Connect with us

Diplomacy

The return of ‘the political’ to world politics along Schmittian lines

Published

on

Translator’s Note: Daniel Hoffmann—the financier renowned for deciphering clandestine sovereign bond purchases within the Eurosystem, thereby unsettling the European Central Bank, and widely recognized for his mastery over the opaque corridors of global finance—interprets contemporary geopolitical fractures through the lens of Carl Schmitt’s “friend-enemy” dichotomy. Hoffmann posits that neoliberal globalization has reached its terminus. He asserts that the Trump administration, via the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (The Miran Plan), has explicitly militarized foreign trade to avert the collapse of the U.S. dollar and arrest the ascent of China. In this process, the Israel-Iran tension is framed as a strategic “trigger” designed to restructure the global financial system. According to the author, the U.S. effort to escape its staggering $10 trillion debt spiral by branding China an “existential foe” and coercing its allies in Europe and Asia under a security umbrella is driving the world toward a new and potentially explosive “state of exception.” Ultimately, Hoffmann emphasizes that symbolic maneuvers, such as the augmentation of defense budgets and the renaming of departments to the “Ministry of War,” constitute the rhetorical infrastructure of a hegemonic “war for survival.” This article, published in the March issue of Politik Spezial, has been translated from the original German at the author’s request; it is recommended to be read alongside the translator’s annotations.

The Return of “The Political” to World Politics along Schmittian Lines

The Iran War as a “Trigger” for the Execution of the Mar-a-Lago Accord

Daniel Hoffmann

Politik Spezial

March 2026

From Economic Competition to Economic Warfare

As early as the second Obama administration, there was a strategic shift toward the “Pivot to Asia” to counteract China’s rise. The “heated competition” between the U.S. and China that erupted then is now, under the second Trump administration, transforming into an overt political issue—specifically, a “political” matter in the precise sense intended by Carl Schmitt.[1] We are currently experiencing a profound “politicization.” With the Biden administration’s de facto declaration of Russia as an enemy, and the second Trump administration’s subsequent designation of China as such, we are witnessing the politicization and militarization of “world trade,” and consequently, the finality of “neoliberal globalism” in both ideological and practical terms.

In this context, the Iran-Israel war appears poised to serve as a trigger for the implementation of the Miran-Trump Plan, also known as the Mar-a-Lago Accord. The objective of this plan is twofold: to prevent the uncontrolled collapse of the U.S. dollar system and to forestall China’s emergence as a dominant economic and military power.

The “Concept of the Political,” the Identification of the Enemy, and the State of Exception in Carl Schmitt

According to Carl Schmitt’s famous maxim: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”[2] A political entity (specifically the state) must possess the power to decide upon the “state of exception.” This decision-making authority is the very essence of the power to designate the enemy and preserve the community.

“The Political” arises when a group (e.g., a state, nation, or community) defines itself through—and in contrast to—an “enemy.” The enemy here is not a personal adversary, but rather a “public, existential foe” that threatens one’s own existence.[3] Enmity is not mere competition or debate; it is a conflict fraught with violence, possessing the potential to escalate into actual war. The friend-enemy grouping shapes political unity and establishes internal solidarity.

According to Schmitt’s 1932 work, The Concept of the Political, this “friend-enemy distinction” constitutes the specific criterion that categorically separates the political from other domains such as morality, economics, or aesthetics.

“The concepts of friend, enemy, and combat derive their real meaning precisely because they refer to and preserve a real possibility of physical killing. War follows from enmity, for enmity is the ontological negation of another existence.[4] War is only the most extreme manifestation of enmity.”

The “Twelve-Day War” and the Essential Casus Belli for Round Two

With the successive heavy strikes launched by Israel and the U.S. against Iran in June 2025 during the so-called “Twelve-Day War,” such an “ontological negation of another existence” evolved into an actual war that lay dormant until early 2026. But now—as anticipated—following Trump’s Venezuelan coup, the war is entering its second round, primarily as a result of official pressure from Israel.

The violent uprisings that erupted in Iran, incited by a U.S. hybrid financial warfare attack and networks of foreign agents, and their subsequent repressive suppression by Iranian security forces, provide the “morally justified casus belli” essential for Western public opinion—paralleling the precursors to wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

The “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (Miran Plan) – The Bifurcation of the World into Friend and Foe

In November 2024, Prof. Stephen Miran presented an implementation guide for the restructuring of the global trade system, which has now assumed the status of a Handlungsmaxime (maxim for action) for Trump’s endeavor to “Make America Great Again.” By analyzing the U.S. twin deficits arising from the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency and the associated “Triffin Dilemma,” Miran identifies that a subsequent collapse of the U.S. industrial base would imperil not only national prosperity but existential national security.*

(Author’s Note: The Triffin Dilemma describes the fundamental conflict of objectives faced by a country whose currency serves as a global reserve. To fulfill this role, the currency must be available in vast quantities worldwide. However, this inevitably leads to current account and balance of payments deficits, which ultimately erode confidence in the currency’s sustainability.)

The mission of the plan in this context is: To make America great (and magnificent) again, while “keeping China small.” Accordingly, the following objectives have been declared:

  • The aversion of sovereign default and the assurance of war’s financial viability.
  • The elimination of the U.S. twin deficits through the “re-industrialization” of the United States.
  • The securing of military superiority over the rest of the world, particularly China, Russia, and Iran.

To achieve these goals, the following methods and narratives are envisioned:

  • The “militarization” of foreign trade through the distinction between friend and foe.
  • The narrative that America is being exploited by the rest of the world. The prosperity of others is possible only because Pax Americana permits it.
  • Friends must pay a price for Pax Americana in the future (the 5% “NATO target”); otherwise, they will lose their security umbrella.
  • Enemies will be kept “outside” through tariffs, sanctions, etc.
  • The aversion of U.S. sovereign default through “burden-sharing.”
  • Debt restructuring via 100-year bonds that are interest-free but can be used as collateral with the Federal Reserve (Fed).
  • The use of tariffs as a tool to balance “exchange rate misalignments” to compensate for trade imbalances.
  • The imposition of 100% punitive tariffs on countries exiting dollarization.

Regarding the consequences and issues arising from the Miran Plan, the text translated into German states:

“Firstly: A much sharper boundary will be drawn between friend, foe, and neutral trading partners. Friends are under the security and economic umbrella, but this involves a stronger burden-sharing. (…) Those outside the security umbrella will also find themselves outside friendly agreements aimed at international trade and easy access to the U.S. consumer. Higher costs will be imposed upon them through tariffs and other measures. This will have obvious effects on asset prices. Secondly: The very threat of withdrawing the security umbrella without burden-sharing will have potentially explosive consequences. (…)”

The new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) published in November 2025 already articulates these considerations quite clearly. The renaming of the U.S. Department of Defense to the U.S. Department of War completes the rest of the picture.

The $10 Trillion Debt Issue and the Initiation of the Next Phase of the Miran Plan – The Branding of China as an Enemy

Since 2024, the U.S. government has allocated more than $1 trillion to interest payments—a sum exceeding the budgets for security and the military. Furthermore, this occurs against a backdrop of sovereign debt exceeding 120% of GDP, far beyond the 90% sustainability threshold.

After Trump halted Elon Musk’s DOGE savings program, increased the war budget by 50% to approximately $1.5 trillion, and initiated active measures against Russia and China’s allies (including Venezuela and Iran), the U.S. will be forced to restructure more than $9 trillion of its approximately $30 trillion sovereign debt in 2026 and will seek an additional $1 trillion in borrowing.

Against this backdrop, the BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, are now accelerating their de-dollarization efforts. Consequently, it is clear that the time for the next phase of the Miran Plan has arrived—indeed, it is overdue.

To officially brand China an enemy and to unsettle U.S. friends in Europe and Asia enough to submit to the Miran Plan—specifically to the restructuring of U.S. sovereign debt—only a pretext is now required. With Trump’s so-called “Peace Board,” the core for a new “Coalition of the Willing” (Koalition der Willigen) has already been formed.

Trump’s provocation—verging on the resurrection—of an Iranian war (having already dispatched a third carrier strike group to the region) provides an ideal “trigger” for China to be forced to take an overt stand against the U.S. and Israel, lest it lose its next “independent oil supplier” and witness the “sabotage” of its New Silk Road and currency plans.

China—alongside Russia—has supported “U.S. enemy” Iran for years, and since the Twelve-Day War, has been intensively fortifying it with high-tech defense weaponry, rocket fuel, intelligence data, etc.; it is highly probable that Iran would effectively deploy this equipment against the U.S. war machine in a limited conflict.

The ensuing international tensions are likely to produce the expected effect. The increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Japan (Takaichi) and China, as well as between Russia and Germany (Merz) or the remaining NATO countries, already casts the shadows of the approaching storm before us.[5]

(About the Author: Daniel Hoffmann is a financier specializing in accounting, public finance, and monetary theory. He serves as a political consultant in economics, finance, monetary policy, and geopolitics, and is also affiliated with the Institute for Collective Economic Policy (IKW). In his 2015 thesis as a guest researcher, he revealed that certain national central banks within the Eurosystem had been secretly purchasing sovereign bonds on a massive scale for their own accounts under the Agreement on Net Financial Assets (ANFA), which he personally exposed. This disclosure plunged then-ECB President Mario Draghi into a significant crisis of accountability, leading to the revelation of the previously classified agreement.)

[1] “The Political” (Das Politische): In German, everyday pragmatic politics is denoted by the word die Politik; however, Schmitt uses the neuter substantive (das Politische) to construct it as a “domain” or an ontological ground. It is the reduction of the Ancient Greek concept of Polis to an absolute field of existential distinction. Against the parliamentary “chatter” of the Weimar Republic, Schmitt grounds the essence of politics in the “decision” (Decisionism). (Trans. Note)

[2] “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”: Original: „Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet.“ Ausnahme (exception) and Zustand (state/condition). The uncanny void where rules and law are suspended. This is the opening sentence of Political Theology (1922). Schmitt states, “The exception is to jurisprudence what the miracle is to theology.” This concept, also heavily treated in Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer, describes how the modern state establishes a monopoly on violence by suspending the law. (Trans. Note)

[3] “Public, existential foe”: Original: „öffentlicher, existenzieller Gegner“: Hoffmann draws a thick line here between private enmity and public enmity. In interpreting the biblical command (Matthew 5:44) “Love your enemies,” Schmitt argues that the Bible refers to the private enemy (Latin: inimicus, Greek: echthros) and not the public political enemy (Latin: hostis, Greek: polemios). One may not hate the political enemy, yet their existence must be negated. (Trans. Note)

[4] “The ontological negation of another existence”: Original: „seinsmäßige Negierung eines anderen Seins“: The word Sein (Being) is the jugular vein of German philosophy. It is an act of negating the presence of being, orbiting the Heideggerian concept of Dasein. Translating seinsmäßig as “ontological” rather than merely “existential” was essential to carry the heavy philosophical tone (Klang) of post-German Idealism into English. The life of one side is predicated upon the ontological rejection of the other. (Trans. Note)

[5] Current Political Context and “German-Russian” Rhetoric: Original: Rhetorik zwischen (…) Russland und Deutschland (Merz): The mention of “Merz” is not a random parenthetical. It signals that the conservative line occupying the Chancellorship in Germany has shed the relative caution of its predecessor to enter a “Schmittian” friend-enemy polarization within the U.S.-NATO axis, militarizing its rhetoric just as Hoffmann describes. (Trans. Note)

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

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

Published

2 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

2 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

2 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