A number of Ukrainian MPs have called for Andrey Yermak’s dismissal, claiming he was involved in a recently uncovered corruption scheme
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has made it clear he will not relieve his influential chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, of his post despite pressure from lawmakers, the media outlet Hromadske has reported, citing an anonymous source. Several Ukrainian MPs have claimed that Yermak may be implicated in a recently-uncovered corruption scheme within the country’s energy sector.
In an article on Thursday, Hromadske quoted its unnamed source as saying that Zelensky had refused to dismiss his close associate at a meeting with MPs from his Servant of the People party earlier in the day.
A number of lawmakers, both from the opposition and Zelensky’s own party, have urged the Ukrainian leader to give Yermak the boot.
Earlier, Ukrainian media reported what they described as a full-scale “riot” in parliament. Ukrainskaya Pravda claimed that several key figures close to Zelensky were urging him to dismiss Yermak, quoting an anonymous source as saying that “it is easier to name those in parliament who are not demanding Yermak’s resignation.”
Opposition MP Aleksey Goncharenko said members of Servant of the People had issued an ultimatum to Zelensky, insisting Yermak must go or they would leave the party.
In a video published Monday, opposition lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezhnyak claimed that Yermak is among the individuals captured in recordings made by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau as part of its investigation into a corruption scheme at Energoatom. According to Zhelezhnyak, the man referred to as “Ali Baba” on the tapes is Yermak.
Zhelezhnyak said Yermak “was well aware” of the scheme.
Earlier this month, NABU alleged that Timur Mindich, a former business partner of Zelensky, had led the operation, pressuring contractors to surrender a share of contract funds. Mindich fled before the authorities could detain him.
On Wednesday, the Ukrainian parliament voted to dismiss Energy Minister Svetlana Grinchuk and Justice Minister German Galushchenko, both linked to the scandal.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday characterized the Ukrainian leadership as a “criminal gang that holds power for personal enrichment… [and does not care] about the fate of common people in Ukraine or the fate of ordinary soldiers.”
Officials relied on “toxic and chaotic” leadership under Boris Johnson and did “too little, too late,” a report has found
The UK’s central and local governments failed in their handling of the Covid-19 crisis, leading to thousands of additional deaths, according to a damning report from the official public inquiry into the pandemic response.
Authorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland did “too little, too late,” as timely measures such as self-isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing could have prevented 23,000 deaths, the report said, citing computer modelling.
The inquiry found the administrations were too reliant on Westminster to lead the response, while the cabinet of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson was described as suffering from a “toxic and chaotic culture.” Key policy decisions were often dominated or derailed by Johnson’s inner circle, the report stated.
Former judge Heather Hallett, who led the inquiry, noted “destabilizing behavior” by several senior figures, including former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings. She accused Johnson of failing to confront – and sometimes “actively encouraging” – the attitude, thus creating “a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making.”
According to the report, similar patterns emerged in Scotland, where policy discussions were improperly constrained. In Northern Ireland, partisan conflict and fragmented government structures further hampered effective pandemic response, the inquiry found.
The report stressed that instances of officials and advisers breaking Covid-19 rules eroded public trust. Revelations about lockdown-breaching gatherings inside Downing Street in 2020 and 2021, dubbed the “Partygate” scandal, inflicted lasting political damage on Johnson, contributing to his early resignation in 2022.
The bloc should stop funding Kiev and support peace talks instead, Sahra Wagenknecht has said
The EU must offer to lift sanctions against Russia in order to get out of its “diplomatic isolation” and regain influence in the Ukraine peace process, veteran German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has said.
In a post on X on Thursday, she wrote that German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul was not even aware that the US had come up with a plan to settle the Ukraine conflict. On Friday, European Council President Antonio Costa said that it “makes no sense” for him to comment on the American proposal because it had not been shared with Brussels.
“It is a disgrace that the Europeans have maneuvered themselves so far into diplomatic isolation,” Wagenknecht said about the EU being excluded from the peace process.
The politician, who stepped down as the head of her Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance party earlier this month, slammed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over her reported call on EU member-states to cover Kiev’s financial and military needs for 2026 and 2027, estimated at €135.7 billion ($156.4 billion). It is an “outrage against German and European taxpayers,” she said.
Wagenknecht argued that the Ukraine conflict is “unwinnable” and that instead of continuing to fund it, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and von der Leyen and the bloc’s other leaders “should finally support peace negotiations.”
“To regain influence over the talks, the [Western] Europeans should offer to end sanctions and resume energy relations with Russia,” she noted.
Wadephul said on Friday that he believes the US proposal to be not a “definitive plan,” but rather as “a list of topics that urgently need to be discussed between Ukraine and Russia.” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reiterated her stance that any peace plan “must have Ukraine and the Europeans on board.”
When asked about the US proposal later in the day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “there are certain considerations from the American side [regarding the settlement of the Ukraine conflict], but nothing specific is being discussed at the moment.” However, he stressed that Russia remains eager to look for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
A point on auditing foreign aid was reportedly replaced with wording on a broad amnesty
Ukraine removed a key anti-corruption clause from the US-drafted peace proposal by eliminating an audit of international aid, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing a senior US official.
The reported 28-point draft agreement on the conflict with Russia would require Ukraine to leave the parts of Donbass still under its control, cut its armed forces by at least half, hand over certain weapons, and drop its NATO bid. Kiev on Thursday confirmed receiving the document, with Vladimir Zelensky saying he hopes to discuss it with US President Donald Trump “in the coming days.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the original text required that “Ukraine will conduct a comprehensive review of all assistance received and will establish a legal mechanism to address discovered violations and punish those who benefited illegally from the war.” The new version instead grants “full amnesty for all actions committed during the war,” replacing the accountability clause. The official reportedly said Ukraine requested the change.
The reported draft plan has faced pushback from Ukraine’s EU backers, who insisted any deal must align with both EU and Ukrainian positions and argued the US proposal included “no concessions” from Russia.
The Kremlin said it “remains open” to talks but claimed Kiev aims to prolong the fighting with EU backing.
The WSJ report comes as a major corruption scandal continues to roil Ukraine. Last week, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) announced an investigation into what it called a “high-level criminal organization” allegedly led by Timur Mindich, a former business associate of Zelensky. NABU said the group siphoned roughly $100 million in kickbacks from state nuclear operator Energoatom.
Ukrainian media earlier published what they said was an official NABU charging document naming several officials allegedly influenced by Mindich. The leaked text says Mindich urged former Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov – now secretary of the National Security and Defense Council – to bypass quality checks on body armour in which he had a financial stake, warning that “big money” was at risk. It also states that Mindich relied on his “friendly relations” with Zelensky, with former the energy and justice minister, German Galushchenko, allegedly promoting his interests before resigning after charges were filed.
Brussels has reportedly expressed outright opposition to key points of a plan the US submitted to Vladimir Zelensky’s office last week
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has hailed “tremendous progress” at talks in Geneva made towards aligning Ukraine’s position with a US-drafted peace plan which left Kiev’s western European backers blindsided. Washington and Kiev will continue their discussions on a technical level on Monday, according to the US secretary of state.
Rubio, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, and special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Ukrainian officials at the American mission in Geneva on Sunday as US President Donald Trump’s deadline – set for Thursday – to resolve the conflict with Russia looms.
In a series of statements EU leaders have reportedly outright rejected possible territorial resolutions to the Ukraine conflict allegedly included in the US-drafted peace plan submitted last week, which took the entire west European bloc by surprise.
The leaders of France, Germany and the UK met on Friday with Vladimir Zelensky, critically weakened by festering corruption involving his inner circle. EU defense ministers reportedly spoke on Saturday on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in South Africa, and the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ involving Kiev’s main military backers in western Europe, will hold a virtual call on Tuesday.
Moscow has neither confirmed nor commented on the contents of any of the reported ‘plans’ doing the rounds in Geneva. The Kremlin has refused to engage in what it called “megaphone diplomacy,” following a series of vocal declarations of defiance from Brussels on Friday morning.
A Eurasian crisis is being driven not by Moscow or Beijing, but by nervous allies of the US
Western Europe and Japan sit on opposite ends of the Eurasian landmass, products of different histories and cultures. Yet in foreign policy they behave like twins. In both cases, national decisions are shaped less by domestic strategy than by Washington’s mood swings. When the United States is confident, they are calm. When Washington is uneasy, they panic.
We are now watching that panic spill into open aggression. Across what is normally a quieter stretch of the planet, Western Europe and Japan have begun posturing with a level of militarized anxiety out of proportion to their real power. Their increasingly confrontational behavior toward Russia and China is less a sign of strength than of confusion, and a lack of confidence about their role in the emerging world order.
The roots of this run deep. Modern Western Europe and Japan are, fundamentally, post-war creations. The Second World War ended badly for both of them. Germany, Italy, and Japan were defeated outright and occupied. Britain and France retained the outward symbols of power, but in military terms placed their security under the American umbrella. Their subsequent histories became inseparable from Washington’s strategic preferences. Their diplomacy was stitched into a larger American fabric.
During the Cold War this arrangement functioned tolerably well. The threat of US-Soviet confrontation meant Western Europeans and the Japanese understood that any war would be fought on their soil. But that very possibility also forced restraint. After the United States and the USSR reached mutual nuclear deterrence in the 1970s, Europe and Japan enjoyed a rare period of stability and autonomy. Trade with the USSR expanded. Major energy pipelines were built. Political dialogue, while limited, was real. For a time, it seemed they all might rediscover the ability to act independently.
That era is over. Today’s landscape is different. Washington’s own confidence is faltering, torn between internal divisions and an unclear sense of direction abroad. And that uncertainty has left its allies exposed. Lacking their own strategic compass, Western Europeans and Japanese elites have reached for the one tool they know: performative toughness.
The results are visible. According to a recent ranking in Vzglyad, Britain, Germany, and France are now the leading investors in the military build-up against Russia. Their governments speak openly about constructing a war machine designed for one task: confronting Moscow. Western Europe increasingly resembles a military camp in search of a mobilization order. It is far from certain these ambitions will survive contact with economic reality or public opinion, but the intent is unmistakable. Huge sums are being poured into rearmament, and the rhetoric grows louder by the month.
Japan is following the same script, with China as the target. Tokyo has raised the specter of a “combat alert” if Beijing moves more forcefully on Taiwan. Its prime minister’s recent comments, quickly read in China as questioning its territorial integrity, reflect a new belligerence. Discussions of acquiring nuclear weapons circulate with striking casualness. Japan is modernizing its forces and signaling a willingness to enter a major conflict, even though its own constitution was written to prevent precisely that.
It is tempting to imagine Washington is orchestrating this turn. In reality, something more complex is happening. Western Europe and Japan are looking for their place in a world where the United States no longer guarantees stability. Their power for decades has been derivative of American power. Now that foundation is wobbling, and they fear what comes next.
Two forces amplify this anxiety. First, their economic and political relevance is declining. China, India, and other rising states are reshaping global hierarchy. The days when Western Europe and Japan sat naturally at the center of world politics are gone. Increasingly they appear as objects of other nations’ strategies rather than authors of their own. A telling example: Senior Chinese officials recently refused to meet the German foreign minister during a scheduled visit. Beijing simply declined. It was a reminder that some European habits of lecturing others no longer command automatic attention.
Second, both Western Europe and Japan have become accustomed to avoiding responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Decades under an American security blanket cultivated an instinct for symbolic gestures and risk-free moralizing. Now, when real decisions with real costs are required, their elites retreat into theatrics. Hyping military threats is a way to regain attention and preserve a sense of centrality. Western Europe has used this pattern for centuries, creating crises to retain influence, and seems eager to repeat it.
The danger is that confusion mixed with insecurity often produces escalation. Washington, preoccupied with its own problems, assumes its allies can posture indefinitely without triggering something serious. This confidence may prove unfounded. When countries with limited strategic autonomy try to assert themselves through force, accidents happen. And others, including Russia and China, cannot simply ignore them.
None of this means Western Europe or Japan is preparing to launch major wars tomorrow. Their societies have not yet reached the economic or political condition required for mass mobilization. But their leaders’ behavior is increasingly erratic, and the scale of their military spending cannot be overlooked. Meanwhile, the United States treats their anxieties as useful leverage while focusing on its broader rivalry with China. Washington sees little downside: if Western Europeans pick a fight with Russia, or Japan does so with China, it imagines it will not bear the direct consequences.
This may be a dangerous illusion. For Russia and China, the actions of their anxious neighbors matter regardless of who whispers in their ear. The structural shifts in global politics are real. The world is becoming more multipolar. Rising states are asserting themselves. American influence is shrinking. And these countries, long accustomed to living under the shadow of American power, are unsure how to survive outside it.
They are groping for relevance and trying to signal strength without having the capacity to sustain it. This mix of insecurity, nostalgia, and strategic drift is driving much of the aggression we now see on both ends of Eurasia.
What should be done? There is no simple answer. But one thing is clear: Western Europe and Japan must confront the world as it is, not as it was. Their attempts to resurrect Cold War postures will not restore their lost status. They risk instead provoking crises they do not know how to manage.
For Russia, China, and others forced to live with these neighbors, vigilance will be essential. The challenge is not merely their military gestures but the deeper uncertainty behind them. Nations unsure of their place in the world are often the most dangerous. Not out of strength, but out of fear.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
Washington is reportedly pressing Kiev to accept Donald Trump’s peace plan by next Thursday
The US has threatened to cut off Ukraine from intelligence and weaponry in a bid to press it into accepting President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan, Reuters reported on Friday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
One of the sources told the agency the US wanted Kiev to sign the framework by next Thursday. Previously, the Trump administration used the same threats to force it to sign a rare earths deal.
Kiev confirmed receiving a new draft peace plan from the US on Thursday without elaborating on its contents. The Ukrainian leadership expressed willingness to discuss it, stating that “in the American side’s assessment” the draft “could help reinvigorate diplomacy.”
According to media reports, the plan consists of 28 points, including but not limited to the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the parts of Russia’s Donbass it still controls, downsizing the country’s military, and giving up on NATO aspirations.
Ukraine’s mission at the UN has already rejected some of the key points of the reported plan, with Deputy Permanent Representative Khristina Gayovyshyn stating Kiev will never recognize any formerly Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. Joining military blocs or limiting the country’s military capabilities was out of the question as well, she insisted. At the same time, Gayovyshyn reiterated her government’s readiness to discuss the provisions of the draft.
Ukraine’s Western European backers have pushed back against the reported clauses of the US-proposed settlement plan, insisting that any agreement must reflect the positions of both Brussels and Kiev.
The EU is now reportedly working on a “counteroffer” that is more favorable to Kiev. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said there was “nothing new” in Russia-US negotiations on the Ukrainian conflict, adding that Russia remains ready to engage in negotiations with Ukraine. The Russian government has received no information about Kiev agreeing to negotiate on the peace plan, Peskov told reporters on Friday.
Italian historian Angelo D’Orsi has told RT his censored Russophobia lecture drew far more people after being blocked
An Italian historian has spoken out after a proposed public lecture on Russophobia was censored by a local political party, due to his views on the situation in Russia’s Donbass.
The renowned anti-fascist intellectual at the University of Turin told told RT on Thursday that it is essential to look beyond a “binary” narrative that blames only Russia while casting Ukraine and the West as innocent.
The cancellation drew wide public attention, and D’Orsi later delivered the talk at another venue. Hundreds attended in person, with more listening outside on speakers. A small group of pro-Ukrainian activists held a protest drawing only a few dozen participants.
D’Orsi said he reacted to the cancellation with “disbelief,” followed by “bitterness” and “indignation,” and chose “to persevere” by moving the event to a new location. “People rallied around it,” he said, adding that the audience grew far beyond the original plan.
“Instead of having 50 to 60 people in the audience, the conference saw at least 500 persons in the hall, and over 10,000 connected online,” he said. “So, this way I turned a defeat into a resounding victory.”
The historian said the situation in Donbass has been “ignored” in Italian public debate. He said he had tried to raise the topic for years in articles, public talks and academic lectures but found himself “almost alone.” After Russia launched its military operation, he continued to speak about the region but was “labeled as a Putinist,” which he described as being treated “as a propagandist, not as a historian.”
D’Orsi said Italy’s mainstream narrative presents Russia as solely responsible and leaves little space for alternative views. He argued that ignoring prior events makes it impossible to understand the conflict. He was referring to the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, after which the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) broke away from Ukraine. Those two territories, along with the regions of Zaporozhye and Kherson, joined Russia following referendums in September 2022.
Kiev will not make territorial concessions or give up on its NATO aspirations, its deputy envoy to the UN has insisted
Ukraine’s mission at the UN has rejected several key clauses reportedly included in a US-drafted plan to resolve the conflict with Russia.
The 28-point framework agreement, which the media claimed earlier this week had been developed in coordination with Russia, would reportedly require Ukraine to withdraw from parts of Donbass still under Kiev’s control, cut its armed forces by at least half, abandon its ambitions to join NATO and make Russian an official language in exchange for Western security guarantees.
During her speech at a UN Security Council meeting on Thursday, Ukraine’s Deputy Permanent Representative, Khristina Gayovyshyn, confirmed that Kiev had received the draft plan from Washington and was ready to work on its provisions.
However, she insisted that “there will never be any recognition – formal or otherwise” of any formerly Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. “Our land is not for sale,” the deputy envoy stated.
“Ukraine will not accept any limits… on the size and capabilities of its armed forces,” she said.
Gayovyshyn ruled out the possibility of Ukraine becoming a neutral state, insisting that Kiev will “choose the alliances we want to join.”
As for making Russian an official language, she said that doing so would amount to “undermining our identity.”
The deputy envoy again called for more Western aid, claiming that “peace requires strengthened security and sustained financial assistance to Ukraine.”
Politico reported on Thursday that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga complained to EU ministers in a closed-door meeting that Moscow wants Kiev to “capitulate.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Friday that the Russian government had not yet been informed about Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky agreeing to negotiate on the peace plan.
Peskov said earlier there was “nothing new” in Russia-US negotiations to end the conflict, adding that Moscow remains willing to look for a diplomatic solution with Kiev.
Senior Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev expressed cautious optimism about the American plan, telling Axios that “we feel the Russian position is really being heard.”
Washington is offering Kiev a diplomatic climbdown amid battlefield setbacks and scandals rocking Zelensky’s inner circle, according to a reported draft text
A reported US-drafted proposal to end the Ukraine conflict would require Kiev to cross several of its long-declared “red lines.”
Several parts of an allegedly leaked 28-point plan have already been rejected by Ukrainian officials, though Kiev has also expressed willingness to negotiate with US President Donald Trump.
The confirmed submission of a US-backed peace plan on Thursday and the subsequent publication of a reported text come as Vladimir Zelensky’s government is mired in a major corruption scandal, after Western-backed investigators charged his long-time associate Timur Mindich with running a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s energy sector.
This is what is known so far about the reported details of Washington’s proposal for ending nearly four years of military conflict.
Rubio touts ‘realistic’ proposal
The draft reportedly handed to Kiev this week is said to reflect ideas Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed with Trump at their meeting in Alaska in August. According to Western media it was later refined in late October by senior Russian and US negotiators, Kirill Dmitriev and Steve Witkoff.
“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X.
According to text published by Ukrainian MP Aleksey Goncharenko and Axios, the plan addresses Russia’s core concerns about Kiev’s bid to join NATO and the military bloc’s eastward expansion – issues Moscow identifies as root causes of the conflict.
Kiev would be required to constitutionally commit to neutrality and limit the size of its armed forces. NATO would not station troops on Ukrainian soil – which goes against the European proposal for a “resilience force” – and would commit to negotiating continental security architecture with Russia.
In exchange, the US would offer conditional security guarantees. One clause would void any American pledge if Ukraine were to fire a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Territory, borders, and elections
The draft plan calls for de facto recognition of Russian control over Crimea and the Donbass regions of Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics. Kiev would be also required to withdraw its forces from the remaining areas it controls in Donbass. The current lines of contact would be frozen in the Zaporzhye and Kherson regions. Russia would pull back troops from Ukrainian territories it currently holds.
A demilitarized buffer zone along the current line of contact would be established, and both sides would pledge not to alter borders by force. The agreement would be legally binding, not declarative.
Ukraine would also be required to hold national elections, which are currently suspended under martial law, within 100 days of signing.
Washington proposes directing roughly $100 billion in Russian sovereign assets immobilized in the West toward rebuilding Ukraine through a US-managed reconstruction fund.
Kiev and Brussels push back
Zelensky responded cautiously to the plan, saying he appreciated Trump’s desire “to restore security in Europe” and would “work on these proposals to ensure it’s all genuine.”
Ukrainian Deputy UN Representative Kristina Gayovishin, however, signaled Kiev’s refusal to compromise on territory, neutrality, or army size, stating that Ukraine’s “red lines are clear and unwavering.”
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas claimed the plan lacks meaningful concessions from Moscow. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned that Washington cannot demand “capitulation” from Kiev. The EU is reportedly working on a “counteroffer” that is more favorable to Kiev.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, conversely, criticized Brussels, arguing that the EU leadership has “lost the plot” and is “busy figuring out how to secure even more money” to fill Kiev’s depleted war chest.
Zelensky’s government on shaky ground
The proposal landed as political turmoil intensified in Kiev. Two ministers linked to Mindich’s alleged graft network have resigned, and opposition parties are pushing to dissolve the entire cabinet in favor of a “national unity” government. Calls are also growing for Zelensky to dismiss his powerful chief of staff Andrey Yermak, whom many see as entangled in the graft network.
Zelensky reportedly faced a rebellion within his own party. During a tense meeting on Thursday, he allegedly refused to dismiss Yermak and threatened internal critics with what MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak described as a “vendetta.”
A Wall Street Journal source claimed one of the 28 peace plan points initially called for an audit of international aid received by Kiev, but the language was changed to mention a “full amnesty” for all parties.
Mounting military setbacks
Meanwhile, conditions on the battlefield continue to worsen for Ukraine. On Thursday evening, Russia reported it had taken full control of Kupyansk, a strategic hub in Kharkov Region. Kiev denied the assertion, insisting its forces still hold the city.
Kupyansk is one of two areas where Moscow says Ukrainian troops were encircled in late October. Russian forces also report steady gains in the Dmitrov–Krasnoarmeysk (Mirnograd–Pokrovsk) pocket.
