Ukraine says suspected Russian FSB assassins killed in Kyiv region
The intelligence agency said in a statement that the operation had sought the arrest of the agents of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), who it believes were behind the killing of SBU colonel Ivan Voronych in Kyiv on Thursday (July 10, 2025).
'This morning a special operation was conducted, during which the members of the Russian FSB's agent cell started to resist, and therefore they were liquidated,' the statement on the Telegram messaging app said.
Russian authorities made no immediate public comment on Sunday's (July 13, 2025) operation, which mirrored past assassinations of senior Russian military officials by Ukraine during the three-year-old war - a source of embarrassment for Moscow's vast intelligence agencies.
The SBU said two people - a man and a woman - were suspected of having killed Voronych. It did not say how many suspected FSB agents had been killed on Sunday (July 13, 2025).
According to the SBU, the alleged assassins were told by their handler to survey their target and track his movements. They were eventually given the coordinates of a hiding place where they found a pistol with a suppressor, the SBU said.
It said they had tried to 'lay low' after Thursday's (July 10, 2025) killing but were tracked down by the SBU and police.
The agency's remit covers security and counterintelligence, but since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it has also played a prominent role in special operations against Moscow, including assassinations and sabotage attacks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Microsoft restores services to Nayara Energy after abrupt EU-linked block
Global software giant Microsoft on Wednesday said it had restored services to the Russia-backed oil exploration and marketing company Nayara Energy, roughly two days after Nayara alleged that Microsoft had abruptly stopped access to its own data and services, which were stored with the company. 'Microsoft is committed to supporting all its customers in India and worldwide, and has restored services for Nayara Energy. We are engaged in ongoing discussions with the European Union towards service continuity for the organisation,' a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. Nayara Energy, which operates fuel retailing outlets in India, is largely owned by Russia's Rosneft, which holds nearly 49 per cent stake in the company. Earlier this week, Nayara Energy had moved the Delhi High Court, alleging that the US-based tech firm had abruptly and unilaterally suspended essential services without any prior warning. In its plea, Nayara sought an interim injunction and immediate restoration of services to protect its rights and ensure continued access to important digital systems. According to Nayara, Microsoft did not discuss or notify the company before cutting off services. In its plea, Nayara had also stated that Microsoft's decision to block access to the data and services for the OMC was based only on the 18 July sanctions announced by the EU against Russian companies, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On 18 July, the EU said that it had adopted a 'package of economic and individual restrictive measures hitting hard on Russia's energy, banking and military sectors, as well as trade with the EU, and ensuring accountability for Russia's continued war of aggression against Ukraine'. For OMCs such as Nayara Energy, the EU has imposed an import ban on refined petroleum products made from Russian crude oil and originating from any third country, except for Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The move, the EU had then said, was aimed at 'preventing Russia's crude oil from reaching the EU market through the back door.'
Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
When big tech pulls the plug: What Nayara's service disruption reveals
In a world increasingly powered by digital infrastructure, geopolitics can cajole tech giants to bring a business to a halt with the flip of a switch. Nayara Energy learnt this the hard way even though Microsoft restored its services two days later. Mint explains: What happened with Nayara Energy? Nayara Energy, an Indian refinery company, is part-owned – less than 50% – by Russia's Rosneft Oil Company. Tech giant Microsoft abruptly suspended its core communication and productivity tools that Nayara uses to comply with European Union (EU) sanctions. In response, Nayara filed a case in the Delhi High Court on Monday, alleging that its fully paid-up licences for services such as Outlook and Teams were suddenly revoked and access to its own business data was blocked without due process—effectively crippling its daily operations. Nayara (formerly Essar Oil) said it contributes about 8% of India's refining capacity, about 7% of its retail petrol pump network and an estimated 8% of polypropylene capacity. Microsoft has not commented on the court matter. On Wednesday, though, Nayara Energy informed the court that Microsoft restored its services, following which it was withdrawing the case. What is the legal position? On 18 July, the EU imposed sanctions on Nayara Energy, a buyer of Russian oil, as part of a package targeting Russian interests over the war in Ukraine. However, unlike many major economies, India lacks the legal framework to block the extraterritorial application of foreign sanctions. Nayara has argued that it is not subject to EU sanctions and that Microsoft is under no legal obligation—under either US or Indian laws—to enforce the EU's restrictions. What questions does the incident raise? While the case stands withdrawn, the episode raises two critical questions: How protected are businesses from geopolitical overreach when they depend on a single technology provider based in a different jurisdiction? And what steps can they take to safeguard themselves against such disruption? Isn't big tech supposed to be neutral? Big tech companies can no longer claim to be neutral platforms. Their global operations are inevitably shaped by the geopolitical priorities of the jurisdictions they operate from, often at the expense of customers elsewhere. Even if not legally compelled, they may choose to err on the side of compliance to avoid reputational or regulatory fallout in major markets like the US, EU or even the Middle East. Are there any precedents? In 2022, Elon Musk instructed SpaceX engineers to disable Starlink satellite internet services over Ukraine, abruptly disrupting military and civilian communication and raising issues about private tech firms exerting unilateral control in geopolitical hotspots. Canadian company Sandvine was placed on the US export entity list in 2024 because its digital tools were used by the regimes in Egypt and Belarus to censor internet traffic. The US government banned US companies from working with Sandvine, effectively cutting services through regulatory action. Many governments have also banned the purchase/use of Kaspersky antivirus software from Russia on grounds of national security. Chinese company Huawei, too, has been banned or restricted in the US, the UK, Australia, Japan, India and parts of the EU from participating in 5G and critical digital infrastructure over national security concerns. The merits and demerits of such geopolitical decisions notwithstanding, companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and Amazon reduced or even severed business ties—blocking sales, cloud services, and developer tools—in response to sanctions on Russia. Many companies did so proactively, even when not legally required in certain jurisdictions. As on 29 July, over 1,000 companies have publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia to some degree beyond the bare minimum legally required by international sanctions, as per a survey done by the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. Likewise, geopolitical tensions between the US and China have also led to companies reassessing their presence in China. Is this digital colonialism? 'What this situation really exposes," asserted Jayanth N Kolla, founder and partner at deep tech consultancy Convergence Catalyst Kolla, 'is a textbook case of digital colonialism—where big tech companies wield enormous control over the day-to-day operations and futures of other businesses." The irony, he added, is hard to miss. 'Microsoft's action was based on its interpretation of EU sanctions, but it's the same EU that is leading the global call to curb big tech's overreach. Yet here we have a real-world demonstration of that very power—one where a single decision can halt the operations of an entire energy company. This is digital colonialism in action." What must enterprises do while picking tech vendors? Companies must assess the geopolitical exposure of global technology vendors. Is a cloud provider based in a country that actively imposes sanctions or faces diplomatic tensions? Has it previously suspended services in other countries due to regulatory pressure? Nayara may have used service for internal communication in the absence of Microsoft's service, as per a Reuters article. Yet, its reliance on Microsoft illustrates the broader risk of single-vendor lock-in. If core communication and productivity tools are suddenly cut off, companies will be forced to scramble for local alternatives. The risk is amplified in sectors like energy, telecom and finance, which are tied closely to national infrastructure and economic stability. Hence, it's critical to diversify service providers by using multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud strategies. What are the alternatives to MNC tech providers? Indian companies can now turn to domestic or geopolitically neutral alternatives. Zoho (office tools), CtrlS (data centres) and HCL Technologies (cloud services) are beginning to fill this gap. While they may not yet offer the same scale or feature-richness as global players, they may offer stability and reliance. But such transitions take time, cause productivity losses, and often involve compromises in functionality or integration. What else do companies need to keep in mind? Companies must plan regular data backups, alternative access points, and migration workflows to switch providers in days, not months. Kolla pointed out that most companies maintain redundancy for core cloud infrastructure and data hosting by working with multiple vendors. "But when it comes to applications like email, Teams, and other executable services, redundancy is less common," he explained. 'Strategically, redundancy makes sense. Economically, however, maintaining a backup provider that might never be used is hard to justify." Kolla added that this incident reveals a potential market for on-demand or pay-per-use backup services for cloud-based productivity tools. How could this incident change vendor contracts? Experts said companies must include protective clauses in vendor contracts. They must ensure that provisions exist for data portability, redundancy, and advance notice in case of service suspension. Legal teams must review not only the technical service-level agreement but also the jurisdiction, force majeure, and termination clauses from a geopolitical risk perspective.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
How Scammers Tricked Mexican Billionaire Out Of Rs 3,491 Crore: "I Feel Like An Absolute Idiot"
In 2021, Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego was scammed by fraudsters posing as descendants of the prominent Astor family, resulting in a loss of approximately $400 million. According to New York Post, the scam involved a sophisticated "loan-to-own" scheme orchestrated by con artists, including Ukrainian-born American Vladimir Sklarov. The scammers falsely claimed their firm, Astor Capital Fund, was linked to the Gilded Age Astor family, known for their wealth and influence in New York society. Mr Pliego, owner of Grupo Salinas, recently talked to Wall Street Journal about the scam, that wiped nearly a quarter of his net worth. He said that he believed he had found a reliable partner to finance a large Bitcoin investment in 2021, however, he fell victim to a "loan-to-own" scheme. "I feel like an absolute idiot. How could I fall for this?" Mr Pliego, 69, told the Journal. The billionaire's financial nightmare began when he sought to expand his cryptocurrency holdings by borrowing $400 million against his stake in Grupo Elektra, the retail and banking empire founded by his father in 1950. He was introduced to Astor Capital Fund by a Swiss financial adviser, which claimed ties to the esteemed New York family. The billionaire's team remained confident in their lending partner despite concerns, after visiting Astor's seemingly legitimate New York City offices. However, Salinas Pliego's stock collateral, worth over $400 million, was secretly sold off by Arkady Sklarov, who posed as "Gregory Mitchell," and his accomplice, who impersonated an Astor family descendant. The scheme unraveled when Salceda Sanchez requested proof that Salinas Pliego's shares remained in his custody account. Astor Capital refused, claiming the request was forbidden interference, and asserted control over the collateral. As the London broker questioned the short-selling of stock, "Mitchell" downplayed concerns. When Mr Pliego tried to prepay the loan in July 2024, Astor Capital issued a default notice, citing alleged violations, including late interest payments and a Mexican government investigation. Legal filings revealed that Salinas Pliego was just one victim in a larger operation. The fraudsters had set up a complex scheme, using multiple aliases and companies to deceive their victims. Property records reveal that Sklarov's associate covertly funneled Salinas Pliego's money into luxury real estate purchases across the US and Europe. The scammers used his money to acquire a portfolio of high-end properties, including a $6.45 million New York penthouse with Central Park views, a $2.67 million Virginia mansion, and a $6 million French château. They also purchased two villas in affluent Greek suburbs. To appear legitimate, the con artists created a professional website, polished promotional materials, and attractive loan terms. One impersonator, posing as Thomas Astor Mellon, participated in video conferences from a yacht, speaking with an American accent and claiming to be a descendant of John Jacob Astor. The mastermind behind the scheme was Val Sklarov, a Ukrainian-born fraudster with a decades-long history of crime. Sklarov had operated under multiple aliases and had served prison time for an $18 million Medicare fraud. He reinvented himself multiple times, changing his name and establishing companies across various jurisdictions.
