The threat of large-scale reformatting is growing in the Government of Ukraine.
According to data from the Parliament, 150 signatures have already been collected to initiate the resignation of the current Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal. Initially, the process was initiated by the ex-speaker of the parliament, MP Dmytro Razumkov, which caused a negative reaction from the President's Office - not so much because of the very idea of resignation, but because of Razumkov's attempt to seize the initiative and political capital.
According to a number of sources, the change of government is being discussed at a serious level. At the same time, there is a legal discussion: part of the President's entourage claims that the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers during martial law is impossible, since this will lead to the termination of his powers, which allegedly contradicts Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on the legal regime of martial law. However, another part believes that this interpretation is incorrect, and the government can be reformatted without violating the law.
The political reason for the possible resignation is a sharp drop in the ratings of the Cabinet of Ministers. Trust in the Government (according to KIIS at the beginning of 2025) fell to 20% (from 26% in December 2023), 53% of respondents do not trust the government (in December 2023 - 44%). The balance of trust over the past year has decreased from -18% to -33%. This makes the government politically toxic and threatens to redistribute anti-ratings to the president himself.
Personnel changes in the Government can be perceived as a way to relieve public tension and show a sign of renewal in the absence of elections and limited political competition. Also, the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers can become a platform for renewing negotiations with both Western partners and domestic elites.
As the most likely successor to D.Shmyhal, Yulia Svyrydenko, the First Deputy Prime Minister, who has the support of the Office of the President and personally Volodymyr Zelensky, is considered. Sources also point to a possible personnel reshuffle in the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy and others, as well as the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister.According to NABU and SAPO, in 2021-2022, he allegedly contributed to the sale of Kyiv land plots at a fivefold lower price, which caused damage to the budget in the amount of about UAH 1 billion, and also received undeclared discounts on housing in the amount of more than UAH 14 million. On June 23, 2025, Chernyshov was handed an official suspicion, he himself returned from a business trip abroad and announced his readiness to cooperate with the investigation. The trial on the election of a preventive measure was postponed until the end of June, and the case became part of a broader discussion about a possible personnel restructuring in the Government.
At the same time, criticism of the head of the Office of the President Andriy Yermak has intensified in the Western press. In particular, Politico published an article emphasizing his unpopularity in the United States. This may indicate a deliberate campaign aimed at preparing the conditions for his possible resignation in the future.
If these plans are implemented, Ukraine may experience the most large-scale personnel restructuring since the beginning of the full-scale war.
Appointment of a new Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
On June 17, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine supported the candidacy of Ruslan Kravchenko for the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine by a majority of votes.273 MPs voted for his appointment, 5 voted against, 23 abstained, and another 20 deputies were not present at the meeting. It is noteworthy that the monomajority could not appoint the Prosecutor General on its own: the Servant of the People faction gave only 190 votes (out of the required 226). The rest of the votes were provided by representatives of Batkivshchyna – 17, For the Future – 12, Dovira – 18, as well as individual deputies who were previously members of the Platform for Life and Peace – 14, "Restoration of Ukraine" - 12, non-factional - 10. "European Solidarity" and "Holos" did not give a single vote in favor.
The situation once again confirms that the mono-majority can no longer independently make all decisions without the support of other factions. To make key decisions, the Servant of the People already regularly attracts the support of other political forces, which indicates a decrease in its independent power in the Parliament.
After his appointment, Kravchenko said that he would focus on the fight against corruption, coordination of law enforcement agencies, control over budget funds, protection of business rights and the inevitability of punishment for war crimes.
This is the 4th Prosecutor General under President Vladimir Zelensky. The previous one (A. Kostin) was fired in October 2024, and the country lived without a full-fledged head of the Prosecutor General's Office for more than six months. Ruslan Kravchenko is the youngest Prosecutor General in the history of Ukraine, he is 35 years old. Previously, he worked as an investigator in the Sevastopol Prosecutor's Office, then in the Military Prosecutor's Office. He was the chief prosecutor in the case of treason against Viktor Yanukovych in 2017 - it was this case that made his name famous.
Later, he headed the Bucha District Prosecutor's Office and investigated the tragedy in Bucha - the mass death of civilians after the Russian occupation. After that, his ties with the Office of the President have noticeably strengthened. Then he was appointed head of the Kyiv Regional Military Administration and began to actively appear on the air of the national telethon.
In particular, there was the story of the apartment, described in the investigations of the Bihus.Info. In addition, in 2022, the integrity commission did not support his candidacy for the post of head of NABU, despite the fact that he scored the highest points according to the test results.
Kravchenko is the first person from the prosecutor's system in a long time to become the Prosecutor General. After the times of Viktor Shokin and Poroshenko's cadences, there were representatives of various spheres in this post, but not classic prosecutors.
The appointment of Kravchenko has a political logic. Recently, criminal cases against Petro Poroshenko have intensified, and he is an incumbent MP. Suspicions and sanctions against MPs are signed exclusively by the Prosecutor General or a person acting in his capacity . In particular, former Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka, according to rumors, refused to sign Poroshenko's suspicions. It is believed that Kravchenko, who went through the case of Yanukovych, "will not tremble", and, if necessary, he can imprison the second ex-president of Ukraine. In addition, the Prosecutor General's Office actively manages cases, distributing jurisdiction among the various investigative bodies and formulating charges in the courts. That is, the appointment of a new prosecutor may be associated with the strengthening of internal political processes, including the fight against Petro Poroshenko.
Massive shelling of Ukraine.
From June 17 to June 25, 2025, the intensity of Russian attacks on Ukraine remained high, but there were certain fluctuations in the number of means used and tactics used and military facilities of Ukraine. In general, we can note an increase in civilian casualties. The shelling affects both defense and civilian facilities, including residential buildings, schools, hospitals and transport hubs. This dynamic indicates, among other things, increased pressure on Ukraine's internal stability.
On the night of June 17, 2025 , a massive missile and drone strike was carried out on Kyiv, as a result of which the entrance of a nine-story residential building in the Solomianskyi district of the capital completely collapsed, which led to the death of 28 people and injuries to more than 130. About 440 attack drones were fired at the capital, of which about 280 were Shahed-type drones, as well as 32 missiles, including 16 Kh-101 cruise missiles and at least two Kinzhal ballistic missiles. The air raid alert lasted about 9 hours, from the evening of June 16 to 6 am on June 17. In Kyiv, 27 locations were damaged, including residential buildings, kindergartens, a dormitory of the Kyiv Aviation Institute, and critical infrastructure facilities. Air defense shot down most of the missiles and drones: out of 16 Kh-101 cruise missiles, 15 were shot down, two Kinzhal missiles did not reach their targets, out of hundreds of drones, most were destroyed or suppressed by electronic warfare systems. As a result of the attack, there were power outages and numerous fires in the city. In Odessa, the blow fell on a residential area in the historical part of the city, 2 people were killed, 26 were injured. In Zaporizhzhia, 4 strikes were recorded, a multi-storey building, a dormitory and garages were damaged. Attacks were also recorded in Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and other regions. In total, about 472 air attack weapons were fired at Ukraine, including Shahed drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, guided aircraft missiles and anti-radar missiles.
On June 23, Russia fired 352 combat drones and 16 missiles at Ukraine, mainly at Kyiv and nearby regions. The attacks differed in scale and the combination of drones with ballistic and cruise missiles, the main blow fell on Kyiv and the Kyiv region with serious destruction and casualties. According to official data, at least 10 people were killed, about 34 were injured. In the Shevchenkivskyi district, a rocket hit a five-story residential building, piercing it through to the basement. As a result, the whole entrance collapsed. As a result of the attack, residential buildings, university buildings, metro facilities and social infrastructure were damaged.
On June 24, massive ballistic strikes hit the cities of Dnipro and the city of Samar, where up to 19 people were killed and about 300 were injured. About 97 Shahed attack drones and simulators were recorded. 78 UAVs were neutralized (63 were shot down by firepower, 15 were suppressed by electronic warfare). In the city of Dnipro, ballistic shelling: 9 dead, more than 100 wounded, residential buildings, schools, a hospital, a clinic, and the Odessa-Zaporizhzhia train were damaged. (Dnipropetrovsk region) – 2 dead, 11 wounded. In Kharkiv, there were several hits, including in the Nemyshlyansky district, a fire, and 1 victim. In Zaporizhzhia and other regions, drone and missile attacks were also recorded.
On June 25, the attacks continued: On the night of June 25, 71 Shahed attack UAVs and simulators were launched. 52 UAVs were destroyed (32 were shot down by firepower, 20 were suppressed by electronic warfare). Hits in 6 locations in the Odesa, Sumy and Kharkiv regions. In Kharkiv, a civilian object and a residential building were damaged, a fire broke out, 1 was injured.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy in public statements focused on the need to strengthen international sanctions against the Russian Federation, especially in the energy sector, as well as on the urgent modernization and expansion of air defense systems. He emphasizes that only strict isolation and strengthening of defense can contain escalation.
However, the reaction of Western partners to the latest shelling remains limited and mostly declarative. The restraint of the United States in responding to the massive shelling of Ukraine is largely due to its unwillingness to aggravate relations with the Russian Federation, especially in the context of the growing conflict in the Middle East. Washington seeks to avoid simultaneous escalation on two geopolitical fronts – in Eastern Europe and in the region, where the United States is already involved in a confrontation with Iran and its allies. In this context, increased pressure on Moscow, including additional sanctions or abrupt steps to increase assistance to Ukraine, could be perceived as a step towards direct confrontation, which threatens to go beyond a manageable crisis. The strategic restraint of the United States, in turn, reduces the motivation of European countries to take more active actions in support of Ukraine. In the absence of a decisive position from Washington, a number of NATO countries are showing caution in the rhetoric and volume of support for Ukraine.
Hostilities in Ukraine.
In the period from June 18 to June 25, 2025, Russian troops continue offensive operations on the territory of Ukraine. During this period, the Russian Federation seized another 100km2 of Ukrainian territory and now controls 113.535 km2. The main areas where active clashes are taking place include the eastern and southern fronts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, regions), as well as border areas (Sumy region).
In the Donetsk region, fighting continues in the area of the Pokrovsko-Myrnohrad agglomeration (active fighting is taking place in the area of the settlements of Udachne and the settlements of Novosergeevka), in the area of the cities of Chasiv Yar and the cities of Toretsk. To the south of the city of Konstantinovka, there is an advance in the area of the settlements: Romanovka - Leonidovka - Nelipovka, Novotoretskoye. Attempts to advance towards the city of Seversk continue.
In the Kharkiv region in the east, the Russian army is conducting offensive operations on the lines near Kupyansk and the Dvorichansk bridgehead (in the area of the settlements of Radkovka and the settlements of Golubivka), as well as in the area of the Oskol River (the settlements of Synkovka) with attempts to advance towards the cities of Kupyansk and the cities of Borovoy (the settlements of Novomykhailivka and the settlements of Grekovka).
In the Sumy region in northern Ukraine and as of June 25, 2025, they control - 208 km2. Russian troops are intensifying their offensive in the direction of the settlements of Yunakivka, Oleksiivka, Myropillia and Prokhody. The distance to the city of Sumy has been reduced to about 20 km, which poses a threat to the Ukrainian defence and active shelling of the surrounding area.
In the Zaporozhye region. The front line remains mostly static, but Russia is strengthening defensive structures and minefields. Positional battles are underway in the areas of the settlements of Lobkove, Kamenskoye, Rabotino and Verbovoye. The RF Armed Forces are trying to stabilize the front line and eliminate Ukrainian bridgeheads in the area of Orekhov and Piatykhatky in order to be able to advance in the direction of Zaporozhye.
Map of hostilities.
Donetsk region.
Sumy region.
NATO summit in The Hague.
On June 24-25, a NATO summit is being held in The Hague, which was also attended by President of Ukraine V. Zelensky. Formally, NATO countries continue to declare support for Ukraine, but the political level of this support at the summit is noticeably reduced. Ukraine is not invited to the official part of the summit, including the meetings of the heads of state and government. According to Western media reports, this decision was initiated by the Donald Trump administration, which seeks to prevent even symbolic steps that could be perceived as bringing Ukraine closer to NATO membership. where invited guests are allowed.
Following the NATO summit, the official declaration recorded a noticeable softening of rhetoric against the Russian Federation - the result of an attempt to preserve the unity of the Alliance against the backdrop of pressure from the Donald Trump administration. Member countries abandoned the usual wording of recent years, which directly indicated Russia's responsibility for aggression against Ukraine and proclaimed that "the future of Ukraine is in NATO." commitments to support Ukraine", as well as a promise to take into account direct contributions to Ukrainian defense and the defense industry when calculating national defense spending.
In particular, the final declaration of the 2025 summit in The Hague focuses on concrete support for Ukraine, rather than on the wording of membership. Unlike the 2024 statement, it omits phrases about the "irreversible path" to NATO (concession to dissenting allies). Instead, NATO countries in The Hague reaffirmed their continued assistance to Ukraine and even agreed that direct support for Ukraine's defense (including financing of its military industry) will be taken into account in each Ally's defence spending targets. "Allies reaffirm their continued sovereign commitment to support Ukraine, whose security contributes to our own, and to this end will include direct contributions to Ukraine's defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies' defence spending," the declaration says. This innovative commitment effectively links Ukraine's security to NATO's collective responsibilities, stressing that assistance to Ukraine is seen as strengthening the security of the NATO countries themselves.
The 2025 Hague Declaration characterises the threat from Russia as "long-term", presenting it as an enduring challenge to the Alliance. This wording, somewhat softer than the previous formulation of the "most direct threat", was combined with a historic promise: NATO members agreed to increase defence investment to 5% of GDP by 2035. Russia's continued aggression is explicitly cited as the main reason for this increase in spending, making it clear that Moscow's actions pose a long-term danger that requires long-term countermeasures. Unlike previous summits, the 2025 text did not make any mention of China as a security issue, reflecting a carefully balanced consensus. mutual assistance, even despite the participation of the new US administration, which indicates continuity in NATO's basic position in relation to Russian aggression.
At the same time, a phased increase in defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 was agreed, of which 3.5% will go to military needs, and 1.5% to infrastructure projects, including those that could potentially be used in the event of war. «... united in the face of deep security threats and challenges, in particular the long-term threat that Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security, as well as the ongoing threat of terrorism, Allies commit to ... invest 5% of GDP in basic defense needs by 2035..»
This arrangement was probably a compromise that allowed countries to formally achieve new goals without immediate budget redistribution, while appeasing the demands of the United States, whose new administration is demanding greater returns from allies. At the end of the summit, US President Donald Trump summed up the results of his participation, saying that he was leaving The Hague "a different person." He admitted that he had come to the summit "because he had to," but was impressed by the meetings with the leaders of NATO countries. "The love and passion they showed for their countries was incredible. I've never seen anything like it... They need the United States. And without us, everything will not be the same. It was really touching," he concluded.
The main event of the summit for Ukraine was the meeting of President of Ukraine V.Zelensky with US President Donald Trump. It took place after the main part of the NATO summit and the publication of the final statement, in which the countries of the Alliance reaffirmed their obligations to help Ukraine, including the inclusion of direct contributions to Ukrainian defense and the defense industry in the calculations of their defense spending.
The talks between Zelensky and Trump lasted about 45 minutes - significantly longer than planned by protocol. The President of Ukraine in his official statement called the conversation "long and meaningful", noting that the parties discussed "all really significant issues" - from ways to achieve a ceasefire and approach peace to the protection of Ukrainian citizens. "We appreciate the attention and willingness to help bring peace closer. Details later," he added.
According to President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, special attention was paid to the purchase of American air defense systems to protect cities, civilian infrastructure, religious facilities and critical energy networks. Ukraine is ready to purchase them at its own expense and with the participation of European partners, while proposing a format of joint production, in particular drones, which, according to the Ukrainian president, can strengthen both sides. the results of the negotiations of the technical teams in Istanbul, the exchange of prisoners and the bodies of the dead were discussed. V. Zelensky separately stressed that he reported to D. Trump on the situation at the front, saying: "Putin is definitely not winning."
The President of the United States, in turn, described the meeting somewhat differently. He said that he did not discuss the ceasefire with Zelensky directly, but wanted to "just find out how he was doing." At the same time, he called the meeting pleasant and noted that the Ukrainian leader "was very nice." According to D. Trump, he understood from the conversation that V. Zelensky "would like all this to end as soon as possible," and added: "I'm going to talk to Vladimir Putin and see if we can put an end to this. This is madness." He also stressed that V. Zelensky is "fighting bravely" and called what is happening "a tough battle."
At a separate briefing in The Hague, answering a question from a Ukrainian journalist, Trump commented on the possibility of supplying Ukraine with missiles for Patriot systems. He clarified that he understands the needs of Ukraine, but at the same time stressed that these missiles "are also needed by the United States and Israel themselves." Nevertheless, he expressed a desire to find a solution: "They want to get missiles for Patriot. We'll see. We need them too... Of course, they want them. That's a very good question. I want us to be able to provide them."
Nevertheless, the meeting can be interpreted as a confirmation of the White House's continued interest in the Ukrainian issue and the readiness of the United States to continue its controlled participation in the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on terms that correspond to the interests of both sides.
At the current stage, the prospects for relations between Ukraine and NATO largely depend entirely on the state of bilateral relations between Kiev and Washington.
Following the NATO summit in The Hague, US President Donald Trump did not achieve a formal financial breakthrough or an "explosive" increase in European investment in the military-industrial complex. However, he received two strategically important results for himself: a softened position of European countries and Ukraine in relation to his initiatives, as well as a political basis for starting negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The new declaration of the summit does not contain a formula on Ukraine's membership in NATO – the same formula that in previous years sounded like "the future of Ukraine is in NATO." Also, Russia is no longer mentioned among the "immediate threats" to the Alliance . A scenario in which Trump can turn to Putin with the words: "Look, I excluded the goal of Ukraine's membership in NATO, removed you from the list of threats - I began to fulfill my part of the deal. Now your step is a ceasefire," looks like a logical continuation of the current rhetoric.
Trump's position thus forms a new window for negotiations between the United States and Russia. The declaration of the NATO summit actually created preconditions that Moscow has repeatedly called its basic demands. And this may explain the restrained but satisfied tone of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who in public statements described the meeting with Donald Trump as "long and substantive," without going into details. He could be pleased that at least partial support is maintained and the dialogue remains open, even if on new terms.
The war between Israel and Iran.
Against the backdrop of the ongoing NATO summit, US President Donald Trump remains focused on the development of the Iran-Israel conflict, in which the United States is already involved militarily.
A fragile truce is now in place in the region from June 13 to 24 after a twelve-day two-day air conflict. According to U.S. President Donald Trump, the ceasefire came into effect on June 23-24 and is holding despite sporadic violations on both sides, with Israel and Iran accusing each other of early attacks after the truce was declared. their goal was to disrupt the enrichment program, but U.S. intelligence says the damage is temporary—a suspension for months, not the destruction of the project.
The United States under the leadership of D. Trump acted as a mediator of the truce, at the same time warning both sides: he personally called on Israel not to resume bombing, and Iran to stop missile strikes. American intelligence believes that the damage caused to Iran's nuclear program is temporary. At the same time, Trump said that the United States could launch new strikes if Iran resumes nuclear actions. maintaining a ceasefire, monitoring and readiness for further strikes if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons. Against this background, Iran supported the bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA.
In the long term, a protracted Middle East conflict is fraught with a decrease in the volume of military support for Kiev and an increase in the likelihood of behind-the-scenes agreements between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian issue.
The context of the events of the Iran-Israel war.
On the night of June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a massive airstrike on Iran. About 200 combat aircraft of the Israeli Air Force attacked nuclear infrastructure (including Natanz), ballistic missile bases, air defense facilities and command posts. Defeats were recorded in Tehran, Isfahan and other regions.
At the same time, Israeli intelligence (Mossad and AMAN) activated drones and explosive devices planted in advance in Iran near air defenses and command centers. Special forces remotely activated the planted charges, partially disabling the air defense system. It is reported that as a result of the operation, high-ranking Iranian officers gathered for the meeting were eliminated Tehranchi. The IDF announced the elimination of Generals Hossein Salami and Mohammad Bagheri.
The operation has drawn comparisons with the Ukrainian attack "Web" (June 1, 2025) on Russian airfields. Analysts suggest the presence of a common Western curator and information and intelligence support from the United States. Unlike in the case of Ukraine, in the case of Israel, Washington has provided open political and military support, including logistics and intelligence.
Already on June 13, Iran launched a retaliatory operation "True Promise 3" - hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones were launched into Israel. The conflict claimed dozens of lives in a matter of days and threatens to escalate into a protracted war.
The conflict reached a dangerous point in a few days, claiming dozens of lives and demonstrating to both sides the scale of possible damage. The war may become protracted.
The main reason for the conflict between Israel and Iran is the struggle for dominance in the Middle East. This is a strategic confrontation between the pro-Western bloc, which symbolically represents Israel, and the Muslim world, led by Iran. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states play a key role in the global distribution of oil and gas, and control over them means political influence.
The reason for the escalation in June 2025 was the Iranian nuclear program. Tehran refused to stop enriching uranium, and Israel, fearing that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons, switched to a military scenario. Two months before the strike, US President Donald Trump gave Iran 60 days to reach an agreement - Israel's operation began on the 61st day. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the strike preventive, saying that Iran was close to creating a nuclear bomb.
The rapid aggravation between Israel and Iran instantly caused a reaction from the world community. Most of the powers have publicly indicated their position - from harsh condemnation to support for one of the sides.
In general, international actors are divided as follows: Western countries (the United States, most of the EU) tend to justify Israel's actions by the need for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, while at the same time calling for an early truce. Russia, China and most of the Global South condemned the Israeli aggression, demanding respect for Iran's sovereignty. The Islamic world has almost unanimously supported Iran and demands that Israel be punished
The foreign ministers of 20 Arab and Islamic countries (including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Qatar, as well as Pakistan and Iran) signed a joint statement condemning Israel's actions, which violates the UN Charter, and contains a demand to resolve the conflict diplomatically. Even states that have recently improved relations with Israel (for example, the UAE and Bahrain among the participants in the Abraham Accords) were forced to sharply condemn the Israeli operation under pressure from domestic and general Islamic opinion. Turkey has been particularly harsh, calling the Israeli strike a "flagrant violation of international law" and accusing Israel of destabilizing the region. Saudi Arabia, which recently restored diplomatic relations with Iran, also expressed "strong condemnation of Israeli aggression" and stressed the illegality of the attacks.
Russia unequivocally condemned the Israeli strike, calling it an "atrocity" and a violation of the UN Charter. Moscow held intensive negotiations with both Jerusalem and Tehran, offering mediation and insisting on a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Kremlin is interested in a ceasefire: a protracted war distracts from other crises and threatens to destabilize the situation on its southern borders (especially since Iran is a strategic partner of Moscow). India, as a friend of both Israel and Iran, has taken a cautious neutral stance.
On the other hand, Israel's European allies have taken a restrained but rather pro-Israel stance. France and Germany said they understood Israel's motives and stressed that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. The UK called for de-escalation, but it was noted that with its support (and the United States), the Israelis managed to intercept some Iranian drones over Syria and Iraq.
The protracted nature of the conflict makes it strategically disadvantageous for Israel, since the risk of its military-economic exhaustion, diplomatic isolation and being drawn into a full-scale regional war increases.
U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly backed Israel and demanded that Iran immediately return to negotiations and accept U.S. conditions or face "devastating military and economic consequences." At the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has blocked any attempts to condemn Israel.
On June 22, 2025, Sunday, the US armed forces launched air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran - in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. According to the White House administration, the operation was personally approved by President Donald Trump, despite his public statements made just two days earlier, on June 20, to give Iran a two-week period to find a diplomatic solution to its nuclear program. In fact, by the time of this announcement, the decision to launch a strike had already been made, and preparations for the operation began in advance and in a narrow circle of people.
The strike on nuclear facilities in Iran was carried out without UN authorization, according to the logic of "preventive self-defense". This was another example of undermining the post-Westphalian architecture of international relations. After the strikes on Iran, Donald Trump switched from the rhetoric of deterrence to direct statements about the need for regime change in Tehran. Later, the US President stressed that he "does not want regime change in Tehran", explaining this by the risks of "chaos".
The real diplomatic goal of the United States is to hold the truce and return Iran to nuclear negotiations.
By taking a step towards a military solution to the problem, the United States is taking risks in several directions at once. Washington is being drawn into the conflict without a clear exit strategy, without a ground presence in the region and against the backdrop of an unpredictable development scenario.
In the short term, it is Israel that is most at risk: Iran's response is likely to be directed primarily against it.
Economically, the United States is at risk due to rising oil prices (especially if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz), market instability and increased pressure on foreign debt.
Politically , Donald Trump's actions are already causing alarm among both Democrats and Republicans, and according to a June 23 YouGov poll, 85% of Americans oppose the U.S. going to war with Iran, which means there is almost no public support for such a campaign.
G7 summit in Canada.
Following the G7 summit in Canada (June 15-17, 2025), it became obvious that the emphasis on support for Ukraine was weakening.
Instead of strengthening sanctions and a tough stance, serious contradictions arose between the allies. The G7 summit in Canada was held against the backdrop of three acute crises: Russia's war against Ukraine, the Iranian-Israeli conflict and trade tensions between the United States and the EU.
The agenda of the summit included the coordination of support for Ukraine, the containment of Iran and the Russian Federation, economic resilience and climate. The main goal - the signing of the final communiqué on Ukraine and global security - was not achieved. US President Donald Trump left the summit ahead of schedule, citing the Middle East, and refused to sign a collective document.
The behavior of US President Donald Trump at the summit and his statements signal a sharp departure from the US collective strategy of containing Russia, including the rejection of sanctions and an attempt to reintegrate the Russian Federation (and even China) into the Gformat.
In particular, D. Trump actively opposed the new sanctions against Russia and was skeptical about the existing ones, stressing that they entail economic losses for the United States.
D. Trump said that "sanctions are expensive for the United States" and their effectiveness is doubtful, so he is against tougher pressure. D. Trump said that he does not intend to initiate new sanctions against Russia, while "it is not clear whether peace agreements will be concluded."
"Return to the G8". Trump questioned the G7 system formed after 2014, saying that the exclusion of Russia was a "big mistake" and suggesting the possibility of the return of the Russian Federation - as well as even China - to the format.
During the G7 summit in Canada, Donald Trump openly criticized French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron advocates a line of tight containment of Russia, increased support for Ukraine, and the preservation of international institutions as the foundation of the global order. Trump, on the other hand, seeks to reset relations with Moscow, opposes new sanctions, proposes a return to the G8 format, and openly demonstrates disregard for collective decisions. For Trump, it is an inconvenient forum that prevents the implementation of "deals" that are beneficial exclusively to the United States.
During the summit, it became clear that there was no unity among the G7 leaders. US President Donald Trump left the summit ahead of schedule, citing the situation in the Middle East, and refused to sign a collective communiqué.
- The United States did not support key joint statements of the G7;
- D. Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky failed;
- the final document turned out to be partly symbolic and limited in content;
- the issues of sanctions pressure, assistance to Ukraine and trade reform were left without formal unanimity.
For Ukraine, this means: the refusal of the United States to play the role of guarantor of a hard line against the Russian Federation; a decrease in the priority of the Ukrainian agenda in the G7; undermining the consensus of the West on the issue of war; the risk of easing sanctions pressure; strategic uncertainty before the autumn phase of the war.
The United States has not formally signed the final communiqué, which will nullify the group's collective efforts in important areas, including sanctions and support for Ukraine.
The G7 traditionally acts on the basis of consensus: the absence of a US signature makes the entire final document less legitimate and less binding for the participants. This is a blow to the ability of the G7 to act as a united front, especially on issues where the United States plays a central role (Ukraine, sanctions against the Russian Federation, policy towards China).
Ruslan Bortnik, Oksana Krasovskaya, Andrey Timchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
