Another Russian energy executive falls to death from high-rise block
Andrei Badalov, 62, vice-president of the state-owned oil pipeline monopoly Transneft, was found dead on Friday morning on the ground below the apartment block where he lived in an elite neighbourhood on the western fringe of the capital.
'The preliminary cause of death is suicide,' a source told the state-owed Tass news agency, adding that an investigation was under way.
Since President Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 a series of Russian energy executives and other businessmen have died unnaturally or mysteriously, some of them after falling from high balconies or windows.
They include four deaths linked to Gazprom, the state energy giant. Others involved executives from the gas producer Novatek and the Lukoil oil and gas corporation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Can we afford to be afraid of nuclear power?
Money can buy comfort, but energy makes comfort possible in the first place. Energy is the great enabler of the modern world. It connects the globe by moving people and hauling goods. It loosens the grip of the weather by warming our homes in winter and cooling them in summer. It forges the steel that raises our cities and synthesises the fertilisers that keep half the world's population from starvation. It increasingly empowers us by electrifying the technologies we rely on daily. It is also the great enabler of socioeconomic development. Monetary wealth and energy abundance move in lockstep: plot a graph of GDP per capita against energy consumption per capita, and you'll draw a straight line. Low-energy, high-income nations do not exist. Prosperity and energy are inseparable; you cannot have one without the other. Sure, GDP per capita isn't a perfect measure of socioeconomic development. It says nothing about how evenly that wealth is distributed, for instance. But it remains an excellent barometer, and one that all nations actively strive to raise, particularly less wealthy ones. Today, 700 million people live in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day). They won't climb out of it without access to more energy. Making as much energy as possible available to as many people as possible ought to be a defining goal of the 21st century. But there is an elephant in the room: the climate emergency. Our energy supply is responsible for three-quarters of our global greenhouse gas emissions. Plot a second graph, this time of carbon emissions per capita against energy consumption per capita: you'll draw another straight line. So, how do we promote energy abundance and the prosperity it enables without sacrificing the natural environment? The answer is not to use less energy. Only a handful of countries – the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the USA, for example – have managed to decouple GDP from energy. They've grown richer over the past few decades, even though their energy consumption per capita has flatlined or even declined. But these countries are outliers: rich, highly developed economies with infrastructure already in place. For the vast majority, the link between energy and prosperity remains unbroken. Denying the developing world access to abundant energy would be a profound moral failure, not to mention an act of breathtaking hypocrisy. The answer is not less energy, but cleaner energy, and more of it. Wind and solar power are often offered as the solutions. But their power is intermittent, energy industry jargon for 'unreliable'. They're fundamentally constrained by meteorology and celestial mechanics: wind turbines falter on still days, and solar panels don't work on the side of the Earth facing away from the sun (colloquially called 'night-time'). I would love to live in a world where wind and solar alone could replace fossil fuels, but there's no beating the laws of physics. Elaborate backup systems won't cut it, either. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity – which represents 95% of the world's electricity backup capacity – and batteries discharge in minutes and hours. Yet wind and solar falter for days and weeks at a time. To replace fossil fuels and support renewables, we need something that's always on, potent and, crucially, emissions-free. Nuclear reactors meet these ideals. They're dispatchable, industry parlance for reliable. A single one generates enough electricity to power the lives of 2 million average Europeans, even after accounting for downtime and maintenance. And they don't emit carbon dioxide. 'But doesn't nuclear take too long to build?!' Not necessarily. Between 1973 and 1999 France built 56 nuclear reactors with a median construction time of just six years, cutting the fossil fuel share of electricity in its grid from 65% to less than 10%. (Incidentally, France's GDP per capita rose by 58% over the same period.) It's true that sluggish build times torment the west today. Flamanville 3, France's first and only reactor of the 21st century so far, was supposed to take five years to build but ended up taking 17. Hinkley Point C – the UK's first since 1995 – is still a construction site seven years after breaking ground; the British government recently announced another power station – Sizewell C – will be online by the mid-2030s, but many fear the actual completion date will recede quickly into the future. Across Europe, the median build time since the year 2000 has dragged out to almost a decade. But it's not a problem with nuclear power per se; it's a symptom of the west's chronic inability to deliver large pieces of infrastructure, an ailment that affects everything from laying high-speed railway lines, to building new housing estates, to filling in potholes. By contrast, rapid build times remain the norm in other parts of the world. China's median build-time since 2000 is five years and 10 months; South Korea's is six. The delays experienced by the west are regulatory and managerial failures, not technological ones. There's also a perception that nuclear power is dangerous, yet the data show it's as safe as wind and solar. People believe that it's expensive, yet the International Energy Agency finds it to be 'the least cost option for low-carbon generation'. Perhaps it's bad for the environment? Well, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concludes it has the lightest ecological burden of any power source. And how on earth do you solve the problem of nuclear waste? Finland – with a grid that's 40% nuclear – has a working geological storage solution. In fact, nuclear power's biggest obstacle is its terrible PR. It's the bogeyman of the energy world, but like all bogeymen, the reality is rather different. It's a tragedy that we've been splitting atoms in nuclear power stations for longer than we've known we were causing the climate to change. Solving the energy problem solves a tangle of others: economic, humanitarian and environmental. I envisage a future where nuclear reactors – complemented by wind turbines and solar panels – power the world. A future where clean, constant and plentiful energy awaits, and where prosperity doesn't cost the earth. Tim Gregory is a nuclear chemist at the UK National Nuclear Laboratory and author of Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World (Bodley Head). More From Less by Andrew McAfee (Scribner, £9.99) Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker (Penguin, £14.99) Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie (Vintage, £9.89)
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Is this how World War 3 will start? Nato chief gives chilling prediction with simultaneous attacks by Putin & China
A CHILLING forecast of how World War Three will start has been revealed by Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. The alliance chief has warned of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin launching simultaneous invasions - putting the planet under threat of nuclear Armageddon. 8 8 8 8 8 China would start by seeking to grab Taiwan - while ensuring the Kremlin dictator simultaneously attacks Nato territory. Stressing the urgent need to re-arm and boost military budgets, Rutte chillingly told the New York Times: 'Let's not be naive about this: If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, residing in Moscow, and telling him, 'Hey, I'm going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking Nato territory'. 'That is most likely the way this will progress." Rutte explained that in order to "deter" the two powerful nations, there are two things that must be done. He said: "One is that Nato, collectively, being so strong that the Russians will never do this. 'And second, working together with the Indo-Pacific - something President [Donald] Trump is very much promoting. 'Because we have this close interconnectedness, working together on defence industry, innovation between Nato and the Indo-Pacific.' Russia could rebuild its military to a worrying capacity as early as 2027, according to a report by a top security think tank. The International Institute for Strategic Studies said Putin may deploy his army onto a 'war footing' and try to test Nato by evoking Article 5. This may see the Kremlin decide to leave Ukraine alone as it continues to recover from Russia's three-and-a-half year onslaught. Instead, Putin could commit to an attack on Nato states in the Baltics. Fears are already looming that the Russian dictator is eyeing the Baltic republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, formerly part of the USSR. Acknowledging how Putin is rearming at a speed "which is unparalleled in recent history," Rutte has insisted that Western countries increase defence spending. He said: "We have an enormous geopolitical challenge on our hands. 'They are now producing three times as much ammunition in three months as the whole of Nato is doing in a year. 'This is unsustainable, but the Russians are working together with the North Koreans, with the Chinese and Iranians, the mullahs, in fighting this unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. 'So here, the Indo-Pacific and your Atlantic are getting more and more interconnected. We know that China has its eye on Taiwan.' Russia today hit back at ex-Netherlands premier Rutte, claiming he had 'gorged on too many of the magic mushrooms beloved by the Dutch', while warning he should look forward to a future in a hellish Siberian labour camp. 8 8 8 Senior Putin puppet and security official Dmitry Medvedev lashed out on X: "He sees collusion between China & Russia over Taiwan, and then a Russian attack on Europe. "But he's right about one thing: he should learn Russian. It might come in handy in a Siberian camp.' The warnings came as Russia continued its onslaught on Ukraine - days after Putin informed US President Donald Trump by telephone that he had no intention of halting his war of invasion. Mad Vlad pummelled Ukraine with four S-300 missiles and 157 drones, with 127 of the UAVs shot down or suppressed by electronic warfare. Explosions hit Kyiv and the surrounding region, with multiple people wounded and residential buildings damaged. Putin unleashes huge onslaught of 500 missiles & drones in night of hell for Ukraine as Nato warplanes scrambled In Ukraine's second city Kharkiv, a two year old child and a woman, 46, were among those hurt as Putin continued to terrorise civilians, seeking to weaken the population's resolve. The Russians also hit Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia region. Apartment buildings were also hit in Kramatorsk in drone strikes. Ukraine hit back with an attack sea drone seen being destroyed by Russian defences in Novorossiysk Bay in the Black Sea. Moscow was forced to close its major international airport Sheremetyevo due to the threat of drones. Rutte praised Trump for seeking to make progress with Putin just a few weeks after calling the US President "daddy" during a summit. The Nato chief said: "He is the one who broke the deadlock with Putin. When he became president in January, he started these discussions with Putin, and he was the only one who was able to do this. 'This had to happen. A direct dialogue between the American president and the president of the Russian Federation.' Yet this had not yet resulted in a long-awaited peace deal. "We are not there yet, and that means that in the meantime you have to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to stay in the fight.' Trump rages Putin 'just wants to keep killing people' By Patrick Harrington, Foreign News Reporter DONALD Trump issued a bleak warning that Putin wants to "keep killing people" after Russia launched its largest-yet barrage of drones and missiles at Ukraine. In a middle finger to the US, the onslaught hit just hours after Putin and Trump had a fruitless 60-minute phone call - which touched on the possibility of fresh American sanctions. Trump fumed on Friday that he was "very unhappy" about the phone call with Putin and ensuing strikes. He said: "[Putin] wants to go all the way, just keep killing people, it's no good." Trump revealed the two leaders had spoken "a lot" about sanctions, adding: "He understands that it may be coming." The Kremlin said on Friday it was "preferable" to reach its goals of its invasion through political and diplomatic means - despite having just blitzed Ukraine with masses of explosives. Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov continued: "But as long as that is not possible, we are continuing the special operation." Hours after hanging up on Thursday night, Vlad green-lighted the largest volley of missiles and drones since the start of the war. Fires broke out in multiple locations as almost every district in the capital city was struck, according to Tymur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv's military administration. Dozens of Ukrainians were injured as toxic smoke engulfed the city.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
The United Nations and its agencies have long struggled with funding shortfalls. Now an entrenched problem is becoming an acute crisis in the shadow of Donald Trump's executioner's axe. The US is the biggest contributor, at 22%, to the UN's core budget. In February, the White House announced a six-month review of US membership of all international organisations, conventions and treaties, including the UN, with a view to reducing or ending funding – and possible withdrawal. The deadline for decapitation falls next month. Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block. The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working. A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable. The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted. The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities. Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero. The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children. The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs. UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said. Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering? Will they fight to save the UN? Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
