Connect with us

Diplomacy

Global peace coalition warns of devastating economic fallout and unchecked war crimes amid US-Iran escalation

Published

on

The 144th consecutive meeting of the International Peace Coalition convened amid profound global tumult, underscoring the necessity of uniting the international peace movement. Moderator Anastasia Battle, alongside co-moderator Dennis Speed, opened the forum by imploring participants to disseminate the dialogue across diverse philosophies, religions, cultures, and nationalities. Emphasizing the critical nature of the current geopolitical juncture, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and initiator of the coalition, delivered the strategic overview.

“There are circumstances beyond their control”

Zepp-LaRouche issued a stark warning that the world is on the precipice of a full-fledged economic and financial crisis, entering the seventh day of a rapidly expanding war. The economic fallout is already materializing, with Gulf nations halting production as the Strait of Hormuz is practically blockaded. Consequently, the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil has been crippled. Qatar, invoking force majeure, has explicitly signaled that these disruptions stem from circumstances entirely outside their jurisdiction, sending global energy prices skyrocketing.

Furthermore, the Gulf states—including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar—have initiated a comprehensive review of their massive overseas investments. These sovereign wealth funds, previously heralded as a crowning achievement of the Donald Trump administration, are now being leveraged to pressure the US president into a diplomatic pivot. Russian sovereign wealth fund executive Kirill Dmitriev pointedly questioned German leadership, noting their impending lack of energy resources while German opposition leader Friedrich Merz continues to blindly back the unfolding military operations.

Despite the rapid escalation, Zepp-LaRouche dismantled the western media narrative of a swift, decisive victory for the US and Israel. Iran has executed an unprecedented and highly effective campaign against US defense architecture, systematically destroying radar infrastructure associated with both the THAAD and Patriot systems. This tactical blinding of US forces leaves incoming drones and hypersonic Khorramshahr-4 missiles entirely undefended. The depletion of western interceptor stockpiles is being outpaced by the sheer volume of the assault, with the US expending five days’ worth of Tomahawk missile production in merely the first 72 hours of the conflict.

Zepp-LaRouche expressed grave concern over the deep-seated religious fundamentalism driving the military apparatus. Citing US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s barbaric assertion that the conflict was never intended to be a fair fight, she highlighted reports from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation indicating that over 100 US Army officers have inquired about internal briefings linking the war to biblical end-times prophecy and positioning Trump as an anointed figure. She issued an urgent call for international parliaments to investigate this profound religious irrationality currently commanding the world’s most lethal military machine.

“Total destruction of Iran”

The assault’s criminality is glaringly evident in the total suspension of international law. Zepp-LaRouche condemned a double-tap strike on an Iranian school that massacred 180 girls between the ages of 7 and 12, an indisputable war crime designed to obliterate first responders. Domestically, the US War Powers Act was narrowly defeated, yet public support for the war among Trump’s MAGA base has plummeted to a mere 29%. However, relying on midterm elections is a fatal miscalculation given the imminent threat of total war. Reports from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv confirm that Israel views this as the endgame, explicitly seeking the absolute destruction of Iran without subsequent rounds of engagement.

Concurrently, the US is reportedly courting Kurdish factions in Iraq to open a new ground flank in northwestern Iran, an invasion scenario Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Tehran is fully prepared to repel. Trump’s insistence on unconditional surrender, coupled with his unilateral rejection of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son as a successor, underscores a breathtaking disintegration of the global order. Singular voices of moral clarity, such as Pope Francis and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, have warned of an irreparable abyss where justice has capitulated to brute force, a sentiment echoed by Pax Christi. Aside from Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, the collective west’s complicity will irreversibly haunt its global standing, alienating the BRICS nations and the Global South. The targeting of Iran strategically disrupts the Belt and Road Initiative and the International North-South Transport Corridor, necessitating an urgent pivot back to the UN Charter and a new international security and development architecture.

“Not a single credible report of even 100 anti-government protesters”

Senator Richard Black, a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and former Virginia state legislator, delivered a searing critique of the ongoing military campaign. Having sustained wounds and witnessed the battlefield deaths of his radiomen, Black underscored his profound reverence for US troops while denouncing the bellicose manipulation of Christian faith to justify the Iranian conflict. He noted that Operation Epic Fury was fundamentally predicated on the flawed assumption that US bombardment would trigger a joyous, popular uprising against the Iranian government.

Instead, an exhaustive analysis reveals a complete absence of domestic rebellion, with zero credible reports of even nominal anti-government protests. Black highlighted the universal psychological reality: populations inherently unite against foreign aggression. The most potent pressure point remains the 21-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint within Iranian waters that facilitates 20% of global oil transit. The ensuing blockade guarantees that oil prices will violently exceed $100 per barrel, inflicting devastating economic damage on heavily dependent US allies such as South Korea, India, China, and a wholly import-reliant Japan. Europe’s addiction to LNG—exacerbated by the US destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline—further compounds the crisis.

While the administration has floated deploying US destroyers to escort oil tankers, Black warned that any significant American casualties would instantly shatter the already tepid domestic support for the war. Trial balloons regarding boots on the ground—floated by Trump and Representative James Comer—ignore the geographical and typographical immensity of Iran, which dwarfs the primitive terrain of Afghanistan. An invasion driven by demands for unconditional surrender threatens a decades-long “forever war,” resulting in the virtual eradication of Iranian civilization and catastrophic global costs.

The tactical reality resembles a massive chess game where Iran possesses the missile depth to outlast western stockpiles, while the US and Israel leverage absolute air dominance to hunt mobile launchers. Black observed that the recent assassination of aging Iranian leadership, including the relatively moderate 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei, resulted from fatal security lapses during deceptive peace negotiations—a hallmark of Israeli military strategy. However, their elimination paves the way for a hardened, dynamic, and less gullible younger generation to assume command. Black concluded with a stark warning against US hubris stemming from the Venezuela operation, cautioning against a covert alliance with captured ISIS and al-Qaeda operatives funneled from Syria into Iraq to subvert the Iranian state.

“The memory is revolutionary”

Former Mexican Congresswoman Maria de los Angeles Huerta forcefully argued that analytical diagnosis must rapidly transition into actionable, coordinated mobilization to halt the global machinery of war and the unchecked impunity of predatory elites. She outlined five ambitious, historical imperatives to counter the fascist elements orchestrating the crisis.

First, Huerta proposed a global citizen investigation network to audit the financial DNA of the war machine. This requires exposing the banks, corporate entities, and fiscal paradises funding the armaments industry and networks of exploitation, ultimately publishing an accessible list of public shame akin to the Epstein logs. Second, she called for massive global campaigns to economically isolate these institutions, utilizing alternative international communication networks to strip away the darkness protecting elite profits.

Third, recognizing that powerful actors deploy armies of lawyers and PR firms to bury their crimes under disinformation, Huerta established that citizen memory must be the revolutionary counter-force. She advocated for a global observatory featuring a “library of infamy” to meticulously archive evidence—from the Gaza massacres to elite trafficking networks—ensuring unhindered access for journalists and victims while initiating relentless legal and political battles against complicit structures. Fourth, she urged the mobilization of multilateral organizations directly from the grassroots base, applying immense pressure through coordinated, visible, non-violent global actions, including symbolic protests and cultural performances outside complicit financial institutions. Finally, Huerta demanded the creation of a robust protection network to safeguard peace defenders from isolation and retaliation.

“Transform our region in a battlefield”

Dr. Beatriz Bissio, associate professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, contextualized the crisis within the strict parameters of international law, declaring the aggression against Iran wholly illegal and unprovoked. Prior to the attacks, mediators in Oman had confirmed substantive progress in diplomatic negotiations. The assault, devoid of rational justification, serves Israel’s ambition to eliminate a systemic adversary to its expansionism and a staunch defender of the Palestinian people. Echoing UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, Bissio identified Gaza not as an exception, but as a methodological blueprint utilized by the US and Israel to eradicate all resistance to imperial plans.

Bissio highlighted an ignored open letter sent to President Trump by Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, a prominent Emirati billionaire. Al Habtoor fiercely questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s unilateral decision, demanding to know who authorized the US to drag the Gulf into an unwanted conflict and transform the region into a battlefield. The letter exposes deep-seated frustration among US allies who host American military bases, viewing their national sovereignty as utterly bypassed and mourning the destruction of highly capitalized regional peace initiatives.

As geopolitical immobility shatters, revealing rapid and unprecedented realignments, the domestic stability of the US is also fraying, with rumblings of potential impeachment tied to disastrous midterm prospects. Concretely, Bissio fully endorsed Huerta’s five-point framework and proposed two immediate initiatives. She advocated for an international boycott demanding the cancellation of the June 17 FIFA World Cup across the US, Canada, and Mexico, arguing such a celebration is irreconcilable with the threat of a nuclear event. Furthermore, she insisted that the United Nations must be permanently removed from New York, citing the Secretary-General’s paralysis and the symbolic necessity of establishing a new security paradigm entirely outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

“Humanity is fighting unhumanity”

French intelligence strategist Francois Martin framed the conflict not as a clash between the US and Iran, or the Global North against the Global South, but as an existential battle where humanity itself is fighting unhumanity. He cited the calculated assassination of 165 Iranian girls, emphasizing that such strikes are never operational mistakes. When an aggressor strips a population of its human essence—reducing them to animals or “sinners”—the deliberate slaughter of children becomes a prerequisite to prevent the maturation of future combatants.

Martin pointed to a second atrocity: the sinking of the Dana, an unarmed vessel returning from a peace congregation in Sri Lanka hosted by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The ship, reportedly carrying American personnel alongside civilians, was annihilated without warning upon exiting Indian waters—an act Martin categorized as pure assassination.

Despite the bloodshed, Martin predicts a brief conflict, driven by logistical exhaustion rather than moral awakening. He assessed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu manipulated Trump with false intelligence claiming Iran was unarmed and highly fragile. Instead of a lucrative victory, Trump has thrust his administration into a swarm of wasps. Without the luxury of time to fabricate congressional justifications—as was done for the Iraq War—and facing an imminent depletion of western munitions alongside soaring $90-per-barrel oil prices, Martin anticipates Trump will soon declare a hollow, rhetorical victory and hastily retreat, abandoning Israel on the front lines. He concurred with diplomat Chaz Freeman that Russia and China are maneuvering the US into a position where it must abandon neo-colonialism in favor of a predictable, multipolar world order.

“Pushed toward the loss of our very existence”

Lebanese sociologist Bassam El Hashim, identifying as a Lebanese Christian, dismantled the prevailing Anglo-Saxon media narrative surrounding Hezbollah. He detailed how the organization is not a fundamentalist terror cell, but a necessary resistance movement forged organically between 1982 and 1985 in direct response to the brutal Israeli invasion and occupation of Beirut.

El Hashim described Lebanon as a subjugated US protectorate, managed from a sprawling, 2,000-square-meter American embassy housing up to 7,000 intelligence personnel, operating in tandem with US naval and air bases. This apparatus exerts crushing pressure on the Lebanese government, dictating domestic crackdowns and nullifying state legitimacy. The populations of southern Lebanon, relentlessly displaced and massacred by Israeli militias since 1948, had no recourse but armed defense. While Iran provided crucial initial funding and training post-1979, Hezbollah now operates with profound strategic independence.

The resumption of hostilities is entirely Israeli-manufactured, El Hashim argued. Following a November 2024 ceasefire that Hezbollah scrupulously maintained, Israel spent the subsequent 16 months systematically violating the accord, bombing villages, and forcibly displacing Lebanese citizens northward. He warned that Netanyahu’s display of the “Greater Israel” map at the UN General Assembly signals a definitive intent to subjugate the entire region. Unable to conquer the Arab world militarily, the US-Israeli axis employs deliberate subversion, utilizing regime change and sectarian fragmentation—as seen recently in Syria and Iraq—to ignite civil wars, positioning the Lebanese Armed Forces against Hezbollah to fracture the nation from within.

Concluding the marathon session, Zepp-LaRouche introduced breaking, though unconfirmed, intelligence that Iran has thus far utilized only its antiquated missile inventory, which successfully penetrated the Iron Dome. Tehran is reportedly preparing to deploy an untouched arsenal of advanced, hypersonic weaponry, indicating the tragedy is far from its climax.

In a final, urgent directive, Zepp-LaRouche demanded that western politicians and parliamentarians be forced to publicly address the massacre of the Iranian schoolchildren. The deafening silence from European capitals—save for Spain—exposes an intolerable double standard that strips the collective west of its remaining moral credibility. Condemning the simultaneous strangulation of Cuba, the persecution of Venezuela, and the military operations in Gaza, she warned that this unchecked complicity will trigger a historic geopolitical blowback, calling on the global citizenry to ruthlessly implement the proposals laid out by Huerta and Bissio to forge a new paradigm of international justice.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

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

Published

19 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

19 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

19 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