Czech court sentences Colombian to 8 years for arson attack which officials think is tied to Russia
A court in the Czech capital sentenced a Colombian national to eight years in prison on Monday for an arson attack and planning another one, in a case which authorities believe may be linked to Russia.
Prague 's Municipal Court also ordered Andrés Alfonso de la Hoz de la Cruz to pay damages worth 115,000 koruna ($5,300).
The court approved a plea agreement between prosecutors and the defendant, who pleaded guilty.
The 26-year-old Colombian was arrested a year ago after setting ablaze three Prague public buses at a depot at night. The court said that he recorded what he did and left.
Local workers managed to extinguish the fire.
The court said the man received orders on the Telegram messaging app and was promised $3,000. He was also planning one more attack, possibly at a movie theater in Prague.
Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala previously said the failed arson attack was likely part of Russia's hybrid war against his country.
Czechia, which is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic, is a staunch supporter of Ukraine in its fight against Russia's full scale-invasion.
Western officials have accused Russia and its proxies of staging dozens of attacks and other incidents across Europe since Moscow launched all-out war on Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, according to data collected by The Associated Press.
They allege the disruption campaign is an extension of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war, intended to sow division in European societies and undermine support for Ukraine.
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Hope is not a strategy': Why Nato is calling for Cold War levels of defence spending
Nato chief Mark Rutte has called for a 400 per cent boost to air and missile capabilities and his demand to raise defence spending across the alliance to five per cent has raised the voices of doom to a scream. A return to Cold War levels of defence spending is not, however an hysterical plea from a lackey of the military-industrial complex. It is a sad acknowledgement that the peace dividend that came with the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered by the West in a pointless war in Afghanistan and a criminal conflict in Iraq which expanded the lists of peoples with a good reason to hate democracy. But there were plenty around already. Vladimir Putin is one of them, Xi Jinping is another – Donald Trump is rushing to their ranks. Autocracy is on the rise around the world while democracies have been consumed by complacency. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' said Rutte, who called for Nato to become a 'stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance'. 'The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. 'The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.' He's right, of course. But he is the secretary general of a military alliance. He is banging the drum for more money because he wants to see the return to the days when MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was the sword that hung over every head on the planet. In the bad old days, nuclear war was the horror that kept the peace between the superpowers. They pursued their rivalries through proxies – often in Africa. Marxist Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia endured civil wars for decades while western-backed rebels battled the Moscow-backed governments from the 60s to the 80s. Sometimes, as in Vietnam and Korea, the west sent its forces into war – but overwhelmingly the suffering for the ideological schism that split the world was in what was then known as the Third World. In South America, CIA-baked coups removed leaders who were deemed too 'commie-inclined' by Washington where republicans and democrats were terrified of reds getting under beds in their back yards. Kennedy's clash with Khrushchev came close to WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But it was the ability of the West to outspend the Soviet Union that brought the Iron Curtain down on the Soviet Empire. The Soviets spent between 10 and 20 per cent of GDP on the military while Nato was spending half that. Moscow depended on high oil process for its economic wellbeing while its collectivisation of farming and industrial policies stifled innovation. When oil crashed from $120/barrel to the mid $20s/barrel in the 1980s, the social and political necessity for reform became overwhelming. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia is estimated to spend at least 7.2 per cent of its GDP on the military, but this does not account for social welfare payments or the costs of administering the occupied territories in Ukraine. A cheap option for Putin in splitting the attention of the West has been to encourage semi-autonomous private military companies to operate in north Africa – like the proxies of the Cold War. Groups like Wagner have expanded their operations in Mali, Niger, from the Sahel to Khartoum, drawing resources and focus away from Ukraine. But in Europe, Rutte said, Nato seems to be no match for Russia. 'Our militaries also need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation and medical support,' he said. Cuts in military spending after the Cold War ended were based on the assumption that a western-style way of life would be adopted in Russia. But the country largely fell into gangsterism and is seen by many there to have been rescued by Putin's more organized oligarchic kleptocracy underpinned by vigorous Soviet-style fear and denunciation of 'The West'. It may be a Moscow myth that Nato covets the Russian Federation but it is one that is believed widely in Putin's realm. That the West is somehow always going to be safe for democracy is an equally dangerous delusion, Rutte suggested. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger… Hope is not a strategy. So Nato has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer has committed to spend 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3 per cent over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034. But this is well short of what is needed, according to the Nato chief. Mr Rutte's visit to the UK comes after he proposed members of the bloc spend 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence as part of a strengthened investment plan for the alliance. The target would require nations to raise core defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, while the remaining 1.5 per cent to be made up of "defence-related expenditure". Nato leaders will meet in The Hague later this month, when the 5 per cent spending target by 2035 will be discussed. The leaders gathered in the Hague will all agree that more must be spent. Few, if any, will know how to sell that idea to their voters.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
World Business Report US-China trade war: Talks in London begin
Top government officials from the US and China have arrived in London for talks to see if there's any middle ground to end the ongoing trade war between the World's two largest economies. We look at what the sticking points will be, how they could take some heat out of the issue and if it will produce results. France's President Emmanuel Macron has told delegates the "oceans are not for sale" as the spotlight falls on the international shipping industry at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice. And Will Bain talks to Jennifer Haskell of Deloitte Sports Business Group as England's Women's Super League clubs revenue soars. The latest business and finance news from around the world, on the BBC.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
We need a better planning bill than this
Environmental organisations have not 'changed their tune' on planning reforms (England's planning bill has many naysayers. I'm not one of them, 4 June). As it stands, the bill has major flaws and is a long way from achieving a win-win for nature and development. Environmentalists engaged around the bill in good faith, but, when published, it was clear it was missing the safeguards needed – and the government's own independent adviser, the Office for Environmental Protection, agrees. The bill does not set out a responsibility to avoid harm to nature and communities wherever possible. We need such a duty to drive development that takes the best route for people and nature, not the low-quality option. We need the proposed Nature Restoration Fund to provide guaranteed results, with evidence to back this up. Without such guarantees the scheme allows destruction of nature on a wing and a prayer that it will effectively be restored elsewhere. Ensuring certainty of outcomes and robust protections are not just vital for nature, they are good lawmaking. Our job is to defend nature, so we must challenge these major protection gaps now and champion the changes that are needed. If not, the whole country will pay the price for a flawed system in future, with increased nature loss, greater pollution and less healthy communities. It makes economic sense too, with nature degradation estimated to lead to a 12% decrease in GDP in coming years. We know the system can work better – it is possible to create a planning system that works hand in hand to deliver wildlife recovery at scale, and the new homes we need. The nature sector has always been, and remains willing, to come to the table with the government to achieve the win-win we all Bennett CEO, the Wildlife Trusts, Beccy Speight CEO, RSPB, Harry Bowell Director of land and nature, National Trust, Ali Plummer Director of policy and advocacy, Wildlife and Countryside Link
