Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

"127 pilots and 29 ships: Zelensky personalizes responsibility for over 4,100 missiles"

Ukraine has for the first time individually sanctioned commanders of Russia's long-range aviation forces who personally deployed cruise missiles and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles against civilian targets. Simultaneously, restrictions were imposed on 29 vessels of the shadow fleet that transport weapons in violation of international prohibitions.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 25, 2026 · 2 min read

"127 pilots and 29 ships: Zelensky personalizes responsibility for over 4,100 missiles"

President Volodymyr Zelensky signed two sanctions decrees following decisions of the National Security and Defense Council. The first concerns 127 Russian military personnel — commanders of long-range aviation units of the Russian Air Force. The second targets 29 civilian cargo ships involved in transporting goods for Russia's military needs.

Who is on the list and what for

Sanctions have been imposed on officers who deployed over 4,100 air-launched cruise missiles — X-101, X-55, X-555, X-22, X-32 — and aeroballistic Kinzhal missiles. The President's Office specified the targeted strikes: the attack on the Okhmatdyt children's hospital in Kyiv on July 8, 2024; the strike on a multi-story building in Ternopil on November 19, 2025, which claimed 38 lives, including eight children; the bombing of Mariupol using FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 bombs; the strike on Groza village in Kharkiv region in October 2023.

These ships are involved in regular transportation of large volumes of weapons, ammunition and military equipment in circumvention of international restrictions.

Office of the President of Ukraine

29 vessels of the "shadow fleet" — civilian merchant ships formally unconnected to Russian armed forces, but effectively integrated into the weapons supply logistics chain. The EU began systematically pursuing such schemes separately: in October 2025, the EU Council sanctioned 41 shadow fleet vessels; in December, nine more structures involved in their servicing.

The logic behind the move: documentation rather than freezing

Ukrainian sanctions themselves do not block assets abroad — their direct effect is limited to Ukraine's jurisdiction. The real weight of such lists lies elsewhere: they form a named evidence registry that can be used in coordination with the ICC and partner jurisdictions. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Shoygu and Gerasimov specifically for strikes on civilian infrastructure — the court's prosecutorial strategy is moving toward concrete perpetrators, not just command.

For the shadow fleet, the mechanism is somewhat different: adding a vessel to Ukraine's sanctions list complicates its entry into ports of states that recognize these restrictions and creates additional pressure on insurance companies and port administrations.

Context: personalization as strategy

This wave of sanctions is part of a broader trend: Ukraine is consistently transitioning from general restrictions against "Russia as a state" to individual accountability of specific perpetrators. The same approach is being applied in the Council of Europe's registry of damages and in materials transmitted to international tribunals.

The question that will determine the real weight of these sanctions: whether at least several EU or G7 states will join Ukraine's list — and whether names from this list will appear in future ICC arrest warrants.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026