It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Sunday, May 17, 2026
Trip to recovery: How psychedelics could revolutionise mental health care
In a world gripped by a growing mental health crisis, research suggests that psychedelic-assisted therapy could be an answer. Euronews Health spoke to an expert about how they work, and when - if ever - we might see them approved.
Picture this: You walk into a small, dimly lit room and lay on a bed beside a clinician. After talking you through what’s going to happen, they hand you an eye mask, then administer a controlled dose of the psychedelic compound, psilocybin.
As suddenly as the drug takes effect, the world as you knew it starts to dissolve - the chains of old thought patterns finally loosen.
While it might sound intense, this scenario could be a future reality for those living with treatment resistant mental illness, including depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In recent years, psychedelic-assisted therapies have become one of the most fascinating and fast-accelerating areas of psychiatric research, driven by an ever-growing body of exciting new evidence.
Relate
The current mental health crisis has also created an urgency for new, more effective treatment options, with over a billion people currently living with mental health disorders, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Unfortunately, in mental health, and specifically in psychiatry, we haven't really had any new treatments for several decades,” Dr Liliana Galindo, an assistant professor at the University of Cambridge’s psychiatry department, told Euronews Health.
“What psychedelics are bringing is the opportunity to have or to present new treatments for people that don't respond to the usual treatments.”
Psychedelics are a class of psychoactive substances that can powerfully alter people's perceptions and moods by binding to serotonin receptors. Popular examples include psilocybin, DMT, phenethylamines (MDMA) and lysergamides (LSD).
While they all share similar consciousness-expanding qualities, each compound varies in its intensity, duration, and overall effect, with different ones being tested for different conditions.
So far, psilocybin, an active ingredient in magic mushrooms, has generated the most promising results.
“For treating depression, psilocybin, specifically the COMP360 (a synthetic formulation of psilocybin developed by Compass Pathways), has already finished phase three of its clinical trials. We are expecting that [Compass] is going to file the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) application soon,” Galindo said.
“Potentially, this could be the very first psychedelic treatment that will be legal and approved.”
How do psychedelic-assisted therapies work?
Up until now, mental health treatments have relied on two evidence-based methods: talk therapies and medications such as antidepressants.
These are proven to be effective, with patients receiving a combination of the two 25-27% more likely to respond positively, according to statistics by the National Institutes of Health.
But for those that don’t respond, other avenues of help remain limited.
“Many mental health conditions have some symptoms that are common, like rigid cognitions. So, for example, when people are depressed, they start to have really negative thoughts, and these negative thoughts are going to affect how they see themselves, how they see the world, and of course, how they are going to feel about it. And after several years of being depressed, it's really difficult to take a step outside of those pessimistic thoughts, or frequent fears and even suicidal ideations,” Galindo explained.
Relate
For these cases, psychedelic medications could be the answer, with Galindo noting their effectiveness at disrupting cognitive ruts and rewiring how the brain processes trauma.
“I really like an analogy I saw once [about psychedelic medications] that it's like when you're skiing. You usually go for a certain pathway, right? And because the pathway has a specific mark, it is really difficult to actually go outside of it. But somehow, what psilocybin allows, is like having fresh snow that will make it easier to actually explore different pathways.”
Numerous studies back this, with a recent one by Imperial College London - considered a world leader in psychedelic research - reporting that even a single dose of psilocybin can prompt anatomical changes in the brain.
Other psychoactive compounds such as MDMA have been shown to work a little differently by enhancing feelings of empathy, connectivity and openness, which could be effective at treating PTSD.
“It facilitates a period of time where people [with PTSD] can revisit their memories and somehow be able to rethink, to reframe, to change the narrative and to process their trauma,” she said.
“This is the reason psychedelics are bringing such a big revolution to mental health, because they're aiming to treat the core rather than only the symptoms.”
Social stigmas and legal issues
A major hurdle to mainstream approval, however, remains their status as illegal drugs in most countries.
“Unfortunately, even if we have clear evidence for their therapeutic potential, they are still illegal. For example, here in the UK, they're still classified A, meaning that in order to conduct any study, we need to apply for a special home office licence. This is not only expensive, but takes a long time, and so is definitely affecting the amount of research that could be happening in the field,” Galindo said.
Another issue is the stigmas surrounding these drugs, and their primary associations with party culture and potentially dangerous outcomes.
Galindo emphasises that these concerns are why the controlled setting of psychedelic-assisted therapies is so important.
“You need to take care of all the different details of the environment, like the sound, the lights. And of course, the entire time [the patient] is supported by a trained therapist or a member of the staff that is there to be able to support during that process,” she said.
“These drugs are really powerful tools, but of course, if for any reason they are not given in the right setting, this could come with more side effects.”
While more research is required to better understand who will benefit and who won’t, Galindo hopes that, one day, these treatments can become an accessible option for everyone.
“Rather than staying in a private setting, they should be available for the people who need it the most, not only for the ones that can pay.”
Ebola outbreak is a global health emergency, WHO says
Copyright Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
The World Health Organization said that it could be a "much larger" outbreak than what is currently being identified and reported but that is does not meet the criteria of a pandemic emergency.
The World Health Organization has declared an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda as a global health emergency.
In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its Director-General had consulted with the two nations and determined that the outbreak met the criteria of a "public health emergency of international concern."
As of Saturday, around 246 suspected cases and 80 suspected deaths had been reported across the DRC's Ituri Province, with eight laboratory-confirmed cases.
A further two lab-confirmed cases have been reported in the Ugandan capital Kampala and one in Kinshasa, the capital of the DRC.
"There are significant uncertainties to the true number of infected persons and geographic spread associated with this event at the present time," the World Health Organization said in its statement, adding that there was also "limited understanding of the epidemiological links with known or suspected cases."
The agency said that while the outbreak constituted a global health emergency, it did not meet the criteria of a pandemic emergency.
Ebola is a severe illness first identified in 1976. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to 90% of cases of Ebola are fatal. Symptoms can include fever, weakness, diarrhea and vomiting.
The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention is "closely monitoring" the situation and said it was working with authorities and partners to deliver a "rapid, coordinated response" that aims to interrupt transmission and reduce the risk of cross-border spread.
WHO declares Ebola outbreak in DRC a health emergency 'of international concern'
Kinshasa (AFP) – An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo has killed more than 80 as authorities warned there was no vaccine for the strain in a crisis that the World Health Organization declared an international health emergency on Sunday.
A total of 88 deaths and 336 suspected cases of the highly contagious haemorrhagic fever have been reported, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Africa) said in an update on Saturday.
The Geneva-based WHO said early on Sunday the outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola constituted a "public health emergency of international concern" – the second-highest level of alert under international health regulations.
The global health body warned the true scale of the number of cases and spread was not clear but stopped short of declaring a pandemic emergency, the highest alert level introduced in 2024.
Medical aid group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) said it was preparing a "large-scale response", calling the rapid spread of the outbreak "extremely concerning", in warnings echoed by authorities.
"The Bundibugyo strain has no vaccine, no specific treatment," DR Congo's Health Minister Samuel-Roger Kamba said.
"This strain has a very high lethality rate, which can reach 50 percent."
The strain – which was first identified in 2007 – has also killed a Congolese national in neighbouring Uganda, officials said Saturday.
Vaccines are only available for the Zaire strain, which was identified in 1976 and has a higher fatality rate of 60-90 percent.
Health officials had confirmed the latest outbreak Friday in Ituri province in northeastern DRC, bordering Uganda and South Sudan, according to CDC Africa.
Officials have warned of a high risk of spread in what is the 17th Ebola outbreak the DRC has suffered
"We've been seeing people die for the past two weeks," said Isaac Nyakulinda, a local civil society representative contacted by AFP by phone.
"There is nowhere to isolate the sick. They are dying at home and their bodies are being handled by their family members."
According to Kamba, patient zero was a nurse who reported to a health facility in Ituri's provincial capital Bunia on April 24, with symptoms suggesting Ebola.
Symptoms of the disease include fever, haemorrhaging and vomiting.
"The number of cases and deaths we are seeing in such a short timeframe, combined with the spread across several health zones and now across the border, is extremely concerning," says Trish Newport, MSF Emergency Programme Manager, which is mobilising medical and support staff to the area.
Large-scale transport of medical equipment is a challenge in DR Congo, a country of more than 100 million people which is four times the size of France but has poor communications infrastructure.
High risk of spread
It is the 17th Ebola outbreak to hit the DRC, and officials warned of a high risk of spread.
"There are significant uncertainties to the true number of infected persons and geographic spread," the WHO said.
But it added the high positivity rate of initial samples, the confirmation of cases in two countries, and the increasing reports of suspected cases, "all point towards a potentially much larger outbreak than what is currently being detected and reported, with significant local and regional risk of spread."
The previous outbreak of Ebola – which has killed around 15,000 people in Africa over the past 50 years, despite advances in vaccines and treatment – was last August in the central region.
That episode killed at least 34 people, before being declared eradicated in December.
Nearly 2,300 people died in the deadliest outbreak in the DRC between 2018 and 2020.
Ebola, believed to have originated in bats, can cause severe bleeding and organ failure.
Outbreaks over the past half century have seen a mortality rate among those affected of between 25 percent and 90 percent, according to WHO.
The virus spreads from person to person through bodily fluids or exposure to the blood of an infected persons, who become contagious only once they display symptoms. The incubation period can last up to 21 days.
When the results from the May 7 local elections in England, as well as the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections, began to emerge, there were few genuine surprises. Yet the overall outcome still felt like a political earthquake in Britain and the tremors are still being felt. What had essentially been a two-party system for nearly a century is increasingly becoming a fragmented multi-party landscape, reflecting growing socio-political malaise, confusion, and disillusionment.
For the governing Labour Party, it is impossible to sugarcoat these results. Losing nearly 60 percent of council seats in England, losing control in Wales for the first time in a century, and suffering setbacks in the Scottish parliament amounted to a resounding vote of no confidence across the country. In Wales, the nationalist Plaid Cymru emerged victorious in the Senedd election, albeit without an outright majority, while in Scotland the SNP, despite having appeared politically almost on the ropes not long ago, will continue to govern and advocate for Scottish independence. Altogether, these developments raise serious questions about the long-term cohesion and survival of Britain as a unified political entity.
If the results for Labour and its leader, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, were disastrous, they could not conceal what was another poor showing for the Conservatives. The Tories lost hundreds of council seats in England and remain barely a political force in Scotland and Wales. Instead, the biggest winner of these elections was the nationalist-populist Reform Party, the political descendants of the movement that brought on the rest of the country the Brexit debacle. Also making gains were the Greens, who have increasingly moved beyond environmentalism toward a broader left-wing populist agenda.
The electorate expressed clear disdain for Britain’s two traditional governing parties, Labour and the Conservatives, and neither can afford to ignore this message if they wish not only to win the next general election, but to remain politically relevant. Reform’s gains are no longer a fluke but part of a growing trend of an increasingly insular political state of mind, centered primarily around anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalist rhetoric and policies, with little else beyond that defining agenda.
In Scotland, and increasingly in Wales as well, the call for independence is becoming louder, more forceful, and, for many, more persuasive. I belong to those who wish to see the Union remain intact. However, when Scotland voted in the 2014 referendum on whether it should become an independent country, just over 55 percent voted to remain in the UK, while nearly 45 percent supported independence.
One of the strongest arguments made by opponents of independence at the time was that leaving would also mean leaving the EU and would likely make Scotland poorer. But since then, Brexit has happened, leaving Scotland without either independence or EU membership. Now, with Reform gaining momentum and potentially capable of winning a future general election, Scotland also faces the prospect of rising English nationalism. This is bound to reignite the debate over Scottish independence with renewed intensity.
Another unsurprising consequence of last week’s elections has been the growing call within Labour ranks for Starmer to step down. Already, 81 Labour MPs have reportedly expressed support for a future leadership contest, while four junior ministers have resigned. Such developments were perhaps inevitable. For at least a year there has been growing sentiment within the party that the prime minister is, to put it bluntly, failing both the country and Labour itself, and that unless he changes course, the party risks defeat at the next general election.
With the Conservatives at their weakest in years, and some of their supporters already jumping ship to Reform, the path for Nigel Farage to become the next prime minister appears increasingly as plausible as it is undesirable. For many across the country, even the prospect of such an outcome is deeply unsettling, given Farage’s leading role in Brexit, arguably one of the most self-destructive acts of British foreign and economic policy in modern history, and what he represents ideologically and politically. In a first-past-the-post electoral system, his dream of being the prime minister could yet become the country’s nightmare.
To be fair, Starmer has earned much of the criticism directed at him. His cautious and incremental approach seems ill-suited to a period of profound economic and social predicament, when many voters expect bold policies and a greater sense of urgency, particularly on domestic issues. His natural caution often holds him back. Yet while Starmer may not be a charismatic communicator, he has demonstrated statesmanship on foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine and, to a significant extent, Iran and Greenland.
Nevertheless his recent speech after the elections, aimed at saving his leadership, is unlikely to reassure either his critics within Labour or voters more broadly that he can adequately address the pressing issues affecting everyday life: the cost-of-living crisis, job creation, unaffordable housing, overstretched transport systems, and the toxic national debate surrounding immigration.
However, replacing an elected prime minister, especially one who close to two years ago won a huge parliamentary majority, is hardly a solution nor is it desirable. Britain has developed a troubling habit of changing prime ministers without addressing the deeper long-term structural causes of its problems. Since 2016, the country has had six prime ministers, averaging less than two years per leader. With the exceptions of Boris Johnson, whose government broke its own pandemic regulations, and Liz Truss, whose economic policies brought the UK economy to its knees, leadership changes should ultimately be decided by voters in the ballot box.
Starmer has done nothing remotely comparable to Johnson or Truss, and he was elected with a mandate to govern for five years, even if the law allows for his removal. The real question is whether Starmer has learned enough from his first two years in office to correct the course of what increasingly resembles a drifting ship.
I am not convinced that his policy U-turns should always be used against him. While it is preferable for leaders to get things right the first time, it is still better to have a leader willing to correct course in response to justified criticism than one who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge errors at all, provided such reversals do not become habitual.
Following this humiliating electoral setback, Labour faces a choice: descend further into destructive infighting or learn from the Conservatives’ mistakes and unite around a renewed sense of purpose. With such a commanding parliamentary majority, voters expect Labour to do what they should have done immediately after the 2024 general election and become focused on serving the public rather than perpetuating Westminster’s endless internal dramas.
As for Starmer himself, he may need to become less “Starmer-like”: less managerial, less cautious, and more capable of translating lofty promises of national renewal into tangible policies that ordinary people can genuinely feel in their daily lives and be prepared to support wholeheartedly.Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Early Signs From India About Rapprochement With Pakistan And Iran – Analysis
The signs emanated from the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh and India-Iran interactions at the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New Delhi.
Given the changing international landscape, India is seeing new openings vis-Ã -vis China, Pakistan and Iran, with which its relations have been strained.
Despite the lack of progress in talks with China on the border issue, and China’s open support for Pakistan during the May 2025 India-Pakistan air war, New Delhi has selectively opened up its industrial sector for Chinese investment for the sake of rapid industrial growth.
As a way out of the India-China border conflict, former Indian army chief Gen. M.M.Naravane suggested that India and China could discuss the 1959 Chinese suggestion that India give Aksai Chin in the Western sector to China in exchange for China’s dropping its claim over Arunachal Pradesh in the Eastern Sector.
The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), which is the institutional ideologue for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has said that while India should strongly respond to Pakistan’s act of backing cross-border terror attacks, India should keep its doors open for talks with Islamabad.
“If Pakistan is like a pinprick trying to create incidents like Pulwama, etc., we have to answer appropriately according to the situation because the security and self-respect of a country and nation have to be protected, and the government of the day should take note of it and take care of it. But at the same time, we should not close the doors. We should always be ready to engage in dialogue. That is why diplomatic relations are maintained, trade and commerce continue, and visas are being given. So, we should not stop these, because there should always be a window for dialogue,” Dattatreya Hosabale told the Indian-State backed news agency Press Trust of India.
To a question whether sporting events between India and Pakistan should resume, Hosabale said, “Of course, they can continue because I believe strongly that ultimately civil society relations will work. Because we have a cultural relation and we have been one nation.”.
Former army chief, Gen. Naravane, who had earlier suggested a diplomatic solution to the India-China conflict based on give and take, endorsed Hosabale’s idea in another media interview, showing a change of attitude towards Pakistan that had been routinely and publicly described as an “enemy nation.”
Currently, all contacts, including in culture and sports. Stand suspended.
Positive Response from Pakistan
Reacting to the RSS official’s statement, Pakistan said that the call for an India-Pakistan dialogue was a “positive development” and signalled support for backchannel talks.
The Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Tahir Andrabi said: “Voices within India calling for dialogue are obviously a positive development”. Signalling support for backchannel talks, Andrabi said he would not comment on the subject as that would defeat the purpose of having backchannels.
Rapprochement With Iran
Simultaneously, India is also trying to patch up with Iran but without alienating the US and Israel, which have critical economic and security ties with New Delhi.
Throughout the US-Iran war, India had remained neutral so as not to jeopardise its relations with the US and Israel. But anxious to get Iran’s permission for its oil-bearing vessels to use the blocked Strait of Hormuz, India used the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ conference in New Delhi on May 14 and 15 to talk to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to iron out the differences.
Araghchi’s meetings with the Indian Foreign Minister S.Jaishankar were cordial and fruitful, according to both sides. While Jaishankar said that he had detailed discussions with Araghchi, the latter referred to Jaishankar as his friend and urged India to restart the stalled Chahbahar port project. Araghchi also met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In a sign of improved relations, Indian vessels are now passing through the Strait of Hormuz, though, earlier, two of them had been subjected to attacks by unidentified parties. Iran Unhappy with Pakistani Mediation
In a move indicating Iran’s disillusionment with Pakistan, which is mediating between Tehran and Washington, Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Spokesperson, Ebrahim Rezai, accused Islamabad of acting in the interests of the United States.
“Pakistan is our good friend and neighbour, but it is not suitable as a mediator for negotiations and does not have the necessary authority to fulfil this role. They always take into account the interests of US President Donald Trump and do not say anything that would go against the wishes of the Americans,” Rezai posted in Persian on his social media handle.
Meanwhile, Pakistan had announced the complete lifting of restrictions in its capital, Islamabad, which means that at the moment, negotiations between Iran and the United States stand suspended.
India Keeps Up Ties With UAE
However, despite its attempt to patch things up with Iran, India is strengthening its ties with the UAE, with which Iran is at odds because the UAE is close to the US and Israel.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi flew to Abu Dhabi on May 15 as part of a five-nation tour. In his meeting with the UAE Emir, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a wide range of issues, including trade, investment, defence cooperation, energy security and the welfare of the Indian diaspora living in the Gulf nation were discussed.
The visit also focused on strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between India and the UAE, which has emerged as one of India’s most important strategic relationships in the Gulf region.
During the visit, India and the UAE concluded two important memorandums of understanding about Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Strategic Petroleum Reserves, aimed at strengthening India’s long-term energy security amid global volatility in oil markets.
The two countries also agreed on a framework for strategic defence cooperation. In another significant development, the two sides signed an MoU for setting up a ship repair cluster at Vadinar in Gujarat’s Dwarka district.
The visit additionally saw investment announcements worth nearly USD 5 billion in Indian infrastructure projects as well as investments in the RBL Bank and Samman Capital.
The UAE is India’s third-largest trading partner and the seventh-largest source of cumulative foreign investment into India over the last 25 years. With long-term supply agreements already in place, the Gulf nation continues to remain one of India’s most dependable energy partners despite the ongoing turmoil in West Asia.
The point to note is that despite its moves to make up with Iran, Modi condemned Iran’s attacks on UAE, though he did not name Iran as the attacker.
“We strongly condemn the attacks launched on the UAE. The manner in which the UAE has been targeted is not acceptable in any form. We welcome the steps taken by you to uphold national unity, security and regional integrity,” the Prime Minister said during his meeting with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
PM Modi also thanked the UAE leadership for ensuring the safety and welfare of the 4.5 million-strong Indian community living in the country during the attacks and tensions.
“For the care provided to the Indian diaspora residing in the UAE in these difficult times, the manner in which they were considered as members of one’s own family by the UAE Government, you and the Royal Family, I express my heartfelt gratitude,” he said.
The Prime Minister reiterated India’s position that dialogue and diplomacy remain the only sustainable path for resolving regional conflicts.
“The impact of war in the West Asia region is seen across the world today. India has always given importance to dialogue and diplomacy for resolving issues. It is our biggest concern that Hormuz remains free and open. In this regard, it is essential to abide by international laws,” Modi said.
“India stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the UAE in every situation, and it will continue to do so. For the restoration of peace and stability, India will extend all possible cooperation,” the Prime Minister added.
Taiwan says it is a ‘sovereign’ nation with US ‘security commitment’ after Trump’s warning
Taiwan on Saturday maintained it is a "sovereign and independent" nation and that US arms sales were part of Washington's security commitment to the island. The foreign ministry statement came a day after President Donald Trump warned Taiwan against declaring formal independence following his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a state visit to China.
Taiwan on Saturday said it is thankful for US President Donald Trump's long-standing support for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and asserted it was a "sovereign and independent" nation.
The statement was issued a day after Trump, following his visit to China, warned the democratic island against declaring formal independence.
Taiwan "is a sovereign and independent democratic nation, and is not subordinate to the People's Republic of China", Taiwan's foreign ministry said in a statement.
The ministry also insisted that US arms sales were part of Washington's security commitment to Taiwan, after Trump flagged that he was considering the issue.
"Regarding Taiwan-US arms sales, this is not only a US security commitment to Taiwan clearly stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act, but also a form of joint deterrence against regional threats," the ministry said.
Speaking to reporters in Taipei on Saturday, Taiwan Deputy Foreign Minister Chen Ming-chi also asserted that US arms sales are confirmed under the Taiwan Relations Act.
"Taiwan-US arms sales have always been a cornerstone of regional peace and stability," he said.
In December, the Trump administration approved a record $11 billion arms sale package for Taiwan. Reuters has reported a second one, worth around $14 billion, still awaits Trump's approval.
Chen declined to comment on the second package because it has yet to be made public, saying Taiwan will continue to communicate with and understand the situation from the US side.
Taiwan's statements came a day after Trump wrapped up a visit to Beijing where Chinese President Xi Jinping had pressed him not to support the self-ruling island, which China claims is part of its territory.
"I'm not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we're supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I'm not looking for that," he told Fox News host Brett Baier.
"I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down," Trump said.
"We're not looking to have wars, and if you kept it the way it is, I think China's going to be OK with that."
The US recognises only Beijing and does not support formal independence by Taiwan, but historically has also stopped short of explicitly saying it opposes independence.
Under US law, the US is required to provide weapons to Taiwan for its defence, but it has been ambiguous on whether US forces would come to the island's aid.
Xi had begun the summit with a warning on Taiwan, whose President Lai Ching-te considers the island already independent, making a declaration unnecessary.
Xi had told Trump that missteps on the sensitive issue could push their two countries into "conflict".
(FRANCE 24 with AFP and Reuters)
The U.S. Leans Toward War, China Toward Trade – OpEd
We are not going to tire of repeating it, violence always destroys, especially the one who initiates it. That is why states, when they use their monopoly of violence to impose “laws” and “regulations”, what they achieve is that their countries are backward.
Thus, while the federal state of the United States has chosen to close its borders with more customs tariffs and various military interventions, the Chinese, although communist and authoritarian, has acted more wisely by opting for freer trade. And the results are indisputable.
On an ironic note, Trump’s best ally, another supporter of state interventions, the president of Argentina, “betrays” him behind his back and increases his trade with China.
Gabriel Cohen publishes in Visual Capitalist the following graph and article that leaves no room for doubt. Compare (in blue) the trading partner countries of the United States and in red those of China, in the year 2000 vs 2025:
Key points
In 2000, only 33 countries traded more with China than with the United States.
By 2025, China had become the top goods trading partner for most countries in the world.
Only a handful of African countries continue to trade more with the United States than with China.
Twenty-five years ago, the United States was the world’s dominant trading power. Today, China has surpassed it as the top goods partner for most countries globally.
This map compares whether countries traded more with the U.S. or China in 2000 and 2025, based on total bilateral imports and exports using data from the IMF’s Trade Statistics Directorate.
China’s rise was fueled by its emergence as a global manufacturing hub and growing demand for raw materials such as oil, copper, iron ore and soybeans.
The United States entered the 21st century with a good tone of support. After the end of the Cold War, liberal democracy and open markets were expanding throughout the former Soviet bloc, while global trade was mainly focused on the U.S. consumer market.
In 2000, only 33 countries traded more with China than the United States. Many of these countries were Chinese neighbors such as Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Others were states with strained or no relations with Washington, including Cuba, Iran, Libya and North Korea.
For her part, Tasmin Lockwood, also in Visual Capitalist, shows another graph that visualizes those countries most dependent on imports from China.
Ironically, it turns out that technology is China’s biggest export. Cheap commercial products have historically been associated with the “Made in China” seal, but today technology is its biggest export after consolidating itself as a strong manufacturing hub with cheaper labor.
Integrated circuits, which are central to most modern technologies, make up the bulk of exports and highlight China’s critical role in global supply chains; mobile phones and cars follow.
And by the way, the world is critically dependent on China for the processing of critical minerals, which are used in everything from consumer electronics to basic military systems. This reliance has prompted U.S. policymakers to try to strengthen and diversify local capacity.
Is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan imminent?
Issued on: 17/05/2026 - FRANCE24
After nearly a decade since his last visit, US President Donald Trump is meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in a historic summit focused on global trade, technological rivalry and rising tensions over Taiwan, one of the world’s most sensitive flashpoints. 🇹🇼China claims Taiwan as part of its territory while the United States continues to back the island with military support and strong diplomatic ties. Caught in the middle is a resilient democracy that has become one of Asia’s greatest success stories, despite never being formally recognised as a sovereign state by most other countries. 🎥FRANCE 24's Stella Elgersma takes a closer look at the tense triangle between Taiwan, China and the United States: how it came to be, what's really at stake and whether a military confrontation is truly on the horizon.
The optics were the policy. Donald Trump arrived at Beijing Capital International Airport on May 13, accompanied by Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Larry Fink, Jensen Huang and the chief executive of Boeing. The next morning he was received at the Great Hall of the People by Xi Jinping, walked through an honour guard of the People's Liberation Army, and within hours of the opening ceremony agreed a joint position on Iran's nuclear programme and the Strait of Hormuz. Xi reciprocated with the warmest welcome accorded any Western leader since the founding of the People's Republic. The summit ran two days. The aftershocks will run longer.
From outside the room, the visit looked less like a stabilisation exercise than what Bonny Glaser of the German Marshall Fund called, before Trump boarded the plane, the risk of "a tacit or explicit bargain in which Washington appears to concede a sphere of influence to Beijing over Taiwan" in exchange for concessions elsewhere. That formulation, reported by CNBC on May 11, has since become the lens through which the Trump visit is being read across four continents. In Taipei, in Riyadh, in Moscow, in Warsaw, in BrasÃlia and in Astana, the question being asked is not whether Trump struck a grand bargain. It is whether he sold something that was not his to sell.
Begin with the Middle East. The White House readout of May 14 confirmed that Trump and Xi had agreed "Iran can never have a nuclear weapon" and that "the Strait of Hormuz must remain open." Xi, on the same readout, made clear "China's opposition to the militarisation of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use," and expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce Chinese dependence on Hormuz crude. Al Jazeera's analysis on May 15 noted that the Chinese statement, by contrast, omitted any explicit reference to Iranian nuclear weapons, instead calling for "political settlement" and "dialogue and consultation."
For the Gulf monarchies, watching from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the spectacle of Washington and Beijing co-announcing the terms on which their region's principal waterway would be reopened, without any Gulf state present in the room, confirmed every suspicion that has been building since the Iran war began on February 28. The American-led security order, the one for which Saudi Arabia and the UAE pay through arms purchases and which the Trump administration has spent fifteen months actively dismantling, is now being negotiated bilaterally with China over their heads.
Iran's interpretation was sharper. Chinese state media circulated Xi's softer language and Iranian officials briefed regional outlets that Beijing had not in fact endorsed the American position. The Soufan Center's May 13 brief observed that China had "defended Iranian sovereignty and security concerns" and "resisted US-backed efforts at the United Nations to pressure Iran over the Strait of Hormuz." Tehran's working assumption is that Xi will pocket whatever trade and rare-earths concessions Trump delivered, and continue to buy Iranian crude at the discounted prices Beijing has paid since March. The Iranian leadership has, in effect, been told it has no patron, only a buyer. The Gulf monarchies have been told the same thing. Neither will forget.
In Moscow, the calculation runs in the opposite direction but reaches the same conclusion. The Conversation, in a May 14 analysis subsequently republished by Asia Times, observed that Vladimir Putin will have watched the Trump-Xi summit nervously. Dennis Wilder, a former US intelligence official quoted by CNBC on May 11, put it plainly: "Russia would be nervous about an overall improvement in US-China relations." Putin's relevance to Beijing has rested on three propositions: that the Sino-Russian partnership is "no limits," that Russia provides China with discounted hydrocarbons and strategic depth against the West, and that Trump and Xi cannot do business directly. Each is now under strain.
Xi did not accept Trump's invitation to pressure Russia on Ukraine, on CSIS's reading, and Beijing will continue to prop up the Russian war economy. But the symbolism of the summit, the warmth of the welcome, and the fact that Putin's own Beijing visit was scheduled to follow Trump's rather than precede it, have signalled to the Kremlin that it is now the junior partner not just of China, but of an emergent China-led arrangement to which Washington has been admitted as an interlocutor rather than excluded as an enemy.
For the post-Soviet states of Central Asia, the implications are immediate. The Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz governments have spent the past three years balancing China's Belt and Road infrastructure with American security partnership and Russian inertia. The Trump-Xi summit, occurring in the same month as ongoing C5+1 ministerial discussions, suggests that the American leg of that triangle has been quietly redefined. Astana now has to plan for a world in which the United States and China coordinate at the strategic level on questions affecting Central Asian transit corridors, critical minerals and trans-Caspian logistics. The Soufan Center's January reading of the Iran-Russia-China axis, that Western alliance-system analysis no longer fits the region, applies with equal force to the CIS.
In Latin America, the visit lands on already-frayed ground. Caracas, since the US naval blockade of Venezuelan ports earlier this year, has assumed Washington will not negotiate. BrasÃlia and Mexico City, both of which sent senior delegations to the EU-CELAC summit in Santa Marta last November where Trump was conspicuously absent, now read Beijing's diplomatic graduation as confirmation that Latin America's most consequential strategic relationship is no longer with the country to its north. Argentina's Milei government, the only Latin American capital genuinely aligned with Trump, finds itself isolated within the region. The Council on Foreign Relations, in its May 8 preview, noted that Trump's new China policy has been reduced to "not fighting," and that the structural agenda, Taiwan, technology controls, and Beijing's "active support of US adversaries such as Iran and Russia," has been quietly shelved. Latin Americans, watching their Chinese trade lifelines deepen as US engagement thins, have drawn the obvious conclusion.
Eastern Europe is the most exposed. Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn have spent the post-2022 period rebuilding their security architecture on the premise that American commitment to NATO's eastern flank was non-negotiable. The Greenland crisis of January, the Pentagon's withdrawal of 5,000 US troops from Germany on May 1, and now the Beijing summit have compounded into a single message. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk's earlier post on X about "the ongoing disintegration of our alliance" reads, in retrospect, as the first European acknowledgement of what the Trump-Xi visit has made unavoidable. If Washington is now coordinating with Beijing on the terms of Middle Eastern security, the working assumption in Warsaw must be that a similar coordination on the terms of European security is not far behind. The Eastern flank cannot afford to discover otherwise too late.
The Council on Foreign Relations editorial of May 8 captured the deeper problem. "Not fighting" is now the north star of American China policy, which means that the structural issues, China's support for Russia, its position on Iran, its mercantilist trade model, and its designs on Taiwan, have been relegated. What the rest of the world saw in Beijing was not a stabilisation but a transactional alignment between the two powers most able to reshape the international order without the consent of those affected by it. Graham Allison, the Harvard scholar quoted by CNBC on May 14, predicted Trump would emerge with announcements of "an additional $1 trillion of American goods" purchased by China. The world's response is that the bilateral arithmetic of US-China trade is not what matters. What matters is what the rest of the international system was traded for.
That is the diplomatic damage Trump has done. The visit was sold as an act of statesmanship. It has been received, from Riyadh to Warsaw and from Caracas to Astana, as an act of betrayal. The grand bargain may not exist. The suspicion that it does will outlast the summit by years.
Ukraine launches more than 500 drones at Russia in deadly overnight attack, authorities say
Russian air defences intercepted more than 500 Ukrainian drones in a massive overnight attack that killed three people in the Moscow region, authorities said Sunday. The interceptions took place across Russia's 14 regions, as well as the annexed Crimean peninsula.
A huge wave of more than 500 Ukrainian drones attacked Russia overnight, killing three people in the Moscow region, authorities said on Sunday.
Air defences shot down 556 drones in more than a dozen regions, including Moscow, Russia's defence ministry said, in one of the largest Ukrainian barrages of the ongoing conflict so far.
These interceptions -- far above the few dozen more often reported -- took place across 14 Russian regions, as well as the Crimean peninsula annexed from Ukraine and the Black and Azov seas, the ministry added, with the region around the capital among the worst-hit.
"A woman was killed as a result of a UAV hitting a private house. One more person is trapped under rubble," the Moscow region's Governor Andrey Vorobyov posted on Telegram, adding that the early morning attack also claimed the lives of two men.
"Since 3 o'clock in the morning, air defence forces have been repelling a large-scale UAV attack on the capital region," he said, adding four people were wounded and infrastructure facilities had been targeted.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had vowed on Friday to launch more retaliatory strikes, a day after a Russian attack on Kyiv killed 24 people.
Within Russia's capital, local authorities reported that air defence systems had intercepted more than 80 drones overnight, wounding 12 people.
"Minor damage has been recorded at the sites where debris fell," Mayor Sergei Sobyanin posted on Telegram.
One of the strikes wounded construction workers at a job site near an oil and gas refinery, Sobyanin said.
"Refinery production has not been disrupted. Three residential buildings were damaged," he added.
While the capital region is often subjected to drone attacks, the city of Moscow, around 400 kilometres (250 miles) from the Ukrainian border, is less frequently targeted. 'Entirely justified'
Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict have been at a standstill, with Kyiv unwilling to accept Moscow's maximalist demands for territory in the eastern Donbas region.
While the United States has pushed for both sides to come to the negotiating table, the talks have noticeably stalled since Washington's attention turned to the US-Israeli war on Iran in late February.
After the expiration of a three-day truce on Tuesday to mark the anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War II -- which both sides accused the other of violating -- Moscow and Kyiv have returned to trading attacks.
In response to daily bombardments by the Russian military for more than four years, Ukraine has regularly struck within Russia.
In the wake of Moscow's latest attacks on the Ukrainian capital, Zelensky insisted that Kyiv's strategy of targeting military and energy sites within Russia, so as to strike at Moscow's ability to finance the war effort, was "entirely justified".
Kyiv's allies have accused Russia of mocking diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
RAGOZIN: From reform to relapse, Ukraine’s corruption problems resurface
Most of Zelenskiy's inner circle have now been implicated in a series of large corruption schemes, but corruption has been hard baked into political systems across the FSU since the collapse of the USSR. / bne IntelliNews
Charges brought against president Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s former chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, focus on four mansion houses in the luxury estate co-op called Dynasty. These are identified as R1, R2, R3 and R4 by the SAPO (anti-corruption prosecutor’s office) investigation which claims that the suspects laundered UAH460mn (close to €9mn) through this housing project.
The owners of the last three houses are easily identifiable from the released investigation materials - these are members of Zelenskiy’s immediate entourage, including Yermak. As for R1’s owner, the secret recordings leaked from investigators to their press suggested the person’s name is Vova, which is short for Volodymyr.
Anti-corruption prosecutors were careful to point out that the president Zelenskiy is not a subject of the ongoing investigation. But that’s only because presidents are immune from pre-trial investigations according to Ukrainian law. The impeachment procedure requires a two third majority in the parliament which Zelenskiy’s party currently controls.
For anyone focused on Ukraine, the Dynasty co-op immediately reminds of Mezhihyria, the infamous luxury estate of president Victor Yanukovych deposed by the revolutionaries in 2014. The second association is the Ozero (Lake) dacha co-op whose members, led by Vladimir Putin, turned Russia into their private corporation ruled by authoritarian means.
In a recent poll published by KIIS institute in Kyiv, Ukrainians placed corruption above the ongoing Russian aggression as the greatest threat to their country. This may sound irrational if you don’t understand to what extent corruption - Russian, Ukrainian and Western - was the main driving force behind the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Ukrainian foreign minister Andriy Sybiha recently said that a day of war costs Ukraine $450mn. Multiplying this figure by the number of days the war has lasted for, one gets the figure of almost $700bn burned in this furnace over four years. A lion’s share of that money was paid by Western taxpayers.
For the last three decades, the struggle against corruption was a slogan of Western liberal world order crusaders trying to impose their values on the post-Soviet space. So how come the idolised poster boy of anti-Russian resistance, Zelenskiy, appears to be mired in the same kind of corruption that keeps driving Putin’s regime in Russia to ever greater escalation? This question warrants a closer look at the history of anti-corruption struggle in the former Soviet Union.
Wild Capitalism’s Helpmate
For Western audiences, corruption in former Soviet countries is mostly perceived as a thing of the past, perhaps even Soviet legacy. But while there was plenty of petty corruption in the USSR - little bribes and gifts people were routinely handing to traffic policemen, doctors or university professors - top-level corruption was not really a Soviet story, with the exception of specific republics, like Uzbekistan. The way ageing Politburo members lived feels, by modern-day standards, ascetic.
When in the late 1980s, Boris Yeltsin attacked them for enjoying better lifestyles, he was focusing on “privileges”, such as chauffeured cars, not on luxury mansion houses or million-dollar kickbacks. He famously boarded a trolleybus to advertise new “non-corrupt” ways he was promoting. It feels ironic now that we know the extent of corruption during the years of Yeltsin’s own rule, unimaginable in Soviet times.
Corruption as we know it today was being conceived in the late 1980s at the level of district committees Komsomol (Youth Communist League), their comically crookish ways brilliantly described in Yury Polyakov’s book District-Level Emergency, popular at the time. This is the environment which produced such personalities as the future oligarch and Putin’s nemesis, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
But it took the collapse of the Soviet system in 1991 for rampant, large-scale corruption to enter the scene - not just as a helpmate of wild capitalism, but even as a new ideology. The first pro-democracy mayor of Moscow, economist Gavriil Popov, promoted corruption as a necessary lubricant for a poorly regulated capitalist economy and called for legalising kickbacks.
The new business elite in Russia was formed out of businessmen closely connected to the government as well as organised crime. While capturing industries built by generations of Soviet people through fraudulent schemes like “loans for shares”, they were also capturing the Russian state. Despite outward adherence to democracy and universal values, their inherent instincts were predatory and authoritarian.
A good example is Pyotr Aven, minister of foreign trade in the shock therapy government of Yegor Gaidar, later one of Russia’s main oligarchs. Inspired by Reagan and Thatcher adoration club in the West, he promoted the idea of a “Russian Pinochet” - enlightened dictatorship that would resolve Russia’s economic hardships with an iron fist. After a few experiments, notably with Gen. Aleksandr Lebed, Russian reformers eventually produced what then was a suitable figure - Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile in Ukraine, state capture was conducted by the new “red director” elite composed of former Soviet industrial managers and embodied by the country’s longest-serving president Leonid Kuchma.
Corruption vs Geopolitics
Anti-corruption activism in former Soviet countries came into being as soon as corruption itself. But it was only partly organic and locally rooted. Anti-corruption activism would soon become firmly intertwined with geopolitics.
The organic component is best represented by people like Aleksey Navalny or the presently forgotten 1990s anti-corruption crusader Yuri Boldyrev. The latter’s political trajectory is illustrative of the rift inside the anti-corruption movement.
Boldyrev emerged as a pro-democracy MP in 1990 and then a state auditor in the early days of Yeltsin’s rule. In one episode of his activities at the time, he insisted that the vice-mayor of St Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, should be suspended on suspicion of corruption pertaining to foreign trade. The request was rejected by none other than Aven.
Boldyrev went on to found the liberal Yabloko party but fell out with it in 1995 due to disagreements over the capture of Soviet industries and Russia’s vast mineral resources by oligarchs and foreign corporations. He was specifically opposed to the production sharing agreements between the Russian government and Western oil/gas giants which many thought provided outright robbery of Russian hydrocarbon resources. These disagreements sent Boldyrev on the course towards embracing Russian nationalism and eventually Putinism, despite his earlier attacks on Putin.
Western corporations benefited hugely from Russia’s rampant corruption and the flight of capital in the 1990s. But as their interests began clashing with those of the emerging Russian oligarchy, Western governments began championing anti-corruption causes in Russia, Ukraine and the rest of the former USSR.
The world’s best-known anti-corruption platform funded by Western governments and charities, Transparency International, arrived in Russia in 1999. If you look at Russia headlines around that time in Western media, business news was dominated by squabbles between the Russian governments and its Western corporate partners over the product-sharing agreements as well as the privatisation of Svyazinvest, Russia’s largest telecom holding.
In both cases, Putin’s new government sought to limit Western appetites or kick Western actors out of the scramble for Russian resources altogether. In the early 2000s, the emerging confrontation gradually switched to rival Russian- and Western-backed projects for supplying gas and oil into Europe. This is how the conflict turned geopolitical. Russia wanted to supply its gas to the newly-expanded EU, bypassing transit countries, especially Ukraine. Western corporations were pushing pipeline projects like Nabucco that were aimed at bypassing the Russian pipeline system and delivering directly from countries like Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
This is the point when anti-corruption activism and geopolitics grew inseparable, with the former being increasingly weaponised by Western actors against Russia. The anti-corruption agenda dominated the Georgian Revolution of Roses in 2003 and Ukraine’s first Maidan revolution in 2004. But while in Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili’s new government did achieve a breakthrough in eliminating corruption – he sacked the entire traffic cop force and replaced it with student-hires - the Ukrainian revolution changed exactly nothing in that respect.
With geopolitics dictating the agenda and anti-corruption groups becoming overwhelmingly dependent on Western funding, the struggle against corruption became increasingly selective. Anti-corruption initiatives blasted Russian and perceived “pro-Russian” actors in former Soviet republics while turning a blind eye on shady oligarchs and outright mafiosi who were chummy with the West.
The anti-corruption struggle was so badly mired in geopolitics that by the time Navalny launched his FSK anti-corruption movement, he tried his best to avoid being seen as a Western pawn. He flirted with Russian nationalism and initially even avoided contacts with Western media. The movement he built was genuinely grassroots and organic. But the cause was already so strongly aligned with Western geopolitical interests that it was easy for the Kremlin to brand its flag-bearers as agents of the West.
The escalating conflict with the West gave Putin carte blanche to destroy Navalny’s movement and eventually kill its leader. It allowed him to consolidate the regime and outsource his domestic conflict to the neighbouring country, making him an all-round beneficiary of the continuing war.
Meanwhile, the simplistic dichotomy of corrupt Russia vs non-corrupt West, promoted by Western media, just didn’t square with people’s lived experience. Petty post-Soviet corruption which people encountered in their daily lives was largely eliminated during Putin’s years though digitalised and otherwise improved government services.
Corruption which Navalny opposed had long drifted to the highest echelons of power. It seemed grotesque by Western standards, but was it fundamentally different from the West's own corruption and what role did the West play in it becoming such a dominant phenomenon? While Western media kept drawing a primitive black and white picture, the reality felt like many shades of grey.
Corruption Export
The conflict over Ukraine exposed both the danger of unrestrained corruption on the one hand and the counter-productivity of anti-corruption activism with visible geopolitical strings attached on the other. The anti-corruption agenda was dominant at the beginning of the Euromaidan revolution, but it was soon overtaken by the geopolitical agenda of mafia state actors that were at least as corrupt as the previous regime, only more aggressive and backed by far-right thugs linked to security agencies.
Ukrainian political scientist Mikhail Minakov calls Euromaidan “a revolutionary attempt” which has never evolved into a genuine revolution, as in achieving a fundamental change of the system. The only thing that did change is the country’s geopolitical orientation.
Not only did the Western governments turn a blind eye on the aggressive redistribution of assets in the aftermath of the revolution, but they also embarked on exporting Western political corruption into Ukraine. US president’s son Hunter Biden offered his name and service to launder the reputation of Mykola Zlochevsky, a rich businessman who served as a minister in the government of the deposed president Yanukovych. President Joe Biden later forced through the resignation of Ukraine’s prosecutor-general to cover up this affair.
Biden’s arch-rival, Donald Trump, weaponised this scandal in the presidential elections of 2020, liaising with shady Ukrainian business figures and attempting to coerce the newly elected president Zelenskiy into joining the smear campaign.
That pressure may have played a significant role in Zelenskiy's abrupt U-turn on peace negotiations with Russia at the start of 2021 which coincided with Biden moving into the White House. Having reached a de-facto ceasefire by the time, Zelenskiy suddenly embarked on the Biden administration’s agenda of crossing all of Putin’s red lines - an ill-fated policy that precipitated Russia’s devastating all-out invasion of Ukraine.
That pattern of Western corruption export persists today, four years into the hot phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Just look at the other episode in the ongoing investigation of the Zelenskiy entourage. It focuses on the Ukrainian missile producer Fire Point which, as Ukrainian media allege, is linked to Zelenskiy’s key business associate Tymur Mindich. Guess who sits on its board? Former US State Secretary and CIA chief Mike Pompeo. Fire Point also enjoys a special relationship with the Danish government and runs a joint venture in Denmark.
Some commentators are trying to frame the current anti-corruption investigation almost as a triumph of anti-corruption forces in Ukraine. The investigation is being conducted by agencies created on the insistence of Western governments and with their direct involvement. But it’s hard not to notice the highly politicised nature of this affair, with charges and evidence in the form of taped conversations being presented in a strategic manner, with over-the-top dramatic effects aimed at discrediting top level suspects (like emphasising Yermak’s penchant for witchcraft) and leaked through opposition media and MPs.
Will it result in reducing corruption in Ukraine? The country’s post-Maidan history suggests it won’t. Does it serve as a means for achieving specific geopolitical outcomes? You bet.
INTERVIEW A test for Ukraine, a dilemma for Zelensky: What's at stake in the Andriy Yermak corruption probe
The arrest of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s former right-hand man Andriy Yermak Thursday in connection to a corruption scandal comes as a major test for both the Ukrainian government and the country's independent anti-corruption agencies. Yermak is accused of laundering 460 million hryvnia (more than $10 million) in dirty money through an elite real estate project outside of Kyiv – and of having used a secret phone to consult an astrologer on key government appointments.
You’d think the fortune teller would have tipped him off. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s former chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who for years made key government appointments, drafted potential peace plans and held back-channel talks with both Washington and Moscow, was taken into pre-trial detention Thursday on money-laundering charges after a three-day hearing in Kyiv.
The 54-year-old lawyer and former film producer stands accused of being involved in laundering more than $10 million in embezzled funds through the construction of lavish private mansions in the village of Kozyn on the capital’s southern outskirts.
The court has set Yermak’s bail at $3.2 million, which he says he doesn’t have. He told reporters outside the court that his lawyer would work with his friends to scrape the funds together.
The anti-corruption operation – dubbed “Midas” – accused Zelensky’s former business partner Tymur Mindich of leading a scheme to siphon off tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks from the country’s state-owned nuclear energy giant Energoatom.
Mindich, who like Yermak maintains his innocence, reportedly fled to Israel last year ahead of a raid on his house. Former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov and former energy minister German Galushchenko have both been detained in connection to the probe.
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPU) have said that Zelensky himself is not under suspicion.
But the mention of a “Vova” – a common diminutive of Volodymyr – in a leaked wiretap transcript of a conversation between Mindich and an unidentified woman about the Kozyn construction project has raised questions about just how deep into the president’s circle the corruption has spread. Sitting presidents are immune from prosecution by Ukrainian law enforcement – though they can be impeached if evidence of wrongdoing is found.
To better understand the significance of this sweeping investigation, FRANCE 24 spoke with Andrii Biletskyi, the administrative director of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s Anti-Corruption Research and Education Centre.
FRANCE 24: Just how significant is this latest development in the corruption investigation?
This is the continuation of the “Midas” operation that started last year, and which was one of the reasons why Yermak was fired from the presidential office. And we have different camps, to be honest, because some people were saying that Yermak was on these Midas recordings, and some people were saying to be careful, that he wasn’t there, it was impossible.
There are different views on this Midas operation, because some people are more sceptical about it – they are saying that this is just a political battle during the war. And some people see it as a positive thing, because it means nobody is untouchable and the anti-corruption authorities are doing their work.
Ukraine: Volodymyr Zelensy's former top aide arrested as corruption probe widens
I think it's a test not only for anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine, but also for the government and the country in general. Because the Ukrainian law enforcement system has never seen an official or ex-official of such a high level being prosecuted or being brought to criminal responsibility.
So, it's really a test for anti-corruption authorities to finish this task, or at least to bring this case to court. And for the Ukrainian government, it's a test whether to help Yermak to escape the responsibility – whether or not to interfere or to let the case go and be whatever it's going to be.
But it's really a dilemma for them, because the government needs to understand whether they want to lose their ex-friend, or current friend, Andriy Yermak, and just forget about him. It's really a struggle for them.
But for Ukraine in general, this is a huge case, and we've never seen anything like it.
FRANCE 24: With several close allies of Zelensky under suspicion, what impact is this investigation likely to have on the president’s own support?
Politically speaking, if we're talking about his personal ratings, he is going to be losing support. Not a lot, because he didn't interfere, he didn't comment on the situation, he didn't protect his close ally, or ex-ally. So it’s a manageable situation.
On the other hand, people still rate him because he's a war-time leader, and he is protecting us, he's the higher commander-in-chief, right? So it’s bit into his ratings, but not as much as it could have, for example, in normal times. Because if not for the war, if we had seen such a scandal, it would have been political suicide for him, and we would just be waiting for the opposition to come to power.
FRANCE 24: As someone who’s worked for years in the fight against corruption, how do you see the importance of Ukraine’s anti-corruption authorities being able to undertake an investigation of this magnitude?
For me personally, it's a positive sign. We as Ukrainians, and my colleagues from the anti-corruption centre, we have to talk a lot about how Ukraine is not really corrupt – we have a lot of corruption cases not because we have a lot of corruption, but rather because we have this system in place which can expose this corruption, and which can bring people to responsibility. Because of the fact that we have an independent system, which is not interfered with by political actors, they can do their job properly in a normal way, and they can expose a lot of corruption.
Of course it is [easier] not seeing corruption and not caring about it. When we don't have a lot of corruption scandals in the media, we don't know about them, and we simply don't care. We think of ourselves as good guys, and we think, okay, corruption is at a low level – if it's not being exposed, we have no problem with that.
So it’s really positive. Probably you remember that last year in July, we had huge protests in Ukraine during wartime because the government tried to neglect the procedural independence of the anti-corruption authorities. And a lot of people, a lot of young people, actually came to protest against this decision – and they won, because the government rolled it back.
And it was important for people to see that they did the right thing, so that they could see that they fought for the independence of something valuable. And by this investigation, NABU and SAPO are showing those people that it was the right call.
FRANCE 24: One of the more unexpected details of this three-day hearing has been the allegation that Yermak ran potential government appointments past an astrologer. What kind of reaction has that sparked?
Of course it was quite a surprise to hear that the chief of staff, the head of the presidential office, was consulting an astrologer for governmental appointments. It was really a surprise – I mean, it was ridiculous to hear that he was sending the birthdates of potential candidates.
It not only affects the reputation of Andriy Yermak himself, because he was already seen as this “shadow cardinal” in the office of the president, but it also brings a shadow on the presidential office in general, and the governmental system in general.
Because people have to know whether all the appointments have been going this way or not. It’s also that a bad thing for the public service in general. It was really ridiculous to hear.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
_1.jpg)
