Direct contacts between Ukrainian authorities and representatives of the Russian Federation exclusively for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance and saving civilians are considered acceptable by 86.8% of surveyed Ukrainians, while 65.5% consider the use of an evacuation route through Russia and Belarus acceptable, according to the results of an Active Group study presented on Tuesday at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the survey, conducted on October 31 at the request of the publication Politarena, 49.6% of respondents consider direct humanitarian contacts with Russia unconditionally acceptable, while another 37.2% consider them acceptable under clearly defined conditions and supervision. Such contacts were described as unacceptable by 3.7% of respondents, while 9.5% were unable to decide.
Andriy Yeremenko, founder of the research company Active Group, noted that the results reflect Ukrainians’ pragmatic approach to humanitarian agreements, in which preserving human lives remains the main criterion of effectiveness.
“We see a demand for issues that can be resolved in Ukraine’s interests, on Ukrainian terms and for Ukraine’s benefit, to be resolved through negotiations rather than military action. This is a very widespread opinion among Ukrainians,” he emphasized.
At the same time, the sociologist stressed that willingness to engage in humanitarian contacts does not mean agreeing to political concessions to Russia.
According to him, Ukrainian society maintains its fundamental demands regarding the non-recognition of the occupation of Ukrainian territories, preventing any reduction in the country’s defense capabilities and restrictions on its sovereign decisions. At the same time, citizens are becoming more flexible in assessing practical mechanisms for achieving specific results.
A separate section of the study concerned the route of the humanitarian mission in the temporarily occupied town of Oleshky in Kherson region through the territories of Russia and Belarus.
According to the sociologists, 30.3% of respondents consider such a route acceptable, while another 35.2% consider it acceptable only with additional security guarantees. It was described as unacceptable by 11.1% of respondents, while 23.4% stated that they did not have sufficient information to assess it.
The question was formulated taking into account circumstances in which a direct route across the front line would require demining strategic areas and could weaken Ukraine’s defenses.
Yeremenko explained that the choice of route was determined not only by logistical possibilities but also by the need to take military risks into account.
“Organizing a corridor for a bus to cross the front line means that demining would have to be carried out, and there would be a possibility of losing or exposing certain concealed positions. These are real problems for Ukrainian defense, at least potentially. The main thing is to evacuate people, because that is the principal result,” he said.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of Active Group, drew attention to the significant difference between critical assessments widespread on social media and the survey results.
“We have repeatedly seen that the way social media and society online became agitated differed very significantly from what Ukrainians actually thought. It was important for us to measure this difference in order to understand what Ukrainians really think,” he said.
Vitaliy Kulyk, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies, commenting on the results, described the mission in Oleshky as unprecedented in terms of its implementation mechanism and the participation of Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets.
“This is truly an extraordinary mission, since during a war an ombudsman travels to enemy territory and rescues citizens. As a rule, similar cases in the history of conflicts have taken place through the mediation of international organizations,” the expert stated.
In Kulyk’s opinion, the successful implementation of the humanitarian operation could create the preconditions for subsequent local agreements. At the same time, he cautioned that expanding such a practice would depend on the political situation and the parties’ willingness to fulfill their commitments.
According to the study, 72.3% of respondents identified preserving the lives and health of civilians as the most important result of the mission, 61.3% cited the safe and voluntary departure of those wishing to leave, and 39.8% cited the delivery of food, water and medicines.
The possibility of conducting similar humanitarian operations in the future was mentioned by 31.6% of respondents, while 29.7% mentioned maintaining the ceasefire and complying with the agreed arrangements. Respondents could select up to three answers.
Overall, 93.6% of respondents supported the humanitarian mission in Oleshky, while 93.8% consider it important for the civilian population.
The survey was conducted by Active Group on October 31, 2026, at the request of Politarena through the SunFlower Sociology online panel. The number of respondents was 1,000. The stated statistical margin of error is ±3.1%. According to the organizers, the sample represents Ukraine’s adult population, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, humanitarian mission, RUSSIA, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, Олешки
Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs has called for a complete halt to the issuance of tourist visas to Russian citizens at the European Union level. In his view, such restrictions are necessary to counter the hybrid threats faced by European states.
As reported by the Financial Times on October 18, 2026, Kulbergs, in an interview with the publication, called on all EU countries to tighten visa policies toward Russian citizens, emphasizing the need for a unified approach to security issues.
According to the Latvian prime minister, the country faces hybrid threats from Russia on a daily basis, including attempts to cross the border illegally, the use of migration flows to destabilize the situation, as well as risks of sabotage and intelligence activities.
Kulbergs noted that in 2026, Latvia expects to face the greatest migratory pressure on its borders in the past five years. He believes that restricting Russian tourist travel to Europe should be one of the preventive security measures.
The Latvian prime minister paid particular attention to France, Italy, and Spain, which remain the EU countries that issue the most Schengen visas to Russian citizens.
According to the European Commission, these three countries account for over 70% of the visas issued to Russians in 2025. In total, Russian citizens received over 600,000 Schengen visas last year.
The issue of further tightening visa restrictions was discussed during the European Council meeting in Brussels on October 15–16. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the EU has the capacity to impose additional restrictions on private and business travel by Russian citizens.
According to the Financial Times, France is also considering significantly tightening visa restrictions, particularly regarding former Russian military personnel. Italy has shown a willingness to discuss additional measures, although these countries had previously not supported a complete ban on tourist visas.
At the same time, no pan-European decision to suspend the issuance of tourist visas to Russians has been adopted yet. The issuance of short-term Schengen visas remains the responsibility of the national authorities of EU member states, which review applications in accordance with the Common Visa Code.
Following the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the European Union has already imposed a series of restrictions. In particular, on September 12, 2022, the agreement on a simplified visa regime between the EU and Russia was suspended.
This has led to higher visa processing fees, stricter documentation requirements, and longer processing times for applications.
In November 2025, the European Commission further restricted the issuance of multiple-entry Schengen visas to Russian citizens residing in and applying from Russia, while maintaining certain exceptions.
In July 2026, the EU also adopted a legal framework to restrict the issuance of short-term visas to Russian military personnel and former combatants who participated in hostilities against Ukraine. The relevant provisions allow for exceptions on humanitarian grounds and other grounds specified by law.
According to European Commission estimates, the number of Schengen visas issued annually to Russian citizens has fallen from approximately 4 million before the start of the full-scale war to 618,000 in 2025.
Latvia’s proposal calls for further tightening of these restrictions and the effective cessation of Russian tourist travel to Schengen countries on the basis of new tourist visas.
Andris Kulbergs has led the Latvian government since May 28, 2026. Previously, he served as a member of the Saeima and worked on parliamentary committees on economic affairs, entrepreneurship, energy, and regional policy. Latvia is a member of the European Union and NATO and shares a border with Russia and Belarus.
Source: Financial Times, interview dated October 18, 2026
The U.S. will continue to take steps to ease sanctions against Russia, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“Unfortunately, the lifting of sanctions will continue. I believe that the diesel deal is the first step. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this will not stop Putin; on the contrary, he feels joy and happiness from having such support. And yet we very much hope—I personally hope—that the President of the United States will do everything possible to ensure that Putin stops the killings, stops the attacks on our energy sector, and ends this war,” Zelenskyy said, responding to questions from journalists on Saturday.
He emphasized that “this cannot be achieved by limiting Ukraine’s countermeasures against Russia, which is killing our people, and certainly not by lifting sanctions.”
The president noted that the Ukrainian side had not received any warnings that the sanctions would be suspended or about the “diesel deal,” and “in the same way, we learned from the media about the possibility of an energy truce.”
The Central Bank of Russia became the largest gold seller among the world’s central banks in August 2026, reducing its official gold reserves by approximately 6.2 tonnes, according to an Experts Club analysis based on data from the World Gold Council (WGC).
Among the notable gold sellers in August, the WGC highlights:
Russia – about 6.2 tonnes
Jordan – about 3.1 tonnes
Russia continued reducing its gold reserves after selling approximately 6 tonnes in July. In total, in January-August 2026, Russia’s official gold reserves decreased by approximately 56 tonnes.
Following the August sale, the amount of gold in Russia’s reserves stood at about 2,271 tonnes.
Jordan sold about 3.1 tonnes of gold in August. However, unlike Russia, the country remains a net buyer after the first eight months of the year: since the beginning of 2026, its gold reserves have increased by approximately 2 tonnes to 75 tonnes. Gold accounts for about 37% of Jordan’s international reserves.
At the same time, Turkey remains the largest gold seller for January-August, despite switching to purchases in August.
According to the WGC, Turkey has reduced its gold reserves by approximately 82 tonnes since the beginning of the year. The bulk of the sales occurred in the first quarter of 2026. In August, the trend changed, with the Turkish central bank purchasing about 2.9 tonnes of gold.
Russia ranks second among the largest sellers since the beginning of the year, with about 56 tonnes.
Thus, August showed a significant predominance of buyers over sellers: the world’s central banks collectively purchased 39 tonnes of gold on a net basis, compared with 23 tonnes in July.
The World Gold Council notes that the data cover officially reported changes in the reserves of central banks and other official institutions and may differ from the broader estimate of global central bank demand, which takes into account unreported purchases.
Central banks, EXPERTS CLUB, GOLD, gold reserves, JORDAN, RUSSIA, TURKEY, WORLD GOLD COUNCIL
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a conversation with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
“I informed the prime minister about preparations for possible trilateral meetings at the technical level between Ukraine, the United States, and Russia. There are no obstacles on our part, but it is important that the American side prepare on its end and ensure the Russian side’s readiness,” Zelenskyy wrote on his Telegram channel.
The parties also discussed preparations for the Ukrainian power grid ahead of winter and other sensitive issues.
“Not everything can be discussed in detail over the phone—we agreed to meet in person in the near future. I am grateful to Donald and Poland for their support. Only by joining forces across Europe can we stop Russia and prevent this insane war from continuing,” the president concluded.
The Lithuanian government has approved a draft law providing for additional restrictions on the acquisition of real estate by citizens of Russia and Belarus near strategically important facilities, Open4Business reports, citing data from the Lithuanian authorities.
According to a proposal by the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the restrictions should apply to real estate located near military training grounds and other facilities of importance to national security. The draft law materials refer to areas within a radius of up to 10 km from the relevant facilities.
A significant change is that the restrictions are proposed to be extended, among others, to citizens of Russia and Belarus who have a residence permit in Lithuania.
Currently, the country already restricts the right to acquire real estate for Russian citizens who do not have a temporary or permanent residence permit, as well as for legal entities whose beneficial owners are Russian citizens. An exception is provided for receiving real estate through inheritance.
The new draft law should expand the existing restrictions. Similar rules are proposed to be established for citizens of Belarus and legal entities associated with them, while Russians and Belarusians with a residence permit would additionally be restricted from acquiring real estate near facilities important to national security.
The Lithuanian authorities explain the initiative by the risks of hybrid threats, intelligence activities and possible surveillance of strategic infrastructure and military facilities.
The problem is of a fairly significant scale. According to data from Lithuania’s Centre of Registers published in February 2026, Russian citizens owned about 8.7 thousand real estate properties in which they controlled at least 50% of the ownership. Belarusian citizens owned another approximately 4 thousand properties.
Thus, taken together, citizens of the two countries own approximately 12.7 thousand real estate properties in Lithuania.
The highest concentration of such property is in major cities and their suburbs, as well as in border municipalities, including Visaginas and Šalčininkai.
The authorities are paying particular attention to real estate near strategic infrastructure. According to data cited by Lithuanian media with reference to the Centre of Registers, after the start of the full-scale war, 1,845 Russian citizens acquired real estate near airports, as well as within 10 km of military training grounds and power plants, of whom 364 had temporary residence permits.
At the same time, this does not mean a complete closure of the Lithuanian real estate market to all citizens of Russia and Belarus. The new additional restrictions are primarily tied to territories near facilities of interest to national security.
The draft law still has to be considered by the Seimas of Lithuania. If finally approved, the new rules are planned to apply from January 1, 2027.
