
Your questions answered: How bad are things for Ukraine? Could the war spread to Europe? Would a ceasefire benefit Kyiv now?
More Videos
Published
5 months agoon
By
adminIt’s been more than 1,000 days since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, with both sides showing no sign of giving up.
But as Ukraine struggles to hold back the Russian advance, the conflict is still prompting many questions. Our military analyst Sean Bell is on hand to answer some of yours…
How grim are things looking for Ukraine militarily right now?
Alfie
Sean says: Firstly, I should point out that neither the Russian nor Ukrainian military share details about their dispositions, losses or morale. That means any judgement about the ebb and flow of the battle and the near-term prospects have an inevitable degree of subjectivity.
However, that does not stop us making an informed judgement based on available intelligence and briefings.
Last year, Ukraine was preparing for a much-anticipated “spring offensive”, supported by the provision of Western military equipment and training.
However, that offensive failed to make a decisive breakthrough of the Russian defensive positions, and since then Russia has seized the initiative.
This past year, Russia has made slow but steady progress in the Donbas, with Ukraine inflicting growing casualties on the advancing Russian forces.
Kyiv does not have the military mass or capability of the Russian invaders, so has been heavily reliant on Western military support to sustain its defensive efforts.
In response, Russia’s battlefield tactics have been heavily reliant on wave upon wave of infantry attacks, drawing Ukraine into a war of attrition which has inevitably resulted in growing Ukrainian casualties. This is placing a growing strain on Kyiv’s limited availability of soldiers.

A Ukrainian soldier fires at Russian positions. Pic: Reuters
Ukraine did try to relieve the pressure on the frontline in the Donbas region in August by conducting an audacious incursion into Russian territory in the Kursk region.
Although Ukraine did achieve an element of surprise, this strategy did spread its limited forces over a greater area, and Russia capitalised.
Instead of responding, Russia appeared to ignore this incursion and simply increased pressure in the Donbas, thus increasing its rate of advance.
From a purely military perspective, the current huge Russian casualty rate is not sustainable. So it would appear that Russia is simply pushing hard to optimise its negotiating position should the forthcoming change of US administration offer the prospects for some form of peace talks in the new year.
This is placing immense strain on the Ukrainian frontline, but whether this pressure is reaching a critical level is not easy to judge at this stage.
Ukraine war latest – follow live updates
How highly rated, or effective, are North Korean troops seen as being in military circles?
Guido
Sean says: With reports that up to 12,000 North Korean troops are undergoing training in Russia, the question as to how effective they might prove in battle is very topical.
Russia’s battlefield tactics are not subtle – but to date they have been effective.
A grinding war of attrition has seen Russia suffer an average of over 1,500 casualties a day in October, but Vladimir Putin appears reluctant to initiate another round of national mobilisation for fear of eroding his domestic support.
Instead, Putin has used mercenaries – such as the Wagner Group – to augment his regular forces, but (perhaps inevitably given the high casualty rates) recruitment of mercenaries has proven more challenging as the conflict has progressed.
By leveraging his military alliance with North Korea, Putin has been able to secure invaluable supplies of artillery shells and missiles in return for hard currency and military technology, which North Korea craves.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in North Korea earlier this year. Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov/Pool via Reuters.
In the past weeks, Putin has extended this alliance to include North Korean troops, and although there are questions about their competence and capability, when it comes to soldiers in battle, quantity has a quality all of its own.
As for the “quality” of the North Korean troops, that is difficult to assess objectively. There will be the inevitable language challenges, and their unfamiliarity with Russian battlefield tactics, but the wider concern is that they are likely to be used as cannon-fodder to protect Russian soldiers.
Reports suggest that the families of those North Koreans deployed into Russia have been “detained” to ensure that their soldiers are suitably motivated to return home once the operation is complete.
The sad reality is that for many North Korean soldiers, their fate is to die on the battlefields of a distant land in a conflict that is not theirs to fight and for an unjust cause.
What use will the anti-personnel mines be on the battlefield, how long are they operational for and what is their significance?
Monkee
Sean says: The whole issue of anti-personnel mines is emotive due to their enduring legacy.
Anti-personnel mines were originally designed to kill enemy combatants, but later models were instead designed to maim, as that was judged to have a more detrimental effect on the enemy’s morale.
However, there has been widespread and growing international concern over the indiscriminate nature of these weapons. Unlike bullets and missiles, mines can remain dormant for years, with devastating consequences for non-combatants.
Each year, thousands of people suffer injuries from legacy mines, with nearly 2,000 civilian deaths last year, of which 37% were children.
As a result, there are international efforts to clear legacy minefields and also ban their future use. Despite this backdrop, last week, Joe Biden approved the donation of US anti-personnel mines to Ukraine.
After over 1,000 days of war, why did the US finally agree to the provision of this controversial weapon?

Ukrainians stand near an anti-personnel mine near their house in Kamyanka. Pic: Reuters
Most legacy mines (including Russian) are mechanically activated – the victim’s weight mechanically activates the fusing mechanism.
However, the US mines are electrically activated – the victim’s weight completes an electrical circuit which detonates the device.
This means that US mines are only dangerous for as long as the battery holds its charge, which is between 1-40 hours, so any mine not activated becomes harmless with the passage of time.
Tactically, mines have the greatest utility in defending against enemy attacks, as when on the offensive most forces focus on speed and momentum.
Although Ukrainian forces appeared initially to have seized the initiative with their incursion into the Kursk region in August, Russia is now massing its forces – and 11,000 North Korean troops – to push the Ukrainian forces from their territory.
Vladimir Putin appears to believe the forthcoming change of US administration might offer a window of opportunity to negotiate an end to the war. In preparation, Russia is pushing hard to maximise territory gained to bolster its negotiating position.
This is placing huge strain on stretched Ukrainian military defences, which is probably why Biden agreed to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles in Kursk, and also to provide Ukraine with anti-personnel mines.
Give Ukraine is losing territory, would Trump intervening to stage a ceasefire actually benefit Ukraine now?
Kate
Sean says: Although president-elect Donald Trump has claimed that he will stop the war in 24 hours, it is not entirely clear how this might be achieved.
The most obvious options are brokering a peace deal, or imposing one.
Historically, a negotiated cessation of hostilities can be achieved when both warring parties see benefit in ending the conflict; however, with Russia maintaining momentum with its grinding war of attrition, Putin does not yet appear ready to compromise.
Trump might believe that he can impose some form of “deal” between the warring parties, but unless the situation on the frontline stabilises, or Russia achieves its military objectives, such an agreement might prove difficult to secure.
Since the US provides the majority of international military aid to Ukraine, that might provide Trump a degree of leverage over Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy when they met in September.
Pic: Reuters
However, given Russia’s current momentum on the battlefield, it is less clear what leverage Trump might have over Putin.
Although the objective of most Western leaders appears to be to stop Russia “winning”, Trump’s priority appears to be ending the conflict, regardless of outcome.
The longer the conflict endures, the greater the risk that Russia’s greater military “mass” eventually proves too much for the Ukrainian defences, which could lead to a significantly greater loss of territory to Russia.
Therefore, although any negotiated ceasefire might appear to “reward” Putin for his aggression, it could offer longer-term security for the remainder of Ukraine’s territory and allow Western support to rebuild Ukraine.
So, although the situation on the battlefield currently appears to favour Russia, both sides are making huge sacrifices every day the war continues, and eventually some form of compromise will be required to bring hostilities to an end.
If the US stops supplying Kyiv with military aid, could European countries supply Ukraine in any meaningful way for it to carry on?
Tim M
Sean says: First, I should be clear that despite the rhetoric emanating from across the Atlantic, it is not clear what Donald Trump’s strategy will actually be for Ukraine.
Although Joe Biden’s strategy appears to be to “stop Ukraine losing”, president-elect Trump’s appears to be to “end the war”.
Trump has claimed that he could end the war in 24 hours; however, he has not elaborated how this might be achieved.
He might consider that he can apply pressure through the provision (or not) of military aid to Volodymyr Zelenskyy; however, it is less clear what levers of influence Trump might have that could be brought to bear to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
At one extreme, the US could decide to stop supplying weapons, ammunition and financial support to Ukraine with immediate effect.
That might be coherent with a “US first” strategy, but could leave a very dangerous legacy for future generations to address.
Alternatively, Trump could engage with Putin in an effort to negotiate an end to hostilities, but threaten to increase US military support to Ukraine if Russia does not comply.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters.
What is clear is that even with US support, the West is struggling to provide the level of military and financial aid required to turn the tide of the battle.
If Western support were to decline, Russia would feel emboldened, and although Europe might seek to address the financial shortfall, it would struggle to match the military aid currently provided by the US.
However, the real question is whether European nations are prepared to watch Russia prevail over Ukraine, or step up their direct involvement in support of Ukraine.
Europe has a significantly larger and more effective military capability than Russia, and could – for example – decide to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. This would be direct involvement in the conflict but would be a clear message to Putin that his illegal invasion of a neighbour would not be tolerated.
In short, although a change in US support for Ukraine could be difficult to resolve, there remains a variety of other options available to European countries if they want to demonstrate a robust response to Putin’s aggression.
If Russia is employing North Korean troops, why can’t European countries give troops to Ukraine – even pilots or missile battery crews or elite special forces – to help them counter the Russian aggression?
Brian74
As the war between Russia and Ukraine moves past 1,000 days, both sides are struggling to maintain the tempo of full-scale war.
Russia has ramped up its defence industrial base in an attempt to meet its military demands but has still had to turn to Iran and North Korea to secure supplies of ammunition and missiles.
Ukraine has turned to the West to supply air defence capability and also a range of weapons and ammunition to combat the Russian invasion.
However, both sides are also struggling to mobilise sufficient troops in response to Russia’s highly attritional style of warfare.
Russia has conducted a round of mobilisation but Putin appears very reluctant to repeat the process for fear of undermining domestic support for the war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:35
North Korean troops are near the Ukrainian border
Instead, Russia turned initially to the Wagner mercenary group to bolster its land forces, which was then bolstered further by recruiting criminals into the Russian frontline.
Russia has also secured the support of thousands of international mercenaries through the provision of lucrative contracts; however, the high (and growing) casualty rates have dramatically reduced the flow of volunteers, so Russia has turned to North Korea for additional support.
Ukraine is also struggling to mobilise sufficient soldiers for its defensive requirements. Regardless of whatever measures Russia takes, the West has – to date – been reluctant to commit combatants to the war with Russia.
Putin consistently tries to frame the war as a conflict between Russia and NATO, but as Ukraine is not a member, it cannot call upon NATO for help.
There is little doubt that if the West was to get involved directly in this conflict it would overwhelm Russia’s military.
But that would be a significant escalation and there is currently limited political appetite in the West for such an option. However, if Russia was to gain momentum in the war and the prospects for Ukraine looked increasingly bleak, it is possible that individual European nations might decide to engage directly to stop Russia from prevailing.
Has the UK got a missile defence system like Iron Dome? If not, then are we utterly defenceless against hypersonic missiles?
The Scout
Ever since Iran launched a massive ballistic missile attack against Israel, there has been growing concern about the UK’s ability to protect itself against a similar attack.
Military capability is expensive: equipment must be modern, robust, survivable and upgradeable, and matched to well-trained and motivated military personnel, logistics support and a host of other supporting elements.

Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets. Pic: Reuters
As a result, national investment in military capability is guided by threat – both near and longer-term – and for the past three decades there has not been a credible military threat to the UK requiring a layered air defence capability.
It is worth pointing out that if the UK were to be targeted by missiles, these weapons would have to fly over our NATO allies before getting to our island shores. Therefore, our membership of the NATO alliance provides a robust defence against such a threat.
In terms of national capability, the first requirement is to detect and track incoming missiles. RAF Fylingdales is a UK radar base and is also part of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. It is designed to give the British and US governments warning of an impending ballistic missile attack (part of the so-called four-minute warning during the Cold War).
In addition, the UK has 24/7 fighter-jet capability – Quick Reaction Alert – that can shoot down cruise missiles, and the Royal Navy also has missile defence capability.
During the Cold War, the UK was protected from missile attack by numerous Bloodhound missiles that were based across the country.
However, modern ballistic missiles require high-tech (and expensive) defensive capability to intercept these hypersonic weapons – this is just one example of where the lack of investment in the UK armed forces over the past 30 years has left a vulnerability.
But, with a US Patriot system costing around $1bn per unit, the UK will not be able to address this vulnerability any time soon without a step-change in investment.
Read more:
Zelenskyy suggests ‘hot phase’ of war could end in return for NATO membership if offered
Starmer makes significant shift on Ukraine
Ukrainians united against Russia as Zelenskyy looks to end fighting
Why isn’t the UK doing more to prepare its citizens for possible war with Russia, like Finland and other European countries?
Rosa
Sean says: Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the UK has reduced its defence spending commensurate with the perceived “peace dividend”.
The UK military was still deployed to conflicts around the world, but these were wars of choice and conducted as expeditionary warfare. The UK Armed Forces deployed military power overseas and configured its forces accordingly.
Although Russia and China were “driving threats” that helped define UK military requirements, few anticipated that Russia would conduct a large-scale invasion of its neighbour.
The consequences of Putin’s unprovoked aggression in Ukraine will have profound and long-term implications for national security, well beyond the immediate geographic boundaries of the current conflict.
However, there is no quick fix to addressing 30 years of low defence spending, which is why the UK Strategic Defence Review has been commissioned to inform a fresh approach to meeting the UK’s future defence needs.
Although the UK political narrative is focused on increasing defence spending to 2.5% GDP at some stage in the future, most military experts believe that a significantly greater investment will be required to develop a credible and robust national defence strategy.
The UK needs to reconfigure its military capability – both nuclear and conventional – to enable the UK to demonstrate a credible military deterrence posture that will not only deter a potential adversary, but also ensure the UK prevails if conflict cannot be avoided.
Although this appears a worthy ambition, addressing decades of underfunding will require significant investment.
The UK fiscal environment precludes large investments in defence without making very difficult choices elsewhere – although it is worth reiterating that the number one priority of any government is the protection of its people, so investment should be prioritised accordingly.
In the near term, Russia has paid a huge price for its invasion of Ukraine and it will be several years before it has refreshed its stocks of military equipment, ammunition and personnel to enable it to pose a threat to the West.
Furthermore, nations geographically closer to Russia will undoubtedly feel an increased degree of urgency, which all contribute to UK’s layered defences.
But this only provides a very small window of opportunity for the UK to respond and rebuild its defences. Fail to pay our premiums, and we will not have effective insurance against an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous world.
What’s behind Zelenskyy’s comments that he would accept a ceasefire and lose land? Why now?
Jason
Sean says: Ultimately, the only person who knows the answer to that question is Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
However, mindful that Zelenskyy has proven very adept at leveraging international media to maintain a focus on the conflict with Russia, this most recent interview with Sky News was almost certainly not conducted “off the cuff”.
You can watch that interview in full below…
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
47:16
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks to Sky News about Ukraine’s ceasefire conditions
What we do know is that Ukraine is being pushed back on the frontline, its military is running short of ammunition and weapons, and the rising number of casualties is making it increasingly difficult to withstand the highly attritional Russian onslaught.
To date, Zelenskyy has made clear that he is not prepared to negotiate with Putin without some guarantees about Ukraine’s long-term security.
Under Joe Biden’s tenure, US military and financial support was provided to ensure Ukraine did not lose the war, whereas it appears that president-elect Donald Trump’s objective is to bring the war to an end.
Therefore, Zelenskyy is probably reviewing his negotiating strategy in preparation for Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.
Of note were Zelenskyy’s comments that land was significantly less important than people – and his priority was to ensure the long-term security and prosperity of the Ukrainian people.
Why is there talk of Ukraine receiving nuclear weapons? Is this true?
Joan
Sean says: After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Ukraine found itself the third biggest nuclear power in the world.
The Soviet leadership had previously forward-deployed many of its nuclear weapons onto Ukrainian territory, and although the Ukrainians did not have the launch codes for these weapons, it was widely believed that Ukraine would eventually find a way to bypass these issues.
In an effort to resolve concerns around nuclear proliferation, the US, the UK and Russia agreed to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty in return for relinquishing their nuclear arsenal.
This negotiation concluded with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. However, less than two decades later, Russia reneged on that agreement and invaded Crimea, and the US and UK failed to take decisive action to fulfil their 1994 obligations around Ukrainian sovereignty.

Bill Clinton, former Russian president Boris Yeltsin and former Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk shake hands after signing documents on January 14 1994. Pic: Reuters
If Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War, it is very unlikely that Russia would have considered a full-scale invasion in 2022.
Following Russia’s decision to forward-deploy nuclear weapons into Belarus last year, a precedent has been set and it raised the prospect that the West might consider a similar deployment of nuclear capability into Ukraine.
Although such a move would be seen by Russia as a clear escalation, it could have provided Ukraine with the ultimate deterrent against further Russian aggression.
However – and this is a significant caveat – to my knowledge there has been no further move to enact such a deployment.
Unlike Russia’s clear provocation by forward-deploying nuclear weapons into Belarus, the West appears to be looking at more measured ways to help Ukraine.
Is there a threat of European war?
Piotr
Sean says: In short, although there is always a faint risk of escalation, the short answer is that the threat of a European escalation is very, very slim.
Although we had assumed before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 that it had a credible and dangerous military capability, it has struggled to overcome Ukraine and has lost a significant proportion of its military equipment and capability over the last two years.
As a result, it will be several years before Russia has rearmed and is ready to present a significant threat to a much stronger European continent.
However, if Putin believes that the benefits of future military action outweigh the risks, he is likely to feel emboldened to continue his aggression.
Is NATO membership the safety net it used to be now Trump is coming in? Would he sanction a war with Russia if it attacked Estonia for example?
Gary P
Sean says: Although president-elect Donald Trump has made several comments in advance of his inauguration on 20 January next year, it is not yet clear how these ideas will be reflected in future US policy.
NATO remains a very powerful and credible military capability and serves as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.
It has proven incredibly effective at ensuring the protection of NATO members for many decades and continues to attract new members.
Although NATO represents a very powerful military capability by mass, its weakness is that it is a “coalition of the willing” and as we have seen during the Ukraine war, each nation has a very different appetite for risk.
And, Trump is likely to be focused on China and leave Europe to take more leadership in dealing with the Russia threat.
However, that does not mean that the NATO alliance is any less credible, and I suspect Trump will provide greater clarity over his intent following his inauguration.

Would Donald Trump sanction a war with Russia? Pic: Reuters
Should the Kerch Bridge be continually attacked to disrupt Russian supplies?
Billy
Sean says: Earlier on in the conflict, many military experts believed that Crimea represented a “centre of gravity” for Vladimir Putin – something he would never accept losing.
Therefore, if Ukraine had been able to isolate Crimea and potentially seize it back from Russian occupation, Russia could be minded to negotiate an end to the conflict in terms favourable to Ukraine.
The Kursk road/rail bridge would have been a prime target as this was a primary arterial logistics route for Russia.
However, since that time Russia has secured most of the land bridge from Russia to Crimea and is therefore significantly less reliant on the Kursk bridge for logistic support to Crimea and its occupying forces.
As a result, mindful that Ukraine is short of munitions, the bridge is probably not a priority for Ukrainian targeting at this time.
Given Putin’s nuclear threats are meaningless, should we consider giving Ukraine even more powerful weaponry beyond ATACMS?
Mark in Leeds
Sean says: Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the West has provided military and financial support.
However, throughout that time the West has tried to balance support to Ukraine with the threat that the war would escalate into an East vs West battle with significant consequences.
There has been significant political sensitivity over the level of support provided to Ukraine, but this nervousness has served to embolden Putin.

Vladimir Putin. Pic: AP
Putin knows that his ambitions in Ukraine could not be achieved if the West were to engage in the conflict – Russia has struggled to overcome Ukraine, which has a fraction of the military capability available to NATO.
However, this reluctance to engage will be perceived as a weakness by Putin – and also by aligned nations such as Iran, North Korea and China.
History suggests that bullies only respect strength – they exploit weakness.
Nobody wants to see the war escalate further, but appeasement is almost certainly not the best way to avoid such an outcome, especially in the long-term.
You may like
World
Rubio’s tough talk shows Trump’s frustration – but there’s only one loser if US walks away
Published
2 hours agoon
April 18, 2025By
admin
Marco Rubio’s comments are the strongest indication yet of Washington’s apparent growing frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks.
It’s been two months since Donald Trump initiated negotiations, with a call to Vladimir Putin, in the hope of bringing the conflict to a swift conclusion.
Since then, his team has sat down with both sides on multiple occasions, at multiple levels, in multiple locations.
But what have they actually got to show for it?
There was a much-touted 30-day ceasefire covering strikes on energy infrastructure, but it never formally began.
And with both sides continuing to accuse the other of violating it, 30 days have now passed and the agreement seems to have disappeared without a trace.
Then there was supposed to be a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
But again, that still hasn’t actually materialised, because Russia says it will only take part if certain sanctions are lifted first.
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈
It’s highly doubtful Donald Trump really believed he could end the war within 24 hours of taking office (as he promised several times), but I think he did seriously believe he could secure at least a cessation of hostilities relatively quickly, giving him an early win in his presidency.
There had been suggestions of an April/May deadline, or even an Easter ceasefire, but that now looks like pie in the sky.
So is the threat to “move on” from the talks genuine?
Or another famous negotiating tactic from the so-called master of the deal?
Trump’s approach has been heavily criticised for not being tough enough on Vladimir Putin.
It’s been all carrot for Moscow but only stick for Kyiv – and this latest intervention feels like it’s more of the same.
Because, as things stand, Ukraine still has a lot more to lose than Russia, if the war drags on.
Read more:
Zelenskyy hits out at US envoy over ‘Russian narratives’
Hollywood action hero sends ‘big kiss’ to Putin
So, for now, I don’t think Russia will be too concerned about Rubio’s threat.
That would, of course, change if the White House was also threatening to walk away from attempts to rebuild diplomatic relations with the Kremlin, but it does not sound like that is the case.
It appears that Moscow has successfully managed to compartmentalise its rapprochement with Washington, to make it a separate issue from the war.
It’s so that even if the wider peace talks fail, Russia’s bilateral bridges with the Trump administration will continue to strengthen.
World
Two hours of terror: Sky News investigation reveals how Israel’s deadly attack on aid workers unfolded
Published
20 hours agoon
April 18, 2025By
admin
A quadcopter buzzed overhead, blaring the voice of an Israeli official. It directed aid workers to a mound of sand on the eastern side of the road.
This, the voice indicated, is where they would find their missing colleagues.
It had been a week since Israeli soldiers killed them and buried their bodies in a mass grave.

Search team at the site of the mass grave in Tel Sultan, Rafah, 30 March. Pic: Planet Labs PBC
Access to the site had only been granted once before, three days earlier. That dig had turned up a single body – that of Anwar al Attar, buried beneath the crushed remains of his fire engine.
This time, the bodies turned up in quick succession. One-by-one, they were lifted from the grave, placed into white bags and lined up neatly on the road.
By sunset, 14 more bodies had been recovered.
Among them were one UN worker, eight paramedics from Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and, including Attar, six first responders from Civil Defence – the official fire and rescue service of Gaza’s Hamas-led government.
None were armed.

Fifteen aid workers and first responders were killed by Israeli forces on 15 March
Israel has denied all wrongdoing, saying its troops had reason to suspect the vehicles contained Hamas operatives and that they were later proven right.
Using visual evidence, satellite imagery, audio analysis and interviews with key witnesses, Sky News can present the most comprehensive picture of the incident so far.
Our findings contradict not only Israel’s initial account of the attack, but its subsequent accounts as well.

The search team retrieves bodies from the mass grave, 30 March, 2025. Pic: UN
‘I want to do it in order to help people’
More than 400 aid workers have now been killed in Gaza since the war began. What set the killings of these 15 apart is that their last moments were recorded on video.
Two videos, 19 minutes in total, were found on the phone of 24-year old paramedic Rifaat Radwan – one of the men pulled from the mass grave that day.
They show the terror and chaos of Rifaat’s last moments, and contradict key elements of Israel’s narrative.
“My son was very exhausted from this war,” says Rifaat’s mother, Hajjah. “This should not have been his reward.”

Rifaat Radwan, 24, was killed by Israeli troops while on a rescue mission. Pic: Facebook
Hajjah remembers the moment her son told her he wanted to become a paramedic.
It was the night of his graduation party, and all the guests had left.
“I want to do it in order to help people,” Rifaat had said.

Rifaat’s mother, Hajjah, says her son only wanted to help people
She called over Rifaat’s father, Anwar, and Rifaat began by reminding him how, from the age of five or six, he had always chased after ambulances in the street.
“This is who Rifaat was,” says Anwar. “He had very beautiful ambitions.”
How Rifaat’s last moments unfolded
Shortly before 5am, Rifaat departed from PRCS’s Rafah headquarters in an ambulance with fellow paramedic Assad al Nsasrah.
The two men, along with another ambulance following behind, had been sent to search for three colleagues who had disappeared while on a rescue mission.
By matching Rifaat’s videos and their metadata to satellite imagery, Sky News has been able to map out the exact route he took.
“They’re lying there, just lying there,” Assad says, as the ambulance comes to a stop. “Quick! It looks like an accident.”

The known position of the aid workers’ vehicles at the time the convoy was attacked, based on analysis of Rifaat’s video
Two other men rush out of the fire engine. Assad pulls the handbrake inside his ambulance.
Three seconds later, a volley of shots ring out. Rifaat jumps out of the ambulance, diving for cover by the side of the road.
For five-and-a-half minutes, Israeli troops continue to fire at the unarmed medics.
As they do so, Rifaat recites the Muslim Shahada – a statement of faith often said before death.
“Mum, forgive me. This is the path I chose, to help people,” Rifaat says towards the end of the video.
“Get up!” a voice shouts in Hebrew, before the recording abruptly ends.
New audio obtained by Sky News
Sky News has obtained exclusive new audio which reveals that the shooting did not end there.
The audio, shared by PRCS, shows a 99-second phone call between the PRCS dispatch centre and Ashraf Abu Labda, one of the paramedics in Saleh Muammar’s ambulance.

Ashraf Abu Labda was one of the paramedics killed on 23 March. Pic: Facebook
PRCS told us the phone call was made at 5.13am, around five minutes after the attack began and shortly before Rifaat’s call ended.
Sky News was not able to match the audio from the two clips, which may have been recorded in different locations.
For the first 33 seconds, Ashraf is heard reciting the Shahada as heavy gunfire continues.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:34
A recording from a call made by paramedic Ashraf Abu Labda to the PRCS dispatch centre during the attack on 23 March
Unintelligible shouting can be heard in the background, as well as the prayers of another aid worker.
Suddenly, the shooting stops and Ashraf falls silent for several seconds.
“There’s soldiers, there’s soldiers,” he says as the gunfire resumes. “The army’s at our location.”
These are his last recorded words.
Sporadic gunfire continues for the remainder of the video. These are interspersed with periods of near-silence, punctuated only by unintelligible shouts.
Suddenly, Hebrew is audible. “Come!” the voice shouts. “Come, come, come, come!”
Where is Assad al Nsasrah?
Nibal Farsakh, a spokesperson for PRCS, told Sky News Ashraf was not the only paramedic who was on the phone with the dispatch centre during the attack.
The dispatcher was able to successfully call Saleh Muammar as late as 5.45am, 37 minutes after the attack began, according to Nibal.

Paramedic Saleh Muammar was alive as late as 5.45am, a PRCS spokesman said. Pic: Facebook
The dispatcher reportedly heard heavy gunfire in the background, and Saleh said he was injured. His body was recovered from the mass grave one week later.
At 5.54am, Nibal says, the dispatch centre managed to get through to Assad al Nsasrah – the paramedic who was sitting next to Rifaat in his ambulance.

PRCS paramedic Assad Al Nsasrah was in the ambulance with Rifaat during the attack
“He was scared,” Nibal says. “He was talking about his children – please look after my children, please get me out of here.”
Nibal says the dispatcher stayed on the line with Assad for an hour-and-a-half, calling back each time the signal cut out.
At around 7am, she says, they heard Assad being arrested by the Israelis. At 7.25am, the dispatcher heard the soldiers telling Assad to empty his pockets. Fearing the soldiers would find out he had been recording them, Nibal says, the dispatcher hung up.
It was not until 13 April, three weeks after the attack, that Israel confirmed Assad was alive and in Israeli detention.
No explanation has been given for his detention, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says Israel has refused to allow it to check on his condition.
Sky News has not been able to find any evidence that Assad has links to Hamas. We were able to find a photograph of him wearing a PRCS uniform dating back as far as 2009.

Assad Al Nsasrah pictured in PRCS uniform in a photo published in 2009. Pic: PRCS
The mystery of the UN official
Only one victim remains without a name or a face – that of a UN employee who was found alongside the 14 aid workers in the mass grave, his vehicle crushed and buried nearby.

The crushed remains of a UN vehicle found at the site of the mass grave. Pic: UN
A senior UN official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Sky News the man was a guard shift supervisor, and that it is believed he was attacked while travelling from his home to southern Khan Younis to begin his shift.
“We have no reason to believe he was doing anything aside from his job,” the official says.
The UN lost contact with him at around 6am, the official says, and later received eyewitness reports that he had been detained, apparently uninjured, by Israeli forces in the area where the medics had been attacked earlier that morning.
His body was recovered from the mass grave one week later, on 30 March.
The man’s body was buried without undergoing a post-mortem examination, though his family have since given permission for the body to be exhumed for this purpose, the official said.
The man who carried out the autopsies on the bodies, Dr Ahmed Dahair, confirmed to Sky News he had so far examined every body except that of the UN official.
Israel’s seven key claims – and what the evidence says
It was not until 31 March, after the last bodies had been pulled from the grave, that the Israeli military (IDF) commented on the attack.
Numerous claims made in that statement, and in statements since, have not stood up to scrutiny.
IDF claim: The vehicles had their lights off
What we know: The vehicles’ lights were on
The IDF’s initial statement claimed Israeli troops had opened fire on the convoy because it was “advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals”.
The video taken by Rifaat, which emerged on 4 April, disproved this claim, showing that all vehicles had their lights on. The IDF subsequently retracted the claim, blaming false testimony from the soldiers involved.
The vehicles are also clearly marked in the video with humanitarian symbols, and all workers appear to be in uniform.
The doctor who carried out the post-mortem examinations, Dr Ahmed Dahair, tells Sky News that “all of them were wearing their official uniforms”.
IDF claim: The vehicles lacked necessary permissions to travel in a combat zone
What we know: The area was not declared a combat zone until four-and-a-half hours after the attack
The IDF has also justified the decision to open fire by saying the vehicles were “uncoordinated” – meaning their movements were not approved in advance by the IDF.
Speaking to Sky News, however, senior officials from the UN, PRCS and Civil Defence say coordination was not required because the area had not been declared a combat zone.
“It was a safe area and does not require coordination,” says Mohammed Abu Mosahba, director of ambulance and emergency services at PRCS.
As Sky News reported on 3 April, an evacuation order for the area was only issued at 8.31am, almost four-and-a-half hours after the first ambulance was attacked.
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Israeli forces did conduct a major operation in the area that morning, but Sky News found no evidence that IDF vehicles were nearby before the attacks took place.
Satellite imagery from 10.48am on the day of the incident shows a large number of vehicles near the site of the attack, and tracks connecting them with a building 1.1km to the west, indicating that this is where the vehicles came from.
A photo posted by the IDF at 8.25am that morning shows a soldier and a tank at this building. However, analysis of the shadows on the building indicates the photo was taken between 6.30am and 7.00am – well after the attacks took place.

An Israeli soldier and IDF tank in front of an abandoned hospital in Rafah, 23 March. Pic: IDF
IDF claim: Israeli troops did not fire from a close distance
What we know: Some shots were fired from as close as 12m
In a 5 April briefing to journalists, the IDF said there was “no firing from close distance” during the incident, and that this is backed up by aerial surveillance footage. The IDF is yet to release this footage.
However, as Sky News revealed on 9 April, expert analysis of the audio in Rifaat’s recording shows some of the shots fired at the medics came from as little as 12m away.
Dr Ahmed, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examinations, said his team were unable to determine whether the shots were fired from close range because the bodies arrived in an “advanced state of decomposition”.
IDF claim: The victims did not have their hands or feet tied together
What we know: There is no evidence to suggest the victims were restrained before being killed
Representatives of PRCS and Civil Defence, as well as a doctor who saw the bodies, have said that at least one victim was found with their hands or legs tied together – claims that Israel has denied.
Photos shared with Sky News and other media outlets as evidence of this claim do show a black plastic tie around one victim’s wrist. Attached to the tie is an empty white information card.

The tie appears only on one limb, however, and sources at Red Cross and Civil Defence told us that the white tag appears to be of the kind used by emergency workers in Gaza to identify bodies.
Dr Ahmed Dahair told Sky News he saw “no clear signs of physical restraints” during the post-mortem examinations.
“In one case, there were areas of discolouration around the wrists, which may suggest possible binding. Nevertheless, there was no definitive evidence of restraints in the remaining cases,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:27
Dr. Ahmad Dahiar was a doctor who wrote the autopsy report for the bodies of the dead paramedics, killed in the attack on 23 March
IDF claim: The vehicles were crushed by accident as they were moved off the road
What we know: The vehicles were only crushed after they had been moved off the road
The IDF has said the bodies were buried in order to protect them from wild animals, and that the vehicles were crushed inadvertently while being moved out of the road. It has not explained why the vehicles were buried.

A crushed vehicle at the site of the aid worker attack, 30 March. Pic: UN
Satellite imagery from the hours after the attack, however, shows that by 10.48am five vehicles had already been moved off to the side of the road but had not yet been crushed – directly contradicting the IDF’s account.
The illustration below is based on satellite imagery seen by Sky News.

IDF claim: The convoy included ‘Hamas terrorists’
What we know: There is no evidence anyone in the convoy was a militant
The IDF says “at least six” of those killed were “Hamas terrorists”, though it hasn’t alleged that any were armed.
No evidence has been provided to support this claim, and there are no indications in Rifaat’s video that any of the aid workers were combatants or had ties with Hamas.
Conflict monitoring organisation Airwars told Sky News it had conducted a thorough search of the victims’ social media history and was unable to find any evidence linking them to militant groups, though it emphasised that online information “can only ever provide a partial picture”.
The IDF has only specifically named one of these alleged Hamas operatives, Mohammad Amin Ibrahim Shubaki.
However, this person has not been named as a victim of the attack by the UN, PRCS or Civil Defence.
There is no publicly available evidence that he had ties to any of these organisations, or to Hamas, or that he is dead.
IDF claim: The original ambulance contained three Hamas police officers
What we know: There is no evidence any of these three were militants
The IDF says that all three people in the original ambulance, which Rifaat’s team were searching for, were “Hamas police”.
No evidence has been provided for this claim either. Two of the men, Mustafa Khalaja and Ezz El-Din Shaat, were killed, while one, Munther Abed, was detained and later released.
Sky News reviewed social media profiles, identified by Airwars, for the two men who were killed. We found no evidence that either was affiliated with Hamas.
Ezz El-Din was photographed at a hospital wearing a PRCS uniform in October 2023, He was later pictured in February 2024 lifting an injured person out of a PRCS ambulance in Rafah.

Ezz El Din Shaat lifting someone out of a PRCS ambulance in Rafah, February 2024. Pic: AP/Hatem Ali
Mustafa, meanwhile, had extensively documented his paramedic career online in photos dating back to 2011.
In one post, his young son is pictured at the wheel of a PRCS ambulance. “Mohammed insists on visiting me at work and sharing my working hours with patients,” he wrote.

Mustafa Khalaja posing with his son in a PRCS ambulance, June 2016. Pic: Facebook
Eyewitness account backs up Sky’s findings
Of all the aid workers present that day, only one has been able to tell their side of the story.
Speaking to Sky News, Munther Abed, 27, said he had been in the first ambulance attacked that day – the one that Rifaat’s convoy were looking for.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
Munther Abed was in the ambulance Rifaat and his colleagues were searching for
Munther denies having any connection to Hamas, telling Sky News that he was only released after the Israeli military confirmed he had no militant ties.
His story began at 3.52am, when his ambulance was sent south to the site of a reported Israeli attack. Four minutes later, the dispatch centre lost contact with them.
Munther was in the back of the ambulance when they were hit by what he describes as “heavy gunfire”. He immediately dropped to the floor.
“I did not hear a word from my two colleagues,” he says. “I only heard their final breaths, their throes of death.”
Several soldiers dragged him from the vehicle, he says, and he was stripped, beaten and placed behind a wall.
At 4.39am, Saleh Muammar’s ambulance was sent out to search for the missing team. Onboard was Ashraf Abu Labda and another medic, Raed al Sharif.

Saleh Muammar (left), Ashraf Abu Labda (centre) and Raed al Sharif were travelling together. Pics: Facebook
At 4.53am, they spotted Munthar’s ambulance by the side of the road. Two more ambulances, including Rifaat’s, were quickly sent to join the search.
At 5.02am, Rifaat runs into Saleh, and asks if he knows where Munthar’s ambulance is. Saleh tells him it’s back the way he came. They call for backup from Civil Defence, and head towards the scene of the attack.
At 5.08am, the search convoy arrived. Then the shooting began.
“I was only able to see the red lights flickering of the vehicles, and was able to hear the sound of sirens [and] gunfire,” Munther says.
During his interrogation, the Israeli soldiers asked Munther why he was present during a military operation. He told them he wasn’t aware of any such operation.
It was only after sunrise, he says, when heavy machinery and tanks began to arrive, that fighting in the area began.
“It happened all of a sudden,” Munther says. “They didn’t throw leaflets to inform the inhabitants to evacuate Rafah, nor did they say on the news.
“No, Rafah was fully populated. It was not a red zone or a fighting zone as they claimed.”
His account is consistent with Sky’s open-source analysis above, which found no evidence for any military operation at the time and location of the attack.
Munther says he witnessed the crushing of the vehicles with his own eyes, corroborating Sky’s finding that the vehicles were crushed only after being moved to the side of the road.
After the heavy machinery arrived at dawn, Munther says, the Israelis dug a large hole on one side of the road and several smaller holes on the other side.
“In the large hole, they put all the ambulances and the Civil Defence vehicles,” he says. “The heavy machinery climbed over all the vehicles… then they buried them with some earth.”
Munther’s story
Munther told Sky News that he had also been badly mistreated in Israeli detention.
“The torture took different colours,” Munther says. “They released dogs to attack us when we were in holes, moving from one hole to another. They were hitting and tormenting me.”
During one interrogation, Munther says, a soldier placed his weapon on his neck.
“Another soldier placed a bayonet on my wrist. If he had pressed a bit more he would have cut my veins.”
Munther says that Assad was detained alongside him on the day of the attack.
“He was accompanied by an Israeli officer, and was beaten before being placed next to me,” Munther says.
Towards the end of his detention, Munther says, he was forced to act a “human shield” by transmitting messages between the troops and the crowds of people fleeing Rafah.
After performing this task, he was given back his mobile phone and released.
‘It all points to a cover-up’
“This looks like a dreadful war crime,” says Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who served as lead prosecutor in the genocide trial of former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague.
“The [use] of a bulldozer to bury the bodies of the 15 people and their vehicles and the change of official accounts given by Israel all… points to a cover-up.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:48
‘Dreadful war crime’
Satellite imagery shows that Israeli forces moved quickly to restrict access to the scene of the attack.
Within five hours, the IDF had set up road blocks north and south of the site.

Position of IDF roadblocks erected within hours of the attack, based on satellite imagery seen by Sky News
Speaking to Sky News, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said: “The way it’s been described in the first place, the original reaction by the Israeli army, the then subsequent corrections made, all points to something very, very disturbing.”
Sky’s Alex Crawford asked Olmert whether the evidence pointed to a cover-up. “I don’t know, but I don’t feel comfortable,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:30
Ex-Israeli PM Ehud Olmert says evidence points to something ‘very disturbing’
In an interview with Sky’s Mark Austin on 8 April, Israeli government spokesman David Mencer said the IDF’s investigation would be published “very, very shortly”.
“We have nothing to hide whatsoever,” he said.
In a statement to Sky News, the IDF said it is “conducting an inquiry into the incident, which took place in a combat zone, to uncover the truth”.
“The preliminary inquiry indicated that the troops opened fire due to a perceived threat following a previous encounter in the area, and that six of the individuals killed in the incident were identified as Hamas terrorists. All the claims raised regarding the incident will be examined through the mechanism and presented in a detailed and thorough manner for a decision on how to handle the event.”
Who is responsible?
The IDF has not released details of the soldiers involved, but it has said they belong to the elite Golani brigade.
The video below, which emerged on 4 April, shows a Golani Patrol Commander speaking to his troops.
“Everyone you encounter is an enemy,” he tells them. “If you spot a figure, open fire, eliminate, and move on.”
Geoffrey Nice says that legal culpability for the killing of the 15 aid workers could rest with the soldiers involved, or with people higher up the command chain.
“You don’t do at the bottom what you fear will not be supported by people at the top,” he says. “Why would you? The risk is too great.”
When she heard that there had been an Israeli operation overnight in Rafah, Rifaat’s mother Hajjah wasn’t worried – she had faith that her son’s status as a humanitarian worker would protect him.
Her main concern was whether, during all the inevitable call-outs, he would have time to eat or drink.
“We did not fear for his safety at all.”
Additional reporting by Olive Enokido-Lineham, OSINT producer, Mary Poynter, producer, and Adam Parker, OSINT editor.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open-source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
World
Zelenskyy accuses US envoy Witkoff of ‘spreading Russian narratives’ – as he says minerals deal getting closer
Published
1 day agoon
April 17, 2025By
admin
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused US envoy Steve Witkoff of “spreading Russian narratives” about the Ukraine war – as he said a much-anticipated minerals deal was moving closer.
His comments came as Mr Witkoff was in Paris for talks with Ukrainian and European officials.
The diplomat met Vladimir Putin last week and later told Fox News he had held “compelling” discussions with the Russian leader.
“This peace deal is about these so-called five territories, but there’s so much more to it,” he said.
He appeared to be referencing occupied Crimea and the four regions annexed in sham referendums in 2022: Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia.
The votes were widely condemned and dismissed by the West – and Russia still does not fully control these regions – but Mr Witkoff has been accused of parroting Moscow’s line.
More on Russia
Related Topics:

Mr Witkoff met the Russian president in St Petersburg on Friday. Pic: Sputnik/AP
Mr Zelenskyy, speaking at a news conference, also said a “memorandum of intent” on a minerals deal with the US could be signed online on Thursday.
However, speaking at the White House later – where he was hosting the Italian prime minister, US President Donald Trump said it was likely to be next week.
The deal was expected to be done weeks ago but was derailed by the Ukrainian leader’s falling out at the White House.
President Trump wants to share in profits from Ukraine’s natural resources in what he says is repayment for military aid. It’s hoped America having a stake in the country could also help maintain any truce.
In his media conference, Mr Zelenskyy also claimed he had evidence of China helping Russia with artillery.
“We believe that Chinese representatives are engaged in the production of some weapons on the territory of Russia,” the Ukrainian leader said.
He did not specify whether he meant artillery systems or shells.
It comes after Ukraine said recently that it had captured two Chinese citizens fighting in the east of the country.
US efforts to broker a ceasefire have so far failed to provide a breakthrough, with critics accusing Russia of stalling and not really wanting peace.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:30
‘I don’t hold Zelenskyy responsible’
President Trump was asked on Thursday how long Mr Putin had to respond to his ceasefire proposal before facing either tariffs or more sanctions.
“We’re going to be hearing from them this week, very shortly, actually,” he told reporters.
He also said that while he does not hold President Zelenskyy responsible for the war, he is “not a big fan”.
“I’m not happy with him, and I’m not happy with anybody involved,” he said.
“I’m not blaming him, but what I am saying is that I wouldn’t say he’s done the greatest job. Okay? I’m not a big fan.”
Three killed in drone attack
US envoy Mr Witkoff was joined in Paris earlier by US secretary of state Marco Rubio.
The men held talks with French, British and German representatives – the so-called “coalition of the willing” who could provide security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire.
Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff, foreign minister and defence minister were also there and a follow-up is scheduled for next week in London.

Talks took place at the Elysee Palace in Paris. Pic: Reuters
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:21
Will talks bring Ukraine ceasefire?
While a total ceasefire has proved elusive, a 30-day moratorium on striking energy infrastructure targets was previously agreed.
However, both sides have accused each other of breaking the agreement.
Russian government spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed on Thursday that Ukraine had breached it 80 times.

Three were killed and dozens hurt in drone strikes on Dnipro. Pic: Reuters

Pic: Reuters
President Zelenskyy, meanwhile, said Russian energy attacks had decreased but that it was attacking civilian infrastructures instead.
Three people, including a child, were killed overnight in a drone attack on Ukraine’s southeastern city of Dnipro, according to officials, with 30 wounded.
Local authorities said widespread damage was caused to civilian infrastructure, including an educational institution, residential buildings, a gym and a dormitory.
It comes after at least 35 people died in a Russian missile strike on Sumy at the weekend.
Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway