According to Hammelburg, the attack is particularly notable because Kursk is quite a distance from the Ukrainian border, well into Russian territory. “The question is what kind of bullet they did it with. It’s probably a drone, because it can fly very far.’
Follow the latest news about the war in Ukraine in our live blog
The fact that the Ukrainians manage to deliberately strike distant targets in Russian territory could have consequences for the discussion on arms deliveries to the country. “There is a constant discussion within NATO about whether to supply weapons that can reach across the border into Russia,” Hammelburg said. “Somehow a weapon capable of covering that distance was used here. As NATO you go one step further if you supply weapons that reach so far that they can end up on Russian territory. They’re still talking about it.’
Frozen credits
News also came today that the European Commission wants to use the many billions of frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Hammelburg wonders if this is legally possible. “That money is the treasury capital of the Russian Federation. This is often deposited with foreign banks. There was something like $280 billion in European banks and another $20 billion in Russian oligarchs. It’s one thing to freeze those assets, but now they want to use that money to support the enemy. I do not think it is possible.’
Even Brandeis attorney Simone Peek doubts that Russian funds could be used in this way. ‘The idea is to invest the money, and they want to use the proceeds for Ukraine. It seems to me that this is a big challenge due to the sanctions regulations that exist there. One might think, given the court that will be held, that there may be a sort of precautionary seizure of the assets of the persons and entities being prosecuted. That’s conceivable, but I think the regulations will have to be changed a bit for this to work.”