The German chancellor reportedly wants more control over decision-making within the EU, sources have told the outlet
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is seeking to claw back decision-making power from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing diplomats familiar with the matter.
Merz, increasingly critical of Brussels, wants Berlin to have greater influence over issues directly affecting EU members, according to one of the sources.
He has already opposed von der Leyen’s proposals for new EU taxes and her plan to send peacekeepers to Ukraine, while also clashing with her over a tariff agreement with the US and climate regulations.
“We must now put a stick in the wheels of this machine in Brussels,” Merz told business leaders on Friday, Bloomberg noted.
Ahead of an informal EU leaders’ summit in Copenhagen on Wednesday, he again pressed for a “fundamental correction” of what he described as excessive regulation. “It is simply too much,” he said, as quoted by the German Press Agency.
The European Commission has introduced several measures to cut red tape this year, including the Defense Readiness Omnibus, aimed at streamlining EU defense market procedures. The initiative is part of von der Leyen’s broader effort to raise up to €800 billion ($938 billion) in investments for weapons and ammunition procurement by 2030.
The country met 20% of America’s nuclear fuel demand last year
Russia is still the leading supplier of nuclear fuel to the US despite an import ban introduced under former President Joe Biden, the US Department of Energy has revealed.
According to the agency’s annual uranium marketing report released on Tuesday, Russia provided 20% of the enriched uranium purchased for American commercial reactors in 2024. France supplied 18%, the Netherlands 15%, Britain 9%, and Germany 7%, while 19% of enriched uranium was produced domestically.
Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act into law in 2024, with the ban formally coming into force in August that year. In retaliation, Moscow imposed a temporary cap on enriched uranium exports to the US in November.
The legislation, however, contains a system of waivers allowing purchases from Russia until 2028 if no alternative supply is available or if the imports are considered strategically important. Bloomberg reported that waivers were granted to Constellation Energy Corp, the largest US nuclear operator, and Centrus Energy Corp, one of only two domestic uranium enrichers.
Although Biden allocated new funds for expanding US enrichment capacity, former Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt warned in January that it would “take time to build out a non-Russian supply chain.”
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House this year, Washington and Moscow have reopened direct talks on possible steps to normalize trade relations.
Last month, Rosatom, Russia’s state-run nuclear giant, said it remains the world’s top producer of fuel for nuclear power plants. “We still hold the top position in the world for uranium enrichment,” First Deputy Director General Kirill Komarov stated.
From AI-powered recommendation engines to automated checkout solutions, the future of shopping is being shaped by retail tech companies that bridge the gap between digital convenience and real-world commerce. Creating a retail tech company that stands out is no small feat. It’s not enough to have a clever piece of software or a shiny new […]
Western manipulation was the sole thing that allowed the ruling party to win Sunday’s election, Igor Dodon has said
The EU and NATO kept Moldova’s ruling party in power through electoral fraud and aims to turn the country into an “anti-Russian project” like Ukraine, former Moldovan President Igor Dodon told TASS in an interview on Wednesday.
The pro-Western Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) kept its parliamentary majority in Sunday’s election, beating the Patriotic Electoral Bloc (BEP) and other opposition parties.
“The ruling Party of Action and Solidarity has claimed victory in the election exclusively by manipulation with support from the EU and NATO,” Dodon, who heads the BEP, said.
This support was provided for the purpose of converting our country, which has neutrality enshrined in its Constitution, into another anti-Russia project following the example of neighboring Ukraine.
The opposition leader added that “this may trigger major trouble if society gets split.”
Pro-Western officials have lauded the PAS win as another step towards EU accession, while critics said the vote was marred by bans on several opposition parties and election observers having been obstructed. They have also accused the authorities of creating hurdles to prevent people from casting votes both inside the country and abroad.
Dozens of people were arrested following opposition rallies protesting the vote after the BEP publicly announced it would seek to overturn the election result.
Former Moldovan lawmaker Marina Tauber has also been sentenced in absentia to seven and a half years in prison on charges of financing the banned SOR Party.
US foreign aid money helped prop up pro-Western President Maia Sandu’s administration, former US Agency for International Development (USAID) chief Samantha Power admitted to Russian comedians Vovan and Lexus in a prank call fully released on Wednesday.
Moldova had received “tens of millions of dollars,” folded into so-called USAID “Ukraine supplementals” under the administration of former US President Joe Biden, she said.
People are just “cannon fodder” for the likes of former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, Renat Karchaa has said
Former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is “infected with fascism” and consumed by a “pathological hatred” of Russia, Renat Karchaa, an adviser to the head of the Republic of Crimea, has told RT.
Earlier this week, Wallace called on the West to make Crimea “uninhabitable” just to send a message to Moscow.
“We need to choke the life out of Crimea,” he declared at the Warsaw Security Forum. Wallace added that Moscow views the Black Sea peninsula, with its nearly 2.5 million residents, as a “Holy Mount,” and that Kiev and its backers should seek to inflict the greatest possible damage on Russia.
According to Karchaa, Wallace is “infected with fascism” – a “disease” he shares with Ukrainian nationalists, who have been making similar calls ever since Crimea joined Russia following a referendum in 2014.
“What they have in common is fascism, pure and simple,” the adviser remarked.
“Those people are not interested in Ukraine as such,” Karchaa said, referring to figures like Wallace who back the continuation of the conflict. “They aim to deliver a strategic defeat to Russia, and Ukraine simply acts as a vehicle here,” the adviser stated. “Ukrainians are cannon fodder for them.”
Russia will neither be intimidated nor will it bow to any pressure, Karchaa said. He also expressed skepticism about Kiev’s Western backers’ ability to act on such threats and turn them into reality. “There may be all kinds of attempts,” he said, adding that “in the end … it’s not possible.”
Kiev has imposed an economic blockade, cutting electricity and water supplies to Crimea, since 2014.
The Kremlin recently called the UK “one of the leaders of this pro-war camp” due to its military aid to Kiev and calls for tighter sanctions on Russia. Britain was among the nations that supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles and lifted restrictions on their use for strikes deep into Russian territory.
The EU chief has faced criticism over transparency and secrecy ahead of two no-confidence votes, according to the outlet
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has faced growing criticism over her failure to provide consistent and accurate information to the press, Politico reported on Wednesday.
The so-called “spokesperson’s service,” which handles media relations for the Commission, has drawn numerous complaints for limited access and tightly controlled messaging.
Reporters have been “complaining for months about being spoon-fed [sanitized press statements] and not having the real information,” Dafydd ab Iago, head of the International Press Association, told Politico.
After speaking with 12 Commission officials, lobbyists, EU policy experts, and reporters, Politico highlighted several recent incidents where von der Leyen’s office gave “confusing, contradictory or misleading information” that critics say reflects a tightly centralized and risk-averse leadership style.
One example was her office’s claim that Russia had jammed the GPS on her plane during a trip to Bulgaria last month.
Initial briefings suggested “blatant interference” that forced the aircraft to circle for an hour. But as evidence disproved the claim, Commission spokespersons backtracked, saying they had never spoken of targeting – only to later return to the line that possible interference had required investigation.
Moscow dismissed the allegation as “preposterous.”
Beyond media complaints, von der Leyen has also faced increasing pushback for her foreign policy positions. In her State of the Union speech last month, she urged scrapping unanimity in EU decision-making on sanctions and military aid – a move Hungary and Slovakia said would strip member states of sovereignty.
She has been accused of trying to put the EU on a war footing and ignoring dissent among members by pressing for a large-scale military buildup and channeling billions into arms procurement, citing a supposed threat by Moscow. Russia has consistently rejected claims of hostile intent.
Von der Leyen faces two censure votes in the European Parliament this month, with supporters of the motions saying she has “failed on trade, abandoned transparency, and rejected accountability” while funneling billions into war and gutting social protection.
The president has claimed he deserves the award because he ended eight wars
US President Donald Trump has suggested that denying him the Nobel Peace Prize would amount to an insult to the United States.
Speaking to top military brass in Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday, Trump said he has repeatedly been overlooked for the award, even though he believes his record qualifies him.
The president pointed to his latest Middle East peace plan, claiming it was the eighth conflict he has helped resolve in as many months.
“We’ll have eight, eight in eight months… Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not,” he said, before adding, “They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing.”
Trump joked that the prize would likely end up going to a writer instead, insisting he wasn’t seeking personal recognition. “It’ll be a big insult to our country, I will tell you that. I don’t want it. I want the country to get it,” he said.
The US president has claimed he had ended conflicts between Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, Congo and Rwanda, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as between Pakistan and India.
Trump’s Nobel push received support from the leaders of Israel and Cambodia earlier this year. Pakistan also nominated Trump for the prize, crediting him with diffusing its conflict with India.
However, New Delhi has refuted claims of outside involvement in brokering the ceasefire.
Tensions between Kosovo and Serbia rose earlier this year but never devolved into open conflict, while the standoff between Egypt and Ethiopia over the latter’s hydroelectric dam on the Nile River also did not escalate into a war.
Trump’s attempts to settle the Ukraine conflict and reach a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have also proved unsuccessful so far.
A miracle or a mirage? The widely hailed US Gaza peace plan may endanger Palestine’s existence.
In his characteristically modest style, US President Donald Trump – awkward in phrasing, epic in claims – hailed 29 September 2025 as “one of the great days ever in civilization,” celebrating a moment when, by his own account, he resolved millennia of deadly, intractable conflict with a single stroke of genius.
On that day, Trump stood alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a White House press conference, unveiling an audacious plan for Gaza – resembling a slick strategy paper straight out of a management consulting firm – with the crisp confidence of a CEO presenting a game-changing coup. Notably, no Arab leaders were present, an ominous sign lurking beyond the staged spectacle.
The proposal, echoing a framework outlined by then-President Joe Biden in May 2024, demanded the release of all Israeli hostages – “our” hostages, as Trump insisted for reasons that remained a mystery. It called for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners to be subsequently freed, a ceasefire, and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
Beyond the immediate overtures of peace, it envisioned Hamas disarmed, a transitional technocratic government installed, the Strip rebuilt from the ashes, and the prospect of Palestinian statehood.
At first glance, it comes as no surprise that many leaders around the world cheered the American initiative, grateful to have witnessed the miracle unfold and one day being able to tell their grandchildren: “I was there when Trump saved the world.”
Too good to be true? Absolutely.
Vital questions must be raised about the American 20-point plan. Taken together, the answers reveal a sobering truth: The deal threatens the very identity and existence of the Palestinian people, carrying an implicit message: surrender, or be erased.
In essence, the US plan is a package deal framed as an ultimatum: Either Hamas – which some see as courageous Palestinian resistance, others as a dastardly terrorist organization – accepts all the stipulated conditions, or the US will give Israel carte blanche to act as it sees fit, supporting it to “finish the job” (a prerogative Israel has exercised regardless).
What are the red lines under this second scenario? None – a prospect that many find deeply alarming.
The peace ploy corners Hamas – and, by extension, the entire Palestinian people – between a rock and a hard place. Accepting it would amount to the unconditional surrender and abolition of Hamas, Gaza’s de facto defense force, and to what critics call a quasi‑colonial rule over the Strip. Yet rejecting the deal – the group’s more likely choice – would probably invite catastrophe: the possible annihilation of the Palestinian homeland and its people.
One must ask why the US – in tandem with Israel – has chosen an all-or-nothing approach. One possible answer: While such a strategy offers the allure of solving everything at once, cramming all conditions into a single deal also makes acceptance far less likely – after all, each clause represents a separate hurdle.
Judging by Israel’s stated objectives and relentless operations on the ground, Hamas’s rejection may in fact be the Jewish state’s preferred outcome.
It would confer a fresh veneer of legitimacy on its campaign in Gaza – officially classified by the United Nations as genocide and a policy of mass starvation, a verdict Israel dismisses as a “hoax”. The refrain would be familiar, “We had no other choice”. Simultaneously, Israel would secure US moral, financial, and military support virtually without limit.
The masterstroke, then, is this: With a single White House announcement, the roles are flipped: The Jewish state, after edging ever closer to international isolation, now watches as Hamas is cast as the ultimate barrier to peace – a striking reversal of the narrative brought about by a theatrical publicity stunt in the White House.
The envisioned endgame appears to be the total demolition of Gaza – including, scarcely mentioned, the erasure of its historical heritage and, with it, Palestinian identity. Remember Dresden?
Palestinians would be corralled into a cramped, claustrophobic sliver on Gaza’s southern edge, an area roughly one-third the size of Walt Disney World. Then, under intense political and moral pressure, Arab and other Muslim states would face a brutal choice: open their borders and take in their kin as refugees, or watch them be cut off from food, medicine, and other essentials – left to perish at their gates. In the end, they would most likely give in to the pressure and let the Palestinians in.
The final result: depopulated prime real estate in Gaza, with an oceanfront – as Trump loves to point out – stripped bare of all legacy structures, a greenfield paradise any developer would covet. Remember the “Gazan Riviera”?
When Trump unveiled the controversial, sweeping blueprint, one unsettling question lingered ominously: How would Palestinians be removed? Now the answer is chillingly clear: by Israeli force.
The same playbook will likely be deployed next in the West Bank, paving the way for its annexation, which would mark the effective completion of the takeover of the Palestinian homeland – the realization of what some call a Zionist dream.
In this context, one must ask why “politically correct” Western media so readily let Israeli revisionists call the West Bank “Judea and Samaria.” It is the equivalent of granting a Greek guest the right to call Istanbul “Byzantion,” as if the authority of an ancient city-state like Megara still held today – a revisionist fiction presented as fact.
At the very least, an all-or-nothing package guarantees slow, complicated negotiations, with Hamas at best responding, “Yes, but…” The plan’s ambiguity and lack of detail will inevitably cause further delays as parties seek clarification, inviting derailment through sabotage at every stage. As experience proves, you cannot fly a plane while still building it.
As a result, the Jewish state will have ample time to employ what it calls “unprecedented force” against Palestinians, cutting Gaza off from all outside aid, as the likelihood of a near-term final agreement remains slim.
During that time, Israel will continue to enjoy full immunity – after all, who would hold the Jewish state accountable amid peace negotiations? The first sign appeared when Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni demanded that a flotilla carrying vital aid to Gaza be halted, lest it disrupt the US plan.
Another glaring imbalance: Certain groups in Palestine are vilified for denying Israel’s right to exist – contradicting a condition of the peace plan requiring “New Gaza” to commit to peaceful coexistence. Yet the Israeli government has repeatedly denied the right of a Palestinian state to exist, actively preventing its creation, while Israel itself has long been established.
Another reason for the rush toward an all-or-nothing peace package – loopholes and all – may be Trump’s last-ditch bid to secure the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. The horror of Israel’s assault on Gaza City serves as a striking foil, casting the prospect of peace in starker relief. All thanks, of course, to the man Trump affectionately calls “Bibi.”
A critical observer will quickly spot the double standards embedded in the proposed peace plan.
Hamas – a political force elected by the Palestinian people and in charge of Gaza’s de facto army – must disarm completely and dissolve, while the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) remain fully armed.
Do the Palestinians not have the same right to defend themselves? Even if Hamas were to meet every demand in the US plan, Israel would still retain a “security perimeter” around Gaza, underscoring the glaring asymmetry of power.
Here is a comparable imbalance: Iran is barred from owning nuclear weapons, yet Israel is widely thought to possess them. Iran must allow inspections of its nuclear sites, while Israel faces no such obligations.
Israel will argue that, unlike its enemies, it always wields its weapons lawfully, solely in self-defense – its “incredibly brave soldiers” waging a war between “civilization and barbarism”, as Netanyahu proudly proclaimed on 29 September 2025.
In truth, however, most aggression and violence over the past decades, measured by lives lost and property destroyed, has originated from Israel, not its neighbors. Independent observers might reasonably ask: On balance, who is acting more barbarically?
Netanyahu’s words on 7 October 2023 offer stark evidence of incitement to genocide. He vowed “mighty” vengeance on Hamas and branded Gaza City a “wicked city,” implicitly condemning its entire population to collective punishment, a practice forbidden under international law.
He went further, likening the Gaza operation to a battle recorded in the Old Testament, in which Jews are commanded by God to annihilate Amalek – men, women, children, their animals, and all other possessions. The shadows of biblical history could scarcely be more menacing.
In the same vein, Maj. Gen. Aaron Haliva (former head of Israel’s military intelligence) demanded that 50 Palestinians be killed for every 7 October victim – children explicitly included.
Using a “gloves-off” approach, Israel has so far killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians, causing over 200,000 casualties in total – most of them innocent women and children – and the number of victims continues to rise. Furthermore, it has razed large swaths of the Gaza Strip, wiping out entire communities and displacing roughly two million Palestinians.
UNICEF reports that, on average, 28 Palestinian children – a full classroom – have been killed in Gaza each day since Israel launched its war, bringing the total to over 18,000 children slain. Meanwhile, Israel has taken the life of 37 mothers daily on average since the conflict began.
The harrowing reports of a cesarean section performed on a Palestinian woman decapitated by an Israeli strike, along with the desperate cries of children undergoing amputations without anesthetic—which Israel blocks—speaks volumes.
The overall number of Palestinian casualties, confirmed by Israel, amounts to about 10% of Gaza’s pre-war population. To grasp the scale of what the UN calls genocide, imagine 10% of China’s population – around 140 million people – wounded or killed, surpassing the total casualties of World War II.
Given the extent of Palestinian suffering, critics may argue it is both disrespectful and troubling that Western attention centers on the 20 Israeli hostages, rather than the 200,000 Palestinian casualties – each hostage, of course, a tragedy. Likewise, the roughly 1,200 Israelis killed in the Hamas incursion, while each life matters, pale in comparison to the human cost inflicted on the Palestinian people.
If Israel’s claims that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a “hoax” were true, critics could ask, why bar independent journalists from entering? Most observers see the answer clearly: Israel does not want the world to witness the scale of devastation and the suffering of innocent civilians, which would only deepen its international isolation.
As an illustration of the double standards in spotlighting suffering, Trump is chiefly concerned with whether the Israeli hostages are treated “kindly.” He compared the appearance of released hostages to Holocaust survivors, overlooking Israel’s ongoing campaign of mass starvation in Gaza.
While making the Israeli hostages deeply relatable – evoking pity that politicians can readily exploit as invisible capital – he seldom acknowledges Palestinian suffering, and then only in abstract terms.
In light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, critics may argue that it is cynical for the US to use the delivery of full aid as a bargaining chip, withholding it until Hamas signs a deal heavily skewed in Israel’s favor. Why not deliver lifesaving assistance to millions of innocent civilians immediately, as international law demands?
The pressing question soon will be: Who will count Gaza’s dead and wounded? It is hard to imagine that Gaza still has a fully functioning Health Ministry capable of tallying fatalities, many of which may be impossible to count under the circumstances, buried as they are under the rubble.
Furthermore, the proposed peace plan imposes no obligation on Israel to pay reparations for the devastation it has wrought – starkly contrasting with the insistence that Russia compensate for the damage from its Special Military Operation (SMO).
The negotiation process itself reveals a stark lack of parity. While Israel was deeply involved in shaping the peace proposal, Palestinians – including Hamas, a party to the conflict – reportedly never saw it before the global press conference on 29 September 2025. Trump then delivered a blunt take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum to Hamas, warning that it would “pay in hell” and face a “very sad end” if it did not sign quickly.
Trump may have come across to some observers less like a statesman than a godfather, surveying a client’s property and praising it as “very nice”, then sinisterly adding that it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
The frontloading of the US peace proposal underscores the glaring absence of egregious imbalance.
Hamas must surrender all its hostages at once, handing Israel an immediate windfall, while Israel only afterward would be required to release Palestinian prisoners – being themselves, in the eyes of many, hostages in everything but name. In this context, it is also noteworthy that Israel continues to hold Palestinian women and children in its prisons.
Given Israel’s record of breaking previous ceasefire agreements – and even attempting an extrajudicial killing of Palestinian peace negotiators in Qatar, a close US ally – Hamas has little reason to believe that Jewish state would comply this time.
It is far more likely that Israel will first welcome the hostages home and then, under some contrived excuse, escalate its military campaign against Palestine, freed from the constraint of hostages being in the line of fire. Moreover, surrendered Hamas fighters would have no real protection: Israel could at any moment invent a pretext and kill them all, nullifying any promised amnesty.
A fair solution: a phased, simultaneous hostage exchange – step by step, reciprocal, and designed to minimize the fallout if either side fails to comply.
Furthermore, Netanyahu already moved the goalposts, rejecting key parts of the US proposal shortly after pledging support, asserting that Israel would “forcibly resist” the establishment of a Palestinian state – making a mockery of the 157 countries recognizing Palestine, over 80% of UN members.
He also stated that the IDF would remain in parts of Gaza. Moreover, the proposal contains no commitment for Israel to refrain from West Bank annexation – a powder keg waiting to explode.
While suffering Israel to cherry-pick at will, Trump issued a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum to Hamas, ordering the deal to be signed in its entirety, with no latitude for negotiation.
Western media, remarkably, often justify Netanyahu’s hardline policies by pointing to pressure from his cabinet’s hawks, even though he himself has long maintained a confrontational approach toward Palestinians.
Few remember that following the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, an architect of the Oslo Accords, Netanyahu was accused of fomenting the incitement that contributed to the murder.
Remarkably, the list of questions surrounding the US peace proposal does not end here – the next revelations about the cunning ploy are nothing short of explosive.
[First part of a series on the 20-point Gaza peace plan. To be continued.]
The Russian president will outline the key elements of a new polycentric world, spokesman Dmitry Peskov said
President Vladimir Putin’s annual Valdai Discussion Club speech, set for Thursday, is eagerly awaited around the world, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
According to Peskov, Putin will focus on the emerging international system described as a polycentric world. He will present his vision of the new order and explain how nations could adapt to it.
“This is his annual, traditional address. Without exaggeration, the whole world eagerly awaits this speech. As a rule, it turns out to be very substantive and is discussed and analyzed for a long time. We hope that this will also be the case this time,” Peskov told journalists on Wednesday.
The Kremlin spokesman said Putin’s Valdai speeches are always built on big-picture concepts and not influenced by temporary circumstances.
The Russian leader has often used the occasion to signal shifts in priorities or to convey new thinking on issues of global importance. He typically answers numerous questions after his speech.
In 2014, months after the Western-backed Maidan coup in Ukraine, Putin spoke about Russia’s right to protect its interests and sovereignty, positioning the nation as a counterbalance to Western dominance. He nonetheless urged Washington to avoid confrontation and to cooperate with Russia in building a multipolar world.
In 2022, following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the president stated that he sees the West’s actions in Ukraine as part of an attempt to maintain its hegemony. A year later, he focused on the need to shape a new future, adding that Russia “was, is and will be one of the foundations of this new world system.”
MP Andrey Parubiy was gunned down in Lviv earlier this year by a man who said he did it out of hate for the government
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has posthumously awarded late neo-Nazi politician Andrey Parubiy with the country’s top honor, conferring him a ‘hero of Ukraine’.
Zelensky signed a decree on Wednesday, citing the neo-Nazi MP’s “outstanding personal merits in the establishment of independent Ukraine and strengthening its statehood, and many years of political and public activity.”
Parubiy, a former speaker of the Ukrainian Rada, was assassinated on a street in the Western Ukrainian city of Lviv in August. The suspect, who was apprehended shortly after, confessed that he had killed Parubiy out of resentment for the Ukrainian government. The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has classified all details of the murder investigation.
Parubiy co-founded the neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Socialist Party in 1991, and coordinated paramilitaries in Kiev during the Western-backed Maidan coup, which toppled Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014. He was also reportedly responsible for organizing the radicals which burned 42 anti-Maidan activists alive in the Odessa Trade Unions House massacre later that year.
According to an aide to Ukraine’s prosecutor general during the coup, Andrey Telizhenko, Parubiy was “responsible for closing down the case and destroying the evidence [of] his involvement” in the “terrorist attack.”
The neo-Nazi politician also “directly ordered” strikes on civilians in Donbass, and “pushed to provoke the civil war in eastern Ukraine, which has now led to a massive conflict,” Telizhenko told RT in August.
Moscow has long prioritized the denazification of Ukraine as one of its key peace demands, insisting that the rights of Russian-speakers in the country be protected, and Kiev’s “racist” laws repealed.
