Connect with us

Diplomacy

Revisiting the Bandung spirit in a multipolar world

Published

on

Fang Xuting, Research Assistant at Center for Turkish Studies, Shanghai University

How China articulates its diplomatic discourse?

From April 18 to 24, 1955, government delegations from 29 Asian and African countries and regions convened in Bandung, Indonesia, for a historic Afro-Asian Conference. On the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, against the backdrop of a rapidly transforming global order marked by the rise of the “Global South” and the restructuring of traditional international power dynamics, revisiting the memory of the conference and the enduring “Bandung Spirit” acquires new strategic significance. For contemporary China, it offers fresh value in advancing multilateral diplomacy, deepening South-South cooperation, and contributing to the reconfiguration of the international order.

Historical context of the Bandung Conference

In the 1950s, during the intensification of the Cold War, the two ideological blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union increasingly competed for influence in the Third World. Leaders of newly emerging states in Asia and Africa sought self-determination, while anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements gained momentum. The colonial system began to unravel. Independent nations in Asia and Africa became bolder in asserting neutrality in international affairs and grew increasingly active in United Nations forums in the early 1950s. For example, India repeatedly spoke on behalf of Asian and Arab countries, calling for a ceasefire and peaceful resolution to the Korean War. It openly criticized American military policy, showing no fear of power politics.

At the Bogor Conference held in late 1954, five countries—India, Indonesia, Burma (now Myanmar), Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan—issued a joint communiqué to formally initiate the first Asian-African Conference in 1955. Based on the principle of “independent governments,” thirty countries, including China, were invited to participate.

From the perspective of China’s diplomatic transition, the Bandung Conference represented a significant moment when the newly founded People’s Republic of China moved away from a revolutionary foreign policy and toward one based on state diplomacy. It symbolized a departure from the binary Cold War alignment toward an independent foreign policy grounded in peaceful coexistence. In fact, even before the conference—particularly following the Korean War (1950–1953)—China had already shown interest in moderating its foreign policy to present a more peaceful image to its Asian and African neighbors.

Although China’s participation in the Korean War was only a part of the broader conflict, its role was militarily decisive. The war’s outcomes significantly influenced the trajectory of socialist movements and national liberation struggles in Asia. The emergence of socialist states in both Asia and Europe enabled a geopolitical counterbalance to Western powers. For a considerable period, the bipolar confrontation between East and West maintained a strategic equilibrium, as Western powers led by the United States were no longer facing only the socialist bloc in Europe, but an alliance of socialist countries in both Europe and Asia.

Moreover, the war marked the first direct military confrontation between China and a major Western power since the founding of the People’s Republic. Through tenacious combat, China compelled the United States to return to the negotiating table, rescued the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from crisis, defended its own national borders, solidified the Sino-Soviet alliance, and elevated its international standing. China emphasized the war’s just cause—”resisting U.S. aggression and aiding Korea; safeguarding the homeland”—and linked its narrative to global anti-imperialist struggles, resonating strongly with the anti-colonial aspirations of newly emerging Asian and African nations. These rhetorical and ideological alignments laid a strong foundation for China’s solidarity with the Third World.

Lastly, China’s diplomatic and military engagement during the Korean War, including the Panmunjom negotiations, provided valuable experience in dealing with the West—an experience that would later prove instrumental in Zhou Enlai’s diplomatic success at the Bandung Conference.

On April 18, 1955, the Bandung Conference officially commenced. By the evening of April 24, the final plenary session unanimously adopted the Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference—the first joint statement in history issued collectively by 29 Asian and African countries. The communiqué included the Ten Principles of Bandung, which addressed issues related to anti-colonialism and national independence, adopted resolutions promoting global peace and cooperation, and reaffirmed the common aspiration of the Asian and African peoples to oppose aggression and uphold world peace.

The historical value of the Bandung spirit and China’s contributions

The Bandung Conference was the largest and most representative intercontinental summit of its time, covering the widest geographic area and population. It embodied the collective will of Asian and African nations to oppose imperialism and colonialism, safeguard national independence, and promote peace and development. The spirit of Bandung—seeking common ground while reserving differences, peaceful coexistence, solidarity, cooperation, and joint struggle—has since become a cherished intellectual legacy in world history. It had a profound impact on how developing countries later approached international relations. As a staunch supporter and active participant, China contributed significantly to the formation of the Bandung Spirit by offering Chinese wisdom and diplomatic experience.

1- The integration of China’s five principles of peaceful coexistence

The concluding section of the Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference included a declaration on promoting world peace and cooperation, which was adopted unanimously based on a Chinese proposal. This declaration outlined ten principles for conducting international relations, such as respect for fundamental human rights and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter; respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations; recognition of the equality of all races and nations, large or small; and non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The Ten Principles of Bandung fully incorporated all elements of Zhou Enlai’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and further developed them.

2- China’s consistent anti-imperialist and anti-colonial position

China’s leadership, reflecting on the historical context of the 1950s characterized by “war and revolution,” defined the newly founded People’s Republic as a socialist nation that had suffered colonial aggression and attained national independence. This identity guided its foreign policy during the Bandung era. At meetings leading up to the conference, Zhou Enlai articulated a typology of countries within the capitalist bloc, arguing that China should isolate the United States, win over the intermediate states, and unite with the most oppressed nations. Accordingly, China’s primary objective in attending the Bandung Conference was to break its international isolation and fully support the just struggle for national liberation in Asia and Africa—thereby playing a foundational role in shaping the Bandung Spirit.

3- China’s introduction of the “seeking common ground while reserving differences” diplomatic approach

Given the diverse ideological orientations of participating nations and the anti-communist propaganda led by the United States and its allies, many delegations were wary of China. Some even argued that both colonialism and communism should be condemned. Faced with this challenge, Zhou Enlai offered a conciliatory and inclusive response: “There are disagreements among us, but acknowledging such differences is, in itself, a form of agreement”. China deliberately adopted a “non-argumentative” approach, avoiding revolutionary or ideological rhetoric in response to accusations. This enabled the conference to proceed smoothly.

During the conference, China adhered to the principle of seeking common ground while reserving differences and signed the Treaty on Dual Nationality with Indonesia. Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Sunario praised the agreement as one reached “in the spirit of goodwill and tolerance between two Asian nations,” a spirit that, in his view, had guided the Bandung Conference itself.

The contemporary relevance of the Bandung spirit and its inheritance by China

Over the past 70 years, the global landscape has undergone profound transformations. The colonial system has collapsed, the bipolar Cold War confrontation has become a thing of the past, and economic globalization has deepened. Peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit have become the dominant themes of the era. However, the essential contradictions in the international community have not fundamentally changed. The unjust and unequal political and economic order persists, and tensions among civilizations, ideologies, political systems, and development models continue to exist.

Currently, three key characteristics define the global landscape. First, in the security domain, great power rivalry, bloc confrontation, regional conflicts, and domestic unrest interact and reinforce one another, shaping the international security order. The outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in 2022 may signal the end of the post-Cold War era and the beginning of what scholars have termed a “post-post-Cold War era,” marked by increasing global instability.

Second, in the ideological domain, the West’s narrative of “democracy versus authoritarianism” clashes with the Global South’s advocacy for “multiple modernities.” While the United States promotes value-based diplomacy and exclusionary alliances such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, Global South countries prioritize development rights and sovereign equality, rejecting the binary logic of alignment. Meanwhile, algorithmic amplification on social media has intensified information warfare, turning global public opinion into a new arena of great power soft power competition.

Third, in the economic domain, the rise of the Global South and the emergence of new forms of South-South cooperation have reshaped the global development landscape. Compared with the past, southern countries now possess greater material capacity, developmental experience, and institutional platforms. Their structural power has grown significantly, allowing them to play increasingly influential roles in today’s global transformations.

As a participant in the Bandung Conference and a key leader of the Global South, China must inherit and advance the Bandung Spirit by aligning it with the characteristics of the new era in order to effectively articulate its own diplomatic discourse in an increasingly multipolar world.

1- Using “peaceful coexistence” to mitigate bloc confrontation

China must continue to oppose Cold War thinking and promote a “comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable” approach to security. At the conceptual level, China’s proposed Global Security Initiative aligns with many of the Global South’s concerns. As such, it can serve as a guiding framework for forming a Global South Security Perspective. In practice, China should strengthen both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy among Global South nations. Two typical forms of multilateralism have emerged:

First, multilateral cooperation among major Global South powers, with BRICS as a typical example. In the context of intensifying great power competition, BRICS expansion—particularly the inclusion of Middle Eastern states—signals that the mechanism may play a greater role in security governance. Platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS should be used to coordinate security interests and counter the exclusivity of Indo-Pacific strategies.

Second, cooperation between Global South powers and entire regional groupings. Examples include China’s engagement with Africa, Arab states, and Pacific island nations. Forums such as the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the China–Arab States Cooperation Forum provide platforms for de-escalating regional hotspots and rejecting bloc-based confrontation.

2- Offsetting value-based diplomacy with the principle of “seeking common ground while reserving differences”

The concept of seeking common ground while reserving differences, first proposed by Zhou Enlai at Bandung, emphasized resisting ideological dogmatism in favor of pragmatic cooperation. Today, China must challenge the “democracy versus authoritarianism” narrative by emphasizing the principle of sovereign equality and the right of all nations to choose their own development paths. The principle of mutual respect and inclusiveness should guide international relations, supporting a model that emphasizes dialogue among civilizations and reciprocal learning among systems.

China must oppose unilateralism, zero-sum thinking, and hegemonic practices, while promoting a new type of international relations based on mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. It should also accelerate the construction of a Global South discourse system that prioritizes development rights. On international platforms such as the UN Human Rights Council, China must resist the politicization of human rights by Western powers. Moreover, international communication should be strengthened through platforms such as CGTN and TikTok, using effective Belt and Road cooperation cases to counter perception warfare.

3- Driving development paradigm transformation through South-South cooperation

From the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to the Bandung Spirit and the emergence of new South-South cooperation, the core has always been respect for the diversity of development paths and partnerships grounded in equality, solidarity, and mutual benefit. The goal is to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, build a just global order, and realize unity in diversity.

China must deepen the high-quality development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), particularly in Asia and Africa, focusing on infrastructure and capacity cooperation. According to the Outlook on the High-Quality Development of the Belt and Road Initiative for the Next Decade, China should prioritize “small but beautiful” livelihood projects, thereby fulfilling the Bandung ideal of economic mutual assistance.

China must innovate in South-South cooperation models. Traditional international development paradigms—largely shaped by the modernization experiences of developed Western countries—tend to flow unidirectionally, compelling recipient nations to conform institutionally to Western norms. In contrast, China should continue promoting the co-modernization model it has pursued with Africa. This approach emphasizes mutual interaction and shared agency, stimulating local initiative through bottom-up consultation, joint construction, and co-sharing, and thereby fostering more equal and sustainable development partnerships.

China must serve as a model of modernization. The new practices of Chinese-style modernization not only provide a solid foundation for China’s leadership in Global South development, but also offer alternative development paths to other Global South countries. With China–Africa co-modernization as a key strategic focus, China can help pioneer a new paradigm of international modernization cooperation.

In 1955, by seizing the opportunity presented by the Bandung Conference, the People’s Republic of China successfully broke through Western isolation and blockade, presenting itself as a trustworthy partner for the Third World. Seventy years later, China should once again draw upon the Bandung experience, integrating the Bandung Spirit with the practice of diplomacy with Chinese characteristics in the new era. In doing so, China will help construct a more just and reasonable international order and contribute to world peace and development. This is not only a tribute to history, but also a response to present challenges and an exploration of the future.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

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

Published

10 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

10 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

10 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