Ukraine's Zelenskiy taps deputy PM Svyrydenko for prime minister
The nomination, which requires parliamentary approval, comes as diplomatic efforts to end the war, now in its fourth year, have stalled and as Ukraine seeks to revive its cash-strapped economy and build up a domestic arms industry.
"We ... discussed concrete measures to boost Ukraine's economic potential, expand support programs for Ukrainians, and scale up our domestic weapons production," Zelenskiy wrote on X.
"In pursuit of this goal, we are initiating a transformation of the executive branch in Ukraine," he said, adding that he had proposed that Svyrydenko lead the government and "significantly renew its work".
Svyrydenko, 39, is an economist by training and has served as first deputy prime minister since 2021. She played a key role in recent negotiations for a minerals deal with the United States.
Ukraine relies on financial aid from its Western allies to finance social and humanitarian spending as the bulk of state revenues go to fund the army and domestic weapons production.
Ukrainian officials have also urged Kyiv's partners to help finance the country's arms industry, including through joint defence projects.
Writing on X, Svyrydenko said she would pursue deregulation, cut back bureaucracy, protect business and reduce non-critical expenditure to achieve the "full concentration of state resources" for defence and post-war recovery.
"The state apparatus has no right to waste the resources and potential of our country," she said. "Ukraine deserves to be among the strongest economies in Europe."
Ukraine's current prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, has held the post since March 2020, making him the longest-serving head of government since the country gained its independence from Moscow in 1991 amid the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
France's prime minister wants to cut 2 public holidays to save money for the indebted economy
France's prime minister proposed on Tuesday the elimination of two public holidays from the country's annual calendar — possibly Easter Monday and the day marking the Allied victory over the Nazis — to save money in next year's budget. That's among a raft of spending cuts laid out by Prime Minister Francois Bayrou in a sweeping, and potentially doomed, budget plan. He argued that removing two state holidays would bring in tax revenues generated from economic activity, contributing to around 44 billion euros ($51.3 billion) in overall savings. President Emmanuel Macron tasked Bayrou with crafting a budget that shaves costs to bring down France's staggering debt and deficit — while also adding billions in new defense spending to face what Macron says are resurgent threats from Russia and beyond. Bayrou questioned the religious importance of Easter Monday. And Victory Day, celebrated on May 8, comes in a month that has become a 'veritable Gruyere,' or holey cheese, of days off that includes May Day and the Catholic holiday of Ascension, he said. He said that those holidays were just suggestions, and that he was open to other ideas. France currently has 11 official holidays per year. With no parliamentary majority, Macron's centrist grouping must win support from adversaries on the left and right to pass the budget this fall. Bayrou's proposals, which are just a first step in the budget process, were quickly assailed by unions and the far-right National Rally, the largest single party in the lower house of Parliament. Bayrou's job is precarious, and he could be voted out if he fails to reach compromise on the budget.
BreakingNews.ie
36 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
‘Everybody will follow' Irish ban on Israeli settlements trade, committee told
A ban on trade between Ireland and illegal Israeli settlements will prompt other countries to follow suit, a committee has heard. Irish-Palestinian woman Fatin Al Tamimi, who is vice-chairwoman of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said Ireland passing the Bill would give Palestinians hope. Advertisement 'Ireland, the world is watching. Please do your best to (do) the right thing, to pass this occupied territories Bill and give the Palestinians hope. 'When Ireland starts, everybody will follow on because it's a legal obligation, it's a moral obligation for all countries, including Ireland. 'It is important for Ireland to start, and then everybody will follow.' Israeli, Palestinian and Jewish representatives, including former justice minister Alan Shatter, appeared before TDs and senators on Tuesday to discuss the draft laws. Advertisement Maurice Cohen, chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, said the Bill was 'performance politics dressed as principle' that does not help Palestinians. Describing himself as a Dublin-born Jew, he said that criticism of Israel was not antisemitism, but 'when criticism becomes a campaign and becomes law… we have to pause'. He said the support for the Bill was done in 'good faith' but was not a plan for peace. He said 'selective outrage' was not foreign policy and double standards do not serve peace efforts. Advertisement 'This Bill, in tone and in consequence, isolates moderates and powers extremes and undermines the credibility that Ireland has built as a voice for reason and reconciliation in the field of peacebuilding.' Natasha Hausdorff, a barrister with Ireland Israel Alliance, said the Bill would create 'a government-required partial boycott of Israel'. She said this would force US companies based in Ireland to violate federal anti-boycott laws that could see them given fines or prison sentences. Both Mr Shatter and Ms Hausdorff said they did not accept Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands are illegal. Advertisement Ireland 'How dare you': Alan Shatter criticised in committ... Read More Labour TD Duncan Smith said that as Mr Shatter, Ms Hausdorff and Mr Cohen had not recognised that Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands were illegal, it 'heavily' caveated their evidence. 'I think that's a fundamental point here, in terms of this entire hearing (with Israeli/Jewish representatives), is that there is that fundamental disagreement. 'So we diverge at the very start with all witnesses on this.'
Times
37 minutes ago
- Times
Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity?
Railing against plans for greater secrecy in courts, the human rights barrister spoke out in frustration about the Kafkaesque nature of many closed hearings. Terrorism defendants were being asked to rebut cases against them even though they were blocked from knowing the evidence on grounds of national security. It was contrary to the principles of fairness at the heart of the British legal system, and wider use of such closed procedures would 'start to erode respect for our courts', he said. This was in 2012 and Martin Chamberlain, who was protesting against the Conservatives' controversial measures to expand the number of closed courts, was not yet a High Court judge. His words were nothing short of prescient, though, when it came to the key issues he would grapple with years later while overseeing the Afghan data leak case in a secret courtroom. This time, the Kafkaesque calamity applied to journalists rather than to terrorism defendants. The press were gagged from asking crucial questions of the Ministry of Defence to understand how seriously its blunder would endanger people's lives. And, although they could ask some questions through special advocates appointed by the court, they were prevented from knowing the answers. The Times and other media challenging the superinjunction were operating — as the late head of the judiciary, Lord Bingham, had put it about closed-evidence procedures — as if 'taking blind shots at a hidden target'. A tool that was once used mostly to protect celebrities' privacy had been used to suppress official information. And although concerns about potential misuse of superinjunctions had prompted assurances in the past that they would be applied for only to cover very short periods, that approach had been abandoned under the guise of national security. • Afghan data breach: minister apologises Parliament was also blinded, prevented from examining an issue of great public importance. The result was a lack of scrutiny that shut down the ordinary mechanisms of democracy. Chamberlain acknowledged this, and emphasised his unease about it. He concluded at first that the superinjunction, a mechanism so secret that not even its existence could be reported, was necessary because of the potential risk to thousands of people and the government's need for time to safeguard them. But he resiled from that view a year ago, concerned that it was stopping those at risk from protecting themselves. He also emphasised the need for public scrutiny of a multibillion-pound evacuation programme. It is the MoD's continued insistence that a superinjunction was still necessary, an argument that succeeded at the Court of Appeal, that requires careful scrutiny. The MoD claimed for two years that the security risk to Afghans implicated in the breach justified the unprecedented gagging order, but it was able to abandon its injunction at short notice — a complete U-turn, apparently at the flourish of a pen. It now cites a risk review concluding the Taliban probably already have the information or is unlikely to target the subjects of the leak. But it gives scant explanation of why this so drastically contradicts its long-held position that there was serious risk. This raises the question: did the risk ever truly justify the secrecy? That question gives rise in turn to many uncomfortable follow-ups. What exactly prompted this extraordinary change of heart? Where is the intelligence? Did political pressure over asylum hotels, where thousands of Afghan interpreters would surely have had to be housed, play any part in the MoD's speedy abandonment of its risk argument and in the closure of the evacuation scheme? Most uncomfortable of all: as time went on, is it possible that a legal tool put in place to protect life became a mechanism to spare the government's blushes? Even now, journalists remain gagged. A new injunction blocks the reporting of key aspects of the database leak. But until all these questions are properly addressed, accountability is severely lacking and trust is at stake. As Chamberlain himself noted back in 2012, the public have confidence in the courts only when fairness and transparency is at their heart.
