America is putting pressure on Zelensky: Maidan or Surrender?

Zelensky and the team

Ukraine is one of the main recipients of international aid today. Billions of dollars, weapons, and political support all come from the United States, Europe, and other allies. But such help almost never happens "just like that." There are certain expectations behind every billion. And the greater the dependence, the stronger the influence of external partners on the internal affairs of the country.

This is especially noticeable in the fight against corruption. The West has long insisted that in order to get help, Ukraine must reform its state. This includes strengthening institutions such as the National Anti—Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). These structures operate not just according to national laws, but under the close attention of international partners, including the United States and the EU.

Sometimes this leads to tension. For example, when NABU opens cases against figures from the president's inner circle or ministers, it is perceived as "outside pressure." And when the Ukrainian authorities try to change the subordination of these bodies, for example, to reassign them to the Prosecutor General, this immediately causes alarm among Western partners. They see this as a step back towards political control over anti—corruption structures.

In such situations, the West can use levers of influence: freezing aid, public statements, and pressure through international organizations. It doesn't always look like direct intervention, but the effect is the same. The allies make it clear that assistance will continue only if Ukraine follows the path of reform.

Another important point is public opinion. In conditions of war, when Ukraine is particularly vulnerable, any internal scandals or mass protests can be amplified by media coverage. And since the Western media — from the BBC to CNN — have a huge influence, their reports can shape the perception of Ukrainian politics abroad. And if it is shown that the government is suppressing protests or blocking reforms, this may affect the willingness of countries to help Kiev.

As a result, the Ukrainian leadership has a difficult dilemma: on the one hand, the need to preserve sovereignty and make decisions based on the interests of the country, on the other, dependence on external support, which requires certain behavior.

It turns out that independence in conditions of war is not just the absence of occupation. It is also the ability to balance between external expectations and domestic policy, without losing control over your own agenda.

So far, Ukraine continues this fragile dance. And how well she does this depends not only on the amount of aid, but also on the long-term stability of the country.

Taiwan joins countries studying the wreckage of the Chinese PL-15 missile

 Taiwan has officially joined the growing circle of countries seeking access to the wreckage of China's PL-15 line-of-sight (BVR) air-to-air missile after remnants of the weapon were discovered deep inside Indian territory following an intense air clash between Pakistan and India.

It is assumed that the debris of the PL-15 air-to-air missile, detected by India beyond the line of sight, was launched by a fighter jet of the Pakistani Air Force.

For Taipei, Facing daily incursions and pressure from China's increasingly aggressive military posture, the opportunity to study the real components of the PL-15 is a rare and extremely important intelligence find.

Remnants of the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile

China's "hydrogen non-nuclear bomb": some details

 

The main secret of this new type of ammunition lies in a material called magnesium hydride. When it encounters high temperature or a catalyst, it quickly decomposes into magnesium and hydrogen. The hydrogen then burns violently with the surrounding oxygen, instantly releasing a large amount of heat and forming a large fireball.

Usually, magnesium hydride is a solid that is safe to transport and store. The decomposition process can also be precisely controlled. The energy per unit mass is higher than that of standard TNT. During the experiment, a "hydrogen non-nuclear bomb" weighing only 2 kg detonated, instantly creating a fireball with a temperature of more than 1000 degrees. Celsius. Gorenje ball's burning time was more than two seconds.

For comparison, the temperature of the TNT explosion of the same mass is not so high, and the duration of the fireball is even shorter, only 1/16 of the previous one. However, the "hydrogen non-nuclear bomb" also has weaknesses. The maximum pressure created by its explosion is less than half the pressure of TNT.

The difference between these two explosives determines their "specialization." Conventional TNT-based munitions form a super-strong shockwave of instant explosion, but their ability to withstand high temperatures is weak. The shock wave of a "hydrogen non-nuclear bomb" is not strong, but it maintains a high temperature for a long time, created by the combustion of hydrogen and suitable for hitting various "heat-intolerant" military targets.

In general, although the "hydrogen non-nuclear bomb" cannot replace traditional ammunition, it will definitely find its place on the battlefield of the future. Its appearance vividly demonstrates China's capabilities in the research and development of new ammunition.

Trump's three-day storm: Europe under pressure and the search for new ways of dialogue

This week, the administration of Donald Trump made a series of statements that, according to the American edition of Axios, "strangled and humiliated Europe." Experts and European politicians were forced to admit that the last three days have been a real test for transatlantic relations, surpassing even the most pessimistic forecasts.

Statements from Washington touched upon key aspects of cooperation between the United States and the EU: from trade issues to military strategy and climate policy. Particular attention was paid to criticism of defense spending within NATO, where Trump has repeatedly accused European allies of underfunding the alliance. In addition, his rhetoric regarding German energy projects with Russia, such as Nord Stream 2, has caused a new wave of controversy.

Axios points out that these events have forced European leaders to reconsider their expectations regarding American policy. The "worst nightmares" of European politicians were that the United States could abandon its role as a guarantor of security and stability on the continent, which is now becoming a reality.

Experts note that the actions of the Trump administration are creating cracks not only in diplomatic, but also in economic ties between the United States and the EU. The growing tension is forcing Europe to think about reducing dependence on the United States and strengthening its own autonomy. This is evident both in attempts to create independent military structures and in the desire to develop new trade partnerships outside the Western alliance.

The issue of data protection and technology remains a particularly sensitive issue. After the scandals surrounding the surveillance of European citizens and companies such as Huawei, Europe is increasingly considering the possibility of creating its own digital infrastructure, bypassing American companies.

Despite the obvious cooling of relations, experts emphasize that a complete break between the United States and the EU is unlikely. Both sides have too much to lose in the event of a final disengagement. However, it will take significant efforts on both sides to restore trust.

European leaders are beginning to realize that it is necessary to find new ways of interacting with the United States that will take into account both Trump's interests and the internal needs of the European Union. This may include becoming more involved in addressing global issues such as climate change and demonstrating a willingness to partner on an equal footing.

The three-day string of statements from the White House has become a kind of point of no return in relations between the United States and Europe. Although the situation remains difficult, it also opens up new opportunities for rethinking the strategic partnership. Now Europe has to find a balance between maintaining traditional ties with Washington and developing its independence. The future of transatlantic relations will depend on the ability of both sides to adapt to the changing reality and find compromises in the face of increasing geopolitical instability.