Zelenskiy Promotes Allies Who've Shown They Can Deal With Trump
The new prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, took office 11 weeks after her team at the Economy Ministry secured a deal with the US over access to Ukraine's natural resources.
That agreement, which gave Trump a win in an otherwise fruitless effort to end Russia's war on Ukraine, came together after weeks of grinding negotiations. Svyrydenko, who took the lead on the talks in the weeks after Zelenskiy was upbraided by Trump and his team in the Oval Office, rushed to Washington at the end of April to sign the deal.
Zelenskiy had been deliberating replacing long-time premier Denys Shmyhal with Svyrydenko, a 39-year-old former presidential aide, since last year, according to people familiar with his thinking. Her role in the stormy negotiations with the Americans clinched his decision to make the change, the people said, on condition of anonymity.
The reshuffle coincides with an about-face in the US administration, with Trump — who had for months belittled Ukraine's wartime leader — turning his ire on Vladimir Putin. The US leader has grown frustrated with the Russian president's refusal to entertain a ceasefire.
That turn culminated this week in Trump's threat to impose stiff tariffs on Moscow and pledge to send fresh weapons to Kyiv — though relying on funding from NATO's European allies.
With uncertainty over how long the Trump turn may last, the Ukrainian government has moved quickly to align with the more favorable circumstances.
Svyrydenko's efforts on the resources deal helped turn around what had been a potentially dire ultimatum for Kyiv. Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the Penta Research Institute in Kyiv, said initial US demands that would effectively make Kyiv permanently indebted to Washington were 'neutralized.'
When the then-economy minister jumped on a plane to Washington, a framework agreement was to be followed by a range of technical accords. In mid-air, Svyrydenko's team was informed the Americans wanted to sign all simultaneously as an overall agreement.
A deal was reached, covering resources including oil and gas, graphite and aluminum, just as Trump marked his first 100 days in office. One advantage was her good rapport with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, one of the people said.
'Svyrydenko managed to avoid risks in the resources deal and proved herself successful as a negotiator,' Fesenko said in an interview, sealing her path to the premiership.
Her promotion aligns with Zelenskiy's long-standing penchant — one that's invited criticism — for empowering loyalists at the expense of others outside the circle of the president and his powerful top aide, Andriy Yermak. Svyrydenko climbed the ranks from state administration in the Chernihiv region to high office in Kyiv. As economy minister, she was first deputy prime minister until this week.
Svyrydenko was the only candidate Zelenskiy was considering for the new premier after he observed her work in the government, a person said. She proved her ability to tackle Ukraine's biggest challenges of securing more financing and to boost economic growth during her time at the Economy Ministry, the person said.
Alongside the new premier, several others involved in the resources accord were promoted. Former Deputy Economy Minister Taras Kachka was appointed as Svyrydenko's deputy to oversee European Union integration.
And while Zelenskiy initially considered his defense chief, Rustem Umerov, as ambassador to the US, he ultimately chose former deputy premier and Justice Minister Olha Stefanishyna. She was part of multiple delegations to the US during talks over resources and is well-known in Washington, a person said.
'The American track is very important, and we have at least three axes of cooperation — the resources fund, the trade deal, and the weapons agreement,' Svyrydenko told reporters in Kyiv on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
Even if Harvard wins this court case, the Trump fight won't go away
Harvard's odds to win its Boston court battle look favorable—but the larger war is up in the air. Legal analysts say Harvard has a strong case in arguing that the U.S. government improperly cut $2.2 billion in federal funding from the Ivy League school. The federal district judge presiding over a key hearing Monday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments. But President Trump is already threatening to appeal. He has many ways to inflict damage on the university meanwhile, and Harvard's prospects—should the case end up at the Supreme Court—are less clear. 'Harvard can win in the courtroom but still lose almost everything it's fought for," said Allison Wu, the co-founder of the 1636 Forum, a Harvard alumni community named for the year the university was founded, who supports the university's case. Monday's closely watched court hearing showcased an unprecedented clash between Harvard and the very U.S. government its graduates worked to create in 1776—and have helped shape in the 2½ centuries since. The Trump administration, alleging the nation's oldest university has strayed from its academic mission, fallen victim to 'ideological capture" and tolerated antisemitism, cut off billions in federal research funds after Harvard rejected demands it says amount to a government takeover. In arguments before Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, Harvard mounted two main arguments. It asserted that the Trump administration imposed unconstitutional conditions on federal funds, requiring it to surrender its First Amendment rights to academic freedom to obtain a public benefit. The university—in an argument that some legal analysts say could be more potent—also contended that the government declared the school in violation of civil-rights laws without affording it due process to address the allegations, or without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits arbitrary action by federal agencies. Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal circuit judge, said Burroughs has a clear path to granting Harvard's motion for summary judgment—meaning a decision declaring that no trial is necessary, because undisputed facts entitle one side to win. 'By far the most straightforward thing for the court to say is that this claim of antisemitism is a claim under Title VI" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets out procedures to review allegations of discrimination in federally funded programs. The government, McConnell said, doesn't even claim to have followed those procedures before finding Harvard in violation. 'That's not to say that other claims might not kick in at a later stage," he added. Harvard says the government has ignored extensive steps it has taken to combat antisemitism on campus and broaden intellectual diversity in the months following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. Burroughs, the judge, repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer Monday while hearing arguments from both sides on why each deserved a swift victory. 'You can't violate the constitution to terminate a contract," Burroughs said. 'There are limits to what you can terminate and why and how." President Trump indicated in a social-media post that he already expects a loss. 'When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN," Trump said on Truth Social Monday, calling the judge a 'TOTAL DISASTER." Legal analysts anticipate the case will advance beyond the Boston court. 'It's hard to imagine a district court judge in Boston ruling against Harvard, and the First Circuit is chockablock with Harvard grads, so if the administration prevails, that relief is likely to come from the Supreme Court," said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices also hold Harvard degrees, but that proved of scant help in 2023, when the court struck down Harvard's admissions formula, which used an applicant's race as a plus factor to achieve a diverse undergraduate class. The court split 6-3—and its Harvard alumni divided evenly—over the case, which overruled precedents dating from 1978 to find that consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. Malcolm, who himself attended Harvard Law School, said that while the specific legal issues differ, the funding case recalls the broader context of the admissions case, where Harvard prevailed at the district and First Circuit courts before reversal by the Supreme Court. Harvard argues in the funding case that the federal government failed to follow the typical administrative processes used for terminating grants or adjudicating a discrimination case. Robert Tsai, a law professor at Boston University, said he thinks Harvard's administrative law arguments are in some ways the easier ones to make, given the unprecedented nature of the government's actions. But the First Amendment arguments still matter, Tsai said, and he's skeptical the government can make it into a contract case as they tried to do Monday in court. 'It would be hard for me to expect the judge to put on such blinders given all the weighty actions," Tsai said. In addition to cutting federal research grants, the Trump administration has tried to block international students from enrolling at Harvard—which is tied up in a separate lawsuit—threatened its tax-exempt status and probed foreign funding donations. Burroughs appeared skeptical Monday about the government's contention that it canceled the funds over antisemitism, asking at one point why they didn't have to go lab by lab to determine where antisemitic actions had taken place. Michael Velchik, an attorney for the Justice Department arguing the government's case, said Harvard has exhibited an indifference to antisemitism that applies to the entire university. Burroughs later called it a 'big stumbling block" that the executive branch could decide what's discriminatory or racist without any procedure. Velchik, who appeared in court alone without other government lawyers, ended his arguments by pushing back on the contention that the government is anti-Harvard. 'I reject that," he said, saying the government wants a Harvard that's the best research institution in the world. 'How can they be the best research university," Burroughs wondered, with the erasure of $2.2 billion in federal funding. Write to Jess Bravin at and Sara Randazzo at
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump 'caught off guard' by Israeli bombings in Syria, Gaza church last week, says White House
Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after receiving the news of Israeli strikes in Syria and asked him to 'rectify' the matter read more US President Donald Trump sitting with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. File Image / Reuters US President Donald Trump was caught 'off-guard' by Israel's unprecedented air strikes against Syria last week, the White House has said. Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after receiving the news of Israeli strikes in Syria and asked him to 'rectify' the matter. The president was, similarly, surprised by Israel's airstrike on the only Catholic church in Gaza that killed at least three people. The White House said he strongly condemned the attack on the church to Netanyahu and asked the prime minister to release a statement a statement calling the strike a mistake. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The president enjoys a good working relationship with Bibi Netanyahu, and stays in frequent communication with him. He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic Church in Gaza,' press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Refresh for updates.
India.com
4 minutes ago
- India.com
This Russian company operates 6,750 petrol pumps across India, now announces MAJOR plan to invest Rs 700000000000, the company is...
Nayara Energy, which is partly owned by the Russian oil company Rosneft, has announced a major investment of Rs. 70,000 crore in India. At the same time, the company has strongly criticized the new sanctions placed on it by the European Union (EU), calling them unfair and harmful to India's interests. These sanctions are part of the EU's 18th round of restrictions against Russia, introduced last week in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The main aim of these sanctions is to reduce the income Russia earns from oil and other exports. Nayara Energy is among the companies that have been targeted in this latest round. Nayara said that while many European countries continue to import Russian energy through various channels, the EU is punishing an Indian company that only processes Russian oil. Rosneft owns a 49.13 per cent stake in Nayara Energy, which was earlier known as Essar Oil Limited. In a statement on Monday, the company said it is actively exploring all legal options and that it will counter the EU's decision, which it claims undermines India's sovereignty and disregards global norms. Company runs a major oil refinery in Gujarat Nayara Energy operates a large oil refinery in Vadinar, Gujarat, with a capacity of 20 million tonnes per year. The company also runs over 6,750 petrol pumps across the country. A private investment group named Kesani Enterprises owns 49.13 per cent of Nayara. Kesani itself is backed by two Russian firms, United Capital Partners (UCP) and Hara Capital Sarl. Recently, there have also been reports suggesting that Rosneft may be planning to sell its stake in the refinery and exit the project.
