Suspect in killing of Russian general claims he was paid by Ukraine, Russia says
Ukrainian authorities did not comment on the attack, the second in four months targeting a top Russian military officer that Moscow has blamed on Ukraine amid the conflict between the neighbouring countries.
Lt Gen Igor Kirillov was killed on December 17 2024, when a bomb hidden on an electric scooter parked outside his apartment building exploded as he left for his office.
Ukraine's security agency acknowledged it was behind the attack.
Kirillov was the chief of Russia's Radiation, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces, the special troops tasked with protecting the military from the enemy's use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and ensuring operations in a contaminated environment. His assistant also died in the attack.
Kirillov was under sanctions from several countries, including the United Kingdom and Canada, for his actions in the fighting in Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
We took action in Kosovo. Why should Gaza be any different?
The UK is threatening more sanctions against [[Israel]] but in reality they have no effect at all. Why would [[Israel]] listen to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his Foreign Secretary David Lammy? They have no influence in what is an ongoing genocide. The UK continues to supply arms, materials and surveillance for Benjamin Netanyahu's regime and instructs the police to arrest anyone who supports Palestinian Action, an activist group calling for an end to the ethnic cleansing and massacres in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel is going even further with raids and attacks on Syria and Lebanon, not to mention Iran. Why doesn't the UK Government have the guts to call for military action against [[Israel]]? Roll back to 1999 when Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic attempted to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Kosovar Albanians. There were pictures of tens of thousands fleeing, some with all their belongings piled on the back of tractors. There was then a massacre at a village called Racak when 43 civilians were killed, prompting Nato to intervene and effectively end the war. I was there reporting for Reuters and Sky News and saw the victims and knew this was a defining moment. Why hasn't the same happened in response to Israel's refusal to accept international law in Gaza? Yes, the attack by Hamas in October 2023 was appalling but since then more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, their homes destroyed, settlers are taking over whole villages, Americans are eyeing up seaside lots, olive groves have been ripped out (by settlers) and fishermen refused access to the waters. There are dozens of innocent people being killed every day. Surely it couldn't be anything to do with race or religion could it? Andy Stenton, Glasgow. Read more letters Corruption in Ukraine I note that your front-page article on President Zelenskyy's latest olive branch to his Russian counterpart ("Zelenskyy repeats his offer to meet with Putin to negotiate peace deal", The Herald, July 23) makes no mention of the first public protests against him since the war began. These took place in a number of cities after the parliament backed a bill limiting the power of anti-corruption agencies. With Ukraine already in lowly 105th place on Transparency International's corruption-perceptions index, this bill should be a warning to investors. Unfortunately Keir Starmer has a bombastic 100-year deal with Ukraine. George Morton, Rosyth. Take tough action on migrants I have long argued through the courtesy of your Letters Pages that the only sure way to stop the small boats invasion is to kill off the demand (illegal migrants) which in turn will kill off the supply (the gangs). That could be achieved by legislating that anyone arriving illegally is automatically disqualified from staying, no ifs, no buts. With its huge Westminster majority, the Labour Government should have no problem in passing this legislation and thus fulfilling its stated 'duty" to stop this illegal invasion. The only question is why are Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper not doing that immediately rather than fiddling about with unrealistic schemes such as ' one in, one out" and grand-sounding but placebo-like 'international co-operation agreements" to 'smash the gangs" which will never stem the demand which fuels the flow across the Channel? For anyone who doubts the seriousness of the small boats invasion, I commend a report recently on Talk TV (why not our national broadcaster the BBC?) by an investigative journalist with a camera crew (filming apparently covertly) from around the migrant camps near Calais. The report revealed that thousands of mainly young men are camping out there waiting to cross, with these numbers increasing as more and more are brought in daily by large coaches. This illegal invasion of the UK is huge and growing. We don't know who they are and it is high time the Government took the gloves off to deal with it. Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Our leaders have no idea It is patently obvious the current Labour Government has no idea how to fix Britain. All it does is to make things worse. People always claim they go into politics to make things better. Surely these same people must realise when they are out of their depth? Admitting this is never a consideration but it really should be. This argument holds good in Scotland too, when after 18 years of trying, the SNP has achieved precious little. Politicians really must take responsibility for the powers they wield. It seems these days very few do. This should worry us all. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. We must focus on nuclear David Hay (Letters, July 23) tries to rubbish nuclear power as being unecological. His figures of Norway generating 85% of its electricity from hydro electric power stations ignores the fact that 90% of Norway's population lives in the near coastal regions, leaving the mountainous valleys available for such schemes. Doing so in Scotland would require Highland clearances on a biblical scale. The Netherlands might be targeting 2030 for generating 70% of its power by wind but that requires the wind to blow, otherwise the wind turbines are merely sculptures of steel and carbon. Wind turbine blades have a 'time-life' where they have to be replaced before the fatigue they experience breaks them catastrophically. Originally 25 years, this is now 15 to 20 years because the designers seemed ignorant of the fact that a leading edge doing 300 miles per hour into rain, dust, hailstones and birds causes damage which is escalated by frost. This requires expensive maintenance and downtime as steeplejacks apply sticking plasters for as long as they dare. In the 1920s Tommy Sopwith was putting steel deflectors on the leading edge of his wooden propellers but that information was either not in the designer's computers, was ignored or was treated as an irrelevance. University studies tell us that right now we are scrapping 200,000 tonnes of time-lifed blades per annum and as a result of the exponential growth in the industry this will be 30 million tonnes by 2030 and 50 million tonnes by 2050. These blades cannot be recycled or put to landfill, they will last millions of years so what part of 'eco' do they fit into? Where are they going to go? In the USA they are being buried in vast tracts of land but even that is a limited resource. Mr Hay might also be unaware that the replacement carbon fibres and resins require oil as a source for the raw material and concrete for the bases, whose creation is a major producer of CO2. The waste from a nuclear plant is limited and can be stored safely. Hitachi is currently working on a reactor that will produce waste with a half life of 1,000 years instead of 30,000 years, a big step forward. We are a clever species, we should be working on reducing that further. We are currently in a situation where overcapacity of wind generation requires generators to be paid to stop generating, sending our hard-earned cash to the overseas corporations that own the windfarms. This is utter madness. We should also be charging them for their inability to supply in times of low wind speeds and cloudy days because regardless of the eco-qualities we still need a generating capacity to cover the shortfall and that will require gas or nuclear generation. For the last 50 years nuclear power has supplied a steady 40% of our base generation. It should remain so. Peter Wright, West Kilbride. The Torness nuclear power station (Image: Getty) Nationwide alert I was delighted to read that the CEO of Nationwide Building Society is to earn just over £19,000 per day for her sterling work in helping to run a business ("Nationwide customers angry at 'controversial' decision", heraldscotland, July 21). Obviously she is much more important than nurses, midwives, doctors, and the general female population. Running a business, to the uneducated, seems a fairly straightforward task, but we all know that without paying these people extraordinary amounts of money the country would collapse. As she laughs her way to the bank, every day, she may well think "ordinary people are so thick that they believe all our nonsense that we must pay indecent amounts of money or life would never be the same again". B McKenna, Dumbarton.
New Statesman
36 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ukraine turns on Volodymyr Zelensky
Photo byLate into the evening on 22 July, thousands of protesters rallied outside the presidential administration in Kyiv, despite the real danger of Russian missile strikes, urging Volodymyr Zelensky not to halt a new law limiting the independence of the country's anti-corruption agencies. The bill had been rushed through parliament earlier that day, where Zelensky's Servant of the People party holds a majority. Now the only person who could stop if was the president himself. The crowds outside his office, which included numerous veterans of the war with Russia, chanted 'Shame!' and 'Veto the bill!' One person held up a cardboard sign that said, 'My father did not die for this'. Hundreds more came out onto the streets of Lviv, Dnipro and Odesa to protest. Yet Zelensky signed the bill into law. Critics say the bill curtails the independence of Ukraine's main anti-corruption agencies, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP), which were established after the Maidan Revolution that ousted then-president Viktor Yanukovych from power in 2014. Both agencies will now be brought under the control of Ukraine's prosecutor general, who is appointed by the president, giving the Zelensky administration the de facto power to halt corruption investigations that target senior officials. 'With this decision, Parliament not only strips society of one of the greatest achievements since the [2014] Revolution of Dignity – independent anti-corruption institutions – but also undermines the trust of Ukraine's international partners,' the NGO Transparency International's Ukraine office said in a statement. By signing off on the legislation, the organisation said Zelensky shared responsibility 'for dismantling Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure'. Ambassadors for the G7 who were in Kyiv at the time and held a meeting with NABU officials, released a joint statement expressing their 'serious concerns' and stressing the importance of efforts to 'support transparency, independent institutions, and good governance' in Ukraine. In the early hours of 23 July, Zelensky posted a video message on social media defending his decision and insisting that the country's anti-corruption agencies would continue to function and were merely being cleansed of 'Russian influence'. He claimed that anti-corruption investigations 'worth billions' had been left 'hanging' for years and that the restructuring was necessary to ensure that 'more justice' would be done. He posed for a photo with the leaders of the main law enforcement agencies, including NABU and SAP, later that day, stressing that they shared 'a common enemy: the Russian occupiers'. Seemingly acknowledging the protests, he conceded that 'we all hear what society is saying' about the need for effective institutions and vowed to work together with the anti-corruption agencies to 'strengthen Ukraine'. This did little to assuage the protesters, who gathered again, in even greater numbers that evening to demand he reverse course. This is not happening in isolation. In recent weeks, Zelensky has been accused of attempting a cynical power grab by using his wartime powers to sideline his political rivals and silence critics. He reshuffled his government earlier this month to appoint a new prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, who is seen as a protégé of his powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, alongside other loyalists in the cabinet. On 21 July, Ukraine's domestic security service searched the homes of dozens of NABU and SAP investigators who were said to be accused of corruption and illegal ties to Russia. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The bitter feuds that have long characterised Ukraine's domestic politics had appeared to be effectively frozen since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. They have now resumed with a vengeance. Perhaps Zelensky will eventually be proved correct in his claim to be fighting to liberate the country's political institutions from the long-running scourge of corruption and Russian influence. But it is beginning to look to many of his past supporters as though he is really fighting to preserve his own political power base. Vitaliy Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv and a long-time political rival, said the law did not bring Ukraine 'any closer' to the European Union, or the 'values that Ukrainian soldiers are dying for today'. The danger for Zelensky – and Ukraine – is immediate and on two fronts. First, there is the danger that renewed political infighting will undermine the morale of the country's already overstretched armed forces at a time when Russia is stepping up its onslaught as part of a long-feared summer offensive. Ukrainian soldiers are fighting, at tremendous cost, to defend their country's independence and democracy — not to perpetuate a new form of oligarchy. Then, there is the threat to Ukraine's international support if its Western backers, chief among them the US, come to doubt the country's commitment to the anti-corruption reforms and strengthening the rule of law, which have been a key condition of the provision of overseas aid and Ukraine's EU candidate status. For all his newfound concern for Ukraine, Donald Trump is unlikely to need much encouragement to turn away from Kyiv. All of which is only likely to further bolster Vladimir Putin's confidence that the war is finally trending in his direction and that he can hold out for his original objective of subjecting Ukraine. It is worth remembering that Zelensky rose to political prominence in Ukraine through his popular television show, Servant of the People, where he played a humble schoolteacher who was catapulted to the presidency on a vow to tackle the country's endemic corruption. It was a comedy, whose running punchline over three seasons was how often his efforts were thwarted by the entrenched oligarchy and how deeply the culture of corruption had permeated the political elite, including his long-time allies and friends. Those jokes don't seem so funny anymore. Zelensky was elected in 2019, in no small part, on the strength of his pledge to deliver a new kind of politics for Ukraine. It was to be a decisive break from the corrupt oligarchy that had dominated the country's political landscape for so long. Three years later, he was catapulted into a war with Russia, where he was widely acclaimed for his personal courage in refusing to flee Kyiv and his political acumen in rallying Ukrainians and allies to fight back. He now confronts perhaps the greatest test of his presidency – and a pivotal moment in Ukraine's modern history. Zelensky must decide what, exactly, he is fighting for, and how much he is prepared to sacrifice in that cause. Is he prepared to risk weakening his own power base and giving up key political allies in the interests of country as a whole? The answer will determine his legacy, and perhaps the outcome of this war. He cannot credibly claim to be defending Ukrainian democracy if he is seen to be presiding over the degradation of that same democracy. In his nightly address on 23 July, there were encouraging signs that Zelensky might be preparing to back down. The criticism of the bill had not fallen 'on deaf ears', he said. He promised to propose a new bill to parliament that would address the protesters' concerns. But he offered no details and the crowds still gathered on the streets outside his presidential office will now want to see concrete actions, not just words. [See also: Putin's endgame] Related
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Zelenskyy can't risk cracks in trust as war still rages
His Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the most obvious, having quite literally set out to target Zelenskyy in the immediate wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More recently, it has been the turn of US president Donald Trump and his Maga cohorts, with Trump earlier this year calling Zelenskyy a 'dictator', before this month making a now familiar political pivot and sending more weapons to Ukraine. It's no secret that not everyone in Ukraine is a fan of Zelenskyy. But visit the country as I have numerous times since the start of the war and you will rarely hear open criticism of the Ukrainian president, who without doubt has proved the most dogged and seemingly unflappable wartime leader. READ MORE: Repurposed Cold War-era building opens as state-of-the-art rocket test facility It's not that ordinary Ukrainians are afraid to criticise him as Zelenskyy's detractors have suggested. For if there's one thing Ukrainians certainly cannot be accused of, it's fear in the face of any authoritarianism, as their protests during the 2013-14 EuroMaidan Revolution and subsequent standing up to Russia's invasion have shown. To put this another way, most Ukrainians know exactly who poses the real threat to their country right now. Tackling that threat head-on by stopping Putin's advancing hordes and Ukraine from being obliterated by missile and drone strikes has been the main preoccupation of the country's citizens. Earlier this week though, Zelenskyy put that public support to the test like never before, when he took the very controversial step of moving to take control of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (Sapo). No sooner had parliament passed the contentious draft bill No 12414, than Zelenskyy signed it into law, rejecting calls for him to use his presidential veto. To say that the move surprised and dismayed some would be an understatement. For the first time since 2022, some Ukrainians took to the streets in cities like Kyiv, Lviv and Dnipro, while civil society activists and some of Ukraine's European partners and allies expressed their deep concern. Writing on social media even before Zelenskyy had signed off on the bill, the European Union (EU) enlargement commissioner, Marta Kos, said it would have a negative impact on Ukraine's membership negotiations. 'Independent bodies like Nabu and Sapo are essential for Ukraine's EU path,' she wrote. For a long time now, corruption and judicial independence have been two of Brussels' biggest concerns over Ukraine's candidacy to join the EU, which is the country's biggest financial supporter. Under the new law, the prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, who is seen by many as a Zelenskyy loyalist, will now oversee anti-corruption investigations making it easier, say critics, for the government to control which cases are pursued. They warn too that the move marks a complete U-turn on the system that was set up with the exact purpose of being independent and will make political interference that much easier. In its editorial, the Kyiv Independent newspaper pulled no punches in its criticism, running the headline: 'Zelenskyy just betrayed Ukraine's democracy – and everyone fighting for it.' READ MORE: State pension age rises target the north of the UK disproportionately The newspaper also asked the important question as to why do it now, before in part answering the same question saying that 'anti-corruption agencies have been a nuisance for the political elite – as they should be'. The newspaper also reminded readers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure was set up in the years following the EuroMaidan Revolution. Out of that turmoil it was seen as one of the positives of the movement that overthrew the corrupt pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Moscow by helicopter in 2014 after months of street protests. One Ukrainian government official according to The Economist magazine even suggested that the speed and scale of the latest bill passing into law was reminiscent of the infamous protest-banning laws of January 16, 2014, that were one of the last acts of the Yanukovych government. There's no question that the optics of Zelenskyy's move make for a precarious moment. To start with, it has happened at the worst possible time given the recent shift in US policy in Ukraine's favour. Then there is the inescapable fact that it makes a total gift of a critical narrative to bad faith actors – and we're not just talking about Moscow here. It was interesting to note that the American Republican far-right congresswoman, conspiracy theorist and all-round loose cannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, went on Twitter/X claiming that footage of the protest in Ukraine's cities were in fact about Zelenskyy 'refusing to make a peace deal' or 'ending the war.' Total lie as it was, that's not the kind of mischief-making message Zelenskyy needs at this or any other moment coming out of Washington's corridors of power – albeit from such a well-known Maga mouthpiece. Not only were Greene's claims a total fabrication, they fly in the face of evidence that following Russia's recent escalation of air strikes, Ukrainian resolve to resist has also intensified. For his part, Zelenskyy claims that his move to weaken the anti-corruption watchdogs was intended to purge Russian interference, infiltrators and spies. 'The anti-corruption infrastructure will operate. But only without Russian influences – everything must be cleansed of that,' Zelenskyy insisted. READ MORE: Labour panned for foreign aid cuts as women and children to be hit hardest Some agree with Zelenskyy in that given the absence of an audit in Nabu, it made it vulnerable to penetration by Russian intelligence. Among those who share such a view is Ukrainian political scientist Taras Zahorodnii. 'This bill is a step towards finally taking control of a structure that for some reason began to turn into a branch of the FSB,' Zahorodnii told the Ukrainian news agency UNN, referring to the Russian security service. There's no doubt that in wartime, leaders often have to make decisions that put the country's security first, even at the expense of some civil liberties. History is replete with examples. But for now, Zelenskyy's decision appears to be widely regarded as not one of his better ones. Internal divisions in Ukraine of course would suit Putin and the Kremlin to a tee. For exactly that reason the words of Ukraine's very canny, head of military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov have a particular resonance at this dangerous moment. 'Ukrainian history has taught us that a nation loses if it is torn apart by internal contradictions,' noted Budanov in the wake of the past few days events. He's right, but whether this will actually wash with many Ukrainians only the coming days will tell.
