he and Trump discussed supplying Ukraine with additional Patriot missile systems following a phone call between the two on July 4.

Zelensky described his recent phone call with Trump as “the best conversation in all this time” in an evening address on July 5.

"Patriot (missiles) are key to protection from ballistic (missiles). We discussed several other important issues that our teams will work out in detail at meetings in the near future,” he said.

Trump described his July 3 conversation with Putin as disappointing, saying that the call “didn’t make any progress” in stopping Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“I’m very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin,” Trump told journalists. “Because I don’t think he’s there. And I’m very disappointed.  I don’t think he’s looking to stop this fighting."

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell confirmed on July 2 that some military assistance to Ukraine has been halted as the U.S. Defense Department conducts a review of foreign aid deliveries.

“This capability review… is being conducted to ensure U.S. military aid aligns with our defense priorities… We see this as a common-sense, pragmatic step towards having a framework to evaluate what munitions are sent and where,” Parnell said.

Ukraine war latest: Russian airports cancel nearly 300 flights amid drone attacks on Russia

Key developments on July 7: * Russian airports cancel nearly 300 flights amid drone attacks on Russia * BRICS summit statement condemns attacks on Russian railways, avoids urging Russia to cease war efforts in Ukraine * Ukrainian drone strike hits major oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar Krai, HUR source claims * Ukraine confirms drone strike on Russian chemical plant near Moscow * Russia strikes conscription offices in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine says Several Russian airports have

The Kyiv IndependentThe Kyiv Independent news desk

July 8, 2025 1:53am

Russia Photos

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

A former deputy chief of the Russian army’s General Staff, Colonel General Khalil Arslanov, was sentenced to 17 years in prison on July 7 over a scheme involving the theft of over 1 billion roubles ($12.7 million) from Defense Ministry contracts, Russia’s state-owned TASS news agency reported.

A closed-door military court found Arslanov and others guilty of embezzling millions from state contracts with Voentelecom, a company providing telecommunications services to the Russian military.

Arslanov was also convicted of extorting a 12 million rouble ($152,400) bribe from the head of a military communications company. Two co-defendants, Colonel Pavel Kutakhov and military pensioner Igor Yakovlev, received seven and six years in prison, respectively.

Arslanov, a former head of the Russian military’s communications unit, served as deputy chief of the army’s General Staff from 2013 until his removal in 2020 and was named a colonel general in 2017.

This high-profile conviction is the latest in a series of corruption scandals that have implicated top echelons of the Russian military establishment over the past year. Russia has significantly stepped up prosecutions of senior defense officials.

Just last week, on July 1, former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov was sentenced to 13 years in a penal colony after being found guilty of corruption. It was the harshest verdict in a series of high-level military corruption cases until Arslanov’s sentencing on July 7.

Authorities initially detained Ivanov in April 2024 on bribery allegations, later adding embezzlement charges in October. His trial, like Arslanov’s, was held behind closed doors due to national security concerns. Ivanov’s co-defendant, Anton Filatov, a former logistics company executive, received a 12.5-year sentence.According to state media, the embezzled amount totaled 4.1 billion roubles ($48.8 million), primarily funneled through bank transfers to two foreign accounts. Ivanov pleaded not guilty.

The court stripped him of all state honors and ordered the confiscation of property, vehicles, and cash valued at 2.5 billion roubles, including a luxury apartment in central Moscow, a three-storey English-style mansion, and a high-end car collection featuring brands like Bentley and Aston Martin.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

July 7, 2025 11:47pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

Russia’s crude oil production in June fell below its agreed-upon OPEC+ target, according to individuals familiar with the data interviwed by Bloomberg.

Russian producers reportedly pumped 9.022 million barrels per day last month, a figure 28,000 barrels per day below the required level, including compensation cuts. This marks the largest gap between Russia’s output and its monthly quota this year, based on Bloomberg’s calculations.

Historically, Russia, which co-leads the OPEC+ alliance with Saudi Arabia, has faced criticism for poor compliance with production quotas. However, the nation has shown improved adherence for most of 2025, often pumping below its required levels, according to analysis of Russian data. This increased focus on production discipline follows earlier critiques from Riyadh.

Under the terms of the OPEC+ agreement, Russia’s daily production quota for June had increased by 78,000 barrels to 9.161 million barrels. However, Moscow had also committed to a 111,000 barrel-a-day compensation cut for the month, bringing its actual output target to 9.050 million barrels per day.

On July 5, eight OPEC+ nations collectively agreed to raise production by 548,000 barrels per day in August, aiming to capitalize on strong summer consumption. Analysts suggest these additional barrels may be quickly absorbed but could contribute to a crude surplus later in the year.

Independent verification of Russia’s oil output data has become challenging since Moscow classified official figures after Western sanctions targeting the nation’s energy industry following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, market watchers now largely rely on indicators such as seaborne exports and domestic refinery runs to track trends in Russia’s oil production.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

July 7, 2025 9:32pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

The United Kingdom has imposed new sanctions on Russian individuals and an organization involved in the use and transfer of chemical weapons in Ukraine, the British government announced on July 7.

According to the updated sanctions list published on the U.K. government’s official website, the new measures target Russia’s Scientific Research Institute of Applied Chemistry, as well as Lieutenant General Alexei Rtishchev, head of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops, and his deputy, Andrei Marchenko.

The U.K. government said that both of them “have been responsible for, engaging in, providing support for, or promoting prohibited activity related to chemical weapons."

The Scientific Research Institute of Applied Chemistry was sanctioned for providing Russia’s military with handheld chemical grenades, which have been used against Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The new British sanctions come amid growing international concern over Russia’s escalating use of banned chemical agents in its war against Ukraine.

On July 4, the Netherlands Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) reported that Russian troops are increasingly deploying chemical weapons— including chloropicrin, a highly toxic World War I-era agent, in the field.

The agents are reportedly dropped by drones to flush Ukrainian soldiers from trenches, leaving them exposed to further drone or artillery strikes. While Russia previously used tear gas, the confirmed use of chloropicrin, a substance banned under international law, is “absolutely unacceptable,” Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said.

Ukrainian authorities say Russia has conducted more than 9,000 chemical attacks since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. At least three Ukrainian soldiers have reportedly died from direct exposure.

Exclusive: Ukraine pitches deepwater gas, oil refinery projects to US under landmark minerals deal

Projects Kyiv has submitted to the U.S. for consideration as part of a profit-sharing deal for Ukraine’s resources include a shelf and deepwater project and an oil refinery that comes under frequent attack by Russia, Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko told the Kyiv Independent in an interview published on July 7. After months of hard-fought negotiations around the investment agreement — known more widely as the “minerals deal” for its focus on Ukraine’s critical minerals — the two sid

The Kyiv IndependentLiliane Bivings

July 7, 2025 9:27pm

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Ben Borges

Key developments on July 7:

• Russian airports cancel nearly 300 flights amid drone attacks on Russia
• BRICS summit statement condemns attacks on Russian railways, avoids urging Russia to cease war efforts in Ukraine
• Ukrainian drone strike hits major oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar Krai, HUR source claims
• Ukraine confirms drone strike on Russian chemical plant near Moscow
• Russia strikes conscription offices in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine says

Several Russian airports have canceled flights due to safety concerns over Ukrainian drone attacks, the Russian Federal Aviation Agency (Rosaviatsia) reported on July 6.

Rosaviatsia reported on the evening of July 6 that 287 flights had been grounded across three major airports: Moscow’s Sheremetyevo,  St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo, and Strigino Airport in Nizhny Novgorod.

The restrictions follow a wave of closures the previous night, also triggered by drone threats. Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed that it had intercepted 120 drones on Russian territory overnight between July 5 and July 6.

Ukraine hasn’t commented on the report. Kyiv’s drone campaign, which has increasingly disrupted civilian air travel in Russia, is part of Ukraine’s broader strategy to undermine Russia’s logistics far beyond the front line.

Rosaviatsia confirmed the temporary pause in flights at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, citing airspace restrictions over the capital and strong winds. At Sheremetyevo, 171 flights were canceled and 56 more were delayed, causing crowds of passengers to form at the airport.

At Pulkovo, 90 flights were canceled and 37 remain delayed due to safety concerns. In Nizhny Novgorod, 26 flights were canceled and 13 delayed. Flight restrictions have also been imposed on Russia’s Ivanovo, Kaluga, Pskov, and Tambov airports, the agency said.

BRICS summit statement condemns attacks on Russian railways, avoids urging Russia to cease war efforts in Ukraine

BRICS summit participants condemned recent attacks on Russia’s railway infrastructure, according to a joint declaration on July 6 from Rio de Janeiro.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the attacks on bridges and railway infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians in the Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions of the Russian Federation on May 31, and June 1 and 5 2025, which resulted in the deaths of several civilians, including children,” the document says.

Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh oblasts are all located near Ukraine’s northeastern border and have played a central role in Russia’s war effort, serving as key logistical hubs and launch sites for missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, often targeting civilian infrastructure and causing casualties.

In their declaration, BRICS leaders also called for a negotiated peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

“We recall our national positions concerning the conflict in Ukraine as expressed in the appropriate forum, including the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly,” the document said. “We expect that current efforts will lead to a sustainable peace settlement.”

‘Neither side wasted time’ — Ukraine’s economy minister on minerals deal negotiations with Trump’s ‘business-oriented’ administration

Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko says her task is simple — to get the investment fund behind the closely watched minerals deal with the U.S. off the ground, and prove its detractors wrong. “There are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves — that it won’t be operational,” Svyrydenko, who is also Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, tells the Kyiv Independent at Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on July 4, the morning

The Kyiv IndependentLiliane Bivings

Ukrainian drone strike hits major oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar Krai, HUR source claims

Long-range Ukrainian drones struck the Ilsky oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar Krai on July 7, hitting one of the facility’s technological workshops, a source in Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) told the Kyiv Independent.

Located roughly 500 kilometers (311 miles) from Ukrainian-controlled territory, the refinery is among the largest in southern Russia, producing over 6 million tons of fuel annually.

It is involved in the reception, storage, and processing of hydrocarbons and distributes refined products via road and rail. The refinery is part of Russia’s military-industrial complex and plays a direct role in supporting Moscow’s war effort, the source said.

The Russian regional operational headquarters claimed that “drone debris” fell on the oil refinery.

The strike marks a renewed wave of Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure, following a months-long pause. On July 1, Ukrainian drones struck the Saratovorgsintez oil refinery in Russia’s Saratov Oblast.

War has changed: Ukraine’s tech pioneers are leading the fight West can’t afford to ignore

The next conflict isn’t coming — it’s already being fought in Ukraine. Not by NATO generals in simulated exercises, but by small, underfunded teams of Ukrainian innovators building the future of warfare with laptops, soldering irons, and scraps of carbon fiber. Ukraine is rewriting the rules of modern ground conflict — and unless we understand and invest in that transformation, Ukraine won’t get the defense funding it needs, whilst NATO nations will be left dangerously exposed. Only two countr

The Kyiv IndependentRobert Seely

Ukraine confirms drone strike on Russian chemical plant near Moscow

Ukraine’s military confirmed on July 7 that it targeted a chemical plant in Russia’s Moscow Oblast used for producing ammunition and explosives, the General Staff said.

The plant, located 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of Moscow, produces industrial and military-grade chemicals, including explosives, ammunition components, and aircraft protection systems.

Established in 1915, the plant is one of the city’s largest employers and plays a key role in Russia’s defense-industrial complex. Its location in Krasnozavodsk places it roughly 530 kilometers (329 miles) from the Ukrainian border.

It is affiliated with the Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec and supplies the Defense Ministry, Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service (FSB), and other law enforcement agencies.

Moscow Oblast authorities have not officially confirmed the attack. Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed that air defenses intercepted or destroyed 91 Ukrainian drones across multiple regions, including eight over Moscow Oblast.

In a statement released later on July 7, Ukraine’s General Staff confirmed that units from its Unmanned Systems Forces, in coordination with other elements of the Defense Forces, carried out a precision strike against the Krasnozavodsk Chemical Plant.

Zelensky, Trump discussed replacement of Ukraine’s US ambassador, source says

Oksana Markarova has held the post since April 2021, and played a central role in coordinating U.S. military and financial support during the early phases of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The Kyiv IndependentTim Zadorozhnyy

Russia strikes conscription offices in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine says

Russian drones struck Ukrainian conscription offices in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia early on July 7, injuring several people and damaging military infrastructure, Ukraine’s Ground Forces said.

The attack comes as Russia increases its efforts to disrupt mobilization in Ukraine.

“As a result of the attack, (Russian) drones hit the building of the Kharkiv conscription office and the surrounding area, as well as near the Zaporizhzhia conscription office,” the Ground Forces said.

Three people were reported injured in Kharkiv, while one soldier was wounded in Zaporizhzhia. State emergency service are working at both scenes, and casualty figures may be updated as the response continues, officials said.

The strikes are the latest in what Ukrainian military officials describe as a deliberate Russian campaign to target enlistment infrastructure and undermine mobilization efforts.

On July 3, a deadly Russian strike on the central city of Poltava killed two people and injured 47 others. The attack caused a fire at the city’s military conscription office and heavily damaged nearby civilian buildings, including civilian houses.

Note from the author:

Ukraine War Latest is put together by the Kyiv Independent news desk team, who keep you informed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you value our work and want to ensure we have the resources to continue, join the Kyiv Independent community.

July 7, 2025 7:59pm

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will enable Ukrainian banks to provide up to 900 million euros ($1.05 billion) in new loans by sharing credit risks, the EBRD announced in a press release on July 7.

The loans will target companies in agribusiness, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, transport and logistics, as well as energy security projects.

The mechanism will be announced at the Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC) in Rome on July 10-11. This represents the largest risk-sharing facility implemented in Ukraine since the war began, according to the EBRD’s press release.

Due to destructive Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, the EBRD will also focus on supporting distributed generation and renewable energy projects.

Russian forces have damaged most of Ukraine’s thermal power plants and about 30% of power stations, disrupting nearly two-thirds of the country’s total electricity generation, the bank says.

The EU, together with other EBRD donors, has developed plans to de-risk renewable energy investments to attract more private capital, which they will announce at the URC.

Nearly one-third of EBRD’s wartime financing to Ukraine — 2.4 billion euros ($2.8 billion) — has gone to the energy sector. This includes support for state-owned electricity transmission and gas companies, as well as financing for hydropower and small-scale distributed generation.

In a pre-URC press release, the EBRD also expressed interest in supporting the development of a natural graphite deposit in Ukraine following the U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement. Graphite is a strategic material used in batteries and defense applications.

The bank will launch the second phase of digitizing Ukraine’s paper-based geological data archive to make information about mineral deposits more accessible, the EBRD reports.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the EBRD has invested over 7.2 billion euros ($8.4 billion) in Ukraine’s economy.

Zelensky, Trump discussed replacement of Ukraine’s US ambassador, source says

Oksana Markarova has held the post since April 2021, and played a central role in coordinating U.S. military and financial support during the early phases of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The Kyiv IndependentTim Zadorozhnyy

July 7, 2025 7:23pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

Russia’s growing ability to sustain weapons production despite Western sanctions is being driven by a flow of Chinese components and materials, Vladyslav Vlasiuk, the Ukrainian president’s commissioner for sanctions, told journalists on July 7.

Vlasiuk’s statement comes as Russia escalates its drone and missile strikes on Ukraine, while the U.S. continues to hold back on imposing tougher sanctions against Moscow and foreign-made components are still being found in Russian weapons used in the attacks.

Ukraine has previously documented that Chinese companies have contributed electronics and materials used in the production of these drones.

Just days earlier, after a large-scale Russian attack on July 4, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha shared on social media a photo of a component from a Shahed-136/Geran-2 combat drone discovered in Kyiv. According to Sybiha, the part was manufactured in China and delivered recently.

“The trend of China’s (role) is increasing,” Vlasiuk told journalists.

He said that the presence of Chinese-made components and materials in Russian weapons is on the rise, adding that Beijing is expanding its technological capabilities and can now replicate some American technologies.

When asked by Kyiv about the Chinese parts found in Russian weapons, Beijing responded by claiming that such support is "non-lethal," the president's commissioner for sanctions said.

Beijing remains one of Russia's key wartime partners, helping Moscow evade Western sanctions and emerging as the leading supplier of dual-use goods used by the Russian defense industry.

In April, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that China, alongside Iran and North Korea, is supplying weapons to Russia.

His remarks followed reports that Ukrainian soldiers had captured Chinese nationals fighting together with Russia's army in Donetsk Oblast. Later, Zelensky revealed that at least "several hundred" Chinese nationals are fighting on Russia's side in Ukraine.

Ukraine has already sanctioned several Chinese companies tied to Russia’s war effort.

The South China Morning Post reported that China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas on July 3 that the country cannot afford for Russia to lose the war in Ukraine amid fears Washington would shift focus towards Beijing.

Experts echo Rutte’s warnings on Russian-Chinese threat to NATO, Taiwan

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

July 7, 2025 6:45pm

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ben Borges

Projects Kyiv has submitted to the U.S. for consideration as part of a profit-sharing deal for Ukraine’s resources include a shelf and deepwater project and an oil refinery that comes under frequent attack by Russia, Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko told the Kyiv Independent in an interview published on July 7.

After months of hard-fought negotiations around the investment agreement — known more widely as the “minerals deal” for its focus on Ukraine’s critical minerals — the two sides signed the deal at the end of April. In addition to minerals, the investment fund created under the deal could finance projects in oil and gas, infrastructure, and, as was recently announced, defense.

Since the signing, Svyrydenko’s ministry has been working with the fund’s U.S. partners — U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) — to get initial projects off the ground.

The minister recently announced that the fund’s pilot project would be the development of a lithium deposit in Dobra, in Ukraine’s Kirovohrad Oblast.

But Kyiv is also pitching more projects, including an offshore gas exploration project involving Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas giant Naftogaz, and a plan to modernize the Kremenchuk oil refinery — the country’s largest petroleum production site, located in Poltava Oblast. The oil refinery is owned and operated by Ukraine’s largest oil company, the state-owned Ukrnafta.

With Ukraine’s massive domestic market for petroleum products, Svyrydenko called the refinery project “strategic and extremely important.” The ministry submitted the $2.7 billion project to the DFC and is awaiting feedback.

“It’s an important project for us, and it’s bankable,” she said in the interview.

The refinery in Kremenchuk is a frequent target of Russian missile and drone attacks. When asked whether Kyiv would discuss air defense with the U.S. if the DFC moved forward with the project, Svyrydenko said there’s currently “nothing about air defense in this project,” but noted that “U.S. companies that may participate in project implementation can have a strong voice and appeal to the U.S. government."

On July 1, Politico reported that the U.S. Defense Department had paused some promised air defense and weapons shipments to Ukraine, citing concerns about depleting American stockpiles. U.S. President Donald Trump later said the U.S. “might” send Patriot systems to Ukraine.

A day later, on July 2, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Economy Ministry met with U.S. companies operating in Ukraine to discuss the urgent need for additional air defenses to protect businesses and cities.

“We understand that if there is U.S. investment in the country, there’s more motivation for the U.S. to protect (those assets),” Svyrydenko said.

Kyiv hopes to implement the first three projects under the agreement over the next 18 months and plans to hold the fund’s first official meeting at the end of July, in Kyiv.

“It’s extremely important for our partners, for our investors, to be in the country — to see how the country operates during wartime, to see that we’re still fighting and still working,” Svyrydenko said.

‘If it were a bad deal, I wouldn’t have signed it’ — Ukraine’s economy minister on negotiating US minerals deal in exclusive interview

Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko says her task is simple — to get the investment fund behind the closely watched minerals deal with the U.S. off the ground, and prove its detractors wrong. “There are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves — that it won’t be operational,” Svyrydenko, who is also Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, tells the Kyiv Independent at Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on July 4, the morning

The Kyiv IndependentLiliane Bivings

July 7, 2025 6:43pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Ben Borges

The next conflict isn’t coming — it’s already being fought in Ukraine. Not by NATO generals in simulated exercises, but by small, underfunded teams of Ukrainian innovators building the future of warfare with laptops, soldering irons, and scraps of carbon fiber.

Ukraine is rewriting the rules of modern ground conflict — and unless we understand and invest in that transformation, Ukraine won’t get the defense funding it needs, whilst NATO nations will be left dangerously exposed.

Only two countries in the world are capable of fighting a modern, high-intensity infantry war, and neither of them is in NATO; one is Ukraine and the other is Russia. That’s bad news for our eastern flank.

No other armed forces engage in full-spectrum combat across land, air, and cyber domains, involving drones, jamming communications, and layered electronic warfare. For sure, Israel gets an honourable mention, but its infantry enemies are terror groups and paramilitary, not armies.

The battlefield saturation of infantry-level drones is the clearest indicator of the military tech transformation. This is part of the move to a human-free, automated, and robotic front line. It’s already starting to happen.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

Importantly, it’s not only drones in the sky but on the land and sea, and in some ways, the most devastating effect has been seen with naval drones. And the question persists: how often in history has a nation without a navy defeated a major surface fleet?

Meanwhile, Russia has pioneered a new form of total war where military and non-military tools are united in a single theory of conflict and in a single doctrine. Whilst much of this was rooted in the Soviet totalitarian past, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reimagined theory of warfare is new enough in many areas.

And his tools, as we now know, are not just military.

Kyiv too is developing its own way of war. It is using Ukrainian innovation against Russian mass, creating a warfighting style grounded, broadly, in decentralization and rapid adaptation. That’s why some of Ukraine's most brilliant defense minds are currently working in garages, workshops, and makeshift R&D spaces, not labs. Whilst this industry is coalescing, it is still in its early stages.

The Western defense model, in the meantime, needs disruption — and disruptors — because it is becoming unaffordable.

Let me give you an example. When I was writing my book The New Total War, I visited, amongst other Ukrainian units, a specialist drone battalion. This battalion was getting through 150 suicide drones a day. Their drones cost around $1,000-2,000 each. They covered perhaps 15 kilometers of the front line, along a front line around 1,000 kilometers long.

By contrast, Western loitering munitions can cost $50,000 each. Let’s do the maths: 150 drones a day for a month, for one unit, on one short section of the front line — the monthly costs come to a third of a billion dollars. The West needs quality as well as quantity — mass — but it has an arms industry that can’t produce modern weapons at a realistic price.

Тhe solution is to learn from Ukraine.

The Ukrainian defense sector should become a critical part of the Western defense industry. While larger countries are still designing complex and expensive platforms, Ukraine is gaining a tactical advantage with fast, innovative, affordable weapons.

Yet, Ukrainian innovators continue to work with minimal access to Western capital. This level of support does not reflect either the urgency of the war or the scale of Ukraine’s technological importance to the West.

Venture capital and investment funds are put off by the fear of investing in Ukraine and by a continued hostility to defense as an industry. Yet, who do we want to develop a lead in defense: NATO and its allies, or Russia and China?

Ukraine has a critical role to play not only in the fight against modern fascism but also in the rearming of the West. Therefore, it’s crucial that we see Ukraine integrated more fully into the Western world, including its defense industries, which have a vital role to play not only in defending Ukraine, but all of us.

July 7, 2025 6:36pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 16 minutes

Ben Borges

Alin Uberti is a Romanian theater director who spent a month between February and March in Kharkiv. In collaboration with Ukrainian playwright Liuba Ilnytska and Nafta theater, he organized a performance lab in the city. There, young theater practitioners studied contemporary theater instruments — and tried themselves in different theater roles. 

Gwara talked to Uberti back in April — when he’s already returned to Bucharest — about ways theater and people in them work, their audiences in Romania and Ukraine, influences of the Soviet occupation on dramaturgy in both countries, and art's connection to politics (among other things). 

Director as a god vs. community-based effort 

What made you decide to go to Kharkiv? 

I have previous experience in Ukraine, I worked in Lviv before. I did a performance in Jam Art Center, and had a lecture and a theater workshop there. I liked that experience very much, liked meeting young theater practitioners. Liuba Ilnytska has been telling me about Kharkiv — she loves the city — so I contacted Nafta and offered to run a laboratory with Liuba. They were happy about it and accepted, so this is how I ended up in the city. 

Contemporary theater instruments you’re teaching—what kind of instruments are those? 

I think Romania and Ukraine have a mutual problem, at least from what I hear. It’s a traditional orientation of classes for theater and theater practice. We’re always talking about starting work from text, text-based performances. Institutions focus on one specialization, a single practice. You graduate — and you can only act or only direct. From what I see in Ukraine, Romania, and the rest of Europe, people are not just doing one practice anymore. They’re not just “an actor” or “a director.” They call themselves theater-makers. 

Although most of the workshop participants were acting graduates, we tried to focus on a bit of everything. They wrote, directed, did their own lighting design. They had a bigger umbrella to work with, and (we explored) different ways for them to pick themes and sensations for what they wanted to work on in future performances. 

Why are Romania and Ukraine sticking to that traditional model? Traditional theater in Ukraine operated under Stanislavsky’s forms of directing. Is this the case for Romania as well? Why do you think we hold on to those so hard? 

Political and historical influences. Romania was also under the Soviet occupation. Institutions in general will never produce something new or interesting. They will stick to instruments they have and teach “recipes” they know will work because they worked in the past—dozens, hundreds of years. 

They were also heavily influenced by the Russian school of theater, which, in my opinion, doesn’t work anymore. It traumatizes people who try to act within it. There’s this common misconception that if you see a theater piece, you’re supposed to believe that the actor is actually living through emotions that their character is going through, and this creates a lot of trauma for actors. I don’t actually need to see someone having a panic attack on stage for me to understand the story and feel the emotions of it. 

That sounds like method acting. Is that what you're talking about? That you have to do and feel everything your character does. 

Yeah, and it's just emotionally damaging to everyone on the team. There are a lot of power dynamics that are very unhealthy in this method of working. Director there is sort of a god figure who can inflict as much emotional harm and pressure on actors as they want — to get the required results.

I know, though, that you can work with people, have a kind, healthy working process — and have a powerful theater piece at the end. No one has to go through turmoil to make a beautiful thing on stage. 

Is your collaboration with Nafta — a team that also does unconventional plays — an attempt to reform traditional theater or is this about creating an alternative space for alternative theater? 

Mostly, it's an attempt to create an alternative to traditional or conventional ways of working. The stories I told during the laboratory in Kharkiv about my practice and education made everyone laugh because they had the same experiences that I had in Romania. 

Alternative ways of working also show people that you don't need to be a bad person to make good art. As a student, I heard about all of these great directors — and all of them were abusing their team. I thought for a long time that if I don't want to scream in rehearsals, that means I'm a bad director. 

Then I met people like the Nafta’s team or Romanian artists who do not apply these kinds of things to their practice. And I realized: oh no, you can actually be a very good artist and a decent human being. It's important for me to also show this idea to younger people. Because I know how free I felt when I had this realization. 

Read our article about Kharkiv-based Nafta Theater and its co-founder, actor, and director Nina Khyzhna: “I cried when I saw Kharkiv laugh again.”

I also found out about very good directors from history who were never abusive. Working in a theater is a community-based effort, in which directors have a responsibility to coordinate. That doesn't mean you have to have power over those people. It just means you are an outside eye that can guide the creative impulse someone else has.

How do you teach people to work differently within those alternative ways of working?

This goes back to the education I got from a school heavily influenced by the Soviets. I was taught that the director should be this lone figure that always knows everything, that actors are just puppets I’m supposed to move around. It didn't work for me at all. 

But actors are amazing artists if you give them the space to create. They most often make the performance better regardless of how much homework you've done at home as a director.

So if you can establish a very good, kind space where people feel safe enough to share as much as they want to share, at the end of the day, they will start being more creative — and you will make some friends. That’s a social aspect of this for me because I'm a pretty shy person in real life, and I make a lot of friends when I work.   

State and not state theaters, lethargic audiences, and escapism

You said that “traditional” theater and theater practice don't work anymore. Does it not work just because it's not sustainable to constantly scream at people and expect them to do good art, or is it not something the audience is interested in anymore? 

All that, yes, but also… When I go to a state theater and look at the audience, I don't see people who come because they want to experience freedom or health or community, which is something that good theater, in my opinion, should always offer. 

I see people who come there for traditional aspects of it. You dress nicely, and you go there to see something that doesn't involve your consciousness — class consciousness, your social consciousness, etcetera. You see a story that is very separate from you, escapist. I think there are many people out there who have not been activated yet by what theater can do. 

I only go to theaters when I’m abroad. For example, in Kharkiv, I went to see performances because I knew I was going to like them. But when I'm home in Bucharest, I don't go — state theater’s performances don’t involve me in any way. It's boring.  

Directors from my country will always say theater is not political, but theater is always political. Plays they loved during the Soviet regime were against this regime. State theaters, traditional ones try to stay away from this, pretending that theater — and art in general — don’t have a strong political aspect. 

I think there are many people who do not go to the theater because they see it this way. That it's something boring, something that doesn't speak about their lives and struggles.

And if you provide the alternative to the traditional theater… There are a lot more people who, perhaps, didn’t go to the theater before and they come with a fresh perspective. You just have to be honest, be alive, and they’ll love what they see. You’ll establish a new audience, separate from what goes on in state theater.

They can stay there with their audiences, but we will create our own spaces, which are and should be completely different. 

Talk a little about people who were doing theater in spite of the Soviets in Romania. 

Lucian Pintilie. He was a huge rebel back during the communist regime, and he made every performance very political, which was dangerous in Romania under occupation. He was extremely brave. A lot of (Romanian) intellectuals were killed or deported by the Soviets. 

For example, Pintilie made one performance, which was obviously about our dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu. There's stories that, during rehearsals, he would tell the actors exactly that: "Yes, imagine that Nicolae Ceaușescu shows up here, and this is how you should act." Saying that outloud was very controversial back then.

When the performance came out, everyone loved it because everyone understood what it was about — but censorship wanted it changed. The director Liviu Ciulei, also an important artist, went to Pintilie and said, "Please, just let's just change a couple of scenes so that we can keep the performance.” Pintilie responded, "If you change anything, I will set myself on fire in front of the theater." 

Eventually, the Soviet regime gave him a passport — which was extremely difficult to obtain — and said to leave the country. Like, "Go to your theater somewhere else." He was basically exiled.

He left, he worked in a bunch of countries until the Soviets fell, and he came back to Bucharest after 1989, and he did, but he didn't do theater anymore — he focused only on film.

Are non-conventional forms of theater supported in Romania, and if so, how?

Oh no, it's a huge struggle. 

Well, I had to hope. 

There are a few funding sources for independent companies. The state theaters are paid by the state, but there's also some state-organized contest-based funding sources. You apply to an open call and maybe 10 or 20 projects would win a bunch of money to make their own independent—although highly dependent—pieces. 

It's a struggle, but there's a bit of good news that gives me hope. A lot of new managers from state institutions come from the independent sector. They spent the first years as artists being independent, and now they're put in the state’s position. They pay attention to what’s going on in the independent sector. They also know theater studies and are much less corrupt — in contrast to many in Romanian state institutions who are politically appointed and don’t have any connection to the art of theater. 

This year, the budget for culture is extremely underfunded. Many theaters have stopped some of their productions. For me, this is also good. This might be an opportunity for state theaters to realize that the independent sector exists and we've been struggling with (a lack of funds) for a long time. They can invite NGOs and independent companies, give them their venues (for plays), and let them organize performances.

Such a hybrid collaboration can also bring some fresh air to what happens on the stages in state theaters — otherwise, they won't have any money to do anything. 

You're saying that the traditional forms of theater don’t engage with the audience's inner life. But these new forms of theaters — that do not do escapism — why are they good, in your opinion? 

I think it's very important to pay attention to this distinction. If I work in Romania, I will be much more against being careful and escapist because I feel the Romanian audience is very lethargic. But if you go to the context of war, the Kharkiv context, I think the question of how much escapism should be in theater becomes more nuanced. People need a way out of the reality they're struggling with.

I had some discussions with Nafta about precisely this topic: how much space should you provide for escapism, and how much space should be left for actually facing the reality in front of you? I don't think there's one answer to this question.

I'm thinking of a concept that I learned from Liuba Ilnytska: the active hope. The first step of active hope is facing the actual situation that you're in. Facing it truthfully and honestly, and not thinking about the future, but instead being present in the now. After you manage to face what’s in front of you now, you go on, and you start thinking and building for the future.

I like radical imagination. I like theater pieces that focus on the future more than on the past, and Liuba likes theater performances that focus on the present. She doesn't like imagining the future because the present is extremely important for her space at the moment. So, I think there's a constant balance between the two.

Looking at the past, I think, is not helpful anymore. It’s another form of escapism — nostalgia, one of the most perverse forms of it. 

But I think this balance needs to be decided by each artist. How much they look at the future, at the present, how often they make their audience face something uncomfortable — how much space for safety, and hope, and emotional balance they provide, according to the kind of reality and community that they’re working in at the moment.

“Okay, there’s hope.” 

Let’s discuss waking up liturgical audiences. Art is always political, right? Even the state art is political — it's literally paid by the state. What are your plans for theater work in Romania, with those liturgical audiences? 

I've been trying different things to see what works and what doesn't. Last year, I did a performance about characters from Romanian jokes. Those jokes were highly misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic — we made that performance hoping to shock people out of this lethargy.

Part of it worked, but I don't think it fulfilled the purpose that we had in mind, so I don't think waking up audiences can necessarily happen through intense shock. 

This year, for example, we were very close to having a pro-Russian government (with far-right candidate Călin Georgescu winning the first round of a presidential election in November 2024. The vote was annulled by Romania's constitutional court citing Russian interference. Georgescu was later banned from running again. — ed.) We're still recovering from that. Back then, I was mostly on the street protesting, I didn't focus on theater. When elections were finally canceled, I realized I had to do something.

But people in Romania were so divided. Half of the country still supports that puppet — and it’s like mass hypnosis, it's impossible to reason with them. I realized that the performances that I did wouldn’t convince anyone of anything. 

So I decided to give a performance to people who already have the same opinion as me. I wanted to give them hope and make them feel safe. Make sure my community goes through as little damage as possible. When things calm down, I thought, I will address the other side. But back then, they were on the street beating reporters up. Talking to them had no use. 

The play about jokes was condemning Romania and saying: since the revolution in 1989, all the people who died for it died for nothing, because we didn't change things. This year, I did the play that instead says: Okay, there’s hope. We need to be together. We need to ask for help. And after, we can realize that we are all facing the same problem. 

I'm also always making performances that give you an elbow in the rib or a wink and say, "Okay, what will you do now? This is the situation. You have a responsibility to change it.”  

Since the Soviet regime fell, for 36 years, every generation has said, “We couldn't do enough, now it's your turn”—and when will this stop? 

When will we finally have done enough? Will I be able to look at my children and say, you can do whatever you want — you don't have to continue fighting that has been going on for years. 

Then, if something vibrates in the performance that I've made — even if it's only for two people — then they will not go burn down parliament, of course, but maybe they’ll be more careful with the information that they receive. Maybe they will think of donating to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Maybe they will think of helping or speaking out against abusive situations.

What do you think is so lucrative for Romanians in Russian and pro-Russian sentiments, in messages they spread? 

There was a slight difference at some point in our Soviet regimes, which changed a lot of things. Our first Soviet dictator was 100% Soviet. After he died, Nicolae Ceaușescu came into power — he remained Soviet, but he also said that Romania needed to build a relationship with the United States. So, for 50 years, I think, Romania has been a kind of a pocket puppy of the States. Because of that, for example, my grandmother was forced to learn Russian in school, but my mother was not.

So there's a few generations that don't exactly know what Russian meddling and Russian occupation can mean because they didn't live through it. Our grandparents know, and they're very afraid, — and they didn't vote for that person (Călin Georgescu). Although they mostly vote for very bad people, in this situation, everyone from my grandmother’s generation said, "We cannot go back to that. You have no idea what happened when Russia was here." 

So it (Russian influence and occupation) is something that people don't know about, first of all. Also, I think people were very scared of what started in Ukraine because we're neighbors — and every Russian or pro-Russian politician promises us peace. 

These politicians promise: “You’ll not be attacked. We will stop supporting the war, and then, Russians will not step on our territory.” People tend to believe that, although we have a lot of information coming from the opposite side and saying, "No, we have hundreds of examples within our country and in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia. We see what happens to them when they say, ‘Okay, we won't do anything, we won't stand and fight back’." 

The other half of the country hugely supports Ukraine and wants the Ukrainian people to win without making any kind of compromises. They say, "No, we cannot bow down to these people because we know if we do, there will be no peace." 

And there's also Moldova. Moldova was part of Romania for a long time until the Soviet regime took it. And Moldavians also know — they fight Russian influences in their own country. They're also saying — no, this is not something that we should play with. There'll be no peace if we negotiate with these people.

But, yes, we are promised peace. We’re being told that we will not be invaded if we shut up and bow down. 

Cover photo: Alin Uberti at Sonlab / Photo: Viktoria Vasylenko

Read more

• A dream to feed every child who needs it. Fuminori Tsuchiko about his life in Kharkiv
• “Kharkiv in April was a tough territory.” Oksana Dmitrieva about Kharkiv Puppet Theater surviving the year of war

The post “I make performances that ask — okay, what will you do now?” Director Alin Uberti on organizing workshop in Kharkiv, crafting alternative theater in Romania, and Russian promises to Bucharest  appeared first on Gwara Media.

July 7, 2025 5:54pm

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 23 minutes

Ben Borges

Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko says her task is simple — to get the investment fund behind the closely watched minerals deal with the U.S. off the ground, and prove its detractors wrong.

“There are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves — that it won’t be operational,” Svyrydenko, who is also Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, tells the Kyiv Independent at Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on July 4, the morning after Russia’s largest attack on Kyiv since the start of the full-scale invasion.

After months of fraught, drawn-out negotiations between Ukraine and U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration — including the infamous Oval Office showdown — that task may seem like an easy feat. But turning the deal’s vision of billions in investment into reality, in a country still fighting off Russia’s now more than three-year-long invasion, is another story.

Public distrust of the agreement has lingered since it was signed in late April. And more recently, reports emerged that Trump’s administration halted a shipment of military aid to Ukraine — including air defense missiles critical to protecting civilians, cities, and infrastructure — fueling doubts about whether investors will follow through amid such high risk.

But Svyrydenko remains confident that the more U.S. investment in the country, the more motivation there is for the U.S. to protect these assets. The minerals deal is just one tool at Kyiv’s disposal to keep the U.S. interested in supporting Ukraine’s war effort, according to Svyrydenko.

“We need to use all tools to engage with the U.S.,” she says.

Whether the U.S. and the Trump administration are as invested in making the deal operational as Svyrydenko and her team are will become clear over the next year and half — the time frame the minister has given herself for getting the first three projects with the fund kicked off.

The Kyiv Independent sat down with Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko and her deputies, Taras Kachka and Oleksiy Sobolev, for an in-depth discussion on the minerals deal — its origins, key details, and what lies ahead as the team prepares to deliver on an entirely new way of doing business between countries.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

The Kyiv Independent: Despite being one of the most covered topics of the last more than three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the minerals deal still remains a bit of a mystery to the general public. How would you describe the deal in simple terms? An elevator pitch, if you will.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: First of all, you need to name it properly — everyone refers to it as the mineral deal, but it’s actually an agreement on launching an investment fund based on contributions from the Ukrainian and U.S. sides. There were many myths about the fund, one being that it would repay U.S. aid from the first year of the full-scale invasion, but there is nothing about debt in the deal; it’s about new investments.

Ukraine will contribute 50% of revenues from license and royalty payments from new deposits and new licenses. The U.S. side can contribute financially or through defense support. The fund will invest in projects in Ukraine related to critical minerals, oil and gas, and related infrastructure. It has to operate for 10 years before dividends are divided between both sides. For investors who obtain licenses and are looking for investment, they have to apply for the fund first and provide the terms and conditions for receiving financing. After applying, they can go to the global market. The fund will have six managers — three from each side — and is now exploring investment opportunities.

I hope that we will have the first official meeting of this fund at the end of July in Kyiv. It’s extremely important for our partners, for our investors, to be in the country — to see how the country operates during wartime, to see that we’re still fighting and still working. At our final meeting with (U.S. Treasury) Secretary (Scott) Bessent in Canada during the G7 meeting, we also discussed the possibility of using the fund to finance defense projects. The U.S. is considering it, but it depends on the quality of projects and if they’re bankable or not.

The Kyiv Independent: So it’s possible within the structure of this fund to finance defense projects?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: Yes. The structure of this fund is absolutely unique. It’s also new for our bilateral relations because it’s a long-term fund and (the U.S.) is looking for long-term cooperation with Ukraine. We’re really proud of it. We want to keep the U.S. as a strategic partner. We understand the U.S.’s pragmatic approach — there are no security guarantees in the fund, because it’s only about investment.

But we understand that if there is U.S. investment in the country, there’s more motivation for the U.S. to protect (these assets). Two days ago, our president met with U.S. companies operating in Ukraine. We discussed the need for anti-missile systems — Patriots — to protect companies and cities. We depend on the income that we generate from the private sector. This fund is also unique because it allows contributions in the form of defense support. That doesn’t mean military aid would go through the fund, but it’s an option.

The Kyiv Independent: Let’s talk about U.S. aid. What are your thoughts on the recent decision to temporarily halt some shipments of aid to Ukraine, especially air defense aid? Given that the Trump administration has not indicated plans for any new aid packages, and considering all the work you and your ministry have done to show that Ukraine is a reliable, long-term strategic partner, how frustrated are you by this news?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think, like all Ukrainians, I got this information from Politico and other media. We need to get official information first, but I really hope the U.S. will support Ukraine. We need the U.S. as a strategic partner. That’s why we believe in this fund. I think it’s one of the most effective working tracks we have with the U.S., where we can discuss our future cooperation. So let’s wait for the official statement from the U.S. side, and then we’ll reflect on it. (Editor’s note: After this interview was conducted, U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. “might” send Patriots to Ukraine.)

My task is very simple. I want to make this fund operational because there are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves, and it won’t be operational. We want to set up this fund and have this meeting (at the end of July) because we have already provided them with the list of projects.

Our idea is to start the implementation of at least three projects within the next 18 months. As I said, I do believe that (the Americans) are very pragmatic and very business-oriented. We are trying to describe ourselves as a country not looking for aid, but for investment. I think Ukraine can be a good business case.

The Kyiv Independent I’ll return to the question of the projects you want to implement, but first I’d like to go back to the beginning — the origins of this deal. Do you remember when you first heard about it, and what that initial conversation was like?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think it was in February. There were different people who submitted different types of documents related to this deal, but Secretary Bessent and his team were the most efficient. The negotiation involved huge teams from both sides, including professional lawyers. On the Ukrainian side, the Economy Ministry led the team, with participation from the Finance, Justice, Foreign Affairs, Energy, and Environmental Protection ministries, as the deal concerns critical raw materials. It was a very open negotiation. There’s a big difference when you hear public statements, and then move to the working track, and you understand that they are ready to listen, and they want a good deal.

The Kyiv Independent: Why do you think there’s that difference in what you hear publicly and what you hear when you’re communicating with them privately?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think at the beginning of President Trump’s term, everyone on his team wanted to bring a good deal to their president. That’s why they were competing with each other. But in the end, everybody understood that if it wasn’t a win-win for both parties, or if they kept talking about the debt, we wouldn’t get this deal. That’s why I think the team of Secretary Bessent was very constructive on the working level.

The Kyiv Independent: Let’s talk about the famous Oval Office meeting. You were there, sitting next to President Zelensky, when there was this heated moment with President Trump and Vice President Vance. What was going through your mind during that moment? What were you thinking as you sat there?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: It was very emotional. But during this meeting, the president was defending not himself, but Ukraine. He was very real during this meeting, as he always is. Our whole team supported him at that moment. I was proud of my president. If he had reacted differently, it probably would have disappointed not only me but all Ukrainians. I truly believe we are still here in Kyiv and keep fighting because of him. He wakes up every day and keeps fighting and working, despite not taking even one day off.

The Kyiv Independent: Of course, you, President Zelensky, and your team left without signing a memorandum of understanding on the minerals deal. What’s interesting to know is how you got it back on track. Could you reflect on how, after that tense moment, you came back to the table and restarted talks?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The pause of one or two weeks gave us the opportunity to work on the text of the intergovernmental agreement. I think it’s good that neither side wasted time and kept working on the agreement. We returned to Secretary Bessent and his team and said, “Let’s try to renegotiate because we are ready and have some ideas."

The Kyiv Independent: And the response was positive?

Yulii Svyrydenko: Yes, the response was positive.

The Kyiv Independent: You mentioned that you first heard of the deal around February, but wasn’t some form of a deal like that presented as an option to the U.S. by the Ukrainian side earlier than that? A victory plan was presented at the end of last year, and it was mentioned as part of that plan, no?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: When we met for the first time, and we offered them this victory plan, one part of that was critical raw materials, but there were no details. The details were developed after the Oval Office meeting.

The Kyiv Independent: You said you heard about the deal in February for the first time. Weren’t you involved in the discussions and decision-making process when Ukraine was drafting the victory plan?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: Yes, I was (part of that).

The Kyiv Independent: It included a point about mineral resources. When you were doing that last year, is this (deal) what you had in mind?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: No. (Back then), there were different ideas on how it was going to be implemented. We didn’t think about an investment fund, but we were also thinking about projects that we could offer to the U.S. and looking for strategic partners and anchor investors for these projects. The idea of an investment fund was offered by Secretary Bessent; it was developed during the negotiations and we now see it as an interesting tool for attracting investment.

The Kyiv Independent: What would you rename the deal if you could rename it anything?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I don’t think minerals deal is the right name because it’s not about extracting critical raw materials — it’s about seeking investment opportunities in Ukraine. That’s precisely why it’s an investment fund. The U.S. side also emphasizes that this is an economic recovery fund, not a minerals fund. The Americans themselves see it as broader.

The Kyiv Independent: Let’s go back to the current state of the deal. In February, things were difficult. But by late April or early May, the political agreement was signed, along with the fund agreement and other agreements. Projects are being prepared. What is happening currently, and what’s expected in the near future?

Svyrydenko: We are preparing the first meeting of the fund members to discuss the investment policy, the first contribution, and the seed money. We need to hire an investment advisor to help build the strategy. We are setting up a commission to look at critical mineral deposits, and we are currently working on a lithium deposit in Dobra — it is the first time we are considering implementing this project through a project share agreement. We also declassified the licenses and geological data to attract investment. The last reserves update was in the 1980s.

The Kyiv Independent: The first pilot project for the lithium deposit in Dobra — an American company participating is TechMet, right? What’s the timeline for that project?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The timeline (for the deposit) is six months. Last week, we opened the contest, and next week, they should announce the terms and conditions of the Dobra deposit share product agreement — for us, it’s the first time (we’re doing a share product agreement for critical minerals). The winner of the product share agreement should be identified in six months' time, after which the winner can decide if they will operate (the deposits) on their own, or if they will apply to the fund to get financing, which is also optional.

If you want to extract lithium or titanium or enrich uranium, you don’t have to go directly to the fund and get finance. If you have your own financing and you can implement it on your own, please.

The Kyiv Independent: And the other projects you want to get going in the first 18 months?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: We have provided and submitted different projects to our U.S. partners. One of them is a shelf and deepwater project with (state-owned oil and gas giant) Naftogaz gas exploration. We are also looking at the Kremenchuk oil refinery. It’s a strategic project and extremely important for us because the CapEx is at least $2.7 billion.

The Kyiv Independent: But Russia attacks the oil refinery constantly.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The market for the consumption of petroleum products in Ukraine is huge, which is why we want to focus on the modernization of the refinery. We submitted this project to the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and we are currently waiting for their feedback — it’s an important project for us, and it’s bankable.

The Kyiv Independent: Would there then be a conversation about air defense with the U.S. if the DFC were to move forward with this project — in order to protect it?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: There is nothing about air defense in this project, but U.S. companies that may participate in project implementation can have a strong voice and appeal to the U.S. government. If these are huge investment projects, I think it will help us have a stronger voice. We need to use all tools to engage with the U.S.

The Kyiv Independent: How effective do you think this argument could be for Trump, considering he is, after all, a businessman? The idea that American companies will be in Ukraine — how effective could that be as an argument to provide more air defense, among other things?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I’m not sure it’s a key factor, but this administration is clearly business-oriented. It seems to me that a strong presence of American businesses in a region can increase motivation to provide air defense and military support. Of course, I’d like to believe that, as a country and strategic partner upholding democratic values and defending ourselves, we have an inherent right to receive or purchase such aid… but this business angle could serve as an additional argument.

The Kyiv Independent: During your talks with American partners, did they ask about resources in territories currently occupied by Russia? Is that part of the discussion? And if those territories are liberated, do the resources there automatically become part of this deal?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The intergovernmental agreement states that the mineral deal covers the entire territory of Ukraine, without specifying that some areas are occupied — there were no specific questions about what is in the occupied territories, it wasn’t part of our negotiations. What they did ask was what we have now — what licenses are active, which companies are involved, and what they’re looking for. We showed them a schematic map illustrating the locations of major deposits, including the occupied areas, which we highlighted, but they understood that when we talk about projects that can be implemented now, they can start in places like Kirovohrad Oblast, where there are deposits of many minerals.

The Kyiv Independent: Do you think there’s a possibility that, in the future, the U.S., regardless of having partners here, might enter into a similar agreement with Russia and gain access to our resources in the occupied territories through Russia?

Taras Kachka: That’s not possible. That would mean legally recognizing the occupied territory as Russian territory. Anything beyond that — any kind of business deal — would be impossible. It’s simply not a viable scenario. No one, not even China, recognizes these territories as ones where legitimate business activity can take place. Maybe the occupying forces will install some equipment, extract something in some rough way, and then, as happens in other cases, try to pass it off as if it were produced somewhere like Rostov (Russia). It isn’t a question about the deal; it’s a question of recognizing those territories.

The Kyiv Independent: There was a lot of news about this specific village, Shevchenko, with lithium deposits that was recently occupied. What does it mean for the deal?

Taras Kachka: Yes, there are the facts (on the ground) that we are discussing, but it does not impact the fund or our cooperation. Other materials are situated in the occupied territories, but that didn’t impact the deal.

The Kyiv Independent: But does it have a PR impact? Because, of course, the news was very big, and people were framing it that way.

Taras Kachka: This is another element of a broader problem. There are fields with grain, minerals, and factories that have been destroyed. It’s the same story. While the war continues and new territories are occupied by the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian economy suffers. Ukraine as a state suffers. All our international cooperation suffers as well. That’s why the war must be stopped, the aggressor must leave our territory, and then we’ll be happy to do any projects on this territory.

The Kyiv Independent: There is no head of the DFC right now, as the person who has been appointed, Benjamin Black, is still awaiting confirmation by Congress. Does the absence of a head of the DFC complicate your work?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: No, it’s not a problem that there is no head right now. There’s an acting head of the DFC right now, and almost every week, we have a conference call with them to discuss the current situation.

The Kyiv Independent: So, about the two other agreements that were signed after the first political agreement was signed on April 30 that have not been made public and that are not going to be. What is so sensitive about them that they can’t be made public?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The idea at the beginning was that the U.S. side wanted a commercial deal, which we said was impossible because the state is involved, so it can’t be fully commercial — that’s why it’s a mix of public and private. But the DFC insists that they are commercial deals, (so they can’t be) public.

After some documents leaked, there was gossip around the committee and how in the investment committee, the U.S. had three voices and Ukraine had only two voices. But the idea is that the fund has a board and (within that board) there are four committees: prospecting, investment, audit, and administrative. Since there are different numbers of voices in these committees, and there was talk of “betrayal.” But I think the most important thing is that all decisions discussed within these committees must be approved by the board, which consists of three members on each side.

Taras Kachka: A government-to-government agreement is a public law instrument; (the one the U.S. and Ukraine signed is) open and was ratified, so there are no questions — it’s law.

For the other two remaining elements they are commercial deals, classical commercial agreements, and the establishment of a limited liability company serving as a general partner of a limited partnership between a Ukrainian entity and a U.S. entity.

We dedicate a lot of time to working with the DFC on how to treat this information. There is a lot of legal thinking within these institutions on whether it should be fully published or only briefings, excerpts, etc. That’s why I think we continue this discussion. This is what limits our ability to publish openly. But we have nothing to hide.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: It’s also important to note that the intergovernmental agreement is the main agreement, while the other two serve to deepen it.

The Kyiv Independent: Can one of the parties, either the U.S. or Ukraine, withdraw from this agreement? Is that even technically possible? How can the agreement be terminated?

Oleksii Sobolev: The agreement stays in place until both parties agree to terminate the agreement. So no one side can just exit the deal.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: And every 10 years, both parties will review the feasibility of continuing the fund’s operations.

The Kyiv Independent: What happens if in 18 months the deals haven’t moved forward — what’s plan B?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: To keep working with Europeans. There’s a lot of interest from European countries — they’re also looking (at opportunities) and trying to set up different memoranda with us. Some of them want to help us with carrying out the geological survey, which is timely and costly. Critical raw materials will remain an important topic for the U.S. and Europe for decades. But we need to keep this working track with the U.S. active on many levels.

Oleksii Sobolev: But right now we have more than weekly communications with the DFC and Secretary Bessent’s people, who are pushing this forward.

The Kyiv Independent: Could road projects and road concession projects be part of this deal?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: So, actually, the interest in the governmental projects is critical raw materials, oil and gas, and related infrastructure, which likely means ports and, from our perspective, probably roads as well. We updated the PPP legislation and voted for it in the second reading a couple of weeks ago.

Oleksii Sobolev: But you need to differentiate (the different types of projects). The projects the fund could invest in are broader than those with offtake rights and investment opportunity rights. For example, critical minerals-related infrastructure projects or concessions in regions with uranium, like roads that help ship those products, will have investment opportunities. If a concession winner needs third-party financing, they should inform the fund. The fund could invest in any infrastructure, energy, or other projects.

The Kyiv Independent: There is also some confusion in the public as to whether new licenses for projects have to be presented to the fund. Is that the case?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The fund does not participate in any tenders or auctions, nor in any privatization process. The idea is that if you want to obtain licenses, for example, for lithium extraction, you go through the ordinary tender procedure. Once you receive the license and realize you need financing for project implementation, you must provide the fund with information and the terms and conditions for attracting finance to your project.

If the fund is interested in the project or can bring in a third party to help with implementation, you cooperate with the fund and implement the project that way. But if the fund refuses your terms and conditions, you can seek financing from the global market, including IFIs or DFIs, as long as you do not offer better terms than those offered to the fund within six months. You can change the terms and conditions within those six months.

Getting a license is straightforward; if you want financing, you need to follow this process. The same applies to offtake: if you have a license and extract critical raw materials, you must first offer the offtake to the fund. If the fund refuses, you can sell on the global market at the market price.

Also, simply extending licenses does not mean license payments go to the fund, as it is a different procedure. There is a separate category for “sleeping licenses,” defined as licenses with less than 1% extraction for the past five years. If, during the five years, you have not implemented an approved program, meaning you’ve done nothing with the license, it is considered a new license.

The fund deals with income from new licenses and new production sharing agreements — 50% of the budget revenues that Ukraine receives go to the fund as the Ukrainian contribution. Based on current licenses, if the fund had been set up in 2019, the Ukrainian contribution would be Hr 3 billion — which is quite small.

Critical materials projects usually cost no less than $500 million, so we definitely need US contributions because it shows their serious intention to work with Ukraine and do business here.

We expect to receive the first seed money by the end of September. About $25 million for procedures. After that, we will see what the next contributions from both sides will be.

The Kyiv Independent: Among our Kyiv Independent audience in the West, there’s sometimes a sense that this deal is bad for Ukraine. We even received emails urging Ukraine not to sign, saying the Trump administration was trying to take advantage of Ukraine. As a Ukrainian and one of the lead negotiators, how would you respond to that?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: If it were a bad deal, I wouldn’t have signed it. The version we signed is much better than what we received during our first meeting because there is nothing about debt. Both sides will manage, co-finance, and co-own this fund. The fund will invest in Ukrainian projects on Ukrainian territory.

We have losses assessed at $500 billion by the World Bank, and in the first year of the large-scale invasion, our GDP declined by 30%; in the second year, it grew by 5%. This year, we also expect growth, but this growth has not allowed us to make a huge jump. That’s why we need tools to help attract money. Of course, we need the U.S. as our partner in this fight. All of us understand that perfectly well. So I think this is a good working track that allows us to keep negotiating with the U.S. and provide them with the most beneficial projects.

The Kyiv Independent: Are you confident that the US will remain a strategic partner to Ukraine in the next year or two years, three years during the Trump administration?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think that they will be our strategic partner. I truly believe this.

Author’s note:

Hi there, busines editor Liliane Bivings here. Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed hearing directly from Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko. Our chief editor Olga Rudenko and I sat down with her and her team last week to discuss the famed U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal to try and clear up some of the mystery that’s formed around the agreement despite it being one of the most covered topics of this war. If you’d like to see more interviews like this, please consider joining our community to support independent journalism straight from Ukraine.

Zelensky, Trump discussed replacement of Ukraine’s US ambassador, source says

Oksana Markarova has held the post since April 2021, and played a central role in coordinating U.S. military and financial support during the early phases of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The Kyiv IndependentTim Zadorozhnyy

July 7, 2025 5:44pm

Ukraine Russia Photos

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Ben Borges

Russian drones struck Ukrainian conscription offices in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia early on July 7, injuring several people and damaging military infrastructure, Ukraine’s Ground Forces said.

The attack comes as Russia increases its efforts to disrupt mobilization in Ukraine.

“As a result of the attack, (Russian) drones hit the building of the Kharkiv conscription office and the surrounding area, as well as near the Zaporizhzhia conscription office,” the Ground Forces said.

Three people were reported injured in Kharkiv, while one soldier was wounded in Zaporizhzhia. State emergency service are working at both scenes, and casualty figures may be updated as the response continues, officials said.

The strikes are the latest in what Ukrainian military officials describe as a deliberate Russian campaign to target enlistment infrastructure and undermine mobilization efforts.

On July 3, a deadly Russian strike on the central city of Poltava killed two people and injured 47 others. The attack caused a fire at the city’s military conscription office and heavily damaged nearby civilian buildings, including civilian houses.

Speaking on national television after the Poltava attack, Ukraine’s Ground Forces spokesperson Vitalii Sarantsev said Russia was intentionally striking enlistment centers to disrupt Ukraine’s ability to replenish its Armed Forces.

“We will continue to strengthen our army, train our troops, and involve more people in defense to deliver a strong response to the enemy,” Sarantsev said.

HUR publishes Russian military order, claims proof of Moscow increasing military footprint in Armenia

HUR first made the claim on July 5, saying Russia was increasing its forces at the Gyumri base to exert greater influence in the South Caucasus and “destabilize the global security situation.”

The Kyiv IndependentChris York

July 7, 2025 5:00pm

Ukraine Russia Photos USA

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Ben Borges

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes.

“If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,'” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New York Times.

Such a scenario would for all intents and purposes amount to a global war between nuclear superpowers, yet many experts agree that this scenario is not too far from reality.

Beijing and Moscow have tightened their alliance aimed at dethroning the U.S. as the global superpower, a cooperation nowhere else more visible than in Chinese support for Russia’s war against Ukraine.

In the meantime, NATO continues to grapple with the war in Ukraine and internal divisions wrought by the Trump presidency. It would benefit China to fuel this turmoil, making sure the alliance’s attention remains split while Beijing pursues its own territorial ambitions.

“If China were to decide that incorporating Taiwan into China by force was their only option, they will do all they can to ensure both Europe and America have as many dispersed challenges to deal with as possible,” retired Australian Army Major General Mick Ryan told the Kyiv Independent.

China and Russia eye a two-front war on the West

According to the South China Morning Post, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently told the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, that his country cannot afford Russia to lose its war against Ukraine, as it would allow the U.S. to shift its focus on Beijing.

This admission underscored “China’s strategic interest in depleting Western resources on the European continent,” Nataliya Butyrska, an expert on East Asia at the New Europe Center in Kyiv, told the Kyiv Independent.

This goal has also been evident in China’s support of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

The Asian power has been the leading source of dual-use goods feeding the Russian defense industry and has helped Moscow cushion the impact of Western sanctions.

Kyiv has even accused China of directly providing arms to Russia – an allegation Beijing denied. Several Chinese nationals have also been captured fighting in Ukraine within Russian ranks.

Experts have long warned that China is closely watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to learn lessons for a potential invasion of Taiwan. But the interest is not limited to the military sphere.

“China is closely observing the West’s response to Russia’s actions and sees opportunities for itself amid a potential fracture of transatlantic unity,” Butyrska said.

Underscoring the symbiotic nature of the Russian-Chinese relationship, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could also present a boon to Moscow.

“Russia wouldn’t need a request from China to keep NATO occupied; it is more likely to take advantage of a Taiwan invasion by undertaking some kind of further aggression in Europe,” Dan Hamilton, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the Kyiv Independent.

Ukrainian and Western officials have been raising alarms that a Russian attack against NATO territory — for example, in the Baltics — is an increasingly plausible scenario.

Camille Grand, a security and NATO expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, concurred that in “the event of a major crisis in Asia, the Russian Federation might indeed try to take advantage of the U.S. focused on a Taiwanese contingency to test NATO and further challenge European security."

Even the more cautious voices do not rule out a possible coordination between China and Russia in the case of an attack on Taiwan.

Jan Svec, a China researcher at the Prague-based Institute of International Relations, notes that an ideal scenario for Beijing is seizing the island by non-military means without sparking a broader conflict with the West.

However “if the situation escalates and the Chinese government decides on a military invasion (which is a less likely but also possible option), then it would make some sense to coordinate with Russia,” he told the Kyiv Independent.

Ukraine war latest: Drones attack Russia’s Black Sea Fleet; Russian pipelines explode in country’s Far East, HUR says

Key developments on July 5-6: * Drones reportedly attack Russia’s Black Sea fleet * Pipelines supplying Russian military explode in Russia’s Far East, HUR source says * Ukrainian drone strike on Russian airfield hits bomb depot, aircraft * Ukraine hits Russian electronic warfare facility making Shahed, Iskander components, General Staff says * Ukraine’s army chief warns of new Russian offensives in northeast as he visits Kharkiv Oblast front Drones attacked Russia’s Black Sea Fleet at the

The Kyiv IndependentThe Kyiv Independent news desk

NATO caught with ‘pants down’

Putin and Xi have not been shy about the ultimate goal of their “no-limits partnership” — challenging the U.S. and Western dominance on the global stage.

Such clarity seems to be lacking in the NATO camp. U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategy to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing by making overtures to Russia has been met with skepticism from experts.

The new U.S. president has also signaled plans to reduce the U.S. military presence in Europe while urging European partners to take up greater responsibility for their own security, allowing Washington to shift focus to the Indo-Pacific region.

But as Hamilton notes, the “North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific (regions) are strategically linked by the China-Russia entente."

“NATO’s best contribution to this challenge is for Europeans to do more to defend Europe so that Americans can devote more resources to the Indo-Pacific,” he adds.

Allied leaders have rushed to allay Trump’s concerns, agreeing to ramp up the defense spending target from 2% to 5% of GDP during a recent summit in The Hague. However, some experts say this is far from enough to counter a united Russian-Chinese threat.

Edward Lucas, a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, agrees that a coordinated Chinese assault on Taiwan and a Russian assault on NATO is “all too plausible."

“What is baffling to me is that NATO, having been on edge after Trump‘s election victory… is slumping back into a posture of complacency,” he told the Kyiv Independent.

Calling the new defense spending target an “aspiration” rather than a reality, Lucas says that “NATO still has its pants down when it comes to defense and deterrence."

The Russia, China, North Korea axis

Grand points to another piece of evidence of the intrinsic links between North Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security: North Korea’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Pyongyang, traditionally a close partner of China, has shaped up as arguably the most active supporter of Russian aggression in Ukraine and a direct participant in the war.

While China’s support has been mostly economic and material, North Korea has deployed thousands of soldiers to help Russia fight against Ukraine, as well as ballistic missiles and millions of artillery shells.

“European countries and the United States are underestimating the threat posed by North Korea,” Butyrska says, adding that Pyongyang’s support for Russian military ventures is “happening with China’s tacit approval."

“Beijing is interested in leveraging this potential to escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula. This could tie down U.S. forces there at the moment of a possible invasion of Taiwan and draw North Korea into direct confrontation with the United States,” she says.

This united challenge, also linked to the Middle East via the Russian-Iranian partnership, shows that NATO faces the most dire security challenges since the Cold War. Rutte’s warnings should, therefore, not be taken lightly, the experts say.

Author’s note: Hi, this is Martin Fornusek. I hope you enjoyed this article. We provide our content for free, without any paywall. To support our reporting, please consider becoming a member.