© Alexander Manzyuk/Reuters
US President Donald Trump has suspended the tariffs and sanctions on the biggest buyers of Russian oil set by the Lindsey Graham Act, the law he signed himself in September. He says the move serves US national interests, according to an executive order published on the White House site.
The act required the president, within 30 days, to impose 100% tariffs on all goods from the five biggest buyers of Russian oil, to sanction a range of Russian entities and to put 500% tariffs on all Russian energy imports to the US. The deadline for those measures fell on 18 October.
Trump has used the president’s power under Section 115 of the Graham Act, which allows him to waive sanctions, restrictions, and duties by certifying to Congress in writing that doing so serves US national interests and submitting a report explaining why. The act does not, however, allow him to cancel sanctions that have already been announced.
The two capitals read the same order in opposite ways. Kirill Dmitriev, an envoy for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, called it “an important and truly historic moment” on X, claiming the sanctions had mainly harmed the US economy and world markets.
“Economic cooperation between Russia and the US serves the interests of both nations, contributes to global economic stability and lays the foundation for building trust and achieving lasting peace,” Dmitriev writes.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy answered from under fire. Russia struck Ukraine’s energy system on 17 October, and at that very moment Washington chose “to completely ignore the Lindsey Graham law, which was supposed to impose real, effective pressure on Russia to end this war,” he says.
The waiver lands amid a bipartisan revolt in Congress. Seven Republican and Democratic senators had already warned on 11 October that Trump’s move to allow Russian diesel imports had broken the law Congress passed after the full-scale invasion, urging the administration to reverse it so US money would not help finance Russia’s war.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy argued the law can still work if Washington lets it.
“This law could, and still can, help a great deal. But the law has actually to work, and every vote for it matters,” he said, warning that the step only pushes Moscow to strike harder.
The world must not give up ground and must try to end the war, Zelenskyy added.
“To end it, and not give Putin every reason to continue it indefinitely,” he stressed, thanking everyone who “is truly fighting for peace and helping Ukraine," he stated.
The Ukrainian opposition also commented on Trump’s decision. Iryna Herashchenko, co-chair of the European Solidarity parliamentary faction, said that “the most cynical and stupid decisions are usually made by rulers on Saturday night,” when public attention is scattered, and people are preparing for the weekend.
“Rehabilitating Putin harms not only Ukraine but also the US itself, strengthens the axis of authoritarian regimes, and undermines international security,” she claimed.
Il ministro della Difesa Guido Crosetto ha giudicato un “errore completo, un grave errore” la decisione degli Stati Uniti di restringere l’accesso dell’Ucraina ai sistemi satellitari e ai dati di intelligence impiegati per contrastare gli attacchi russi. Intervistato dalla Bbc, il ministro ha definito una simile scelta dell’amministrazione Trump una misura che “non ha assolutamente senso”, destinata a rischiare di prolungare l’invasione russa anziché favorire il raggiungimento della pace.
“La pace arriverà quando Putin sarà convinto che ci sia una situazione di stallo, che non possa avanzare ulteriormente – ha dichiarato Crosetto, intervistato nella sede del ministero a Roma – Se vede delle debolezze da parte ucraina, e se gli Stati Uniti privano l’Ucraina delle risorse, questo crea debolezza, allora crederà di poter vincere. Quindi continuerà la guerra”, ha sottolineato il ministro, che ha ribadito: “Penso che sia completamente sbagliato.” Crosetto ha assicurato che l’Italia manterrà gli aiuti militari a Kiev “finché questo governo sarà in carica”, precisando tuttavia che ottenere il via libera parlamentare per nuovi invii sarà “più difficile” man mano che si avvicineranno le elezioni.
Infine, ha dichiarato: “Quando uno Stato oltrepassa il confine di un altro Stato con i carri armati, quando bombarda ospedali e scuole, uccide civili e bombarda centrali elettriche, e lo fa da quattro anni, non posso che definirlo malvagio”.
L'articolo Ucraina, Crosetto contro Trump: “Errore grave” limitare intelligence e satelliti a Kiev proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
The dispute has exposed differences over secularism, religious freedom and Azerbaijan’s relationship with Israel, raising questions about the durability of one of the region’s closest strategic alliances.
Azerbaijan is facing an unusual wave of protests after new school dress regulations led to girls wearing Islamic headscarves being excluded from classrooms and teachers reportedly being ordered to remove their hijabs. The controversy has escalated into a diplomatic dispute with Turkey, whose governing party has been accused by President Ilham Aliyev’s administration of interfering in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs.
The confrontation intensified on 13 October when Azerbaijan’s ruling New Azerbaijan Party (YAP) publicly condemned senior figures in President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP). The dispute has since widened to encompass Azerbaijan’s relations with Israel, exposing political differences between two countries accustomed to describing themselves as “one nation, two states”.
The controversy began on 21 September, when Azerbaijan’s government adopted Resolution No. 309, amending the regulations governing uniforms in state schools. The changes prohibit clothing that conflicts with prescribed uniforms or the secular character of public education.
Although the new regulations do not explicitly mention Islamic headscarves, some schools have interpreted them as prohibiting the hijab. A further decision on 6 October introduced similar requirements for teachers. Women in Baku and Sumgayit subsequently reported being instructed to remove their headscarves or risk losing their positions.
The enforcement of these regulations prompted demonstrations outside schools, with girls carrying placards demanding access to education. Male pupils also joined protests in support of their classmates. Such demonstrations are unusual in Azerbaijan, where public assemblies face extensive restrictions.
On 12 October, the Interior Ministry reported that 37 people had been detained in Baku, alleging disruption of public order, damage to property and obstruction of school activities. Activists claimed that more than 200 people had been detained, although that higher figure has not been independently confirmed.
In a statement issued on 16 October, Amnesty International criticised the exclusion of pupils and called for the release of peaceful demonstrators. The organisation also raised concerns over the reported detention of a mother protesting her daughter’s exclusion and the disappearance of an activist who had organised educational assistance for affected children.
Access to TikTok and Instagram was disrupted as the protests spread online. Internet monitoring organisations documented restrictions, although Azerbaijani authorities have not publicly explained their cause.
The dispute acquired an international dimension when Oktay Saral, a senior adviser to Erdoğan, condemned the exclusion of girls wearing headscarves.
In a public statement on 12 October, Saral questioned how preventing a girl from attending school because of her religious clothing could be reconciled with justice. He demanded that Azerbaijan reverse the restrictions. Several AKP parliamentarians subsequently joined the criticism.
The response from Baku was unusually confrontational. In its official statement, the New Azerbaijan Party accused Turkish political figures and media organisations of conducting a systematic campaign against Azerbaijan.
The party argued that religious solidarity did not entitle one Muslim-majority country to dictate another’s domestic policies. It described the Turkish politicians’ interventions as irresponsible and warned against attempts to interfere with Azerbaijan’s sovereignty.
The disagreement reflects contrasting approaches to secularism. Azerbaijan, a predominantly Shia Muslim country, has maintained strict state control over religious institutions since independence from the Soviet Union. Turkey, by contrast, has progressively removed restrictions on Islamic headscarves under Erdoğan’s government, reversing policies previously associated with its secular establishment.
The dispute has also reopened disagreements concerning Azerbaijan’s relationship with Israel.
Baku maintains substantial security and defence cooperation with Israel, including military technology and equipment supplied during its conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey supported Azerbaijan during that conflict but has adopted an increasingly confrontational position towards Israel.
As EU Today has previously examined, the relationships between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Israel reveal competing strategic interests beneath Ankara and Baku’s declared solidarity.
In its October statement, the New Azerbaijan Party specifically rejected criticism of Azerbaijani-Israeli relations, insisting that its dealings with Israel were legitimate bilateral arrangements. The inclusion of Israel in a response ostensibly concerning school uniforms indicates that the disagreement extends beyond religious clothing.
A further escalation emerged on 16 October when Azerbaijani prosecutors announced charges against Turkish journalist Celal Çiftçi, accusing him of advocating the violent overthrow of the Azerbaijani government in social media posts connected to the controversy. An arrest warrant was reportedly issued in his absence. Prosecutors did not publish the posts, and Çiftçi’s response was not available.
Despite the increasingly hostile exchanges, there is little evidence of an imminent diplomatic rupture.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan travelled to Baku on 15 October and met President Aliyev. The meeting addressed recent developments in bilateral relations, while Fidan publicly emphasised the enduring strategic partnership between the countries.
He acknowledged that differences could arise but argued that they should be resolved through direct dialogue rather than political confrontations on social media. Senior AKP figures have also sought to reduce tensions, stressing respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereign decisions.
The relationship extends far beyond shared language and cultural identity. Turkish military cooperation has been central to Azerbaijan’s regional security policy, while energy infrastructure and transport corridors connect the countries economically. Ankara also remains an important actor in the changing strategic balance of the South Caucasus.
For the European Union, the confrontation is relevant because Azerbaijan remains an important energy supplier and trading partner, while Turkey occupies a central position in regional transport and security arrangements.
The immediate question is whether Baku will reconsider the application of its school regulations. The wider political dispute concerns the extent to which Turkey can criticise Azerbaijan’s domestic policies without jeopardising a partnership that both governments have consistently presented as a cornerstone of their foreign policy.
The public confrontation has exposed differences that had previously been managed within the bilateral relationship. However, Fidan’s intervention and the continued diplomatic engagement suggest that both governments are seeking to contain the dispute rather than dismantle their alliance.
Following his interview with EU Today, Felix Jeff Vulis discusses his outstanding financial claims, his relationship with Kazakhstan and why he intends to bring the matter to the attention of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.
For more than three decades, Felix Jeff Vulis has maintained close professional ties with Kazakhstan, a country whose transformation into a major international mining and industrial economy he witnessed firsthand.
His relationship with Kazakhstan began in the 1990s, when he helped introduce the country’s economic potential to American investors. In 2001, he joined Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), eventually becoming Chief Operating Officer and then Chief Executive Officer.
Under his leadership and that of his colleagues, ENRC expanded internationally, listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2007 and entered the FTSE 100, becoming one of Kazakhstan’s most prominent industrial companies.
But the relationship between Vulis and the group that subsequently became Eurasian Resources Group (ERG) has taken a different direction.
In a September interview with EU Today, Vulis described his years at ENRC, the challenges of corporate governance and the impact of the British Serious Fraud Office investigation, which ended in 2023 without charges.
He also raised a question that had remained largely outside public discussion: financial and contractual obligations that he believes ERG and related entities have failed to honor.
The first interview concluded with Vulis maintaining that ending a corporate position would not eliminate previously established financial obligations.
Now, in this proposed continuation, Vulis addresses the outstanding claims more directly and explains why he intends to seek the attention of Kazakhstan’s highest political authorities.
EU Today: In your previous interview, you spoke about financial obligations that you believe remain outstanding. What exactly are you referring to?
Felix Vulis: Throughout my many years with ENRC, I held significant executive responsibilities and worked under various contractual and financial arrangements.
My position is that certain obligations arising from those arrangements have not been fulfilled. These matters include remuneration and other financial entitlements associated with my professional relationship with the group.
I believe the relevant documentation should be reviewed and the legitimate outstanding obligations settled.
EU Today: Are we talking about a substantial amount of money?
Felix Vulis: I would prefer not to discuss specific figures publicly at this stage. There are financial calculations, contractual documents and correspondence that need to be considered.
This is not simply about a number. It is about respecting agreements and commitments.
EU Today: Has ERG been given an opportunity to resolve these matters privately?
Felix Vulis: My preference has always been to resolve outstanding issues through professional discussions rather than public confrontation.
I believe that an agreement remains possible if the relevant parties are prepared to examine the documentation and engage constructively.
But after so many years, I also believe that unresolved obligations cannot simply remain unanswered indefinitely.
EU Today: You have indicated that you intend to bring this matter to the attention of Kazakhstan’s President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Why?
Felix Vulis: Because Kazakhstan is not an ordinary country in my professional life.
My relationship with Kazakhstan began long before I joined ENRC. I have spent decades working with its industries, institutions and people.
I have enormous respect for the country and its economic achievements.
At the same time, the Republic of Kazakhstan is an important shareholder in ERG. I believe that shareholders, particularly those representing a sovereign state, have a legitimate interest in ensuring that companies associated with them respect their financial and contractual commitments.
I intend to inform President Tokayev about my situation and explain why I believe these outstanding obligations deserve attention.
EU Today: Are you asking the President to intervene personally in a private financial dispute?
Felix Vulis: I am not asking the President to act as a judge or to assume responsibility for obligations that legally belong to a corporate entity.
I am asking for attention to a matter that I believe deserves a fair and professional review.
Kazakhstan has worked hard to establish itself as a reliable destination for international investment. That reputation depends, among other things, on confidence that legitimate business commitments will be respected.
EU Today: Do you believe the matter could damage Kazakhstan’s international reputation?
Felix Vulis: I sincerely hope it does not.
Under President Tokayev, Kazakhstan has made important efforts to strengthen its international standing, attract foreign investment and build confidence among its economic partners.
I recognize and appreciate those efforts.
However, when a former chief executive of one of the country’s most internationally recognized industrial groups raises unresolved financial claims, questions can arise about corporate governance and the treatment of contractual obligations.
I believe the best way to avoid unnecessary reputational questions is to examine the matter fairly and resolve legitimate claims.
EU Today: You are an American citizen. Could this matter also be raised in the United States or Europe?
Felix Vulis: As an American citizen, I have the right to protect my legitimate financial and contractual interests through the appropriate legal channels.
If a reasonable settlement cannot be reached, I intend to explore every lawful avenue available to me, including bringing the matter to the attention of relevant European institutions in Brussels and appropriate authorities in the United States.
That may include the US Department of State and the US Department of the Treasury, where there is a relevant basis for doing so.
I would much prefer that such steps prove unnecessary.
EU Today: Would you also approach European political institutions?
Felix Vulis: I reserve the right to raise the matter with appropriate European institutions, including the European Council, through lawful procedures and established channels.
My objective would be to explain my position and seek appropriate consideration, not to turn a private commercial matter into an international political confrontation.
EU Today: Some people might interpret these statements as pressure on ERG. How would you respond?
Felix Vulis: I am simply explaining the options that may be available to someone seeking to protect his contractual rights.
I have no interest in harming Kazakhstan or creating unnecessary difficulties for its international partners.
But I also do not believe that a person should be expected to abandon legitimate financial claims simply because the other party is a large and influential corporation.
EU Today: Has this experience changed your opinion of Kazakhstan as a place to do business?
Felix Vulis: No. My respect for Kazakhstan remains unchanged.
I still believe it has extraordinary economic potential, particularly in mining, critical minerals, energy, infrastructure and industrial development.
Its strategic position between Europe and Asia creates opportunities that extend far beyond the extraction of natural resources.
The country has the industrial experience, human capital and geographic advantages necessary to attract significant long-term investment.
That is precisely why I believe questions of contractual reliability and corporate governance matter so much.
EU Today: What message would you like President Tokayev to take from your letter?
Felix Vulis: That I remain a friend of Kazakhstan.
I am proud of the work we accomplished there, and I appreciate the efforts of the President to strengthen the country’s international credibility.
I hope the relevant parties will examine my claims seriously and help facilitate a fair resolution within the appropriate corporate and legal framework.
The strongest message Kazakhstan can send to international investors is that legitimate commitments are respected and contractual obligations are fulfilled.
EU Today: What would you say directly to ERG’s leadership today?
Felix Vulis: I would say that there is still an opportunity to resolve these matters professionally.
We have a long shared history. I spent an important part of my life helping build this company into an internationally recognized industrial group.
I would prefer to conclude our outstanding business through dialogue, mutual respect and fulfillment of legitimate obligations.
But I also intend to protect my rights.
I believe the responsible course is to sit down, review the facts, address the outstanding financial questions and reach a fair conclusion.
EU Today: What would you say to your former employees in Kazakhstan?
Felix Vulis: Thank you.
People sometimes talk about corporations as if corporations build factories.
They don’t.
People build factories.
People operate furnaces. People go underground. People run power stations. Engineers solve problems at three in the morning.
Whatever disagreements exist today cannot erase what those people accomplished.
I remain extremely proud of having worked with them.
EU Today: After years of silence, why should ERG believe that this time is different?
Felix Vulis: Because I am speaking now.
For years I chose discretion.
That was a conscious choice, not an inability to speak.
I continue to believe that a negotiated solution is better for everybody: for me, for ERG, for its shareholders and for everyone associated with our shared history.
But negotiation requires two sides.
EU Today: What exactly do you want?
Felix Vulis: A table.
The appropriate representatives.
The documents.
A serious discussion about everything that remains outstanding.
And then a comprehensive settlement that allows everybody to close this chapter.
EU Today: An apology?
Felix Vulis: No.
A solution.
EU Today: Revenge?
Felix Vulis: Absolutely not.
Revenge is emotional.
This is business.
EU Today: And if ERG refuses?
Felix Vulis: Then I will continue to defend my rights through every lawful mechanism available to me.
And where I am legally entitled to speak about my own experience, I reserve the right to do so.
EU Today: Is that a threat?
Felix Vulis: No.
It is clarity.
There is still an opportunity to resolve this privately and professionally.
I would prefer that.
After more than twenty years of shared history, I think sitting around a table is a much more intelligent ending than spending the next several years sitting opposite each other in courtrooms.
EU Today: If the people running ERG read only one sentence from this interview, what should it be?
Felix Vulis: Call me.
Let’s sit down and finish this properly.
US President Donald Trump called Ukraine’s renewed strikes on Russian oil refineries a disgrace in an interview with Newsmax and questioned President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s will to settle the war on 15 October. His statements came after he made a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to allow Russian diesel back into the US ahead of the mid-term elections in the US.
Kyiv says its long-range strikes have knocked out more than half of Russia's refining capacity, one of the few levers it controls on Moscow's war income, according to Ukraine's Defense Ministry. This is part of efforts to reduce the aggressor's capabilities to launch assaults, including the latest, during which four Russian regions fired 39 Iskander-M, North Korean KN-23, hypersonic Zircon, and supersonic anti-ship cruise Oniks missiles, Zelenskyy said.
Earlier, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine stopped refinery strikes for three days to meet US wishes after Trump announced an “energy ceasefire” on 11 October. At the same time, Russia struck a Kharkiv heat-and-power plant within hours of the announcement, he emphasized.
Meanwhile, in the interview with Newsmax, Trump said Zelenskyy is only pushing world oil prices higher.
“Well, I think that’s a disgrace,” he said.
He added that Ukraine has other options: “There are a lot of targets that you can hit.”
At the same time, Trump didn't say a word about Russian strikes on Ukraine's civilian buildings and power infrastructure ahead of the winter.
The US leader said he is “not a big fan” of Zelenskyy. He claimed both sides “would like to see it end,” but that he finds Zelenskyy “more difficult to deal with than Putin.”
He also said that he believes the depletion of US ammunition stockpiles is linked to the aid provided to Ukraine under the Biden administration, rather than the war with Iran.
Ukraine has repeatedly offered to help the US counter Iranian drones during the operation. The New York Times reported that a Ukrainian team departed the day after the US made such a request.
Nevertheless, despite Kyiv’s offers and actions, Trump once again compared Zelenskyy to P. T. Barnum, the 19th-century American circus showman, saying that he received a tremendous number of Patriots and Tomahawks.
However, there is no public confirmation that Tomahawk missiles were transferred to Ukraine during the Biden administration.
Two tankers caught fire within about 12 hours off Sulina, Romania’s port at the mouth of the Danube, Romanian authorities reported. The crew of one said a drone hit it inside Romania’s territorial waters, while Bucharest says it is still checking whether drones were involved. Bulgaria, where drones sank ships in its economic zone this month, says it lacks proof that Russia launched them.
For months, Russia has struck civilian ships on the sea route that carries most of Ukraine’s farm exports, while its drones have repeatedly crossed into Moldova and Romania during attacks on Ukraine. As long as Bucharest and Sofia wait for drone wreckage before naming anyone, Russia, the party Bulgaria’s own prime minister says the logic points to, pays no price for extending its war on Ukraine’s trade routes into NATO members’ waters.
The San Marino-flagged chemical tanker Wine Trader reported a fire in its superstructure around 07:00 on 15 October while anchored in Romanian territorial waters about 13 nautical miles southeast of Sulina, Romania’s Naval Authority said. By midday, five of its 12 crew had been recovered and seven were still missing.
Hours earlier, at 01:34, a drone entered Romanian airspace over the country’s waters southeast of Sulina for about a minute before vanishing from radar, the Defense Ministry said. Authorities have not named a cause for the fire, though unnamed sources
Russia’s expanding campaign against commercial shipping in the Black Sea is creating a security crisis that extends far beyond Ukraine. The latest drone attacks off Bulgaria’s coast have left 11 sailors missing, forced Sofia to seek assistance from NATO and the European Union, and raised concerns that Moscow is attempting to disrupt one of the world’s principal agricultural export routes.
On 13th October, the Guinea-Bissau-flagged HS Dignity sank after being struck by drones approximately 17 nautical miles east of the Bulgarian village of Krapets. Another vessel, the Ukrainian-owned, Maltese-flagged Chelsea 3, was attacked near Byala. All 15 crew members were rescued, although five sustained minor injuries. The incidents followed earlier attacks in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone on 6th October, when the ALFA WATAN sank and the grain-carrying ABLE was damaged.
The significance lies not simply in the destruction of merchant vessels but in the geographical expansion of the threat. Commercial routes previously regarded as comparatively safer alternatives to Ukraine’s exposed ports are now becoming operationally dangerous. Bulgaria and Romania, both NATO and EU members, face disruption to trade, maritime insurance and port operations as the conflict spreads across the western Black Sea.
The latest attacks follow months of Russian strikes against Ukrainian ports, export terminals and civilian shipping. As EU Today previously reported, repeated attacks on Odesa have already reduced Ukraine’s grain-export capacity, while alternative routes through the Danube and neighbouring European countries cannot fully replace its major Black Sea terminals.
The extension of attacks towards Bulgaria changes the economic calculation. Ships carrying agricultural products, those approaching Danube ports and vessels operating between Black Sea countries now face greater uncertainty, regardless of whether they enter Ukrainian territorial waters.
Maritime security company Ambrey assessed the earlier October attacks as highly likely to have been conducted by Russian forces. Its assessment identified vessels associated with Ukrainian grain trade as the principal targets, rather than suggesting that every commercial ship was being attacked indiscriminately.
This distinction is important, but it offers little reassurance to international shipping companies. A campaign directed against Ukrainian trade can disrupt the wider maritime economy when insurers, shipowners and exporters cannot establish which routes remain safe.
The economic consequences are already becoming apparent. Shipowners must consider higher insurance premiums, additional security measures and the possibility of losing vessels and crews. Traders may redirect cargoes or withdraw from routes whose commercial returns no longer justify the risks.
The attacks have also placed Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev in an increasingly difficult political position.
Radev has advocated renewed diplomatic engagement with Moscow and questioned the emphasis placed on military assistance to Ukraine. He has rejected accusations of being pro-Russian, presenting his approach as a pragmatic alternative to prolonged confrontation.
Yet the attacks have demonstrated the limitations of maintaining political distance from a war whose economic and security consequences are reaching Bulgarian waters.
After summoning Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova on 13th October, Radev acknowledged that Bulgaria possessed no conclusive evidence establishing responsibility for the latest strikes. Nevertheless, he argued that their consequences benefited Russia and questioned why Ukraine would attack its own commercial vessels.
According to the Bulgarian News Agency’s account of the meeting, the prime minister also warned that higher insurance costs and shipping companies’ reluctance to serve Bulgarian ports were already damaging the national economy.
This is the fundamental change confronting Sofia. The conflict is no longer solely a question of Bulgaria’s position towards Ukraine or its diplomatic relationship with Russia. It is affecting the country’s commercial interests, energy supplies and responsibilities as a NATO member.
Radev’s response does not necessarily indicate a wholesale reversal of his previous political position. It demonstrates that the practical obligations of government can leave considerably less room for accommodation with Moscow than the arguments advanced from outside direct responsibility for national security.
The broader consequences may be felt most severely outside Europe.
Ukraine remains an important supplier of wheat, maize and vegetable oils to international markets, including countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Interruptions to these exports affect more than Ukraine’s agricultural revenues. They can increase transport costs, delay deliveries and reduce the availability of competitively priced food in import-dependent countries.
Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum on 12th October, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned of a possible agricultural crisis, arguing that Russian interference with Black Sea shipping could leave countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East facing serious supply difficulties within months.
The warning reflects a mechanism already familiar from the earlier stages of Russia’s invasion. Following Moscow’s withdrawal from the UN-brokered grain agreement in July 2023, Ukrainian agricultural exporters faced renewed attacks on port infrastructure and substantial uncertainty over maritime access.
The danger is not necessarily an immediate worldwide shortage of grain. Wheat prices remained relatively steady following the 13th October incidents. Rather, sustained disruption could progressively reduce available export capacity, increase costs and place vulnerable importing countries under greater pressure.
For Moscow, such disruption could serve several purposes simultaneously: weakening Ukraine’s economy, raising the costs of international support for Kyiv and creating additional pressures on governments concerned about food inflation and social stability.
The immediate challenge for Brussels and NATO is how to protect commercial navigation without allowing the conflict to expand into a direct military confrontation.
Bulgaria has requested stronger air and maritime surveillance and is seeking closer coordination with Romania and Turkey. Defence Minister Dimitar Stoyanov said on 14th October that Sofia expected to join a NATO counter-drone initiative by the end of the month.
The EU has already developed a framework for addressing precisely such threats. Its Black Sea strategy, announced in May 2025, proposed a maritime security hub integrating surveillance, intelligence-sharing, infrastructure protection and regional cooperation.
The attacks now expose the difference between developing a security framework and providing effective protection to merchant vessels. Better intelligence can identify threats, but preventing further sinkings requires detection systems, coordinated responses and sufficient defensive capabilities.
Turkey’s involvement is particularly important because of its control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and its established role in Black Sea maritime security. Any workable regional arrangement must therefore extend beyond cooperation between Bulgaria and Romania.
The incidents occurred outside Bulgaria’s 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, meaning they do not automatically constitute an armed attack on NATO territory under Article 5. Nevertheless, repeated strikes within the economic zones of alliance members pose a substantial challenge to maritime security.
Russia’s campaign against Ukrainian exports is increasingly imposing costs on neighbouring European states and international trading partners. The question facing the EU is whether it can secure the commercial routes on which both Ukraine’s economy and the food supplies of millions beyond Europe depend.
European regions and cities demand clear rules and solid financial backing to help Europe’s ailing car industry through the shift to electric vehicles (EVs). The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) on Wednesday adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s Automotive Package, arguing that the transition will only succeed if regions are adequately equipped to carry it.
Regions said electrification is crucial to achieving climate-neutral road transport, but that success depends on affordability and access. They called for charging infrastructure across regions, funded by European, national and regional budgets, as well as targeted demand support in lower-income regions.
“Europe’s regions and cities have spoken with one voice: competitiveness and electrification by 2035 go hand in hand,” said María Chivite, President of the Navarre region in Spain, who drafted the opinion. Europe can only lead the transition, she argued, if regions receive “real financing”.
The Commission proposed the Automotive Package in December. It suggests a 90-percent-cut in tailpipe emissions from 2035, with the remaining 10 percent offset through low-carbon steel or e-fuels and biofuels. The CoR welcomed these temporary flexibilities but warned that they must not delay zero-emission mobility.
Brigitte Torloting, Chair of the Automotive Regions Alliance (ARA) and Vice-President of France’s Grand Est region, warned that time is short and “global competition will not wait for us”. She called for a strategy that protects automotive production in the regions, backed by strong European instruments such as “European preference.” Without a clear framework and targeted investment, she said, Europe risks losing its industrial base, from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to major suppliers.
“European preference” is an approach first introduced in the Commission’s proposal for an Industrial Accelerator Act in March and is designed to prioritise EU-based manufacturing. The Commission suggests public procurement contracts and state-subsidised industrial projects to source a minimum percentage of materials or components from European producers. For EV production, the Commission proposed that 70% of components for new cars – excluding the battery – must originate within the EU.
CoR members also welcomed the “Made in the EU” approach to strenghten European production but insisted it must be proportionate, so that SMEs and regional supply chains are not buried in red tape.
With automotive production concentrated in specific territories, the opinion also calls for targeted cohesion funding, skills and quality jobs.
According to EU figures for 2024, the automotive industry contributed 7 percent of EU gross domestic product (GDP), about EUR 170 billion in exports and supported around 13.8 million jobs, 3.5 million of them in manufacturing. According to CoR figures, the 41 regions organised in the Automotive Regions Alliance (ARA) generate more than 40 percent of EU GDP.
This story was produced by the European Newsroom (enr) in cooperation with the European Committee of the Regions (CoR). The editorial responsibility lies with the enr.
Press contact:
Theresa Sostmann
Tel. +32475999415
Sofía Andrujóvich (Ivano-Frankivsk, Ucrania, 1982) escribió en 2020 quizá la novela más importante sobre el Holocausto que han dado las letras ucranias. Amadoca es una obra de tres volúmenes que ha recibido múltiples premios literarios en Europa. Ahora llegan al público en español sus dos primeras partes, con el título La historia de Romana y Uliana.
On the night of March 20, 2024, unusually humid and mild in London, three people in their twenties pulled up at an industrial estate in the east of the city in a cherry-red Kia Picanto. They went inside, set fire to a warehouse, and filmed the blaze on a cellphone. The video of the flames consuming the premises ended up in the hands of another 20-year-old, Dylan Earl, who was reached via the Telegram messaging app by the Russian paramilitary organization Wagner, linked to the Kremlin, which had in turn recruited others to do the dirty work. One of the burned units contained humanitarian aid and Starlink satellite equipment destined for Ukraine. According to the British investigation, the three young men who lit the fuse did not know they were actually working for Russia.
© Jens Schlueter (Getty Images)
The German Bundestag has made a historic decision, officially recognizing Germany’s special responsibility to Ukraine for the crimes of Nazism. On 9 October, it adopted two resolutions ahead of the 85th anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre and linked that responsibility to Germany’s current help for Ukraine amid Russian aggression, Oleksii Makeiev, Ukraine’s ambassador to Berlin, says.
Babyn Yar in Kyiv became one of Europe’s largest sites of the mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust, where more than 100,000 people were killed over two years of Nazi occupation. Germany now casts a debt from that war as a moral duty to help defend Kyiv against Russia today.
Both motions stress the importance of researching Nazi crimes in Ukraine and preserving the memory of their victims. One came from the governing CDU/CSU and SPD parties, the other from the opposition Greens, a rare alignment of coalition and opposition on a single theme.
“The situation is unique: two motions on this subject were approved at once, from the coalition and the opposition. By the usual parliamentary logic, that should not happen,” Makeiev says.
The coalition motion backs research and documentation of Nazi crimes in Ukraine and closer work among German, Ukrainian, and other European archives and memorial institutions. It also calls for countering antisemitism, racism, and historical revisionism, and for continued political, economic, financial, humanitarian, and military support for Ukraine.
Makeiev says he felt a sense of deja vu watching the debate from the visitors’ gallery.
“I was in that same gallery in the fall of 2022. I saw how German democratic parliamentary groups can demonstrate unity on what matters most. At that time, the Bundestag recognized the Holodomor of 1932–1933 as genocide,” he adds.
A separate point of the resolution concerns Ukrainian children and teenagers who Russia has illegally taken from Ukraine. The document calls for efforts to return about 20,000 of them to their parents or relatives, folding the issue into Germany’s wider policy toward Ukraine.
The director of the Babyn Yar National Historical and Memorial Preserve, Rosa Tapanova, considers the Bundestag’s decision an important step toward re-examining the shared history of Ukraine and Germany and overcoming distortions of historical memory propagated for decades by the Soviet authorities and now being exploited by Russia.
“The Bundestag’s decision marked an important step toward Germany’s recognition of its historical responsibility toward Ukraine," she says.
The Bundestag’s decision and the participation of German representatives in commemorative events underscore the importance of continued Ukrainian-German dialogue. For the Babyn Yar National Historical and Memorial Preserve, this work encompasses historical research, the documentation of testimonies, educational and memorial projects, and international cooperation.
Ukraine’s prosecution service has dismissed eight people named in connection with an anti-corruption probe into the alleged protection of scam call centers, acting Prosecutor General Anton Kovalskyi reported. His office is also running internal checks on several officials linked to the case. A separate probe covers the trip abroad of his predecessor, who left Ukraine in September.
Ukraine’s main prosecution service is auditing itself while the country’s anti-corruption agencies investigate an alleged scheme run from inside it. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) allege that a PGO official set up a criminal organization in mid-2025. They say it drew in serving prosecution employees and unofficial associates, took bribes for leaving scam call centers alone, and laundered the proceeds. The investigation is called Operation Carthage.
Ukraine’s main prosecution service is auditing itself while the country’s anti-corruption agencies investigate an alleged scheme run from inside it. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) allege that an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) set up a criminal organization in mid-2025. They say it drew in serving prosecution employees and unofficial associates. The group allegedly took bribes for leaving scam call centers alone and then laundered the proceeds. The case is known as Operation Carthage, Espreso reported.
Seven of the eight dismissed people worked at the PGO, Kovalskyi said. Separately, four people were removed from administrative posts, including the heads of the IT department and the cybercrime directorate. Kovalskyi said 24 prosecutors took polygraph tests. The results went to a commission running an internal investigation. He wrote that trust in the prosecution service would be restored not through announcements of change but through consistent, balanced decisions and concrete results.
The internal probe concerning former Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko covers his trip abroad. Investigators are checking whether he followed established procedure and how the business trip was organized. Kravchenko left Ukraine in an official car on the night of 13–14 September, Ukrainska Pravda reported, citing law enforcement sources. He explained his departure as an official trip to Lithuania.
On 14 September, Kravchenko announced he had signed a notice of suspicion against NABU director Semen Kryvonos. That evening, his own office said Kryvonos had never been properly served and that the register entries were cancelled.
On 15 September, lawmakers backed Kravchenko’s resignation 317–0. Two days later, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy assigned Kovalskyi the duties of prosecutor general by decree. Before that, Kovalskyi headed the Khmelnytskyi Oblast Prosecutor’s Office.
The PGO completed an internal investigation into Aidyn Khudiiev, a former deputy department head, Kovalskyi said. Its findings will go to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors, and the PGO abolished his post. SAPO prosecutor Mykola Karas told a court hearing that detectives seized $50,000 at Khudiiev’s workplace during the Carthage searches.
The PGO is also investigating Serhii Kropyva, former deputy head of its international cooperation department. NABU detained him on 4 September, the first day of the operation. The internal probe looks at whether he used his powers for private interests and interfered in other prosecutors’ work. The PGO’s General Inspectorate has filed a disciplinary complaint against him with the same commission, and his post was also abolished.
Ukraine's 413th Separate Raid Regiment of the Unmanned Systems Forces struck the Snizhne Machine-Building Plant in occupied Donetsk Oblast in September, working with other Defense Forces units, the regiment posted on 6 October, sharing a video of the strike. The General Staff reported the strike on the plant on 11 September, saying that the extent of the damage was being clarified.
The strike adds to Ukraine's campaign of long-range attacks on Russian military targets as Russia has begun its winter campaign of strikes against Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Hitting the suppliers of aircraft parts goes after Russia's ability to keep its attack jets and helicopters flying.
The regiment said the plant works for Russia's military industry, producing engine components for attack aircraft and combat helicopters.
The Snizhne plant was a separate division of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian aircraft-engine maker based in Zaporizhzhia, a city that remains under Ukrainian control. Snizhne has been under Russian occupation since 2014. The plant specializes in producing parts for gas-turbine engines, including compressor and turbine discs and blades, the General Staff said. It never built whole engines. In September 2014, months into the occupation, it was machining blanks from Motor Sich's Zaporizhzhia plant into turbine blades and was one of only two plants in the former Soviet Union making such blades for helicopters, a plant worker said.
Motor Sich said in December 2017 that it had lost control of the plant. Weeks later, Viacheslav Bohuslaiev, then Motor Sich's honorary president and a member of parliament, told RFE/RL's Donbas.Realii that Motor Sich still owned the plant and had handed its management to a foreign company, while keeping it under the company's "full control."
In February 2023, Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office served Bohuslaiev a notice of suspicion of aiding a terrorist organization, alleging that Motor Sich shipped blanks to the Snizhne plant and received finished engine parts through foreign-registered companies. The case went to court in October 2023, and Bohuslaiev, who denies the charges, has been in pretrial detention since October 2022 as the trial continues.
Snizhne, which Russia uses as a rear base, has been hit before. In May, Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces and the Security Service of Ukraine struck a Russian training center for drone pilots in the city, and in September, a strike on energy infrastructure cut power across Snizhne.
“Thanks to our beloved soldiers. We await you in our unbreakable city,” reads a handwritten note beside cans and other foodstuffs received to stave off hunger in Oleshky, a city occupied by Russia. “Thank you,” echoes another note next to a shipment of coffee, herbal teas, and chocolate bars. Photos of these messages and others showing various tokens of gratitude have reached the phone of Roman Chuhalov, 44, one of the Ukrainian servicemen who, by sending aid with drones, are trying to break the blockade in this town in the southern Kherson region, where about 2,000 people are holding out.
At least 280,000 people are missing due to the war between Russia and Ukraine, according to the vast list maintained by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It includes Ukrainians and Russians, without distinction, and the true figure is likely higher because the list contains only requests registered with the organization. The vast majority are soldiers. Although many have probably died, some parents and wives still set a meal at an empty chair and leave their rooms unchanged in case the person suddenly returns home. They carry a pain psychologists call ambiguous loss.
© Stringer (REUTERS)
Login