(...) There are some very simple aspects (although it seems that some in Europe still do not get it). If the war "freezes" – that is, Putin does not have the resources for large-scale operations – then nothing stops him from keeping regions of Ukraine far from the front line in a state of constant stress and regularly undermining efforts to rebuild the economy with the help of – to put it generally and unprofessionally – missiles. I do not intend to return to arguments about whether NATO should "close" Ukrainian airspace, but in the case of such a protracted war, adequate anti-missile defence systems are so undeniably necessary that it is frankly sickening to even have to talk about it. Next: financial support. I must admit that I am slightly irritated by talk of how Russia's frozen assets abroad will be used to rebuild Ukraine's ruined economy. Firstly, it simply does not happen like that – there will be years of litigation, and not just in one institution, but in each of the countries that carried out the "freezing" in accordance with their national legislation. This is also acknowledged by experts in Ukraine, who in turn emphasise that before we can even get to reconstruction, the monthly deficit of the Ukrainian budget of approximately 5-6 billion US dollars must be financed. Therefore, if the war drags on and the West digests this (because, for instance, they have finally realised the risks posed by Russia), then first, within the next 1-2 months, a couple of dozen billion dollars must be provided so that Ukraine can simply pay pensions and salaries to medics, teachers and security forces under wartime conditions.