Berlin, December 15, 2025, will go down in history books as the day when Europe stopped being afraid and began to act

Towards a Just Peace: What the Berlin Joint Statement Means for Ukraine and Europe

On 15 December 2025, Europe’s political centre of gravity shifted to Berlin. There, a remarkable line-up of European leaders – including Chancellor Merz, Presidents Stubb, Macron, Costa, President von der Leyen, and Prime Ministers Kristersson, Frederiksen, Meloni, Schoof, Støre, Tusk and Starmer – issued a joint statement on Ukraine that could define the next phase of the war and the continent’s security architecture for decades to come.

At the heart of the declaration is a clear message: Ukraine’s security, sovereignty and prosperity are not only a moral imperative, but a core interest of Euro-Atlantic security. And for the first time, the United States and Europe are publicly aligning around a single framework for a just and lasting peace, centred on President Trump’s proposed plan and President Zelenskyy’s leadership.

---

A New Phase in the War – and in Diplomacy

The statement “welcomed significant progress” in President Trump’s efforts to secure peace in Ukraine and underlined the unusually close coordination between the US, Ukraine and European partners in recent weeks. It framed the moment as an opportunity:

• to end the active phase of the war,

• without sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty,

• and while strengthening, not weakening, European security.

The leaders stressed that any agreement must do more than simply “freeze” the conflict. It must create conditions that prevent future aggression, provide credible deterrence and embed Ukraine firmly within the Euro-Atlantic family.

There is also a notable political signal: European capitals are not passive observers of a Washington–Moscow negotiation. They are co-authors of the new security and economic framework that will surround whatever peace is agreed.

---

Security Guarantees on an Unprecedented Scale

At the core of the statement lies a robust set of security commitments. These go far beyond previous declarations of support:

1. An 800,000-strong Ukrainian peacetime army
   The leaders committed to support Ukraine in building and maintaining armed forces of up to 800,000 personnel in peacetime. This is an extraordinary number: it recognises that Ukraine, as a front-line state bordering Russia, will remain a key pillar of European defence, even once the guns fall silent.

   The aim is clear: Ukraine must never again be left vulnerable to a sudden assault.

2. A European-led “Multinational Force Ukraine”
   The statement announces plans for a European-led multinational force, composed of contributions from willing states under a “Coalition of the Willing” framework and supported by the US.
   Its tasks would include:

   • assisting in the regeneration and training of Ukrainian forces,

   • strengthening Ukraine’s air defence,

   • contributing to safer seas in the region,

   • and, crucially, operating inside Ukraine.

   While not described as a combat deployment, this force would embed European militaries and expertise into Ukraine’s defence ecosystem in a way that makes any future attack far more complex and risky for Russia.

3. A US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mission
   In parallel, the United States would lead an international ceasefire monitoring mechanism, with:

   • independent verification,

   • early warning of any renewed aggression,

   • and a structured deconfliction mechanism to manage escalatory risks.

   This is designed to avoid the failures of previous “frozen conflict” frameworks, where violations were frequent and consequences unclear.

4. Legally binding commitments in case of new aggression
   Perhaps the most consequential element is the pledge to pursue a legally binding commitment, subject to national procedures, to act if Ukraine is attacked again.

   The measures could include:

   • armed assistance,

   • intelligence and logistical support,

   • economic and diplomatic pressure.

   It stops short of full NATO Article 5 membership, but moves significantly closer to turning political promises into enforceable obligations.

---

The Economic Front: Recovery, Reconstruction and Justice

Security is only one pillar. The Berlin statement emphasises that Ukraine’s prosperity is equally vital for a durable peace.

European and US leaders commit to:

• Mobilise major resources for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, ensuring long-term investment rather than short-term aid.

• Support mutually beneficial trade agreements that tie Ukraine more closely to European and transatlantic markets.

• Acknowledge explicitly the need for Russia to compensate Ukraine for the damage inflicted.

In this context, the leaders highlight that Russian sovereign assets in the EU have been immobilised. While the statement does not spell out exact mechanisms, it signals a clear political intent: those assets are part of the financial toolbox for reconstruction and accountability.

The message is that Ukraine’s economic future should be European, modern and resilient, not dependent on the structures that left it vulnerable before 2014 and 2022.

---

Ukraine’s European Future

The joint statement includes an unambiguous line:

“Strongly support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.”

This is more than symbolic. EU accession is a long and demanding process, but political green lights at this level matter. They:

• reinforce the irreversibility of Ukraine’s westward trajectory;

• encourage reforms in governance, rule of law and anti-corruption;

• and build confidence among Ukrainians that their sacrifices lead to a concrete European future.

The leaders also underline a vital principle: international borders must not be changed by force. Decisions about territory, they affirm, belong to the people of Ukraine, once credible security guarantees are in place. In other words, any territorial questions that arise in negotiations cannot be imposed from outside and must ultimately be legitimised by Ukrainians themselves – potentially through consultation or referendum.

---

Supporting Zelenskyy’s Choices – and Ukraine’s Agency

Throughout the text, there is a careful balance. On the one hand, European and US leaders are shaping the framework and offering powerful guarantees. On the other, they stress that President Zelenskyy remains the primary decision-maker for Ukraine.

They “express their support for President Zelenskyy and agreed to support whatever decisions he ultimately makes on specific Ukrainian issues.” This framing:

• respects Ukraine’s agency as a sovereign nation;

• avoids the perception of any “deal over Ukraine’s head”;

• reassures Ukrainian society that its leadership will not be forced into concessions without consent.

At the same time, the statement acknowledges that some key issues will only be resolved in the final stages of negotiations, once the security and economic architecture is fully defined.

---

NATO, the EU and the Euro-Atlantic Order

Another important theme in the document is the need to protect the long-term security and unity of the Euro-Atlantic space. The leaders emphasise that any agreement:

• must be compatible with NATO’s role as the main provider of deterrence and defence in Europe;

• and that any elements involving the EU or NATO will be debated within those organisations, respecting their internal decision-making processes.

This is a reminder that the peace framework is not just about Ukraine and Russia. It will become part of the broader Euro-Atlantic order: how NATO positions itself, how the EU shapes its neighbourhood, and how Europe shares responsibilities with the United States.

---

Pressure on Russia – and an Open Door

The statement ends with a clear call to Moscow. It is now “incumbent upon Russia” to:

• show willingness to work towards a lasting peace by agreeing to the proposed plan;

• prove its commitment to end the war by accepting a ceasefire;

• and engage in genuine negotiations.

At the same time, the leaders pledge to increase pressure on Russia until it negotiates in earnest. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation and economic measures are therefore likely to continue, or even intensify, as part of the strategy.

Notably, the declaration “remains open for other countries to join”. This makes it not only an EU-US-Ukraine framework, but a potential anchor for a wider international coalition – including G7 members, regional partners and states from the Global South that have called for a just peace based on international law.

---

“Nothing Is Agreed Until Everything Is Agreed”

One phrase in the statement captures both the ambition and the caution of the current moment:

“As in any deal, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

This reminds all parties – and the world – that:

• there is still no final peace agreement;

• negotiations will be complex and politically sensitive;

• all the elements must fit together to create a stable equilibrium that ends the fighting and prevents a repeat of aggression.

Yet, taken as a whole, the Berlin joint statement represents the most comprehensive and coordinated outline to date of what a just and lasting peace for Ukraine could look like – one that protects sovereignty, embeds Ukraine in Europe, and reshapes the security architecture of an entire continent.

For Ukraine, it is a recognition that its struggle has changed Europe.
For Europe, it is a recognition that its future will be written, in part, in Kyiv.

Can Ukraine Legally Reclaim Its Nuclear Status?

In debates about Ukraine’s future, one question keeps resurfacing, quietly at first and then ever louder: could Ukraine ever re-enter the nuclear club? After the collapse of the security assurances that once underpinned its denuclearisation, the issue is no longer confined to fringe commentary. 

 

It now sits at the intersection of law and survival, of the NPT’s rules and a state’s right to exist. This article asks the hardest version of the question: can Ukraine legally reclaim a nuclear status, and what would such a decision mean for the world that once persuaded it to disarm?

Ukraine’s nuclear knot: how the 1990–1994 package built an architecture that broke in 2014 and 2022

1) The inheritance moment: a vast arsenal without a sovereign nuclear status

After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine found itself hosting one of the largest nuclear arsenals in Europe. In practice, this was an unprecedented status: warheads were on Ukrainian territory, but command-and-control, permissive action links, and much of the operational chain remained embedded in Soviet, then Russian, systems.

That starting point matters. Ukraine’s decisions in 1990–1994 were not made in a moral vacuum. They were made under hard power realities and intense external pressure to preserve the global non-proliferation regime.

2) Arms control first, then non-proliferation: START I and the Lisbon Protocol

The “denuclearisation of Ukraine” was folded into a broader US–Russian arms control logic. A key milestone was the Lisbon Protocol (23 May 1992), which aligned Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine with START I and anchored their trajectory towards non-nuclear status under the NPT framework.

The political meaning of Lisbon was straightforward: “we lock in a legal pathway through which post-Soviet republics exit the nuclear category”.

3) The 1994 trilateral bargain: warheads exchanged for compensation and assurances

When negotiations stalled, a US–Ukraine–Russia trilateral format emerged. The Trilateral Statement of 14 January 1994 reflected the core bargain: Ukraine would transfer warheads for dismantlement; in return, the package encompassed compensation mechanisms (including nuclear fuel arrangements) and the provision of security-related assurances.

This was not a romantic story of disarmament for peace. It was a transaction: Ukraine relinquished a strategic asset; in exchange it received a mix of technical-financial arrangements and political “insurance”.

4) The NPT: not a security guarantee, but a legal self-restraint regime

This element is often misunderstood. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is not a collective defence instrument. It is a status treaty:

• non-nuclear-weapon states undertake not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons;
• nuclear-weapon states undertake not to transfer them;
• the system relies on verification and the political cost of breach.

Ukraine acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state and entered the IAEA safeguards system. That is not a memorandum of polite promises; it is an institutionalised verification regime.

5) The Budapest Memorandum: the bridging document between disarmament and assurances

The Budapest Memorandum (5 December 1994) became the public symbol of the deal: Ukraine joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state and surrendered the inherited arsenal; in return, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia provided security assurances (not “guarantees” in the sense of a mutual-defence treaty).

Two structural weaknesses were effectively treated as acceptable at the time:

1. No enforcement mechanism. There is no automaticity, no Article 5, no pre-defined package of actions triggered by aggression.

2. Constructive ambiguity. The language supports political invocation of obligations, while leaving substantial room for legal interpretation. Many analysts consider this the memorandum’s original vulnerability.

“If assurances are breached, does that mean nothing applies?” What treaty law actually says

Andrii Azarov. How to get through a crisis with minimal losses and build a crisis-resilient business

Andrii Azarov, Founder of the GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE international consortium (global-alliance.biz), entrepreneur with 35 years of experience, managing 40+ companies, organisations and projects; Chairman of the Higher Council of the European Association of Business Development.

Why the world keeps entering “new crises”

Over the last decade, the global economy has been living in a near-permanent stress test: financial shocks, political turbulence, economic downturns, pandemics, supply-chain disruptions, currency volatility, constant wars, energy price swings, high inflation and rising interest rates. These crises look different on the surface, but inside the business they trigger the same chain reaction: 

• demand falls or becomes unpredictable
• costs rise (or cash flow collapses)
• credit tightens
• partners break commitments
• the workforce becomes anxious
• decision-making speed becomes more valuable than “perfect plans” 

The anti-crisis methods are largely the same, regardless of whether the trigger is a pandemic, a financial crisis, a political crisis or a broader economic recession: protect liquidity, stabilise operations, renegotiate obligations, reduce complexity, pivot to what is in demand, and build partnerships that increase resilience.

Practical advice for the future (from my 35-year playbook)

If you want your company to survive not just one crisis, but many, treat resilience as a management system:

1. Build a cash buffer as a strategic asset, not “unused money”.

2. Keep your business model modular: products, teams, suppliers and channels should be easy to scale down and rebuild.

3. Diversify revenue streams: at least 2–3 independent sources, ideally in different customer segments or geographies.

4. Make “remote-first readiness” a standard (sales, service delivery, support, HR, finance).

5. Run scenario planning quarterly: base case, stress case, and worst case; with pre-approved actions for each.

6. Treat partnerships, clusters and consortia as an instrument of survival and growth, not just “networking”.

My recommendations for entrepreneurs for the first month of a crisis (and the months after)

Zaluzhnyi: “Our allies must deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a security guarantee.”

Nuclear Shadows Over Ukraine: From the Budapest Memorandum to Calls for Allied Deterrence

When Valerii Zaluzhnyi publicly argued that Ukraine’s allies should deploy nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory as a security guarantee, it was not just a provocative soundbite. It was the latest expression of a long, painful story: a country that once held one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, gave it up under pressure and promises — and was then invaded by one of the guarantors.

To understand why such a statement can now be voiced by a senior Ukrainian statesman, we have to go back to the early 1990s.

Ukraine: Once the World’s Third-Largest Nuclear Power

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine did not start its independent life as a “normal” non-nuclear state. It suddenly found itself sitting on a huge part of the Soviet strategic arsenal:

• Around 130 UR-100N (SS-19) ICBMs with six warheads each

• 46 RT-23 Molodets (SS-24) ICBMs with ten warheads each

• 33 heavy bombers capable of carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles

• In total, roughly 1,700 nuclear warheads on its territory

That made Ukraine, the third-largest nuclear power in the world, behind only russia and the United States. It held about one-third of the former Soviet strategic arsenal.

Sanctions Knockout: What the Blocking of Wise and Revolut Cards Means for Russians

The international payment service Wise has begun blocking cards issued to users from Russia and Belarus. The move follows the 19th package of European Union sanctions and further cuts many Russians and Belarusians off from global financial services. Customers are already receiving notifications that their cards will be disabled unless they confirm that they are citizens or legal residents of a country in the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland.

What has Wise changed for its users

The restrictions cover both physical and virtual Wise cards linked to accounts held by Russian or Belarusian citizens, as well as by people who live in Russia. For these users, card functionality is being switched off. They can no longer pay in shops or online with their Wise card. They cannot withdraw cash from ATMs. They also lose the option to rely on the card to top up their balance, pay for digital subscriptions or cover everyday expenses abroad.

“Education is not only about knowledge, but about creating strong personalities” — Dr. Olga Azarova

Trend: Shift from knowledge-based learning to competency-based learning.

International Education Network MINIBOSS BUSINESS SCHOOL is the world’s № 1 brand in business education for kids and teens. For more than two decades, it has pioneered a new educational model that develops entrepreneurial, emotional, creative, and leadership skills in children aged 6–17, preparing them for success in the global economy.

“Education is not only about knowledge; it is about creating strong personalities who can lead, innovate, and transform society.” — Dr. Olga Azarova, Founder of MINIBOSS Business School

Curriculum Design: From Knowledge to Competence

Unlike traditional schooling, the MINIBOSS Curriculum is intentionally designed to balance theoretical learning with practical application. A curriculum map outlines a year-long scope and sequence, ensuring both structure and incremental personality development.

Dr. Olga Azarova emphasises:

“Intentional design must always come before systematic documentation. First, we build a model that works for the child’s full potential — only then do we formalise it.”

Main Problems of General Education and How MINIBOSS Provides Solutions

1. Outdated Knowledge, Irrelevant to Real Life

• Mass Education Today: Reliance on memorisation and obsolete theory.
• Parent Demand: Future-oriented skills: financial literacy, entrepreneurship, creativity.
• MINIBOSS Solution: Curriculum based on 8Qs; courses in entrepreneurship, finance, leadership, innovation, and AI; real startup creation and market testing.

2. Lack of Soft Skills & Emotional Intelligence

• Mass Education Today: Focus only on IQ.
• Parent Demand: Development of EQ, teamwork, leadership, and communication.
• MINIBOSS Solution: Team projects, startup creation, public speaking at Startup Forums, and emotional intelligence training.

3. Absence of Entrepreneurial Thinking & Financial Education

• Mass Education Today: Students leave school without financial literacy or entrepreneurial mindset.
• Parent Demand: Financial and business literacy from early age.
• MINIBOSS Solution: Financial literacy from age 6; training in money management, investment, and startup acceleration.

4. Passive Learning, No Engagement

• Mass Education Today: Teacher-centred lectures dominate.
• Parent Demand: Active, project-based learning.
• MINIBOSS Solution: Special teacher trainings, faculty development, simulations, role-plays, gamification, and experiential learning through startup building.

5. No Global Networking or Cross-Cultural Competence

• Mass Education Today: Localised, limited exposure to global perspectives.
• Parent Demand: Global readiness.
• MINIBOSS Solution: International networking via Startup World Cup Championship and Global Business Week, fostering cross-cultural communication.

6. Lack of Career Connection

Mass Education Today: Students graduate unprepared for professional life.
Parent Demand: Early career guidance, mentorship, and real experience.
MINIBOSS Solution: Startup Incubator, mentorship, career orientation embedded in every programme, and real-world project portfolios.