Connect with us

Diplomacy

Global Geopolitics launched in Berlin, focusing on multipolarity and changing global order

Published

on

International scholars and policy experts gathered in Berlin for the launch of Global Geopolitics, a new peer-reviewed academic journal examining the complex dynamics of international relations, power structures, and global strategic trends.

The inaugural roundtable, organized in cooperation with the Berlin-based Eurasian Society, provided a platform to discuss developments such as the perceived decline of Western unipolarity, the emergence of what some speakers termed “civilizational states,” and differing interpretations of value-based foreign policy in a more fragmented global environment.

A mandate for inclusivity in a changing world

The launch took place during what Efe Can Gürcan, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, described as a period of “profound change” and “major transition.” Dr. Gürcan, affiliated with Queen’s University Belfast and the Turkish Academy of Sciences, outlined the journal’s aim to broaden discussions within the field of geopolitics.

“Today we’re meeting at a moment of profound change… and geopolitics is once again moving on the headlines, on the forefront of our agenda,” Gürcan stated in his opening remarks. He noted that despite growing interest in geopolitical issues, there remain “very few academic journals which are exclusively focused or devoted to the study of geopolitics.”

According to Gürcan, the journal seeks to move beyond conventional binaries often present in geopolitical debates. “Geopolitics is often framed by reference to conflict, exclusion, rivalry,” he observed. “While this is partially true, we prefer to take a much more expansive approach… at the end of the day, it all comes down to one simple word: inclusivity.” He outlined three pillars of this approach:

  • Geographical inclusivity, encouraging contributions from scholars across all the seven continents, not just the West, not just the East, not just the Global South.”
  • Disciplinary inclusivity, incorporating perspectives from various disciplines including history, sociology, and economics,
  • Analytical inclusivity, integrating perspectives from International Relations (IR) theory as well as both traditional and critical geopolitics, and examining not only conflict but also cooperation, connectivity, and non-traditional security issues.

Efecan Gürcan

“In Global Geopolitics, the term ‘global’ is not used in the same sense as ‘globalism,’” Gürcan clarified, adding that “it is a conscious and meaningful choice on our part,” which does not imply alignment with any specific political project or ideological agenda. Rather, the pairing of “global” and “geopolitics” is deliberate, underscoring the journal’s commitment to geographical, disciplinary, and analytical inclusivity alongside academic rigor.

The journal’s editorial infrastructure reflects today’s multipolar reality, boasting a board with representatives from the UK, Canada, India, China, Japan, Brazil, Peru, Türkiye, among others. The first issue addresses topics such as the Ukraine conflict, energy policy, and global migration through empirical research.

The failure of moralism and the return of “realpolitik”

Following Dr. Gürcan’s introduction, the keynote session was opened by Alexander Rahr, Chairman of the Eurasian Society and a veteran historian formerly associated with the German Council on Foreign Relations. Rahr delivered a scathing critique of the current intellectual climate in Germany and Western Europe, arguing that the fixation on “liberal values” has rendered traditional diplomatic analysis obsolete.

“Germany, but also some other European countries, are now focused 100% in their view, in their analysis, in their policy, on so-called liberal values and nothing else,” Rahr asserted. He argued that this moral absolutism was sustainable only when the West was unchallenged. “It went okay for the West to have this kind of projection over the past 25 or 35 years when the West was united, the West was strong… Now we are in serious trouble.”

Rahr framed the launch of the journal as a necessary intervention to reintroduce “Realpolitik” into the European discourse. He lamented the lack of diverse voices in the German public sphere, contrasting it unfavorably with the United States, where figures like John Mearsheimer or Jeffrey Sachs still command attention.

For Rahr, the geopolitical imperative for Europe is clear: a pivot toward understanding, rather than lecturing, the emerging powers. “I would like to make the focus on the BRICS countries,” he said. “These BRICS countries… have the potential of becoming new poles in the world.”

He argued that for Germany and Europe, getting closer to these nations is not merely an economic option but a security necessity. “Only by doing this we can sustain, maintain peace and cooperation in this complex multipolar world.” Rahr specifically highlighted the need to comprehend “Chinese thinking” and “Indian thinking,” areas where he claims European elites know “very little, almost nothing.”

The dangers of the “missionary mentality”

Dr. Christopher Mott, a Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, addressed what he called the “dangers of missionary mentality.” Dr. Mott offered a realist deconstruction of the liberal international order, warning that the impulse to convert the world to a single ideological standard is a recipe for endless conflict.

Mott began by quoting the philosopher George Santayana: “The humanitarian, like the missionary, is often an irreconcilable enemy of the people he seeks to befriend because he has not imagination enough to sympathize with their proper needs nor humility enough to respect them as if they were his own.”

Mott argued that the “unipolar moment” following the Soviet collapse was a “freakish occurrence” in history, lasting at most 20 years. The shock currently felt in Western capitals, he suggested, stems from a refusal to accept that normalcy—historical multipolarity—has returned.

Christopher Mott

“99% of human history was effectively multipolar,” Mott noted. “How do we most constructively learn to be normal again after having bathed in the mentally stultifying lies of a universal human destiny?”

He cautioned against viewing the emerging order as a shared journey. “There is no shared political journey. The future will be as divergent as the past was,” Mott said. He advocated for “polycentrism,” a system where different regimes and ideologies coexist based on “sovereign geographic entities” rather than a forced consensus.

“Liberal internationalism, in its quest to become a universal arbiter of morality… forgot that once upon a time its greatest asset was that it acknowledged many forms of being,” Mott said, referencing the philosophy of Spinoza and Hobbes. He warned European states against becoming a “Saudi Arabia of militant humanism,” exporting a universalist worldview that isolates them from the rest of the globe.

Mott’s prescription for the North Atlantic was a return to “situational realism” and local interest. He closed by invoking George Washington’s Farewell Address, citing the founding father’s warning against weaving “artificial ties” with foreign powers. “Reject Baerbockism, embrace situ-realism,” Mott concluded, referring to the current German Foreign Minister’s value-based diplomacy.

Deconstructing the “West” and the “Global South”

Professor Jagannath Panda, Head of the Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs, shifted the focus to the structural dynamics of power in Asia and the broader globe. Panda challenged the very terminology used to describe the current order, suggesting that the binary of “East vs. West” has dissolved.

Reflecting on the recent World Economic Forum, Panda observed: “What I found very interesting in Davos is that there was less about economics… it was more about political economy, political security.” He went further, stating that speeches from leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau revealed a fracturing of the traditional Western bloc.

“There is nothing called ‘West’ today,” Panda argued. “If West does not exist, then can we really say that there is a fight exist between West and East? Probably there is no fight.” He extended this skepticism to the term “Global North,” suggesting that the convergence of interests is creating a “contesting world order” where countries partake in multiple, overlapping typologies of power.

Panda distinguished between multilateralism (a process establishing networks), multipolarism (the structural base of power), and multipolarity (the medium through which power is distributed). He cited BRICS as a unique entity that combines all three, unlike the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which functions purely as a multilateral mechanism.

Highlighting the growing strategic autonomy of nations, Panda pointed to the recent trade negotiations between India and the European Union. He noted that for the first time, EU leaders were chief guests at India’s Republic Day, signaling a “special chemistry” driven by mutual necessity rather than ideological alignment. “Both sides talk about something unique: strategic autonomy,” Panda said.

Panda also predicted a shift in the nature of global conflict. While territorial disputes remain, he warned that “resource politics is going to be shaping the global politics in times to come.” He identified coastal and corridor nations—such as Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives—as critical players in this new arena, where control over supply chains and raw materials will supersede traditional land grabs.

The empire of chaos and energy wars

The final keynote was delivered by Thomas Fazi, an Italian journalist and author known for his critique of neoliberalism. Fazi provided the most confrontational assessment of the day, characterizing the current geopolitical transition as the end of “500 years of Western economic, political, and military global hegemony.”

Fazi argued that while the rise of the non-Western world should be a natural evolution, the Western elite views it as an “existential threat,” leading to a form of “clinical” insanity in policymaking. “The US and Western powers [are] doing everything they can to slow down, if not stall, this transition to multipolarity,” Fazi said.

Thomas Fazi

He offered a provocative analysis of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, suggesting that what appears to be erratic behavior is actually a strategy of “engineered permanent chaos.” According to Fazi, Trump is not attacking random countries but “targeting the weak links” in the China-led system, such as Venezuela and Iran.

“Chaos… in Trump’s strategy is part of the strategy itself,” Fazi posited. He linked this to a broader US objective: re-establishing control over the physical and financial flows of energy. Fazi argued that the “unraveling” of the petrodollar system, driven by nations like Russia and Iran trading outside US jurisdiction, poses a lethal threat to American hegemony.

Lively Q&A highlights diverse perspectives on power, trade, and Europe’s future

Responding to a question about the resilience of non-Western powers, Mott argued that states with deep historical roots, distinct from mere nation-states, are overperforming.

“A state whose basis… is based in something a bit more historic than just election cycles… these are the states that will outperform,” Mott said. He cited China, India, and Ethiopia as prime examples of powers that can weather political storms because their identity transcends a single form of government. He contrasted this with the fragility of the Arab nation-states compared to the historical depth of Türkiye and Iran. “Iran has a level of continuity that enables it to punch above its weight.”

Rahr added a European dimension to this concept, arguing that Europe once possessed a form of “cultural unity” that has been eroded by “80 years of Americanization.” He warned that without recovering this cultural memory—which he insisted must include Russia—Europe risks being fractured or reduced to vassalage.

The Q&A session also addressed the economic architecture of the coming era. Responding to inquiries about the future global economy, the panelists agreed that the era of unfettered globalization is over, replaced by securitized trade and protectionism.

“You’re definitely going to see a pivot away from international free trade across the board,” Mott predicted. “Everything is going to be justified under the terms of national security.” He described a future of “state-directed preferred trade methods,” where efficiency is sacrificed for geopolitical reliability.

Fazi concurred, noting that the “free market” was always a myth in the West, but argued that the current shift represents a “fusion of state and corporate power.” He lamented that this retreat from globalization is being framed defensively rather than as an opportunity to improve domestic living standards. “We’re not seeing Western leaders talk about… investing to improve the lives of our citizens. No, we have to secure… so our enemies can’t blackmail us.”

Panda added that while protectionism will rise, so will the complexity of trade disputes. He pointed to the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) not as a triumph of liberal economics, but as a “compromised deal” born of necessity. “Europe is in massive need of partnerships… economic security,” Panda said, noting that the deal represents a diversification away from China and the US for both parties.

Jagannath Panda

The discussion concluded with a debate on Europe’s role in a multipolar system. Fazi took a hardline stance, arguing that the European Union and NATO are structurally incapable of adapting to the new reality. “The European Union is a completely ahistorical reality… an imperial model which has hollowed out democracy,” Fazi claimed, dismissing hopes for reform as “illusions.”

Panda, however, offered a more moderate view, suggesting that Europe’s indecisiveness is its greatest weakness. “The time has come to take a call… to have a future army,” Panda urged, advocating for a Europe that acts as an independent pole rather than a US dependency.

Mott offered a final strategic prescription for the emerging order: a “modus vivendi” based on the rejection of hegemony. “The one thing that definitely should unite future architects of a stable multipolar order is to combat revisionism effectively,” Mott said. He envisioned a system of “counterbalancing forces” and “non-aligned leagues” that act as buffers to prevent any single power from dominating the globe.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

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

Published

1 hour 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

1 hour 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

1 hour 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