Connect with us

Diplomacy

On the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary

Published

on

On December 7-8, 2024, the Schiller Institute, founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche 40 years ago, convened a two-day international conference titled, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren!” The event brought together a remarkable panel of diplomats, former heads of state, prominent scholars, and defense experts to address what they termed the planet’s most urgent crisis since the Cuban Missile standoff: the threat of a new and possibly final world war, versus the possibility of forging a new paradigm of peace and mutual development.

The opening panel, held on Saturday, December 7, focused on the theme: “The Strategic Crisis: New and Final World War, or a New Paradigm of the One Humanity?” It featured prominent figures from across the globe.

The panel was moderated by Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute, who opened the session by referencing the anniversary of the Institute’s founding and the extraordinary peril the world now faces. Speed reminded the audience of the significance of December 7 for the United States—Pearl Harbor Day—invoking the profound transformations wrought by past conflicts and suggesting a parallel with today’s dangerous global escalation.

Among the key speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute; Naledi Pandor, former Minister of International Relations of South Africa; Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana.

Keynote by Helga Zepp-LaRouche: A choice of paradigms

Helga Zepp-LaRouche set the tone: “We are coming together in an extremely dangerous moment,” she said, “one that may be even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.” She warned that the global strategic environment, marked by NATO’s expansion and the ongoing war in Ukraine, has created a climate in which nuclear weapons could be used again, possibly ending human civilization.

Zepp-LaRouche challenged the prevalent assumption that financial and geopolitical constructs must be maintained at all costs. She recalled the late economist Lyndon LaRouche’s insistence that “money is not value,” arguing that the physical economy—productivity, technological progress, and infrastructure—must guide policy. She called for a return to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), urging major powers to cast aside revenge and geopolitics, and instead embrace cooperation for mutual development. “It is urgent,” she said, “that we establish a new security and development architecture, a paradigm that meets the interests of all nations.”

Dmitri Trenin: Rejecting the old Cold War frame

From Moscow, Professor Dmitri Trenin offered a Russian perspective on the evolving crisis. “We are not in Cold War II,” he insisted. “The analogy is wrong.” Trenin stressed that today’s world is far more complex, with multiple power centers and no functioning arms control mechanisms. He warned that the old tools that kept the Cold War ‘cold’—communication channels, treaties, and a shared fear of nuclear weapons—have eroded.

Trenin pointed out that globalization under Western rules is over. The world, he said, is becoming truly multipolar, with regionalism on the rise. He cautioned the United States against attempting to preserve its hegemony at all costs, noting that “attempts to salvage [unipolar dominance] are as dangerous as they are futile.” He urged Washington to learn the lesson the Soviet Union once did: overextension leads to collapse. Now, it is time for nations to realign their priorities, focusing on domestic economic health rather than a vain bid for global supremacy.

Voices from the Global South

Former President Donald Ramotar of Guyana spoke forcefully about the global inequalities driving conflict. He noted that in recent years, the Global South—representing the majority of humanity—has begun to straighten its back and assert its interests. Ramotar criticized policies that keep developing countries locked in poverty and underdevelopment. “The transatlantic powers have made humongous profits from wars,” he said, calling these conflicts “wars for profit” that enrich weapon manufacturers and financiers.

Ramotar praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative and cooperation with the Global South as a model of “win-win” relations that uplift entire regions. He contrasted this with the IMF and World Bank’s conditionalities that perpetuate underdevelopment. “If the West joined in some of these initiatives,” Ramotar concluded, “we might end poverty in our lifetime.”

Ján Čarnogurský: A European perspective

Slovakia’s former Prime Minister Ján Čarnogurský delivered a stark evaluation of European policy. He recalled that in the early 1990s, promises were made not to expand NATO eastward; these were broken. He criticized the West’s reneging on the Minsk Accords, drawing parallels with the deceitful handling of the Yugoslav crisis.

Čarnogurský questioned who truly leads U.S. policy and lamented Europe’s subservience to Washington and London. He noted that European states are suffering under U.S.-imposed policies, losing industries to American soil. Stressing that Russia has no interest in marching west, Čarnogurský argued that the Ukraine war should end in negotiations, not endless escalation. “If the West lost the war in Ukraine,” he said, “it might simplify problems” and pave the way for stable peace negotiations.

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.: Diplomacy abandoned

Ambassador Chas Freeman, a seasoned American diplomat, reminded the audience of the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship. “The humane world order after World War II has expired,” Freeman said. Now, egregious violations of international law occur with impunity. He pointed to the absence of meaningful diplomacy, noting that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had not once visited Moscow, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has not been welcomed in Washington for years. “There are no functioning arms control agreements,” he warned, “and no communication lines.”

Freeman highlighted the urgent need for an Austrian-style solution in Ukraine, referring to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty which established that country’s permanent neutrality. “Such a Ukraine,” he said, “could serve as a buffer and a bridge,” ensuring Russia’s security concerns are met while guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and prosperity. “Diplomacy must replace demonization,” Freeman concluded, “or we face a nuclear Armageddon.”

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian: Iran and the nuclear dilemma

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian of Iran brought the Middle East dimension into view. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, he said, points to the urgent need for a region-wide approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), abandoned by the U.S. under President Trump, had established robust verification measures ensuring no Iranian nuclear weapon would emerge. Mousavian argued for expanding these principles regionally, applying similar restrictions and verifications across the Middle East, including Israel, to achieve a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

“There is a solution,” Mousavian maintained. “We can have permanent restrictions if all parties agree to uniform standards.” He suggested that if Iran’s neighbors like Saudi Arabia also accept rigorous inspections, everyone would gain security and stability. This approach, Mousavian said, could become “the best objective guarantee” against nuclear proliferation in the entire region.

Professor Zhang Weiwei: Asia’s peaceful development model

From China, Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University noted that while Europe slides into lose-lose scenarios, the China-ASEAN region has achieved a remarkable “win-win” story. He credited Asia’s success to its focus on development, infrastructure, and respect for civilizational diversity. “China and ASEAN have enjoyed peace and prosperity for nearly five decades,” he said, pointing to the emphasis on building roads, railways, and ports—trademark features of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Zhang contrasted this development-oriented model with the West’s approach, which he described as zero-sum. “China stands for unity and mutual benefit,” he said, “not divide and rule.” He recalled the influence of Chinese strategic culture, including Sun Tzu’s ancient wisdom, which emphasizes achieving goals without resorting to war. “The solution to Europe’s problem is clear—join in the Belt and Road Initiative, invest in infrastructure, and build a community of shared destiny,” he concluded.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: From the Pentagon’s perspective

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, spoke bluntly: “The U.S. today is fighting the inevitable shift of global power back to the East,” he said. Wilkerson criticized what he called “the empire’s example”: an American foreign policy trapped in arrogance and ignorance of history.

Wilkerson warned that if a conventional conflict escalated between the U.S. and Russia or China, the United States might quickly find itself losing badly and thus tempted to use nuclear weapons first. “We are so broken conventionally,” Wilkerson said, “we might be the first to use nuclear arms because we’d be taking horrendous casualties.” He stressed that any nuclear exchange would end civilization. The solution? End the empire logic, he urged. Seek balanced and rational diplomacy while we still can.

Scott Ritter: The unthinkable becomes probable

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in a pre-recorded statement, underscored the grim reality: “Today’s situation is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because there is no communication,” he said. Ritter warned that the U.S. provisioning of advanced missiles to Ukraine and talk of a ‘limited’ nuclear war by some U.S. strategists is gambling with planetary survival.

Ritter pinned hopes on a diplomatic shift with the incoming U.S. administration. “We must help ourselves by helping Russia understand that these reckless policies will not continue,” he said. In other words, a strategic reset is urgently needed. If not, the world might stumble into nuclear war by miscalculation.

Proposed solutions

Throughout the session, panelists offered concrete proposals. Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested reviving the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods, focusing on global development and infrastructure rather than financial speculation. She also recalled Lyndon LaRouche’s old proposal of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), not as a weapons scheme, but as a joint effort by major powers to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete through new physical principles and massive scientific cooperation.

Dmitri Trenin and Chas Freeman both stressed diplomatic channels. Trenin called for a return to stable negotiations on arms control. Freeman recommended a European security architecture that includes Russia and respects its interests. Both noted that genuine dialogue, free from demonization, is the only realistic path.

Donald Ramotar and Professor Zhang Weiwei pointed to economic development as a peace strategy. The Belt and Road Initiative’s “win-win” framework can uplift the Global South and transform war-torn regions into hubs of commerce. Economic corridors might replace battlefields if the West abandoned zero-sum thinking and joined cooperative ventures.

Ján Čarnogurský and Hossein Mousavian highlighted specific frameworks, such as making Ukraine a neutral state and building a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Čarnogurský’s reference to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and Mousavian’s concept of region-wide nuclear verification both illustrate how carefully crafted treaties can diffuse tension.

Larry Wilkerson and Scott Ritter underscored the urgency. Without a massive shift in U.S. strategic thinking—from seeking hegemony to embracing multipolarity—the world risks stumbling into global conflict. They urged immediate steps: cease unrealistic objectives like “strategic defeat” of nuclear-armed adversaries, open channels of communication, and reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war.

A call for a cultural shift

A recurring theme was the idea that cultural values must underpin policy shifts. The conference’s motto, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren,” evoked the notion that moral uplift and aesthetic education could guide politics. Zepp-LaRouche invoked classical composers and poets to stress that universal human values transcend power politics.

The Schiller Institute’s emphasis on great art, classical music, and poetic drama is not ornamental. As Zepp-LaRouche reminded participants, Schiller believed in improving citizens through culture, enabling them to think of humanity as one family. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” from the Ninth Symphony embodies the ideal of universal brotherhood—an ethical vision that stands in stark contrast to nuclear brinkmanship.

The panelists agreed: to avoid catastrophe, citizens must pressure their governments to return to reason, respect international law, and prioritize human development. Helga Zepp-LaRouche urged that the ten principles her Institute has advocated—centered on sovereignty, development, and the common aims of humanity—be taken up widely. She called on people worldwide to reject the Carl Schmitt-type friend-enemy distinctions and adopt a principle of the “One Humanity.”

In the words of Naledi Pandor, who was unable to speak fully at this panel but whose excerpted statements were acknowledged, “BRICS and the Global South can forge a more just multipolar order.” As developing nations rise, they demand a seat at the table. This could be the key: integrating new powers into a cooperative framework for security and development.

A last chance for humanity?

The grim warnings of these statesmen, diplomats, and scholars spoke to a moment of profound danger. Nuclear arsenals loom, conflicts rage without dialogue, and powerful states push brinkmanship to extremes. Yet, the panel also projected a sense of hope. A new paradigm—one that rejects zero-sum geopolitics and embraces mutual respect, economic cooperation, and cultural renaissance—was the through line connecting all speakers.

“We have a choice,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded. “Either we continue down the path to a final world war, or we rise to the occasion and build a new paradigm of the One Humanity. Let’s choose life, not death.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

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

Published

20 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

20 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

20 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