Trade turnover between the two nations topped $200 billion for the third consecutive year, Igor Morgulov has told RT
Russia and China have continued to rapidly expand their bilateral relationship across economic, diplomatic, and people-to-people channels in 2025, with trade turnover exceeding $200 billion for a third consecutive year, Moscow’s ambassador to Beijing, Igor Morgulov, has told RT.
In an interview aired on Thursday, the envoy suggested that this year was “very successful for the development of our relations,” adding that Russian-Chinese ties “were deepened and strengthened in almost all directions.”
He said 2025 was also marked by the 80th anniversary of the shared victory in World War II. “The fraternity of our countries is still one of the important elements of our strategic partnership,” the envoy said.
Morgulov noted that the symbolism was underscored by reciprocal high-level visits, with Russian President Vladimir Putin attending ceremonies in Beijing on September 3 marking victory over Japan and Chinese President Xi Jinping being the main guest at Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations on May 9.
The envoy highlighted that China remains one of Russia’s top trading partners and that, despite a modest 7.8 % drop over the past 11 months, bilateral trade still topped $203 billion. “This is a serious achievement,” he said.
Morgulov noted that he “would not dramatize too much” the slight reduction, attributing it to natural market adjustments after trade expanded by nearly $100 billion over three years.
The diplomat said Western sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict have affected trade but stressed that Russia and China have built effective mechanisms to sustain growth. According to Morgulov, both Russia and China treat Western sanctions as “illegal” and aimed exclusively at restraining the ties between the two countries.
He also highlighted promising logistics cooperation, citing a recent Chinese container ship voyage from Ningbo to a British port via the Northern Sea Route in 20 days, compared with 30-40 days through the Suez Canal.
Morgulov added that people-to-people ties are expanding following the mutual cancellation of tourist visas. China lifted visa requirements on September 15, and Russia followed suit on December 1, leading to a 40% increase in Russian tourist flows to China since mid-September, he said.
The Hungarian prime minister has criticized the bloc’s decision to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion interest-free loan
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has criticized the EU’s decision to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion interest-free loan, warning that the move brings the bloc “closer to war.” He argued, however, that an alternative plan to seize Russian frozen assets would have been even worse.
Speaking early Friday after EU leaders agreed on the joint borrowing scheme, Orban described it as a fundamentally flawed decision that will burden European taxpayers without delivering realistic returns.
“It is a bad decision, which brings Europe closer to the war,” Orban said, as cited by Euronews. “It looks like a loan, but of course, the Ukrainians will never be able to pay it back. So it is basically losing money. And those who are behind that loan will take the responsibility and the financial consequences of that.”
Under the agreement, the EU will raise funds on capital markets to provide €90 billion in support for Ukraine in 2026-27. The compromise came after days of tense negotiations and the collapse of a more controversial proposal to use frozen Russian assets.
Hungary, along with Slovakia and the Czech Republic, secured opt-outs from the joint borrowing arrangement and will not take part in providing guarantees for the loan. Orban said Budapest agreed to lift its veto only after obtaining assurances that Hungary would not be involved financially.
“The loan required a unanimous decision, and finally we gave up the right to veto, and in exchange we got the opt-out,” Orban said, confirming that Hungary would not take part in the compromise scheme.
Despite his opposition to the final decision, the prime minister said the proposal to use frozen Russian assets to fund a ‘reparations loan’ would have been far more dangerous.
“A reparations loan would mean a war immediately,” he warned. “Think about it: there are two parties warring against each other. You are a third one who goes there, taking away a huge amount of money from one and giving it to its enemy. What does it mean? It’s war.”
The Hungarian leader has repeatedly accused Brussels of escalating the Ukraine conflict through financial and military support, while arguing that the EU should prioritize diplomacy and deescalation. Moscow has likewise condemned Western financial and military backing for Kiev, warning of legal and economic consequences.
The bloc has reached a compromise on a €90 billion lifeline for Kiev, pushing the ‘reparations loan’ scheme further down the road
The EU’s plan to steal Russian assets held in the bloc in order to fund Ukraine’s military and prolong its disastrous war has failed to get the backing of bloc leaders. The other key EU summit pillar – approving a contentious trade deal with the South American bloc Mercosur – was also aborted at the last minute amid chaotic protests by several-thousand farmers in the Belgian capital.
Following some 16 hours of talks, during which the deep divisions within the bloc were exacerbated by legislative overreach pushed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her compatriot German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, European Council discussions ended without agreement on the controversial proposal to use frozen Russian assets to finance a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan aimed at allowing Kiev to continue its military campaign.
Instead, member states agreed to raise common debt – borrowing on the capital markets – to finance Kiev in the short term while “technical aspects of the reparations loan are worked out,” according to European Council President Antonio Costa.
“We have a deal,” Costa wrote on X around 3am, without addressing the funding mechanism behind the package. Merz similarly glossed over the bloc’s failure to back the loan with frozen Russian assets, insisting that “Ukraine will receive an interest-free loan of €90 billion, as I suggested.”
Moscow has already initiated arbitration proceedings against Euroclear, the Belgian-based clearing house that holds some €180 billion of Russian funds, and during the talks in Brussels announced that it had widened the case to include “European banks,” increasing the risk to European lenders of backing the plan.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever was at the center of the disagreement, though his opposition to the plan to steal Russian assets was supported by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babis. The latter three reportedly tabled an option for EU members to provide joint debt for Ukraine instead – exempting their countries from the idea but also pledging not to veto it.
Merz and von der Leyen are thought to have rejected that plan, and instead insisted on more a dangerous option to steal Russia’s assets and attempt to give Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky enough money to keep fighting for two more years. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk put it ahead of the meeting, “either money today or blood tomorrow.”
Without the EU war chest, Zelensky faces a short-term economic crisis. Ukraine needs some €72 billion to repay a G7 loan and stay afloat fiscally.
Following the EU Council’s failure to endorse the Merz/von der Leyen war option, the bloc has effectively denied itself the “seat at the table” hosting Ukraine peace talks that it was demanding since the US took the diplomatic initiative.
Attention will now turn to a meeting between US and Russian delegations in Miami, and to US President Donald Trump’s call for peace by Christmas.
The NDAA earmarks more US taxpayer money for Ukraine despite a major corruption scandal
US President Donald Trump has signed the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, approving a record $901 billion in military spending while allocating $800 million in funding for Kiev over the next two years.
The bill, which sets Pentagon priorities for fiscal year 2026, authorizes roughly $8 billion more than the administration originally requested and marks the largest defense budget in US history. It includes funding for weapons procurement, troop pay, and major defense initiatives championed by Trump.
The Ukraine funding – $400 million per year under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative – amounts to a fraction of the overall package, representing less than 0.09% of total defense spending. Unlike direct transfers from existing US stockpiles, USAI funds are used to pay American defense companies to manufacture and procure new weapons and military equipment for Kiev.
The allocation comes amid renewed scrutiny of Kiev following a major corruption scandal that has shaken the country’s leadership. Prosecutors recently uncovered a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s energy sector, which relies heavily on Western financial support. The investigation reportedly implicated close associates of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, prompting the resignation of senior officials and fueling criticism in Washington over continued aid.
In addition to Ukraine aid, the law authorizes a nearly 4% pay raise for US service members, funds new ships, aircraft, and missile systems, and places new restrictions on certain US investments linked to China. It also backs Trump’s push to reshape the Pentagon, codifying elements of his executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and funding the proposed Golden Dome missile-defense system.
The bill contains provisions related to Europe beyond Ukraine, including support for the Baltic Security Initiative and limits on the Pentagon’s ability to significantly reduce US troop levels on the continent. These measures were included despite Trump’s repeated criticism of European NATO members for relying too heavily on Washington.
The legislation also reflects growing congressional scrutiny of recent US military operations in the Caribbean. One clause withholds part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until lawmakers receive unedited footage and orders related to strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels.
Trump has repeatedly argued that Washington should no longer pour vast sums of taxpayer money into Ukraine, insisting that his administration is instead pushing for a negotiated settlement with Russia. Moscow has condemned continued Western military support for Kiev, calling it one of the root causes of the conflict and a barrier to a ceasefire.
US House Democrats release more disturbing images ahead of a Justice Department deadline
Democrats on the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released a new batch of photographs obtained from the estate of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, offering a disturbing and fragmentary glimpse into materials investigators say point to his network, methods, and contacts.
The release on Thursday includes 68 images and marks the third public disclosure from a much larger archive of more than 95,000 photos provided to Congress by the Epstein estate in response to subpoenas.
As with previous releases, the images were made public without detailed context, dates, or locations.
Among the most striking items are photographs showing quotations from Vladimir Nabokov’s novel ‘Lolita’ written on a woman’s body, alongside images of redacted foreign passports and identification documents.
Several of the passports appear to be Ukrainian. Lawmakers say the documents were heavily redacted to avoid revealing the identities of alleged victims. The batch also includes passports and ID documents linked to Russian, Lithuanian, Czech, Italian, and South African nationals, and what appears to be a short-term visa issued to a Moroccan national.
According to the committee, the images also show text messages discussing the recruitment of young women for Epstein, as well as photographs of wealthy and influential figures who socialized with him.
One of the images features billionaire Bill Gates; others show prominent philanthropists attending a dinner.The committee stressed that the photos do not constitute evidence of criminal wrongdoing by those pictured.
Representative Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said the materials were released to give the public a clearer sense of the scope of what the estate turned over to Congress. He described the images as “extremely disturbing” and said they raise further questions about Epstein’s activities and connections.
The Epstein estate did not provide explanatory details about the photographs, and Democrats said the materials were published “as received.” Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
The release comes ahead of a Justice Department deadline to disclose additional files related to Epstein and longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, fueling renewed public scrutiny of how the case was handled and who may have been involved or protected.
Protesters accuse EU leaders of sacrificing their livelihoods to push trade deals
Violent clashes erupted in Brussels on Thursday as thousands of farmers descended on the EU quarter, blocking roads with tractors and confronting riot police outside the European Parliament amid mounting anger over trade policy and farming reforms.
What began as a mass demonstration against proposed changes to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and a controversial free-trade agreement with the South American Mercosur bloc quickly spiraled into chaos.
Footage circulating on social media showed thick black smoke from burning tires and hay filling nearby streets as tractors pushed through police barriers, grinding parts of the city to a halt.
Tractors have SMASHED through police barricades, farmers are wearing gas masks in preparation for tear gas, and buildings are being smashed pic.twitter.com/pOTPizTuU0
Protesters smashed windows near parliament buildings and hurled rocks, potatoes, and other objects at police, who responded with tear gas and water cannons.
War breaks out outside EU headquarters in Brussels. European farmers want Ursula von der Leyen and EU politicians. European farmers are no joke. pic.twitter.com/M6alrrnLLn
Police charged demonstrators, and at least one protester was seen being knocked to the ground and beaten as officers attempted to clear the area.
Farmers vs. Police in Brussels, Belgium.
Farmers used their tractors to break through the police barriers outside the EU headquarters in Brussels, spraying feed at police officers, who respond with water cannons. pic.twitter.com/uskh5UW2fJ
The Belgian authorities said the protest were authorized for a limited number of tractors, but by early afternoon, around 1,000 vehicles had flooded the capital, with police estimating 7,000 protesters in total. By evening, police had regained partial control of the area, though tractors and demonstrators continued to occupy parts of the city.
The demonstration coincided with an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels, where the long-delayed Mercosur trade deal was again under discussion. Farmers across Belgium, France, and other EU states fear the agreement will open the door to cheaper agricultural imports from South America, undercutting European producers who must comply with stricter environmental and animal welfare standards.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the Mercosur deal will not be signed this weekend and has been postponed until next month. Critics of the deal warn that the delay is only a temporary reprieve rather than a reversal.
New DNA sequencing has cleared up disputed origin claims over the Roman-era ‘Beachy Head Woman’
The Roman-era skeleton known as the “Beachy Head Woman,” once widely cited as evidence of an early black presence in Britain, most likely had genetic ancestry similar to local populations in southern England at the time, researchers have said.
The findings were published in the Journal of Archaeological Science on Wednesday and shared by the Natural History Museum (NHM), which stated that improved DNA sequencing and updated reference datasets enabled scientists to reassess earlier interpretations.
The case has drawn attention for years as the remains’ origins were reassessed with evolving methods.
According to the NHM, the skeleton was identified in 2012 in a boxed collection at Eastbourne Town Hall during the Eastbourne Ancestors Project, with labels suggesting it had been found near Beachy Head in the 1950s. Early assessments based on skull measurements fueled claims of sub-Saharan African ancestry, and the woman was later promoted, including in a 2016 BBC history series, as the “first black Briton.”
It was the Romans!
Our understanding of Beachy Head Woman has changed a lot over the past decade as new technology has improved our knowledge of her life.
In subsequent years, a plaque was erected to commemorate that claim, but it was later removed after another study suggested a link to Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean. Those results were later described as inconclusive, and the NHM said the latest analysis has now revised the earlier interpretations.
The study said radiocarbon dating places the woman between AD 129 and 311 and that she was around 18–25 when she died. Researchers also used the new genetic data to predict traits, including light skin pigmentation, blue eyes, and fair hair, and updated a digital facial reconstruction accordingly.
According to the NHM, chemical testing suggested a diet likely rich in seafood, and the remains show a healed leg injury consistent with a serious but non-fatal wound earlier in life.
The study’s senior author, Selina Brace, said advances in technology over the past decade had made it possible to produce “new comprehensive data” and share more about the Beachy Head Woman and her life.
“It doesn’t alter the story of Britain,” Brace said. “It just alters her story and we owed it to her to put that right.”
MEPs have moved to streamline the movement of troops and armaments across the bloc
EU lawmakers have backed a bill for a “military Schengen area” that would eliminate the bloc’s internal borders for the purposes of rapid troop and materiel movements in the event of a conflict with Russia.
Top EU officials have already used claims of an alleged threat from Russia to justify huge military spending packages, like its massive €800 billion ($938 billion) ReArm Europe plan. Moscow has labeled claims that it poses a threat to EU or NATO countries as nonsense.
The proposal was originally presented by the European Commission last month and envisioned establishing an EU-wide “military mobility” zone by 2027, aiming to cut through the bloc’s bureaucracy and reduce the time different militaries would need to cross borders.
With the non-binding resolution passed, lawmakers on the bloc’s Transport and Defense Committees are now set to work on the bill, the European Parliament said in a press release.
MEPs also passed a proposal to allocate €17 billion from 2028-2034 to “military mobility” and dealing with long-term logistics and infrastructure issues like bridges and tunnels unsuited for use by heavy vehicles like tanks. Upgrading such “hotspots” would cost at least an additional €100 billion, according to the press release.
EU nations have accelerated their militarization in recent months, freeing up €335 billion in pandemic relief funds and mobilizing €150 billion in loans and grants for the bloc’s military industrial complex. Some of these funds have been made available to Kiev.
The militarization push has been accompanied by increasingly aggressive statements from officials, with France’s top general, Fabien Mandon, warning French citizens last month to be ready to “lose children” in a potential conflict with Russia.
On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Europeans are “indoctrinated with fears of an inevitable confrontation with Russia” by being fed “a lie and an irrational narrative about an imaginary Russian threat.”
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stressed that Moscow harbors “no aggressive plans against either NATO or EU members,” and is prepared to give legal guarantees to the effect “in writing, on a collective, mutual basis.”
This is the second part of RT’s special investigation on Igor Kolomoysky. You can find Part 1 here to read about Kolomoysky’s rise to the status of godfather of Ukrainian corruption, his involvement in the Maidan revolution and the following years leading up to Vladimir Zelensky’s election.
Zelensky elected: The people’s fantasies and Kolomoysky’s favor
In April 2019, comedian Vladimir Zelensky defeated in a landslide incumbent Pyotr Poroshenko in the Ukrainian presidential election. It was an instance of life imitating art. In a TV series called ‘Servant of the People’, Zelensky played the role of a school teacher who launches a quixotic bid for the presidency running as an anti-corruption crusader. The series, which became wildly popular, aired on the TV channel 1+1, majority owned by Kolomoysky’s 1+1 Media Group.
Zelensky positioned himself as the consummate outsider. During the election campaign, he preferred posting light-hearted videos to social media – and giving vague promises to stamp out corruption – over giving serious interviews or discussing policy. He did, however, promise to stop the war in Donbass and, being a Russian speaker himself, opposed the rigid language policies of Poroshenko. But otherwise, there wasn’t much there. Ukrainian sociologist Irina Bereshkina called him “a screen on which every person projected his own fantasies.” That, in addition to the support of Kolomoysky, proved to be his biggest advantage.
Poroshenko, meanwhile, whose term in office was widely considered to have fallen short of the lofty ideals of the Maidan, ran on a vision of Ukrainian nationalism anchored in a misty past. His campaign slogan was “Army, language, faith.”
In an effort to burnish his grassroots credentials, Zelensky naturally sought to distance himself from Kolomoysky, scoffing at the notion that he was in any way beholden to the oligarch. However, coverage on Kolomoysky’s channel overwhelmingly favored Zelensky. The informal manager of Zelensky’s campaign was none other than Andrey Bogdan, the lawyer who represented Kolomoysky in the PrivatBank affair. Bogdan would be Zelensky’s first chief of staff before being pushed aside in favor of Andrey Yermak.
Meanwhile, documents from the Pandora Papers leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and later analyzed by OCCRP offer a window into ties far more intricate than Zelensky would have anyone think.
The documents show that Zelensky and his partners in the television production company Kvartal 95 set up a network of offshore firms dating back to at least 2012, which happens to be the same year the company began making regular content for Kolomoysky. The offshore entities funneled Kolomoysky’s money through the British Virgin Islands, Belize, and Cyprus in order to avoid paying taxes in Ukraine. According to the documents, associates of Zelensky used these entities to purchase and own three high-end properties in London.
In April 2019, the Kyiv Post reported that Zelensky traveled a total of 11 times to Geneva and an additional two times to Tel Aviv over the two-year period in which Kolomoysky was in exile and residing in those cities at the time of the flights, respectively.
Vladimir Ariev, a Rada MP representing Poroshenko’s party, contended that Kolomoysky used Zelensky’s companies for money laundering. He claimed that $41 million from PrivatBank was transferred, through a series of intermediary companies, to the accounts of Kvartal 95 while the bank was still controlled by Kolomoysky. Ariev called the scheme, whereby money would be lent to entities ultimately controlled by the oligarch himself, standard practice for Kolomoysky.
Zelensky’s distancing efforts notwithstanding, Kolomoysky was widely seen as responsible for delivering the presidency to the comedian. Kolomoysky was hardly shy about how his protégé’s victory was perceived: “People come to see me in Israel and say, ‘Congrats! Well done!’ I say, ‘For what? My birthday’s in February’. They say, ‘Who needs a birthday when you’ve got a whole president?’”
Zelensky was inaugurated on May 20, 2019. Three days later, the Ukraine Crisis Media Center published a rather starkly worded list of ‘25 Red Lines Not To Be Crossed’, ostensibly on behalf of the NGOs representing the country’s “civil society.” And what if the lines are crossed? The warning deserves to be quoted in full:
“As civil society activists, we present a list of ‘red lines not to be crossed’. Should the President cross these red lines, such actions will inevitably lead to political instability in our country and the deterioration of international relations.”
Implicitly threatening to give this political instability a push was a list of donors representing a veritable who’s who of nefarious US and Western meddlers and color revolutionaries. Occupying pride of place are USAID and the US Embassy. Also listed are NATO and the National Endowment for Democracy, among others.
Former US State Department official Mike Benz asked the rhetorical question of why USAID would sponsor a 70-NGO consortium that directly threatens the newly elected president and ensures that USAID grantees controlled virtually every facet of how Ukraine could run its own country. Zelensky, however, would soon have more than the NGOs to worry about. Set to re-enter the fray was a man with his own red lines.
He’s back with a vengeance
Just a month after Zelensky’s election, Kolomoysky made a triumphant return from exile to Ukraine and immediately set about settling scores and maneuvering to keep his local business empire afloat, even trying to claim billions in compensation due to losses he incurred in the 2016 nationalization of PrivatBank.
The president showed no inclination to confront his benefactor. In fact, the oligarch’s first year under Zelensky went well. Through various political intrigues, he managed to wrest informal control of state-owned Centrenergo, Ukraine’s most lucrative energy distribution company, and reasserted his influence over Ukrnafta (while this time leaving the headquarters unmolested by armed thugs).
In September, police raided the headquarters of PrivatBank, now being run by state-appointed managers, and also the home of Valeria Gontareva, the former head of Ukraine’s central bank, who presided over the nationalization of the bank. Days later, Gontareva’s dacha outside Kiev was firebombed. Kolomoysky, who had a court-proven history of threatening Gontareva, was widely suspected to be behind these incidents. Zelensky promised an investigation. It hardly bears stating that nothing came of it.
Kolomoysky did not shy away from the media spotlight upon his return, giving numerous interviews and making various high-profile appearances. On September 10, he met with Zelensky, his chief of staff, and Kiev’s prime minister to discuss “issues around conducting business in Ukraine” and “the energy sector,” in which Kolomoysky had significant financial interests. Investment banker Sergey Fursa bluntly called the photograph accompanying their meeting “a signal to all officials and especially all managers of state companies: this is your new ‘daddy.’”
Meanwhile, in December 2019, Zelensky met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris at what was called the Normandy Format for resolving the conflict in Donbass. However, when it came time to approve the final communique, Zelensky got cold feet. He objected to a critical clause in the document that envisaged a recommendation to the parties to disengage forces along the entire line of contact. This clause had been endorsed at the level of the foreign ministers and advisers to the heads of state of all parties involved: France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia. The statement ended up being signed with this clause removed, but from the Russian perspective, it was fatally compromised by Zelensky’s last-minute wavering.
Given Zelensky’s previous backing of the so-called Steinmeier Formula, a way to sequence two politically fraught steps as mandated in the Minsk accords aimed at settling the Donbass crisis, Moscow had been led to believe that progress might finally be possible. Zelensky’s former chief of staff, Bogdan, in a later interview with Ukrainian journalist Dmitry Gordon, admitted that the Ukrainian side “tricked Putin” at the Normandy meeting. The Ukrainians “promised one thing – they did nothing,” according to Bogdan. Whether radical nationalists forced Zelensky’s hand is debated, but either way it was an inflection point.
In fact, many commentators saw the Ukrainian president’s unwillingness to back a full disengagement along the line of contact as the moment when Putin understood that reaching a meaningful agreement with Zelensky was impossible. This was an often underappreciated episode on the path to the fateful events of February 2022.
Overall, the Financial Times gave Zelensky mixed reviews after his first six months in office, praising the numerous bills aimed at upgrading the economy and modernizing the state while also warning of a nascent authoritarian streak. It wondered whether what was transpiring was the “story of reformist idealism marred by suspicion that the new generation could be yet another political vehicle for corporate capture of the state.” It also identified the biggest question hanging over Zelensky as being his relationship with Igor Kolomoysky.
Placating the IMF
Zelensky entered office at a time Ukraine was in urgent need of IMF financing to keep its brittle economy stable. The IMF was willing to stump up the cash but with conditions attached. Among them, the non-negotiable demand that Kolomoysky not be handed back control of PrivatBank, or compensated for its nationalization. Given the scale of the fraud, it beggars the imagination that such a step was possible, but Kolomoysky had already made significant progress toward clawing back his prized asset and Zelensky seemed willing to entertain a deal.
Kolomoysky, in ill-humor at the demands emanating from the West to cut him down to size, orchestrated an eye-raising pivot. Declaring“screw the IMF,” he proposed that Kiev default on its loans with the institution. Instead, the self-proclaimed die-hard European suggested Ukraine embrace Russia. “They’re stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations… People want peace, a good life, they don’t want to be at war,” he said in late 2019, while blaming the country’s tensions with Moscow on the US “forcing us” to wage a brutal conflict in Donbass.
He believed financing from Russia could replace IMF loans, suggesting Moscow would “love to give” Kiev up to $100 billion.
Indeed, Ukraine’s new president was in a tight spot. Zelensky needed to demonstrate to the IMF, and the US by extension, that he was reining in Kolomoysky’s economic and political power, but without actually undertaking substantive action against the oligarch. The solution was to generate enough window-dressing to secure the money, while simultaneously moving against figures seen as threatening his benefactor.
When Prime Minister Aleksey Goncharuk tried to change Kolomoysky’s managers at Centrenergo – a company the oligarch ran from the shadows – the newcomers were physically harassed, and it was Goncharuk who was removed instead. Most of the government went with him.
Aleksey Goncharuk
Head prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who had been overseeing a major reform of Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutor’s office and appeared to have his sights set on Kolomoysky, was fired just eight months after Zelensky called him “100% my person.”
Nevertheless, in June 2020, the IMF approved a $5 billion program – conditioned explicitly on Ukraine passing the so-called ‘Anti-Kolomoysky Law’, preventing the return of insolvent and nationalized banks to their former owners, and also on central-bank independence. However, the ink had hardly dried from the IMF deal when latter condition went out the window.
Just a month after the IMF funds came through, Yakov Smolii, the National Bank of Ukraine’s governor, was bullied by Zelensky into resigning after what he called“systematic political pressure” behind which lurked Kolomoysky. Well-regarded by the IMF, Smolii’s departure made a mockery of the conditions Ukraine was expected to fulfill.
Zelensky (sort of) takes on the oligarchs (but not all of them)
By the end of 2020, Zelensky’s poll numbers were plummeting, and his presidency appeared in tatters. He had failed to fulfill any of his campaign pledges, most notably achieving peace in Donbass. A poll taken at the end of 2020 showed nearly half of Ukrainians were disappointed in his performance over the past year and 67% believed the country was heading in the wrong direction.
On March 5, 2021, the US finally sanctioned Kolomoysky, citing his involvement in “significant corruption” in his official capacity as governor of Dnepropetrovsk Region six years earlier.
A coincidence or not, exactly a week later, Zelensky released a short video on YouTube called ‘Ukraine fights back’ in which he declared a frontal attack on those he believed had been undermining the country and taking advantage of its frail rule of law. He called out the “oligarchic class” and named names: “[Viktor] Medvedchuk, [Igor] Kolomoysky, [Pyotr] Poroshenko, [Rinat] Akhmetov, [Viktor] Pinchuk, [Dmitry] Firtash.” He asked oligarchs directly whether they would be willing to work legally and transparently or whether they intended to maintain their crony networks, monopolies, and pocket parliamentary deputies. He concluded with a flourish: “The former is welcome. The latter ends.”
These were bold words, but what was the follow-up? On June 1, 2021, a new ‘anti-oligarch bill’ was rolled out in the Rada. This measure sought to create an official register of oligarchs. Those classified as such would be banned from donating to political parties and participating in the privatization of state assets. It was never explained how oligarchs would be forced to sell their media outlets. The final say on determining who is an oligarch and who should face what restrictions was left to the National Security and Defense Council, a body chaired by the president.
The bill turned out to be an object of derision even among allies. According to Emerging Europe, “the bill opens a wide door for subjective targeting and could be a populist move aimed to strengthen [Zelensky’s] presidential powers.”
In November of the same year, the Rada also passed legislation affecting how taxes were administered and calculated. The measure dealt a hard blow to Kolomoysky rival Rinat Akhmetov and numerous other oligarchs, for example, who were forced to pay increased taxes on iron ore mining. Inexplicably, however, the Kolomoysky-controlled manganese ore sector avoided the tax increases faced by the rest of the sector.
Zelensky’s efforts to strengthen the state and increase presidential power were carried out under the entirely plausible premise of preventing state capture by oligarchs. But this piecemeal approach to defanging the oligarchs meant some would benefit at the expense of others. But what this really allowed for was a significant increase in the concentration of power in the hands of the president. And, as we will see, this hardly offered immunity to corruption.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
In September 2023, Kolomoysky’s luck finally ran out. Ukraine’s most notorious oligarch was arrested. The timing was not self-evident. Did Zelensky finally find the courage to move on his one-time benefactor? Or perhaps was it an attempt to compensate for a high-profile corruption scandal that had led to the resignation of Ukraine’s top military enlistment officer and even rattled allies?
The arrest was initially hailed as “a demonstration that there are no untouchables” in Ukraine, and a major step forward in Kiev’s fight against entrenched corruption. Alas, it was the system itself that would prove untouchable.
Exit Igor Kolomoysky, enter Timur Mindich. With a hand dipped surreptitiously in the till of numerous industries, Mindich was both everywhere and nowhere at the same time – or in some cases, in three places at once. He figures in Ukrainian property registers under at least three names: ‘Timur Mindich’, ‘Tymur Myndych’ and ‘Tymur Myndich’. These days, he is reportedly hiding out in Austria, although Israel has also been suggested as his bolthole. He narrowly escaped Ukraine ahead of a National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) raid on his home on November 10, 2025, almost certainly having been tipped off.
Mindich’s earliest known business role was as the trusted custodian of certain media assets linked to Kolomoysky. He was, according to one Ukrainian political heavyweight quoted by Ukrainskaya Pravda, “never a player” and was characterized in terms more apt for a small-time hustler: He was involved in endeavors such as “importing designer clothes into Ukraine” and “making small side profits.” Many Ukrainian business figures later struggled to understand how someone once seen as a lowly aide could have grown into a figure with such clout.
Timur Mindich
When Zelensky was elected, Mindich gradually moved away from Kolomoysky’s orbit and into the new president’s circle. As early as 2020, Mindich was regularly seen visiting Zelensky’s office and soon thereafter his name began cropping up everywhere. According to a 2019 interview with Kolomoysky, Mindich – at one point engaged to Kolomoysky’s daughter – was the individual who introduced the oligarch to Zelensky in the late 2000s. Zelensky traveled in Mindich’s armored Mercedes in the final stretch of his presidential campaign, and the pair routinely socialized. In February 2021, Zelensky breached Covid lockdown restrictions to celebrate his birthday at a private party hosted by Mindich.
Mindich was already in the door but his vertiginous ascent came in 2023, the year Kolomoysky was arrested and many of the oligarch’s key assets were nationalized. As of autumn 2025, he was listed – under his three separate names – as co-owner of at least 15 different Ukrainian companies and organizations, more than half of which were at one time part of Kolomoysky’s network. Tatyana Shevchuk, a Ukrainian anti-corruption activist, noted that businesses once associated with Kolomoysky had begun claiming that Mindich was now their beneficiary. “Gradually, in three years, he became, not an oligarch, but a known businessman with an interest in a lot of businesses,” she said.
Kolomoysky’s sprawling business empire was never measured by his registered holdings. What he controlled went far beyond the assets listed under his name.
Into exactly this breach stepped Mindich, who knew Kolomoysky’s labyrinthine network intimately, and became, in the words of Shevchuk, “a shadow controller of the energy sector.” Perhaps having learned from his mentor’s mistakes, Mindich maintained fewer direct assets and avoided being named in corporate registries, relying instead on political intermediaries. Nonetheless, Mindich is most prominently associated with state energy companies – the same sector of which Kolomoysky was once “daddy.”
By all appearances, Zelensky was more than willing to go to bat for him. In July 2025, the Ukrainian leader signed a law limiting the independence of the country’s two main two anti-corruption agencies, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). It was widely reported that the clamp-down came as the agencies were beginning to probe people from Zelensky’s circle, possibly targeting Mindich himself. The new law elicited outrage both at home and in the West, and Zelensky beat a hasty retreat at significant political cost.
The stated purpose behind Zelensky’s move against the agencies was to “cleanse” them from Russian influence. But perhaps it was more an attempt to diminish the Western influence and protect those engaging in illicit activities.
This is where things get complicated though and requires a bit of a diversion. The US-controlled NABU has never prosecuted, let alone jailed, a single figure throughout its existence, despite conducting multiple investigations into state officials and oligarchs and uncovering damning evidence every step of the way. It has, however, proven an enormously useful political tool. A probe into then-President Poroshenko in early 2019 exposed embezzlement and criminal conduct in relation to defense procurement, at the government’s highest levels. Several sources suggest the revelations contributed to Poroshenko’s election loss to Zelensky.
Revelations of corruption in Ukraine can often be calibrated for very specific ends – and there’s no reason to believe NABU’s efforts earlier in the summer of 2025 didn’t have a political angle. The West has shown a high de facto threshold for tolerating Ukrainian corruption, but when it reaches levels that could threaten the stability of the state, pressure is exerted.
Zelensky’s fears proved entirely rational. Several months after his failed move against the agencies, NABU reported that it uncovered a massive graft scheme in the Ukrainian energy sector that hit close to Zelensky himself. The ringleader was identified as none other than Timur Mindich.
In line with his consistent pattern of only moving against corruption when forced, Zelensky initially tried to downplay Mindich’s role in the case. Only after more damning evidence emerged did the Ukrainian leader impose sanctions on Mindich. Similarly, when Justice Minister Herman Galushchenko and Energy Minister Svetlana Grinchuk were implicated, Zelensky first sought to place them on temporary leave. Only after a public outcry did he relent and ask for their resignations.
Herman Galushchenko
A similar story played out with his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, long considered the grey cardinal of Ukrainian politics and a Zelensky loyalist. When NABU investigators raided his residence, Zelensky initially stood by his embattled chief of staff and even dispatched him to carry out negotiations in order to protect him. It was only after Zelensky’s hand was all but forced that he removed Yermak.
Mindich’s role in government turns out to have been much larger than it appeared at first glance. According to the SAPO prosecutor, “throughout 2025, Mindich’s criminal activities in the energy sector were established through his influence on then Minister of Energy Galushchenko and in the defense sector through his influence on the then Minister of Defense [Rustem] Umerov.”Anonymous sources told CENSOR.net that Mindich “supervised” Galushchenko. This apparently extended to direct interference in the ministry’s processes, to the point that Mindich allegedly determined the order and priority of tasks.
In other words, Mindich, while occupying no formal government post or any position in the sector’s constituent companies, used his ties to influence appointments, procurement and informal networks in similar spheres in which Kolomoysky operated. “The management of a strategic enterprise with an annual revenue of over €4 billion was carried out not by officials, but by outsiders who had no formal authority,” NABU said in a statement. It would be tempting to say that this state of affairs is almost unheard of if not for its resemblance, at least in its essence, to what transpired under the ever vigilant eye of Kolomoysky.
There are persistent rumors that Kolomoysky leaked information to NABU about the Mindich case. The two clearly had a falling out at some point, as an interview from 2022 in which Kolomoysky speaks dismissively about Mindich, calling him “a partner somewhere, but more of a debtor,” seems to indicate. Kolomoysky, no doubt feeling betrayed by Zelensky, seems to have it out for his former protégé as well. The oligarch is now facing attempted premeditated murder charges based on recently uncovered evidence that could carry a life sentence. Nevertheless, he has proven a talkative defendant at his recent court hearings in Kiev, so much so that the authorities appear reluctant to haul him in.
Let the credits roll
Modern Ukraine was built on a foundation of antipathy toward Russia and a caricatured view of its neighbor’s shortcomings: Corruption, cronyism, heavy-handedness. Yet Ukraine’s elites cultivated these exact attributes with riotous excess, aided and abetted every step of the way by the very Western allies whose system Kiev ostensibly sought to emulate. Only when corruption took on such grotesque dimensions that it threatened Ukraine as a functioning bludgeon against Russia was it addressed. All manner of malfeasance was tolerated and tacitly encouraged until an inflection point was reached.
The whole rotten edifice is cracking now and it won’t be long until Zelensky is swept away as well. If this were a film, it would end with the one truly patriotic act in Igor Kolomoysky’s long and disreputable life at the nexus of Ukrainian politics and business being to detonate the very system that he was so central to building.
Jared Isaacman has been approved by the US Senate to lead the space agency
The US Senate has confirmed Jared Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut and close associate of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, as the new head of NASA. The measure passed by a wide margin on Wednesday.
Isaacman, 42, financed and took part in two civilian crewed SpaceX flights, one of which featured a spacewalk. His close ties to Musk’s company come as NASA increasingly relies on SpaceX for a range of missions. Isaacman built his fortune by founding Shift4, a payment processing company that now handles billions of transactions each year.
His path to becoming NASA administrator has not been straightforward. US President Donald Trump first nominated Isaacman in December 2024, praising him as “an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut.”
Trump withdrew the nomination in May amid his public feud with Musk. Posting on Truth Social in July, Trump accused Musk of going “completely off the rails” and becoming a “train wreck.” He claimed that Musk had asked “that one of his close friends run NASA,” which Trump described as “inappropriate.” Isaacman has made political donations to Democratic candidates in the past.
Trump renominated Isaacman in November, as his relationship with Musk began to thaw. During a Senate confirmation hearing in early December, Isaacman said he wanted to put US astronauts back on the moon before China and sought to portray himself as independent from Musk.
The confirmation comes as the US and China pursue rival space ambitions, including lunar missions and expanded satellite networks. China operates its own space station and carries out regular crewed flights, while the US relies heavily on commercial partners such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, and the International Space Station partnerships, including with Russia, following the retirement of NASA’s space shuttle program in 2011.
