Ukrainian parliament authorises purchases of Russian reactors from Bulgaria for Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant
Source: Yaroslav Zhelezniak, MP from the Voice party
Details: Energoatom has permission to buy reactors from Bulgaria for the construction of power units 3 and 4 at the Khmelnytskyi NPP.
Although the law itself does not specify the amount earmarked for the contract, experts say it could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. After all, the Bulgarian parliament has given permission to negotiate the sale of equipment for at least €600 million.
It is noted that the bill was supported by 269 MPs.
In 2006, Rosatom, Russia's state-run nuclear power company, won an international tender for the construction of two VVER-1000 power units for the Belene NPP in Bulgaria, but the project was frozen three years later. In 2012, Bulgaria completely abandoned the construction of the plant and now plans to sell the reactors to Ukraine.
The document adopted by the Ukrainian parliament has yet to be signed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who recently called on MPs to support the completion of the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant.
Background:
The updated draft law, which will launch the completion of two power units at the Khmelnytskyi NPP, has removed all the comments and contradictions that MPs had about the first version.
On 16 January, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Energy, Housing and Utilities supported amendments to draft law No. 11392 to allow Energoatom to purchase reactors from Bulgaria for the construction of power units 3 and 4 at the Khmelnytskyi NPP. The amount is approximately €600 million.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Video Shows Direct Strike On Sanctioned Russian Military Factory
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Video footage released on social media purports to show the moment when a Ukrainian drone hit a critical Russian military site, sanctioned by the EU and the U.S. A clip showed the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flying across the sky before striking the facility in the Stavropol region of southern Russia. Newsweek has contacted the Russian and Ukrainian defense ministries for comment. Illustrative image from August 11, 2023 shows an operator in the Kyiv region with the airstrike drone called Punisher made by the Ukrainian company UA Dynamics. Illustrative image from August 11, 2023 shows an operator in the Kyiv region with the airstrike drone called Punisher made by the Ukrainian company UA It Matters Faced by constant Russian bombardment, Ukraine has continued to use drones to strike at Russian military targets, although Kyiv often does not claim responsibility for these strikes. Ukraine's latest hit on one of Russia's largest manufacturers of radio electronics which is sanctioned by the EU will deliver a blow to Moscow's military capabilities. What To Know Ukrainian drones struck the Signal radio plant in the Stavropol region overnight Friday according to a source in Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) quoted by the Kyiv Independent. The plant is just over 300 miles from Ukraine-controlled territory and makes electronic warfare equipment for front-line aircraft as well as active jamming systems, remote weapon-control modules, and other radio-electronic equipment. The Kyiv Independent said the attack hit premises which hosts expensive imported equipment, including computer numerical control machines. A second strike hit another building that hosts an electronic devices workshop. The facility is sanctioned by the European Union, the U.S. and Japan. Video posted on social media by Russian independent media outlet Astra purportedly showed one of the strikes, with a drone flying across the sky before striking a building, causing an explosion. Other social media channels posted the footage with one saying that the drone was a Shahed-type device. ❗️Another video of the attack by a new 🇺🇦Ukrainian kamikaze drone of the Shahed type on the 🇷🇺Russian Signal plant in Stavropol — 🪖MilitaryNewsUA🇺🇦 (@front_ukrainian) July 26, 2025 Stavropol regional governor Vladimir Vladimirov confirmed the attack but said there no casualties were reported and there was a small fire. Russia's Defense Ministry said its forces downed 54 Ukrainian drones across eight Russian regions but did not report any being intercepted over Stavropol region. Pro-Ukrainian open source intelligence X account Tatarigami said that one building appears to have avoided critical structural damage, though localized fires were reported. The facility served military and civilian sectors, including supplying cathodic protection equipment for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in Iran, the post added. Meanwhile, Russia launched ballistic missiles against Ukraine overnight Friday with the heaviest attacks targeting Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Zaporizhzhia regions, according to Ukrainian authorities. What People Are Saying X channel War Translated posted: "Drones hit the Signal defense plant in Stavropol, a major facility in Russia's military-industrial complex. The plant makes radio-electronic equipment for combat aircraft, air defense, and electronic warfare systems. Pro-Ukrainian open source intelligence X account Tatarigami on X: "The Signal facility includes 7 production workshops, a testing center, and 2 design bureaus." Ukrainian intelligence source told the Kyiv Independent: "The SBU continues to systematically disable enemy (Russia's) facilities working for the war against such attack stops production processes and reduces the enemy's military potential." What Happens Next Ukraine is likely to continue its strikes against Russian military sites as it steps up its drone production. Meanwhile, Russia continues to use drones to strike at Ukrainian infrastructure.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The rise and fall of John Brennan
In 1980, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin saw an ad for the Central Intelligence Agency on a bus. John Brennan decided to apply, thinking that such a job would satisfy his 'wanderlust.' This month, the 'wanderlust' of John Brennan came to an end, as the former CIA director stands accused of false testimony regarding the Russian collusion investigation. Ironically, Brennan was first selected for his honesty — at least in part. During his entry polygraph, Brennan admitted that he had voted for the communist party candidate for president in 1976. He was impressed that the agency took him anyway. That honest young man seems like a faint and tragic echo of the man today. When Obama picked Brennan to be the CIA director, he had become the ultimate Democratic insider and loyalist. And it would be choosing loyalty over honesty that would prove Brennan's undoing. Newly declassified information contradicts Brennan's testimony before Congress on the origins of the now-debunked Russian collusion conspiracy theory. There is a particular focus on the intelligence community assessment commissioned by President Barack Obama in December 2016, which suggested that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump. Obama ordered the assessment after a prior assessment found no evidence of collusion or influence on the election in Trump's favor. But Obama's White House effectively quashed that finding from seasoned CIA analysts. To create a new version, Brennan handpicked new analysts, who effectively flipped the earlier finding on its head without any credible basis in the record. The new assessment relied, to a significant degree, on the Steele dossier, a widely discredited report paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign that contained unfounded allegations about Trump. In testimony on May 23, 2017, Brennan claimed that the Steele dossier 'wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.' In short, Brennan dismissed any reliance on the dossier. Yet in the material now declassified, Brennan is shown not just discussing the dossier but insisting upon its inclusion in the new assessment Obama had requested. Indeed, he expressly overruled the CIA's two most senior Russia experts, who said it 'did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.' Analysts were appalled by the use of the Steele dossier and complained that it 'ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.' One CIA analyst told investigators that '[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, [Brennan] responded, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?''Brennan expressly ordered its inclusion in the assessment. It would appear not just in an annex but in the main body of the assessment. The timeline here is important. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton's 'plan' to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as 'a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.' The original Russia investigation — funded by Clinton's campaign — was launched days after this briefing. The resulting Steele Dossier's funding was hidden as a legal expense by the Clinton campaign's general counsel, Marc Elias. So Brennan and the Obama Administration knew in advance about the planned political hit job. Yet, only months later, Brennan would intervene to force the dossier's inclusion in version 2.0 of the intelligence assessment. Unnamed officials then leaked false information to the media about non-existent intelligence implicating Trump. Keep in mind that Obama's ordering of the new assessment was occurring at the very end of his term. There was a rush to complete the report before Trump took office after defeating Hillary Clinton. The effort seeded the Russian collusion hoax that would consume much of Trump's first term. In other words, it worked. However, it required the involvement of John Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey. As time went on, Brennan continued to deny prior knowledge of the dossier. He would later become a paid contributor for MSNBC and, in 2018, insisted that he first heard 'just snippets about' the dossier in the 'late summer of 2016.' As an MSNBC regular, Brennan accused Trump of 'treason,' to the delight of the network hosts and viewers. (He later tried to insist that, when he called Trump's actions 'nothing short of treasonous,' he did not actually mean that Trump had 'committed treason.') Whatever professional integrity Brennan had left after that, he set it aside in joining more than 50 former intelligence officials in signing a now-infamous letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 presidential election as likely 'Russian disinformation.' Joining him on the letter was former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who says that he has now ' lawyered up ' in anticipation of potential criminal allegations. The laptop, of course, was later found to be authentic and incriminating for Hunter Biden. Back in 2016 and in the years that followed, this must have seemed to Brennan like just another CIA operation with 'plausible deniability.' After all, he knew that he had the Biden administration and the media watching his back. Of course, the public would ultimately reject these hit jobs, not only reelecting Trump but also giving Republicans full control of Congress. Brennan may be protected from perjury charges by the five-year statute of limitations. However, he is likely to be called again before Congress and asked the same questions. Even if he is not criminally charged, his past statements will remain an indictment of his role in history. What is now clear is that high-level officials dismissed intelligence and evidence in order to create and spread the Russian collusion conspiracy as widely as they could. Their politicization of intelligence was raw and wrong. It succeeded only because it was an 'all-hands-on-deck' effort, from the Obama White House to the CIA, the FBI, and the media. The rise and fall of John Brennan is an all-too-familiar Beltway tragedy. People do not lose their idealism in this city in grand moments of corruption. It starts with small lies that steadily reduce your resistance until the biggest lies become happenstance. It can create a type of self-deception as one treats lies as a moral option for the sake of the greater good. In 'A Man for All Seasons,' Sir Thomas More is asked by his loving daughter Meg to sign a false affidavit to save his own life. More tells her, 'When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.' In Washington, power tends to loosen fingers over time, and the truth drips out to the point that little recognizable remains. That is the true tragedy. For Brennan, what began as a young man's wanderlust ended in a quagmire of contradictions and deceit. .'
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
Men Are Already Writing Off Ukraine's New Prime Minister
This month, the Ukrainian government made an unusual choice for its new prime minister. In a rare move for the country—and indeed for most of Eastern Europe—it picked a woman. Yulia Svyrydenko, a 39-year-old selected by President Volodymyr Zelensky and approved by Parliament, will lead the government in a period of intense uncertainty, as Russia escalates its offensive, Europe revamps its security commitments, and the Trump administration waffles on the war. Some Ukrainian and Western observers have suggested that Svyrydenko isn't up to the task, in part because they characterize her as a mere 'loyalist' to Zelensky. She ' would do everything saluting, without fail,' an anonymous source in Zelensky's party told New Voice, a Ukrainian magazine. 'I don't believe she can reform our country,' Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of Parliament, told me as he left a legislative session last week where he'd voted against her candidacy. 'If she tries to criticize the president, she will end up like General Zaluzhny,' he continued, referring to Ukraine's former army chief, whom Zelensky had dismissed after their differences became public. The new prime minister is also facing overtly sexist criticism. 'Svyrydenko is exactly the girl who all of you, dear students, are familiar with from school: She always sits at the front desk' and 'carefully writes down the teacher's notes,' Oleh Posternak, a Ukrainian political strategist, wrote in a Facebook post that a national media site republished. Very few women have led former Soviet states, and they have virtually all received this kind of disparagement from men. In 2018, Georgia elected its first female president, Salome Zourabichvili, who'd run as an independent. Before she even took office, political observers called her a 'finger puppet' of the billionaire leader of the ruling party, which had endorsed her. Today, many in Georgia credit Zourabichvili with uniting the opposition, and she condemned as 'totally falsified' a recent election won by the party of her former patron. In Moldova, many discounted Maia Sandu, who became the country's first female president in 2020. Sandu's rival in the race, the pro-Russian incumbent, Igor Dodon, criticized her for not having children—a line of attack that MAGA would later take up against Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential race. In Dodon's view, Sandu's lack of offspring meant that she was ' not interested in what is happening in the country.' Her opponents launched a misinformation campaign about her, much of which centered on the coronavirus pandemic. 'The fake news scared people that I would close schools, hospitals, and even churches,' Sandu told me at the time. Instead, Sandu invested in the country's medical and educational sectors, recruited European Union support for her agenda, and oversaw funding for the restoration of Orthodox churches. She has also been an effective reformer, working to root out the country's extensive corruption. Anne Applebaum: The country that suffers whenever Russia schemes Svyrydenko has a chance to leave a similar legacy in Ukraine. She has ample experience working with foreign governments, whose support is now existentially important to Ukraine. Early in her career, she served as the country's only permanent representative in China, bringing investment to her hometown of Chernihiv. As deputy prime minister, Svyrydenko negotiated billion-dollar reconstruction projects and trade agreements with the European Commission and Emirati leaders, as well as a $400 million investment from Turkish business interests. She also helped broker a natural-resources agreement with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to create a joint investment fund to rebuild Ukraine. Her appointment last week was part of a larger government reshuffle by Zelensky, who reassigned the previous prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, to the role of defense minister. In her new role, Svyrydenko will be tasked with rehabilitating the economy, boosting the domestic production of weapons, and strengthening Ukraine's armed forces, in part by securing financing from allies and the International Monetary Fund. One of her first actions as prime minister was to advance talks with the United States about a major potential investment in Ukraine's drone industry. Nevertheless, and despite her strong résumé, Svyrydenko will have to contend with broad reservations in Ukraine about female leadership. According to a 2020 study conducted by the research group Rating, Ukrainians are more likely to prefer male political executives. Sometimes bad actors take advantage of this trust gap. Katerina Sergatskova, the executive director of the 2402 Foundation, which supports and trains Ukrainian journalists, has seen many Ukrainian women in public life become the target of harassment. 'It is political sexism. The attacks are well-organized campaigns,' Sergatskova told me. She has experienced such a campaign herself, which included death threats that forced her to stay out of Ukraine for a time. Sergatskova noted that many in Ukraine are comparing Svyrydenko to the country's first female prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, who took office in 2005 and faced several corruption charges. One case resulted in a criminal conviction against her and two and a half years in prison, which the U.S. condemned as politically motivated. After the 2014 revolution, which ousted Ukraine's pro-Russian regime, the supreme court overruled Tymoshenko's conviction and ordered her release. Nevertheless, a large majority of the Ukrainian public still don't trust her. Zelensky has fought against Ukraine's abiding suspicion of female politicians by promoting a new generation of them into leadership positions. In addition to picking Svyrydenko as prime minister, he also announced the appointment of Olha Stefanishyna as Ukraine's new special representative to the United States. The approach sets him apart from Vladimir Putin. Valentina Matviyenko, one of two women who serve on the Russian president's permanent security council, put on a Barbie-pink suit last year and derided feminism as 'an anti-male, anti-traditional-values movement.' Meanwhile, Russia bans and prosecutes feminist groups, and Putin tells Russian women to have 'minimum two children.' For those who fear that Svyrydenko will be no more than a Zelensky loyalist, she is already facing her first test. This week, Zelensky tightened the administration's control over two independent agencies tasked with fighting government corruption. Sevgil Musayeva, the editor in chief of the newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, described the move as a step toward authoritarianism. 'Svyrydenko has a chance to act now and speak against this decision that is undermining democracy, which our soldiers are dying for,' Musayeva told me. 'But such action would require a lot of her courage.' Two days after Zelensky reined in the government watchdogs, Svyrydenko met with G7 ambassadors in Kyiv to discuss anti-corruption policy —a subtle acknowledgment, perhaps, that the president had gone too far. But not everyone is convinced that Svyrydenko will be able to stand up to Zelensky. 'Officially, we are a parliamentary-presidential republic,' Goncharenko, the legislator, told me last week. 'I wish that were true. But we live in wartime; the decisions are made by the president.' Goncharenko isn't holding out hope that Svyrdrydenko will be able to make her own choices: 'If she contradicts his policy, he will simply fire her.'
