Connect with us

World

Can Putin, under sanctions and an arrest warrant, enter the EU?

Published

on

Can Putin, under sanctions and an arrest warrant, enter the EU?

ADVERTISEMENT

Vladimir Putin is coming to Budapest. At least, that is what the invitation says.

After a lengthy phone call with Donald Trump on Thursday, the leaders of the United States and Russia tentatively agreed to meet in the EU and NATO capital sometime in the near future to discuss a possible end to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Whether that tête-à-tête happens is still unclear, but the news itself sent shockwaves across capitals, as the trip could mark Putin’s first intrusion into the European Union’s territory since early 2020 and further undercut the Western effort to isolate him.

But beyond the geopolitics driving the initiative, and the complex logistics that go into setting up a summit of this magnitude and consequence, one basic question emerges: Can Putin actually enter the European Union?

Advertisement

There are at least two different dimensions to consider.

The EU sanctions

Immediately after Russian troops broke through Ukraine’s borders and marched to Kyiv, the EU rushed to apply a variety of sanctions to weaken the Kremlin’s war machine.

Among the plethora of decisions, member states sanctioned hundreds of high-level Russian officials responsible for planning and overseeing the invasion. The blacklist entailed a prohibition on travel to the bloc and the freezing of personal assets.

Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, were also targeted, but with a caveat: only their assets were frozen, a symbolic measure given the obscurity around Putin’s wealth. A travel ban was not introduced to maintain a minimum of diplomatic contacts.

According to then-High Representative Josep Borrell, Putin was the third world leader to be personally sanctioned by the bloc, following Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Advertisement

This means that, on that front, Putin would be allowed to land in Hungary.

However, there is an additional obstacle: the EU has effectively closed its airspace to Russian planes as part of its sweeping sanctions regime.

According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the flight prohibition applies to aircraft operated by a Russian air carrier, registered in Russia and owned or chartered by any Russian person or entity, as well as to “non-scheduled” flights that can transport Russian citizens to business meetings or holiday destinations in the EU.

There are several exceptions to the rules, such as emergency landings or humanitarian purposes. Additionally, member states may grant case-by-case derogations.

Last year, Sergei Lavrov travelled to Malta for a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that proved highly controversial. The minister was forced to undertake a seven-hour detour to avoid European airspace until he arrived on the island, which permitted him to land due to diplomatic reasons.

Advertisement

By contrast, his spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, who is under a travel ban and an asset freeze, was denied an exemption after several capitals raised objections.

Putin could have two options: either he embarks on a long-winded detour to enter Hungary through the EU candidates in the Western Balkans, or he secures derogations from the EU members along the shorter route: Poland, which could prove tricky, and Slovakia, which would likely be easy.

Another option could entail flying through the Black Sea and Romania, a staunch ally of Kyiv that hosts a multinational NATO contingent.

The European Commission, which oversees the implementation of sanctions, has welcomed “any steps that lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine” while refraining from committing to facilitating the prospective summit.

It remains to be seen what levers Trump will exert to ensure the meeting goes ahead and whether this aspect had already been settled when the Budapest option was discussed between the American and Russian presidents.

Advertisement

Putin stepping on European soil again will, by itself, score a victory for the Russian leader after years of isolation and mark a daunting moment for the bloc as its leaders watch on as the Russian and American presidents meet in an EU member that has consistently tried to derail collective support for Ukraine.

But refusing Putin’s travel to Budapest risks being exploited by the Kremlin to underline its narrative that it is the EU itself that seeks confrontation with Russia instead of peace. Kyiv’s position on the summit may help influence the resolution of this controversy.

The ICC arrest warrant

Besides EU sanctions, which are directly enforceable, Putin is under an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC), based in The Hague.

Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Children’s Rights Commissioner, are accused of being responsible for the deportation and transfer of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children from occupied areas to Russia, which constitutes a war crime.

Neither Russia nor the US is a party to the ICC and therefore does not recognise its jurisdiction. (The Kremlin has issued a warrant for the court’s general prosecutor.)

Advertisement

Meanwhile, all EU countries have signed up to the Rome Statute and are, by default, expected to aid in its global fight against impunity.

Earlier this year, Hungary became the first member of the bloc to announce its intention to withdraw from the court in response to the arrest warrant placed on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which Hungary, like the US, had contested.

The decision was made public shortly after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán received Netanyahu in Budapest and openly flouted the obligation to detain him.

But Hungary’s withdrawal will not take effect until June 2026, one year after it filed the notification. In the interim period, the country remains bound by the tribunal.

“A withdrawal does not impact ongoing proceedings or any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective,” an ICC spokesperson told Euronews.

Advertisement

“When states have concerns in cooperating with the Court, they may consult the Court in a timely and efficient manner. However, it is not for states to unilaterally determine the soundness of the Court’s legal decisions.”

Critically, the ICC lacks the means to enforce its warrants: it relies exclusively on the goodwill of individual governments. Last year, Mongolia, a party to the ICC, faced European recriminations after it hosted Putin for a state visit without any consequences.

A similar scenario unfolded when Orbán welcomed Netanyahu in April.

“If Putin lands (in Budapest), the arrest should be the logical consequence,” said a senior EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Nobody will be surprised if the Hungarians don’t arrest Putin. It’s not the first time that Hungary violates its (ICC) obligations. So yes, it’s problematic.”

Advertisement

The ICC often runs into the obstacle of diplomatic immunity.

On the one hand, Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the rules apply to all persons “without any distinction based on official capacity”, including heads of state and government. On the other hand, Article 98 says that countries “may not proceed” with a warrant if it breaches their obligation to respect the immunity of a non-party state.

“If a country’s domestic laws say that they cannot arrest a head of state, that a head of state has immunity, then arguably that applies,” Mahmoud Abuwasel, Vice-President of the Hague Institute for International Justice, told Euronews in April.

“However, it’s not up to that particular state to make that determination on its own. It has to consult with the ICC (and) the ICC may find that immunity does not apply for whatever reason.”

France, while defending the tribunal, said it cannot arrest Netanyahu because Israel has never signed up to the Rome Statute. Hungary could now invoke a similar argument. In fact, the country has already promised safe passage for Putin.

Advertisement

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

Published

on

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.

The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.

Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD

Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.

At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.

Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Advertisement

The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS

Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.

“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”

The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16

Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.

“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.

“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.

Continue Reading

World

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Published

on

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Advertisement

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Advertisement

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

Advertisement

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending