Ukrainian vet behind Dutch knife spree wanted life sentence
The suspect, who is accused of injuring five people near Dam Square in March, was identified as 30-year-old Roman D.
The Dutch public prosecutor suggested earlier this month that the attack could have had a terrorist motive.
Public broadcaster NOS revealed the Ukrainian national's background on Tuesday following an investigation by its current affairs program, Nieuwsuur.
According to the report, Roman D. served in a Ukrainian artillery unit before the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022. Acquaintances said he became increasingly withdrawn after suffering a concussion in 2023 and spoke of wanting to be jailed for life in a Western European country.
'He often said that he wanted to kill someone in Norway so that he could go to a prison there and be cared for for the rest of his life,' a former commander told NOS. The remarks were reportedly dismissed as jokes at the time.
When I first heard what Roman had done in Amsterdam, I thought: 'an idiot's dream has come true.'
Roman reportedly left Ukraine using a travel waiver issued for a visit to his mother in the Czech Republic. She told NOS, however, that he never arrived – instead, he apparently traveled directly to the Netherlands.
He remained in contact with former fellow soldiers, who described him as being interested in a wide range of ideologies. '[He] wrote about Allah and something about supporting Palestine. Surprisingly enough, he was also very active in supporting the LGBT community,' one source told the broadcaster.
NOS also found that Roman's online presence suggested an association with neo-Nazism, though friends claimed his interest wasn't in earnest.
Officials in Eastern European countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic, have expressed concerns over the potential influx of demobilized Ukrainian soldiers once Kiev lifts martial law and allows fighting-age men to leave the country.
Veterans 'can face a number of different problems: Adaptation issues, psychosis, depression, addictions,' Polish military psychiatrist Radoslaw Tworus warned in February. 'The spectrum of these disorders is very wide.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
32 minutes ago
- Russia Today
MI6 infiltrated IAEA
A British intelligence operative allegedly infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to help coordinate Western sanctions against Iran, The Grayzone wrote on Tuesday. The outlet cited leaked documents describing MI6 agent Nicholas Langman and his role within the UN watchdog. Langman's resume was reportedly found in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a UK intelligence cutout. He was allegedly linked to covering up British intelligence's role in Princess Diana's death and has been accused by Greek authorities of managing the abduction and torture of Pakistani immigrants in Athens. His resume reportedly states that Langman also 'led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology,' including through 'support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).' Langman is said to have played a major role in organizing the sanctions imposed on Iran by '[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy' between 2010 and 2012. He also claims credit for enabling 'the major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.' Langman's tenure at the UK Foreign Office's Counter-Proliferation Centre coincided with a surge in Western sanctions and covert operations against Iranian scientists. During that period, Israeli assassinations and sabotage intensified, while the US and EU imposed sweeping economic penalties. Iran has long accused the IAEA of colluding with its adversaries. Officials in Tehran have claimed the agency provided Israel with the identities of nuclear scientists and intelligence about key facilities, which were bombed last month by Israeli and US forces. On June 12, the IAEA accused Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite no evidence being presented that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear weapon, the following day Israel launched strikes targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and uranium enrichment facilities. Iran denied the accusations and retaliated. The US joined the Israeli operation on June 22. The 12-day war ended last week in a US brokered ceasefire which has so far been upheld. Tehran has since suspended cooperation with the IAEA, barred Director General Rafael Grossi from entering the country, and voted to end the routine monitoring of its nuclear sites. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei has accused Grossi of issuing a 'biased report' that was used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful' attack. Russia has also condemned the agency's role. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said IAEA data was used to plan the strikes, calling it 'a colossal blow' to the watchdog's credibility.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Pentagon halts weapons supplies to Kiev
The Pentagon has suspended shipments of several categories of US-made weapons to Ukraine, according to Politico and NBC News. The decision reportedly followed an internal review of American weapons reserves ordered by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, amid rising concerns about the rate at which munitions are being depleted. The move reportedly affects dozens of Patriot missile interceptors, Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, as well as thousands of 155mm artillery shells that Washington had previously pledged to Kiev. Some of the weapons which were already positioned in Europe have now been withheld and will be provided to Ukrainian forces, NBC reported. The weapons in question had been funded under the Biden administration through two mechanisms: direct drawdowns from existing US military stockpiles and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which contracts new production from defense contractors. The Trump administration has not requested any additional aid for Kiev, and existing resources are expected to last only 'several more months,' according to Politico. White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly defended the move as a necessary step to prioritize American defense needs. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned – just ask Iran,' she said, without confirming any details. The decision to freeze or slow-walk the remaining aid without formal notice to Congress may raise legal concerns similar to the 2019 withholding of some Ukraine assistance under Trump's first administration –a move the Government Accountability Office ruled unlawful at the time, Politico noted. Kiev has repeatedly voiced frustration over what it sees as dwindling support from Washington. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky met with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague last week but received no firm promises. Trump said Patriots were 'very hard to get' and that the US needed them for its own defense and for Israel. Trump has stated that he intends to negotiate a ceasefire with Moscow and bring the conflict to an end. Hegseth said last month that the White House is reducing military funding for Kiev as part of its 'America First' strategy, in the hopes of achieving a diplomatic settlement. Earlier this year, the Trump administration signed a deal giving the US priority access to Ukraine's mineral wealth –a step the White House said would allow America to 'get back' some of the hundreds of billions spent under Biden. The Pentagon's policy shift appears to reflect a broader realignment under Trump, who has publicly questioned the rationale behind endless aid to Ukraine. Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Direct Investment Fund, noted that the move 'highlights the real limits of Western capacity and the shifting priorities of the US military.'
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
One step forward, two steps back: The illusion of a Russian-American thaw
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has announced that US President Donald Trump has lifted financial sanctions against Russia that had blocked Rosatom from continuing construction of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant 2 in Hungary. Although the Biden administration's sanctions late last year were formally directed at Moscow, Budapest arguably suffered the most, since the two new reactor units at Paks were viewed as vital for Hungary's long-term energy independence. (The first four units were built during the Soviet period.) A year ago, Hungary managed to have the Paks-2 project removed from the European Union's sanctions list, but at significant political cost. Nevertheless, the Democratic administration in Washington remained unyielding – which Budapest saw as a political vendetta for its outspoken support of Trump. Against this backdrop, the current US decision to ease sanctions on Gazprombank looks far more like a favor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban than to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also indirectly benefits French firms participating in the Paks-2 project. The move has rekindled a faint hope that Russian-American relations might see a thaw. Yet overall, there has been precious little positive news from Washington. The State Department recently postponed a scheduled meeting on removing 'irritants' from bilateral ties. Trump has shown no enthusiasm for Moscow's offer to mediate between Iran and Israel. And American officials continue to criticize Russia's 'hard' stance on a Ukrainian settlement. Could the Gazprombank decision signal a new phase of improvement in Russian-American relations? Might it foreshadow similar easing for other Russian financial institutions? Could there even be a revival of bilateral high-tech cooperation? One would like to answer these questions with optimism – but the evidence simply is not there. Moscow and Washington continue to have fundamentally different approaches to restoring normal relations, and that affects the entire nature of their dialogue. Russia's position could be described as systemic. In Moscow's view, great-power relations must be treated holistically, with progress across political, military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas all developing in parallel. The Kremlin believes that unless movement happens on all these fronts together, genuine normalization will remain out of reach, even if such an approach takes time and patience. For the 47th president of the United States, foreign policy appears more transactional: a series of short-term 'deals' with everyone from NATO members to Mexico, Canada, Iran, or China. Each partner gets its own checklist – Iran is asked to abandon nuclear ambitions, China to accept trade tariffs, NATO Europeans to raise defense spending. Trump is not a man to wait. He does not want to tout a big deal years down the line, or even by the next midterm elections. He wants results today, or at the latest tomorrow. In Russia's case, Washington is eyeing a single, momentous deal: an agreement to end the armed confrontation with Ukraine. Trump seems to have little concept of what a lasting political settlement would involve, let alone how a future European security system might look. His overriding priority is to secure a temporary ceasefire at all costs, so he can declare victory where his predecessor, Joe Biden, fell short. In Trump's eyes, this historic Ukraine deal would overshadow any long-term, painstaking effort to rebuild a proper Russian-American dialogue. Meanwhile, in other areas, Moscow is simply not ready to engage in the one-sided give-and-take Washington expects. This was underscored by America's European NATO partners, who nearly unanimously agreed to boost their defense spending to an unprecedented 5% of GDP by 2035. Likewise, Kiev has shown its willingness to meet US expectations by offering up its natural resources wholesale to American corporations. At the same time, it must be remembered that Trump is almost alone in his desire to reestablish a functional dialogue with Moscow. Most of his own administration views Russia with indifference or hostility, keeping it well down the priority list. Moreover, the deeply entrenched anti-Russian consensus that has dominated Washington for decades remains solidly in place. There is no powerful political or business lobby in the United States today pushing for a fresh 'reset' with Russia. Trump will continue to face pressure from the right. Even as the Gazprombank sanctions decision emerged, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told ABC News that Trump had already given the green light on Capitol Hill to launch a new package of anti-Russian measures – something Graham has been pushing for months. Whether the senator is speaking from fact or wishful thinking, it is far too soon for Moscow to relax. In short, the Russian-American relationship remains a rollercoaster. Occasional encouraging signals – like the easing of sanctions on a single bank – should not be misread as a sea change. One can hope for a broader normalization, but for now the outlook is uncertain. Moscow's systemic, steady approach still clashes with Washington's transactional, headline-driven instincts. Unless both sides find a way to bridge these philosophies, the hope of a truly stable Russian-American partnership will remain fragile at best. This article was first published by Izvestia newspaper, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
