Political and military highlights of the past 24 hours. A test for allies amid the “silence”

1. Kyiv was hit by ballistic missiles twice overnight. Buildings belonging to the State University of Trade and Economics, a student dormitory, residential buildings, a metro station, and two medical facilities were damaged. A missile struck the Southern Bridge, which connects metro stations on the right and left banks of Kyiv. Traffic on the bridge has been suspended.

The strike on the capital’s infrastructure, which is unrelated to military facilities, is a continuation of moscow’s strategy of psychologically and economically exhausting the Ukrainian people amid the military stalemate between the russian federation and Ukraine in Donbas. The restrictions on traffic across the Southern Bridge and the division of the green metro line into two isolated sections demonstrate that a single missile can paralyze transport links between the banks of the Dnipro River for several days. Accordingly, the enemy will intensify such strikes.

The pontoon crossings that have begun to be built in Kyiv look like nothing more than a money-laundering scheme, since they are being constructed in open areas and will have no protection whatsoever. They should be built directly beneath bridges so that the bridge structures themselves can protect them from missiles.

2. Zelensky publicly stated that Ukraine has been waiting for almost a month for U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to sign the authorization to transfer missiles for Patriot and NASAMS systems.

Zelensky’s public statement, made against the backdrop of deaths and destruction in Kyiv, effectively accuses the U.S. Secretary of Defense of aiding and abetting russian strikes. This is one of Kyiv’s ways of pressuring the White House ahead of the congressional midterm elections in an effort to obtain the weapons it needs. Clearly, Hegseth is acting with his president’s authorization. But putting pressure on Trump is dangerous, while making Hegseth a “scapegoat” could even be a kind of favor to Trump if the Republicans lose their congressional majority. This tactic makes it possible to pressure the White House without entering into direct conflict with its occupant. If only it were always this way: it is Hegseth, not Trump; Bessent, not Trump…

3. At 3:00 a.m. on October 27, a local ceasefire came into effect in the area of occupied Oleshky in the Kherson oblast to facilitate a humanitarian operation. The agreement provides for three steps: a ceasefire, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and the safe passage of civilians out of the area. U.S. First Lady Melania Trump is facilitating and coordinating the operation.

This is the first humanitarian operation in a long time to have been agreed with moscow in occupied territory. Success would establish a workable precedent for local agreements that could be replicated in other settlements. However, there is no reason to be deluded by moscow’s “humanitarianism”. Given Melania Trump’s involvement, this operation is not about saving lives but about improving the image of Trump and the Republican Party ahead of the congressional midterm elections, whose success putin has an interest in.

We shall see which direction the russian federation opens an evacuation corridor toward. It may clear mines only along the route leading to territories it occupies, turning a trilateral humanitarian operation into a propaganda story about rescuing local residents from a Ukrainian blockade.

4. On October 26, Defense Minister Yevhen Khmara appealed to the defense ministries of the E5 countries—Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, and Italy—asking them to transfer 10% of their existing stocks of interceptor missiles to Ukraine. The proposed arrangement involves an exchange: the partners would hand over missiles from their current stockpiles now, while Ukraine would transfer to them future deliveries from the United States that have already been contracted using an EU loan.

The request for 10% of their stocks is a test of alliance solidarity. An exchange of “now for later” is legally acceptable but politically difficult: European governments risk reducing their armies’ combat readiness amid approaching elections and hybrid attacks on their own territories. Yet this very test will show whether European capitals view the russian federation’s war against Ukraine as a local conflict or understand that russia is waging war in Ukraine against Europe, with U.S. support. The EU cannot defend itself against russia and the United States using only Ukrainian hands, without taking risks itself. If the E5 countries refuse, Kyiv will have to take a more realistic view of its relations with the European Union and factor this into its strategy for resisting russia and negotiating with it. This test looks particularly intriguing against the backdrop of Peskov’s statement that moscow is ready to discuss the territorial issue with Kyiv, but only “in silence”. European capitals must calculate whether Ukraine’s forced concessions to putin, caused by its inability to defend its own airspace, would benefit them, and what risks this would entail for them.

5. The High Anti-Corruption Court partially granted MP Yuliia Tymoshenko’s motion and reduced bail in the case concerning the bribery of MPs by a factor of 125—from UAH 33.28 million to UAH 266,240—agreeing with the defense that the procedural risks had diminished.

The HACC acknowledged that the prosecution’s pressure on a figure of such political stature no longer required extraordinary measures, even though nothing has changed radically—not in the country, not in the Verkhovna Rada, and not for Tymoshenko. This is a clear sign that the authorities are stepping up political arrangements with smaller political forces in anticipation of possible coalition agreements following potential elections.

6. The UN Independent International Commission presented a report to the General Assembly in which it classified attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for the first time not only as war crimes involving intentional attacks on civilian objects, but also as crimes against humanity. Commission Chair Erik Møse stressed that the destruction of energy infrastructure had threatened the lives of hospital patients, elderly people, and other vulnerable groups.

The UN report shifts attacks on energy infrastructure from the humanitarian sphere into the legal realm: the classification of these acts as “crimes against humanity” removes the argument that the facilities have a “dual use” and broadens the basis for future reparation claims. However, the UN Commission’s report is not yet a ruling by the International Criminal Court. In other words, it may have positive political consequences for Ukraine, but for now, it has no legal or sanctions-related implications.

By Serhii Harmash, editor-in-chief of OstroV