Poland blames Russian intelligence for arson attack on Warsaw shopping center last year
By VANESSA GERA
A massive fire that destroyed a large shopping center in Warsaw last year was the result of arson ordered by Russian intelligence services, Polish officials said Sunday on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the blaze.
The fire broke out May 12, 2024, in the Marywilska 44 shopping that housed some 1,400 shops and service points. Many of the vendors were from Vietnam, and it inflicted tragedy on many in Warsaw's Vietnamese community.
'We now know for certain that the massive fire on Marywilska was the result of arson commissioned by Russian services,' Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on X. 'The actions were coordinated by a person residing in Russia. Some of the perpetrators are already in custody, while the rest have been identified and are being sought. We will catch them all!'
In a joint statement, Justice Minister Adam Bodnar and Interior Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said the May 12, 2024, blaze gutted 1,400 shops and service points. Authorities have been investigating the incident for a year, with support from police and the Internal Security Agency.
Officials said the arson was part of a coordinated sabotage campaign directed from Russia. Some perpetrators are in custody, while others have been identified and are being sought. Polish authorities are also cooperating with Lithuania, where some suspects allegedly carried out related activities.
The investigation involved 121 days of site inspections and the work of 55 prosecutors and 100 police officers. More than 70 witnesses and over 500 victims were interviewed.
'We are determined to hold accountable those responsible for these disgraceful acts of sabotage,' the ministers said.
The announcement comes amid rising concerns in Europe over Russian attempts to destabilize the region through covert operations.
Russia has in the past denied allegations that it is orchestrating arson and sabotage operations across Europe.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
11 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Musk threatens to withdraw Dragon spacecraft, a key space station link for NASA
(AP) -- As President Donald Trump and Elon Musk argued on social media on Thursday, the world's richest man threatened to decommission a space capsule used to take astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. After Trump threatened to cut government contracts given to Musk's SpaceX rocket company and his Starlink internet satellite services, Musk responded via X that SpaceX "will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." It's unclear how serious Musk's threat was. But the capsule, developed with the help of government contracts, is an important part of keeping the space station running. NASA also relies heavily on SpaceX for other programs including launching science missions and, later this decade, returning astronauts to the surface of the moon. The Dragon capsule SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable right now of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. Boeing's Starliner capsule has flown astronauts only once; last year's test flight went so badly that the two NASA astronauts had to hitch a ride back to Earth via SpaceX in March, more than nine months after launching last June. Starliner remains grounded as NASA decides whether to go with another test flight with cargo, rather than a crew. SpaceX also uses a Dragon capsule for its own privately run missions. The next one of those is due to fly next week on a trip chartered by Axiom Space, a Houston company. Cargo versions of the Dragon capsule are also used to ferry food and other supplies to the orbiting lab. NASA's other option: Russia Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other means of getting crews to the space station right now. The Soyuz capsules hold three people at a time. For now, each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut, and each SpaceX launch has one Russian on board under a barter system. That way, in an emergency requiring a capsule to return, there is always someone from the U.S. and Russian on board. With its first crew launch for NASA in 2020 -- the first orbital flight of a crew by a private company -- SpaceX enabled NASA to reduce its reliance on Russia for crew transport. The Russian flights had been costing the U.S. tens of millions of dollars per seat, for years. NASA has also used Russian spacecraft for cargo, along with U.S. contractor Northrup Grumman. SpaceX's other government launches The company has used its rockets to launch several science missions for NASA as well as military equipment. Last year, SpaceX also won a NASA contract to help bring the space station out of orbit when it is no longer usable. SpaceX's Starship mega rocket is what NASA has picked to get astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon, at least for the first two landing missions. Starship made its ninth test flight last week from Texas, but tumbled out of control and broke apart.
NHK
13 hours ago
- NHK
US to sanction ICC judges over actions targeting US, Israel
The US administration of President Donald Trump says it will impose sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant over the fighting in the Gaza Strip. In a statement released on Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or its close ally, Israel. He went on to say two of the judges ruled to authorize the ICC's issuance of warrants targeting Netanyahu and Gallant. Rubio said the ICC is politicized and that this abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and its allies, including Israel. In response, the ICC released a statement that says, "The ICC deplores the additional designations for sanctions which were announced today by the United States of four judges of the Court." It also says these measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution. It says the ICC stands fully behind its personnel and that it will continue its work undeterred with a view to bringing justice to victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. Trump has been intensifying attacks on the ICC. In February, he signed an executive order to allow sanctions on ICC employees and others. A hundred and 25 countries and territories including Japan and Palestine are members of the ICC. The United States and Israel are not members. Japan's Akane Tomoko is the president of the court.
Yomiuri Shimbun
16 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
End of Cold War Spelled Trouble for Liberalism
The world is in great turmoil. In the war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, the brutal fighting continues to drag on, and in the United States, the Trump administration is causing concern among its allies. So what will the international order look like going forward? Behind all this turmoil lurks an ideological climate that is critical of liberalism. In other words, the ideals of liberalism, which spread around the globe as universal ideals following the end of the Cold War, are now facing criticism and backlash around the world. In fact, criticism, dissatisfaction, anger and hostility toward liberalism have emerged as the driving force behind politics in some major countries. From Russian President Vladimir Putin's perspective, the spread of liberal and democratic thought and its arrival in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is a national security threat to his country. This development can be seen as one side of a coin, the obverse side being an eastward expanding NATO and an expanding sphere of U.S. influence. At the same time, the United States, which has embodied liberalism since its founding, has seen its own steady uptick in critiques of such thinking. For instance, in his 2018 book 'Why Liberalism Failed,' Prof. Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame, whose philosophy is close to that of the Trump administration and is close to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, argued that liberalism 'has failed because it has succeeded.' Deneen predicted that in response to the anger and fear felt by the public following the collapse of liberalism, a populist nationalist dictatorship or a military dictatorship would be highly likely. After the end of the Cold War, paeans were made to the triumph of democracy and liberal economics over the communist system. As can be seen in Francis Fukuyama's 'The End of History?' essay, published in 1989, there was a growing utopian belief that foresaw the inevitable spread of liberalism around the world. However, history has not come to an end so easily. John Gray, a former professor at the London School of Economics, was one of the first scholars who warned against such optimistic thinking and criticized it, and he published many papers on the history of liberal thought. In his book 'False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism' — published in 1998, or 20 years before Deneen's own book critical of liberalism — Gray argued there was a rather strong possibility that the United States' laissez-faire economics would implode as emerging economic powers challenged its hegemonic place in the world economy. For 30 years after the end of the Cold War, we blindly believed in the utopian idea that liberal economics and democracy would expand across the world, and we have looked optimistically toward the future world order. But now we are faced with Russia's relentless aggression and violence against Ukraine. On top of that, we have witnessed the Trump administration pull back on international cooperation and challenge global norms time and time again. Lessons from history 'The Counter-Enlightenment' is an essay written by British political theorist Isaiah Berlin, who was one of the most renowned thinkers in the second half of the 20th century and lectured at the University of Oxford for many years. It provides a useful guide to the dynamics of world politics. In his essay, Berlin focuses on the spread of a backlash rooted in the culture, history and traditions of each region in response to the Enlightenment's rationalism and faith in science, which spread throughout Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. He warned that 'Cosmopolitanism is the shedding of all that makes one most human, most oneself.' This way of thinking prompted many to believe that the uniqueness and culture of each nation and region should be preserved. For instance, German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, opposed the spread of Enlightenment ideals and acknowledged that 'There is a plurality of incommensurable cultures.' He maintained that 'To belong to a given community, to be connected with its members by indissoluble and impalpable ties of common language, historical memory, habit, tradition and feeling, is a basic human need.' Berlin also focused on French conservative thinkers such as the Catholic Joseph de Maistre. De Maistre 'held the Enlightenment to be one of the most foolish, as well as the most ruinous, forms of social thinking,' Berlin wrote, adding that, 'The conception of man as naturally disposed to benevolence, cooperation and peace, or, at any rate, capable of being shaped in this direction by appropriate education or legislation, is for [de Maistre] shallow and false.' De Maistre, according to Berlin, believed nature to be 'a field of unceasing slaughter' and that 'Men are by nature aggressive and destructive; they rebel over trifles.' Berlin saw the anti-Enlightenment movement in the 19th century as a reaction to the Enlightenment, and in the same way, we are now witnessing a reaction against the universalist, rationalistic liberalism of the post-Cold War period. Taking a bird's-eye view of the history of the past 150 years, a tendency appears that when you have the spread of utopianism based on the ideas of Enlightenment liberalism, there is a subsequent outburst of anti-Enlightenment thought or nationalism in reaction. Russia, the United States and China are all seeing criticism of liberalism and a rise of nationalism, and the same can be said for many European countries where far-right forces are on the rise. The anti-Enlightenment movement that began in the 19th century, the Romantic movement that defended each culture and tradition, and the rise of nationalism all culminated in World War I. Then, in the 1930s, the rise of fascism and Nazism as a critique of liberalism led to World War II. In our post-Cold War era, Russia is continuing a major war against Ukraine, but we are not yet in another world war. What we can do now is reconcile these two modes of thinking — the liberal international order that is based on free trade and democracy, the very foundations of the post-World War II international order, and the anti-Enlightenment thought critical of liberalism that is flaring up in the world's major countries. In his 1939 book 'The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939,' British historian E.H. Carr, who sought peace in the late 1930s, explored ways to optimally merge utopianism and realism. After the '30 years' crisis,' in which post-Cold War utopianism collapsed, the world remains plagued by crises, uncertainty and conflict. We must find a new balance. Yuichi Hosoya Yuichi Hosoya is a professor of international politics at Keio University and the author of numerous books on British, European and Japanese politics and foreign affairs, including 'Security Politics in Japan: Legislation for a New Security Environment.' The original article in Japanese appeared in the June 1 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
