Connect with us

Diplomacy

Experts say Bering Strait Tunnel could launch a new era of US-Russia cooperation

Published

on

International experts, academics, and project consultants discussed the Bering Strait Tunnel project at a roundtable organized by EIR News Service. Speakers emphasized that the project is not merely an infrastructure initiative linking continents but also a historic opportunity to promote global peace and development by fostering cooperation between the United States and Russia. They noted that the project could be a “game-changer” capable of moving the world out of its current, dangerously conflict-prone state.

International experts emphasized that the Bering Strait Tunnel project is not just an infrastructure initiative but also holds the potential to usher in a new era of global peace and development.

German, American, Russian, and Italian speakers, who convened at an online roundtable organized by EIR News Service, stated that the project could create a new paradigm in international relations by connecting the Eurasian and American continents.

Opening the meeting, EIR editor Jason Ross said the Bering Strait Tunnel could serve as “not just a bridge between continents, but a moral bridge to a better paradigm of international relations.”

This project is the answer to the question of war or peace

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and President of the Schiller Institute, which organized the meeting, drew attention to the fundamental importance of the Bering Strait Tunnel.

Stating that the project carries more than just economic investment potential, Zepp-LaRouche said, “The realization of the Bering Strait Tunnel is potentially, and very likely, the answer to whether there will be war or peace.”

Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear powers that would replace conflict with cooperation, continuing:

“This cooperation is not only for the benefit of these two countries but for all countries in the world. This could be a game-changer, marking a break and a difference from the current, extremely dangerous moment in history.”

Zepp-LaRouche recalled that her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, began supporting this project as early as 1978.

Expressing that the project formed the key link in the idea they later concretized in the report The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Zepp-LaRouche said, “This idea is the opening up of all the continents of the planet through the continuous advancement of infrastructure development, and eventually connecting the entire world with a system of tunnels and bridges.”

Zepp-LaRouche noted that with the realization of this vision, a person starting from the southern tip of Argentina by high-speed train could travel uninterrupted to Alaska, from there through the tunnel to Siberia, and finally to the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa. She stated that the project is not just a transportation line but a “development corridor.”

“Four thousand kilometers of high-speed rail will be built on the Russian side, and two thousand kilometers on the Canadian and Alaskan side. But this will be just one artery in the corridor. The corridor will also include highways, energy production and distribution, and communications,” she said.

Through this, Zepp-LaRouche added, vast areas in North America and Russia’s Far East, which currently have largely permafrost conditions, will be developed with infrastructure, and the productivity of these regions could reach the level of global industrial centers.

Addressing the project’s cost, Zepp-LaRouche stated, “Some experts indicate the project will pay for itself in about 15 years. Elon Musk said the tunnel could be built in eight years for $8 billion. But the potential for economic productivity and prosperity that the project will unleash is enormous.”

Zepp-LaRouche recalled that Russian President Vladimir Putin invited other countries to invest in this project at the Vladivostok Economic Forum, adding that the project also has a peace-building dimension.

Spencer: The Panama Canal of the 21st century

Meanwhile, Scott Spencer, Chief Project Advisor for the InterContinental Railway, described the project as a significant “turning point” in history. “All great projects have more than one turning point in their history, and we are at exactly such a point right now,” Spencer said.

Stating that the cost of the war between Ukraine and Russia far exceeds the cost of this project and provides no benefit to the world, Spencer said, “The Intercontinental Railway is an important part of achieving peace.”

Spencer noted that the project is something US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could agree on, and he reported that the Russian news agency TASS had contacted him twice in recent days to discuss the project’s potential to rebuild US-Russia relations.

Spencer expressed that despite the project’s complexity, there are only two fundamental questions:

“Who will take the leadership to build this project? And when it is built, why will people say they didn’t do it sooner?”

Summarizing the project’s benefits, Spencer said the tunnel under the Bering Strait would be about 100 kilometers long and that advanced tunneling technology could reduce the cost and time. He stated that the project is not just about the tunnel but encompasses a broader network that will connect Alaska to the other US states via Canada.

“We call this project ‘the Panama Canal of the 21st century’ because it will be as impactful and game-changing as the Panama Canal was in the 20th century,” Spencer said.

He expressed that they expect the project to initially carry about 100 million gross ton-miles of freight per year, in addition to creating extra traffic related to access to resources in Russia and Alaska.

Noting that although the project’s cost is estimated to be around $100 billion, even if it were $200 billion, this is not a significant figure considering its 150-200 year lifespan, Spencer emphasized the need for an “Intercontinental Railway Agreement” based on mutual benefit among the US, Canada, Russia, and China for the project to proceed.

Razbegin: The project is technically feasible

Dr. Viktor Razbegin, President of the Interhemispheric Bering Strait Tunnel & Railroad Group in Russia, also shared technical details about the project’s modern outlook and future potential.

Razbegin stated that the shortest distance between Alaska and Russia is 85 kilometers, but the tunnel route would be between 95 and 113 kilometers due to the presence of two small islands.

Razbegin said the existence of these islands is an advantage for the tunnel’s construction, assessing, “This way, we will cross the Bering Strait not in one piece, but in three parts, each no longer than the Channel Tunnel.”

Expressing that the project is a main line connecting not just two countries but the Eurasian and North American continents and will involve many countries, Razbegin said, “This will create an absolute revolution in logistics. Delivery times to the interior regions of the continents will be reduced from today’s 30 days to 10 to 15 days.”

Razbegin stated that about 4,000 kilometers of railway need to be built on the Russian side and about 2,000 kilometers to connect Alaska to the North American rail network for the construction of this main line. He said that thanks to technical and economic studies conducted over the last 30 years, they know how to realize the project.

“In Russia, we have organized an extensive program including engineering geology and technical research. We know the approximate cost of the project, and in fact, we have already started this project,” Razbegin said.

Stating that the engineering geology conditions for the tunnel are quite favorable for this type of construction and they do not expect major difficulties, Razbegin emphasized that the project could become profitable in 10 to 15 years with its commercial transportation benefits alone.

“But perhaps the greater benefit will come from the development of vast territories with enormous mineral resources in Russia, Canada, and Alaska. But perhaps most importantly, I completely agree with Helga Zepp-LaRouche that this project will be the embodiment of the idea of peace through development, peace through cooperation,” Razbegin concluded.

Investment signal from Russia: $8 billion, 8 years

Additionally, Azer Mahamedov, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), stated that they appreciate the expert discussions on the project and are positive about its prospects.

“We believe the project itself is very important because it will provide significant potential not only for countries but also for the economic development of continents,” Mahamedov said.

Expressing that the project cost could be significantly reduced thanks to modern technologies, Mahamedov said, “We estimate the project cost at about 7 to 8 billion American dollars and the project duration at about eight years. We have been studying the project with the expert community for some time and will continue to do so.”

Siviero: Bridges unite hearts

Professor Enzo Siviero, a construction and transportation expert from Italy, added a philosophical and humanistic dimension to the project. “I define the tunnel as an underwater bridge because the term bridge also means to connect. This connects not only lands but also people, cultures, and emotional things like the heart,” Siviero said.

Stating that the connection between Russia and the US is vital for world peace, Siviero said, “It is necessary to build this huge project. It was necessary a few decades ago, but now it is more necessary than ever.”

Recalling that he himself had proposed a bridge-tunnel connection between Sicily and Tunisia decades ago, Siviero said that connecting continents is the key to the future.

Siviero noted that building a bridge in the Bering Strait is almost impossible due to weather conditions, making the tunnel the only option, and he emphasized the great importance of the two small islands on the route for safety.

“Infrastructures like this can also change people’s mentality. This is very important. Dialogue is the first step to peace. And in my opinion, the word peace is equivalent to a bridge, whether it is a tunnel or another structure. When we build, there is peace; when we destroy, there is war,” he added.

Bobrov: Diplomacy is undergoing a serious stress test

Dr. Aleksandr Bobrov from the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia focused on the political and diplomatic dimensions of the project.

“This project not only creates a brand-new project that will bring the US and Russia together, but it is also a symbol of cooperation,” Bobrov said.

Stating that the project, much like diplomacy, brings together nations with different backgrounds and views, Bobrov recalled that the idea first emerged during the Kennedy-Khrushchev era, after the Caribbean Crisis when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

However, Bobrov noted that there are some obstacles to the project, particularly that the European Union and some NATO countries have undermined diplomatic efforts between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. “Unfortunately, diplomacy should not work like this,” Bobrov said.

Bobrov stated that opposition within the Republican Party in the US and the current policies of the Democratic Party have reduced bilateral trade to almost zero, and the project must be launched in a “completely frozen economic environment.”

Emphasizing that this project has the potential to create a new environment in areas such as arms control, counter-terrorism, and cooperation in space, Bobrov added, “If there is a will, there is a way. Thanks to this project, I believe we are closer to a better future for our bilateral relations.”

Discussion on nuclear war risk and diplomatic solutions

In the discussion section, the question of how the project could eliminate the risk of nuclear war was raised. Scott Spencer stated that the risk of nuclear war cannot be ignored, saying, “This project can provide a very strong foundation for working together towards a future where we will reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons.”

Spencer said that with the integration of artificial intelligence into military command and control systems, nuclear weapons cannot coexist, calling it a “clear and present danger.”

Dr. Viktor Razbegin reiterated a simple idea:

“The only alternative to war is a great project. When different nations work together to create something truly great, the vector can shift from conflict to cooperation.”

Dr. Aleksandr Bobrov also stated that diplomacy is “undergoing a very serious stress test,” emphasizing that the only way out is diplomacy, just as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis 63 years ago.

Financing and obstacles in Canada

The meeting also addressed topics such as the views of indigenous peoples in Alaska and Siberia on the project, financing models, and Canada’s role.

Scott Spencer mentioned that they have spoken with indigenous corporations in Alaska and that they want to be involved in the decision-making processes.

Canadian railway engineer Peter Schultz said that political institutions in Canada are not keen on the project, but some provinces think differently from the federal government and are actively negotiating with American officials.

Concluding the meeting, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated that the idea that artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons cannot coexist is a “very frightening thought” and stressed the absolute urgency of a change in direction.

“The Bering Strait is an extremely important step for humanity to overcome geopolitics, to become one humanity, and to understand that we are all sitting in the same boat,” she concluded.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel

Published

18 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.

In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”

When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.

“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”

Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.

The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.

“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”

“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”

Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”

While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.

“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”

“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”

Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.

Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”

Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.

Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”

Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.

“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”

Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.

He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.

Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.

“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”

Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.

Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”

“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”

Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”

Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.

“Trump’s claims are false”

Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.

“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”

He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.

“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”

When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:

“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030

Published

18 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.

“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.

The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.

As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.

The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.

NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”

Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns

Published

18 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.

Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.

“Political strategy is changing”

Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.

The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.

Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.

Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.

Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.

In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.

Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.

Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.

Priority targets of the new cabinet established

Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.

Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.

The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?

The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.

Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.

Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.

According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:

  • Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
  • Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
  • Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
  • Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv

Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.

Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.

Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.

Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.

Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.

According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.

Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.

Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.

Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey