Thursday, August 20, 2026

Hundreds of meetings, €8 million a year: How Big Tobacco lobbies the EU

By Leticia Batista Cabanas

Published on 20/08/2026 - EURONEWS

A massive surge in tobacco industry lobbying is undercutting the European Union’s public health agenda, derailing legislative proposals, and triggering a political battles over new nicotine products.

EU lawmakers are increasingly giving in to the influence of the tobacco lobby.

According to Transparency International's Integrity Watch database, meetings between tobacco industry representatives and MEPs have increased by 57%, rising from an average of 14.7 meetings per month to 23 by June 2026. The database, which compiles self-declared meetings published by the European Parliament, shows that tobacco companies and affiliated organisations have consistently lobbied lawmakers on issues ranging from vaping and heated tobacco to taxation and tobacco control.

The tobacco industry has become one of the most powerful and well-funded corporate lobbying forces in Brussels as the EU advances its ambition of creating a "tobacco-free generation" by 2040 under the Beating Cancer Plan.

The sector is estimated to spend between €8 million and €10 million annually on direct lobbying of EU institutions and employs more than 100 registered lobbyists dedicated to influencing policy, a figure that excludes public relations firms, law firms, consultancies, and industry-backed think tanks working on its behalf.

Advocacy groups argue that this huge access creates a stark imbalance between commercial interests and public health voices. During one key legislative period, for example, public health NGOs secured only 12 meetings with influential MEPs, while Philip Morris International alone held 121 meetings.

"If we look specifically at the top 20 of where the tobacco industry is really lobbying, we find virtually no NGOs. So, they definitely have more access," Raphaël Kergueno, Senior Policy Officer at Transparency International EU, told Euronews.

At the centre of this lobbying campaign are the world's largest tobacco companies - Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Brands- alongside trade associations such as Tobacco Europe and advocacy groups including the World Vapers' Alliance.

"Obviously, if there's this many meetings, it means that there's also an interest in trying to influence legislation”, said Kergueno.

While each company pursues its own commercial priorities, they broadly seek lower taxes and lighter regulation for emerging nicotine products such as heated tobacco, vaping devices, and nicotine pouches.

According to Kergueno, "vaping is one of the main topics of the lobbying. If you look at the meetings, vaping is a subject that comes repeatedly. Clearly, this is a main subject area, trying to shape the regulation around vaping.”

Tobacco companies also want to resist measures including flavour bans, plain packaging, stricter tracking systems, and higher excise duties on conventional cigarettes.

A political text nobody liked

These meetings contributed to the alteration and derailing of 2 major legal frameworks: the Tobacco Taxation Directive (TTD) and the upcoming Tobacco Control Framework.

On June 17, the European Parliament rejected the TTD with 439 to 181 votes because the final text was deemed too contradictory. This was partly caused by the Kubin report, a controversial legislative draft that embedded tobacco industry arguments into the directive by proposing drastically reduced minimum tax rates for vapes and nicotine pouches.

"Kubín's report approved last month by the [Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee] substantially suggested to weaken the Commission's proposal. The text included several problematic elements, including a 'less harm, less tax' approach... Altogether, it reflected long-standing tobacco industry narratives on 'harm reduction', while overlooking the growing body of independent evidence on nicotine addiction, youth uptake, and the risks associated with new products”, explained Erin Roman, Director of the Smoke Free Partnership, in a press release.

"The absence of an adopted opinion is preferable to a weakened position that directly mirrors industry framing, creating an important opportunity to restore the public health ambition of the Tobacco Taxation Directive. The final legislation must deliver meaningful price increases, greater convergence across Member States and effective taxation of all tobacco and nicotine products to protect Europe's youth and reduce tobacco-related harm”, he added.

Thomas Kubin, Patriots for Europe MEP and rapporteur of the proposal, also shared his view with Euronews: “With the rising of taxes, you will not save the world. I mean, you will not prevent people from smoking. [...] If we go the way of the Commission proposal, then in all the states the tax earnings will start to fall down and the illicit trade - mostly smuggling but also counterfeit products - will be rising."

The report that reached the European Parliament's plenary was no longer a coherent proposal. After months of negotiations, the original Commission draft had been extensively amended to make tax increases more gradual, particularly for newer nicotine products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches.

Public health organisations argued these changes weakened the proposal by introducing a "less harm, less tax" approach and giving novel products, like vapes, more favourable treatment than originally planned.

Following the Parliament's rejection, the TTD is effectively deadlocked, forcing the European Commission to either draft a brand-new legislative proposal or wait for the EU Council of Member States to attempt to resurrect tax negotiations under a future presidency.

NASA satellite rescue mission fails, swift telescope set to fall to earth

NASA said on Wednesday a $30 million mission to save its Swift space telescope had failed after the rescue spacecraft could not be controlled. The unprecedented effort aimed to use a robot to move Swift into a higher orbit. The satellite is now expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and disintegrate later this year.

Issued on: 20/08/2026
By: FRANCE 24

This August 18, 2026, frame grab from a NASA live video stream © AFP

A complicated mission to save a NASA satellite from burning up in the atmosphere has failed, the US space agency said Wednesday, as the rescue spacecraft could not be controlled.

The Swift space telescope, which studies the most powerful explosions in the universe, will now likely plunge back to earth and disintegrate along the way later this year.

The unprecedented $30 million dollar mission attempted to send a robot to grab the telescope and move it farther into orbit.

"This is not the outcome we were working toward, but it does not change why this mission was worth attempting," NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said.

Planners had hoped the mission would pave the way for giving other satellites a second life.

"The team moved with extraordinary speed to give Swift a chance to carry out more science while advancing capabilities America will need for satellite servicing in the future," Isaacman added.

Developed by American startup Katalyst, the unmanned spacecraft was launched on July 3 by a small rocket named Pegasus, which was itself launched from an airplane.

However, on July 28 the company said the spacecraft had been in an out-of-control spin for 72 hours with multiple problems including a loss of communications.

In announcing the mission failure on Wednesday, Katalyst cited "ongoing attitude control issues" as the reason it and NASA were calling it off.

NASA said that the spacecraft would still attempt to reach the Swift telescope with the hope of giving scientists and engineers lessons for similar future missions.

The agency launched Swift in 2004 to study gamma-ray bursts.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

NATO 3.0 rebrand is 'lipstick on a pig', says former US ambassador

By Shona Murray

Published on 20/08/2026 EURONEWS

The transatlantic relationship has changed profoundly since Donald Trump's return to the White House, and the concept of NATO 3.0 epitomises the transformation. But what does it actually mean?

Even before Donald Trump returned to the White House, Washington had indicated its intention to pivot resources away from Europe – but over the last year and a half, that pivot has accelerated.

The second Trump administration has made frequent announcements of troop withdrawals and cuts to crucial military capabilities made available to the alliance, while Trump himself has repeatedly derided NATO itself as a "paper tiger" – even threatening to pull the US out of the alliance altogether.

To fill the gaps being created by the ongoing US drawdown, Europe and Canada have significantly increased core defence expenditure with an agreement to spend 5 percent of GDP on defence by 2035.

Known as "NATO 3.0", this is effectively the implementation of Washington's plan for a fundamental reduction in its military contribution to NATO’s defence of Europe. As the US steps back from the continent, Europe will need to step up and attempt to fill the resultant gaps.

Crucially, the concept of NATO 3.0 was developed in the US, specifically by Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby, who has long advocated a complete overhaul of the US's Europe policy.

Critics argue that NATO 3.0 is effectively a diminution of Washington's commitment to European security and represents a fundamental shift from the founding idea that the security of Europe is interchangeable with the security of the US.

Colby does concede that the US should retain a presence in Europe, and US membership of NATO still enjoys bipartisan support in the US Congress. Nonetheless, the US has already withdrawn key capabilities and forces required to deter future attacks on NATO territory, all whilst Russian aggression rages in Ukraine and allies face frequent drone incursions and hybrid attacks.

"Times have changed," Colby told NATO defence ministers in Brussels in February. "We are reprioritising the defence of our homeland and the protection of our interests in our hemisphere," he said.

And as NATO countries grapple with Washington's revised strategic considerations and the uncertain future this brings, the administration's frequent hostility to Europe doesn't inspire confidence that NATO 3.0 is really about a more integrated, unified alliance.

As soon as he returned to the White House, relations between Trump and his allies began to deteriorate. The president's ongoing insistence that he wants to "acquire" Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, has badly undermined European trust in Washington, perhaps irrevocably.

Then came Trump's ongoing military campaign in Iran. NATO allies' reluctance to get involved has strained relations further, with Trump accusing European countries of abandoning their obligations to Washington.

Italy and Spain denied US forces access to bases on their territories, and France refused Israel the right to use ‌its air space to transport US weapons for use in ⁠Iran.

Trump’s claims don’t hold up to scrutiny, however, particularly since NATO states were not consulted prior to the first strikes on Iranian targets. The UK, Germany and Romania – which recently approved additional US military capabilities on its territory in support of the war of Iran – all allowed the US basing and refuelling rights since the conflict began, albeit with conditions attached.

Moreover, a Franco-British-led coalition has pre-positioned a range of assets, including de-mining vessels, personnel and warships, to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the vital global shipping route that has been mostly closed since the US began its campaign. Prices for oil, gas and other commodities such as fertilisers have shot up as a result.

Despite these efforts, Washington's ire against European states hasn't subsided.

In June, US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth lashed out at his allies over their “shameful" response to the Iran conflict, describing his country's partners as "free riders". During an address to his fellow defence ministers at NATO HQ in June, Hegseth then announced a review of US military troops in Europe with a view to drawing down troop numbers.

"The review is intended to both improve US force posture...and to strengthen NATO 3.0," Hegseth told ministers in Brussels. "This is the right thing to do by the American people."

"Europe can and must take primary responsibility for its conventional defence."

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has hailed NATO 3.0 as a strengthening of the alliance, crediting Trump for finally pressuring European states to assume more responsibility for their own defence: European and Canadian spending increases have combined over the last decade into what Rutte has dubbed "the Trump trillion".

And Martin O'Donnell, Chief of Public Affairs at NATO's Supreme Headquarter Allied Forces Europe, welcomed Hegseth's force review, telling Euronews it allows NATO "plan better and more realistically in the even that, for example, a war would break out in the Pacific what forces can be relied upon from the United States."

"That's a good thing for the Supreme Allied Commander," he said.

But a key question remains: is the withdrawal of US capabilities diminishing NATO's overall deterrent power? On this matter, Rutte is an optimist.

"The US has adjusted its pledged contributions – and other allies have stepped up to contribute more," he told journalists last June. “And this is fair. This makes us stronger, and this is what NATO 3.0 is all about. A stronger Europe in a stronger NATO," he said.

The blunt signalling from Washington has been heard loud and clear by Europe and Canada. Between them they'vespent a record $139 billion defence last year – including $60 billion on American weapons, according to US–NATO figures.

And more than $50 billion in defence procurement and contracts were agreed at NATO's Defence Industry Forum in Ankara in July.

One of the standout announcements was a joint procurement of up to 10 Swedish Saab GlobalEye aircraft to replace aging American Boeing Airborne Warning and Control System - a demonstration of the alliance's growing European influence, as well as a commitment to expanding military spending.

In another demonstration that Europe is edging towards greater strategic autonomy and management of its own security, last July, ten European countries committed to creating an integrated, multi-national Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition.

**"**We aim to build a shared anti-ballistic missile capacity for Europe," read a statement from the founding members: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

"We believe that the protection of Europe requires a global solution of integrated missile defence architecture to deter and defeat future missile threats," the statement said.

And at the same time, in perhaps one of the most explicit indicators of Washington's waning commitment to NATO, the Pentagon confirmed to the alliance's top military strategists in June that it wasshrinking the pool of military capabilities available to assist European nations in the event of a war or attack on NATO territory.

Among the numerous assets being withdrawn are B52 bombers, submarines and fighter jets, with the number of F-16 and F-15E combat aircraft made available to be reduced from roughly 150 to 100.

So, what will NATO 3.0 actually mean for the future of the 77-year alliance? At this point it's too early to say for sure, but Euronews has spoken to NATO experts to get their assessment.

The new order

"It really is like putting lipstick on a pig," former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told Euronews, saying the Trump administration is "signalling that the security of Europe is no longer important to the security of the United States."

"Alliances at their core are based on a shared perception of the threat, and on the idea that the security of all the members is indivisible; Donald Trump and his administration have abandoned both of those ideas," he said.

"The US doesn't see Russia as a threat that matters to the United States anymore," said Daalder.

"Naming it 'NATO 3.0' is putting the lipstick on the pig because there's at least hope that Trump doesn't completely abandon NATO," said Daalder.

Ian Brzezinski, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Europe and NATO Policy, agrees that the second Trump administration ultimately does not sees Europe as a vital interest, and is therefore stepping back not only from its position as external security guarantor, but from its former mitigating role when it comes to intra-European conflicts.

"Your vital interests are things you're willing to fight and die for, and there are many in this administration that do not see Europe with the same interest as before," Brzezinski told Euronews in an interview from his home in Washington D.C.

"The administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy reflect an abandoning of the post-Cold War settlement. I’m a NATO 3.0 sceptic," he said.

In withdrawing from European security, the White House is also unwinding decades of “defence-forward” Cold War era foreign policy, where the US invests in robust deterrence abroad in order to prevent aggression spreading to America.

Brzezinski also warned that without a committed US to act as a mediator, tensions among European nations could re-emerge.

“I worry about Europeans without US leadership,” he said. “Let’s face it, before NATO and the US's positive interference in the continent, Europe was tearing itself apart with two world wars.”

Ukraine anti-corruption probes close in on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's inner circle

By Sasha Vakulina

Published on 20/08/2026 EURONEWS

Zelenskyy himself has not been a suspect in any of the probes launched so far, but the growing list of people close to him under investigation is quickly becoming a political liability.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fired deputy chief of staff Iryna Mudra on Wednesday, as anti-corruption investigators launched a major probe targeting an alleged criminal organisation involving senior officials linked to the president's office.

Apart from Mudra, the suspects include a current member of parliament, a former lawmaker and the chief executive and head of supervisory board of a state-owned bank, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). The description of the bank officials appears to refer to Sense Bank.

Investigators allege that the group helped launder around €3 million (150 million Ukrainian hryvnia) that had been posted as bail for a suspect in a corruption investigation.

That is operation Midas, a probe into alleged corruption at Energoatom, Ukraine's state nuclear power company, which has become the biggest corruption investigation of Zelenskyy's presidency.

The latest case is therefore not an isolated one. Rather it appears to have grown directly out of an investigation that has already implicated former senior government officials and people with longstanding personal and political ties to Zelenskyy.

From ‘Midas’ to ‘Forest Gump’

NABU and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) unveiled operation Midas in November 2025 after an investigation lasting more than a year.

They allege that members of a criminal organisation exerted influence over Energoatom despite holding no formal positions at the company, extracting kickbacks worth 10-15% of contracts from suppliers in exchange for allowing payments to go through.

NABU says around €85 million was laundered through the alleged scheme.

Former Justice and Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko was accused of money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation.

NABU said in February that more than $7.4 million, €2.4 million and 1.3 million in Swiss francs connected to the alleged scheme had been transferred or provided to his family.

The €3 million at the centre of the latest investigation, dubbed operation Forest Gump, was allegedly posted as bail for Halushchenko.

According to search warrants leaked by Ukrainian lawmakers, Sense Bank was allegedly used to transfer part of the bail funds.

NABU also released audio recordings in which Mudra could be heard discussing Sense Bank and alleged attempts to influence decisions concerning it.

In one conversation recorded in June, Mudra said she had been told that the bank's chief executive and supervisory board head would visit her.

She also referred to a person named “David” and the head of a parliamentary committee as seeking to provide political cover for the bank. It is unclear whether “David” was a reference to David Arakhamia, the head of Zelenskyy's Servant of the People faction in parliament.

“They will not crack down on Sense Bank and Sense Bank must pay them,” Mudra said on the recording.

In another conversation, Mudra said that “Timur”, whom she described as “an Israeli refugee,” had called her and asked her to take over responsibility for Sense Bank.

The description appears to refer to Timur Mindich, Zelenskyy's long-time friend and former business partner, and an alleged ringleader of the $100 million (€85 million) Midas corruption scheme.

From long-time friend to former chief of staff

Mindich was part of Zelenskyy's circle well before he entered politics and is a co-owner of Kvartal 95, the production company co-founded by the president.

A suspect in Operation Midas, Mindich left Ukraine for Israel in November 2025. He has also surfaced in the Dynasty investigation, in which NABU and SAPO allege that more than €8.8 million was laundered through a luxury residential development outside Kyiv using funds partly originating from corruption schemes, including at Energoatom.

But the most prominent name implicated in Dynasty is Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy's former chief of staff and for years one of the most powerful figures in Ukraine.

Yermak headed the President's Office from 2020 until his departure in 2025, becoming Zelenskyy's closest political confidant and playing a central role in domestic politics, diplomacy and wartime decision-making.

In May 2026, NABU and SAPO named Yermak a suspect in the Dynasty money-laundering case. A court ordered him held with the option of €2.7 million bail, which was subsequently paid. Yermak has denied the allegations.

The same investigation also implicated former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, who held several senior government posts under Zelenskyy and has been described as a longtime friend of the president's family.

Other investigations have reached former members of the President's Office. Rostyslav Shurma, a former deputy head responsible for economic policy, was named a suspect in January in a separate case involving alleged abuses of Ukraine's renewable-energy subsidy system.

NABU and SAPO suspect Shurma, his brother Oleh and others of embezzling around €2.7 million. The brothers were placed on a wanted list in February, and a court ordered their detention in absentia in April.

Shurma, who is currently abroad, has denied wrongdoing.

Too close for comfort

The investigations come at a particularly sensitive time for Ukraine's EU aspirations.

Kyiv and Brussels opened the Fundamentals cluster of Ukraine's accession negotiations in June, covering areas including the rule of law, judiciary, public procurement and financial control. A second cluster, covering external relations, followed in July.

The EU has stressed that progress on the Fundamentals cluster will determine the overall pace of Ukraine's accession negotiations, putting the independence and effectiveness of the country's anti-corruption institutions under particular scrutiny.

The series of probes presents an increasingly difficult political picture for Zelenskyy.

His former chief of staff has been named a suspect. So have former deputy chiefs of staff. His long-time friend and former business partner is implicated in multiple major investigations. Former ministers and other senior officials from his administration have also become suspects.

Each of the NABU and SAPO investigations also carry significant public feeling.

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in 2025 to defend the independence of NABU and SAPO after parliament moved to curb the powers of the anti-corruption watchdogs.

Civil society groups also pushed for further investigations into alleged corruption at the highest levels of government.

Zelenskyy himself has not been named as a suspect in any of the investigations.

For a president who came to power in 2019 promising to break with Ukraine's corrupt political establishment, the proximity of so many investigations to those around him carries an increasingly heavy political cost.

After weeks of rallying behind Fedorov, protesters reject his call for wartime elections in Ukraine

By Sasha Vakulina

Published on 19/08/2026 - EURONEWS

A month of nationwide demonstrations demanding Mykhailo Fedorov’s return as defence minister appears to be ending after protest organisers rejected and criticised his call for elections during wartime.

Mykhailo Fedorov’s call for wartime elections has been rejected by protesters who spent the past month campaigning for his return as defence minister.

The former minister’s video address on Tuesday evening marked an unexpected turn for a movement that had rallied behind him since Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed him in a wartime government reshuffle.

But leading organisers have opposed the idea of holding elections during the war and signalled an end to the daily demonstrations.

Dmytro Koziatynskyi, a Ukrainian war veteran and one of the protest organisers, said on Wednesday evening that he opposed holding elections while the war continued.

“I view elections during wartime negatively,” he wrote on X, adding that he could not “imagine how to technically enable thousands of soldiers currently on the front lines to vote and run for office”.

Four and a half years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, Koziatynskyi argued, Ukraine could not afford the divisions that an election campaign might create.

“In any case, street protests are definitely not the place for electoral discourse,” he said.

His statement appeared to draw a line under a month of daily demonstrations across Ukraine that began after Zelenskyy dismissed Fedorov from leading the defence ministry in mid-July.

Koziatynskyi stressed that the protests had been about the direction of Ukraine’s defence policy rather than Fedorov’s personal political future.

“These protests were specifically about dialogue and reforms, not about personalities,” he said.

He also offered his support to Yevhen Khmara, whom Zelenskyy formally nominated this week to replace Fedorov permanently.

“I want to wish Mr Khmara success in his new position and sincerely hope that he will continue the course on reforms and the fight against corruption in defence,” Koziatynskyi said.

Thanking those who had joined the demonstrations, he argued that the movement had nevertheless achieved tangible results, pointing to the dismissal of Oleksandr Syrskyi and the appointment of Mykhailo Drapatyi.

“I believe it was all worth it,” he said. “At the very least, we managed to secure the dismissal of Syrskyi and the appointment of Drapatyi, which hardly anyone could have expected just a month ago.”

'I did not go out for your political ambitions'

Fedorov’s address also prompted thousands of responses on social media, many questioning both the timing of his intervention and his motives for calling for elections only after his hopes of returning to the defence ministry had ended.

“Do you think this is a good time for an election campaign video?” one demonstrator wrote on Threads. Another commented telling Fedorov: “There is a feeling that you have taken too much upon yourself.”

Others questioned why Fedorov, after seven years in Zelenskyy’s team, had chosen to raise concerns about the political system only after the door closed on his possible return.

“So if you had been reinstated, you wouldn’t criticise the system and wouldn’t call for elections?” one user asked.

Some of those who said they had joined the demonstrations sought to distance the protest movement from any broader political ambitions Fedorov might harbour.

“I did not go out for your political ambitions, but for you to stay at the defence ministry,” one wrote.

“You shouldn’t have done it. This is populism,” another said.

Members of the Ukrainian military also questioned how elections could realistically be conducted while hundreds of thousands of troops are fighting off Russia's invasion.

One serviceman asked Fedorov whether soldiers should cast their ballots in “Kostyantynivka or Pokrovsk” - cities close to some of the heaviest fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The response from Zelenskyy’s administration was brief. Dmytro Lytvyn, a presidential adviser, told reporters in a WhatsApp group chat that Russia’s continuing attacks made the government’s position clear on any possible elections.

“The daily strikes by Russian drones and missiles provide a comprehensive answer.”

Ukraine tops the world for crypto use per person as volumes hit $206bn

Transactions linked to Ukraine reached about $206.3bn over the year, up roughly 52%, and the securities regulator says the market is still legally homeless. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook

Twitter LinkedIn Telegram Flipboard Feedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin August 19, 2026

Ukrainians trade more cryptocurrency per head than anyone else on earth. What they mostly do not do is trade it under Ukrainian law.

Ukraine ranks eighth in the world for the spread of crypto-assets and first once the ranking is adjusted for population, Oleksiy Semenyuk, head of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC), said, citing Chainalysis' Global Crypto Adoption Index. Transactions linked to the country came to roughly $206.3bn over the year, up about 52%, on the blockchain analysis firm's estimates.

The index weights on-chain value at centralised exchanges, retail transfers under $10,000, decentralised finance activity and institutional flows above $1mn, then adjusts for population and purchasing power. On the raw numbers India leads, followed by the US and Pakistan. Adjust for the size of the country and the top three are Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia - three of Europe's poorest states, and three where trust in banks is thinnest.

Semenyuk's argument is that the size of the market has settled the question of whether it is a fringe activity, and left a different question open.

"When a country ranks first in the world for crypto activity per capita, we can no longer talk about virtual assets as a niche phenomenon. The market exists, Ukrainians use it, businesses build products on it. The real question is different: where is this business legally located, where does it pay taxes, and how protected is the Ukrainian user? That is exactly what legislation should answer," he said.

That is the awkward part for Kyiv. Parliament approved a virtual assets law back in September 2021, and the finance ministry was still promising full legalisation by the first half of 2025. Five years on, the licensing and tax framework that would bring the activity onshore has not been finished, so a market that has grown to the size of Ukraine's entire annual GDP several times over sits largely outside the tax base of a state running record deficits.

The war is the reason the ranking moved, not an accident of it. Ukraine was already third in the world on the same index in 2022, when the invasion pushed households and volunteer fundraisers onto crypto rails at speed. What has changed since is scale and permanence: an emergency workaround has become ordinary financial behaviour for a country of roughly 6.5mn crypto holders, and the state has yet to write the rules for it.

Semenyuk also flagged tokenisation of real and financial assets - representing rights to physical or financial instruments digitally - as a separate line the NSSMC thinks could open new routes for raising capital. For a country whose domestic bond market is doing most of the heavy lifting on war financing, that is not an abstract interest.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment