1 Dec 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News, Russia, Ukraine
The long-running corruption scandal surrounding the diversion of funds from Ukraine’s energy sector proved to be both a prelude and stimulus to yet another round of “peace talks” initiated by the US Trump administration.
The scandal seemed to create fertile soil into which the White House could plant ideas for achieving peace in Ukraine. We now know that they were not trying to plant fresh saplings, but Putin’s old “forever” plan of total domination over Ukraine. The apparently fertile soil was the Ukrainian leadership’s weakened position due to the corruption scandal, which led to resignation of apparently the most powerful man after President Volodmyr Zelensky – the head of President’s office Andriy Yermak.
Ukrainians didn’t believe Yermak would resign until the very moment of his resignation. Essentially, Zelensky will have to reinvent himself as a president-without-Yermak. How easy or possible this will be is unclear. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation, Yermak protected Zelensky from his own people and from others, practically controlling access to him.
Many in Ukraine believed that Yermak made all the decisions in the presidential office. In fact, if you analyse all of Yermak’s statements, you’ll see that Zelensky and Yermak said the same thing. In essence, Yermak was an “extension” of Zelensky – a kind of doppelganger only without the charisma. Some people who have met Yermak have noted that he possesses a rather negative charisma, but he always repeated Zelensky’s ideas, using more or less the same words.
At meetings with foreign partners, like Zelensky, he demanded military aid and support rather than asking for it. As the president of a country at war, foreign partners have forgiven Zelensky his forthrightness and occasionally insufficiently explicit expressions of gratitude for assistance provided. However, since the scandal with JD Vance at the White House over “ingratitude”, Zelensky has made a point of thanking foreign partners, especially President Trump much more often than before.
Some high-level guests to Ukraine didn’t immediately understand that Yermak was an extension of Zelensky, his most trusted confidant. However, they would almost certainly picked up on the feeling in Ukrainian society that Yermak was disliked.
Yermak’s reputation among Ukrainians was very negative, but not as sinister as the oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk’s under Ukraine’s Russian-sympathising second president Leonid Kuchma who was in office until 2005 and whose legacy still casts a shadow.
But then again, Yermak represented Zelensky’s inner circle of friends and business partners, which existed before Zelensky entered politics. Now, no one from this “inner circle” remains. At first, it seemed that the entire corruption affair, starting with Zelensky’s and Yermak’s attempt to wrest independence from National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), to businessman Timur Mindych’s reported escape to Israel (just before his office was due to be raided by anti-corruption police over kickbacks from the energy sector), coincided too closely with the new negotiations about Trump peace plan.
Since independence, Ukrainian presidents have had eighteen heads of administration, and not all of them earned themselves negative reputations. Some came and went without being embroiled in high-profile corruption or political scandals. The latest scandal, however, is bound to cast a shadow over the entire office of the President since Mindych was co-owner of Zelensky’s Kvartal 95 production company, for which Yermak provided legal services before Zelensky’s official entry into politics.
Few Ukrainians can understand how it could be that a group of people like Mindych, his partner Oleksandr Zukerman and others so close to the presidential office, could have allegedly spent months siphoning money from state-owned enterprises in the energy sector. Why was it that only NABU signaled that something was wrong and that it involved Mindych? Why didn’t other intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies stop their criminal activities sooner?
On Tuesday of last week, NABU representatives announced that more than 520 files containing personal information on 15 NABU detectives, National Security Services employees, journalists who write about corruption, and deputy ministers of justice, members of Parliament were discovered in a secret office belonging to Mindych’s group. This personal information, including home addresses, phone numbers, and so on, could only have been obtained through the police or other law enforcement agencies.
Now it appears that a real possibility that the peace negotiations could have been an attempt by the Zelensky administration (which meant Yermak) to resume negotiations in order to shift attention of Ukrainians from the Mindych case to the “peace process.” In other words, the initiative this time may have come from Zelensky.
Today Zelensky’s position, and therefore Ukraine’s one, is much weaker than before the Mindych scandal. Only very quick and decisive personnel changes can improve (but not correct) the situation. It would be better to change the tradition altogether and either rename the position of “head of the presidential administration” to something more political, or abolish it, replacing it with some narrow “office of political advisers.”
As to the peace plan, the obvious Russian origins of the plan, which was also proved by statements from US secretary of state Marco Rubio, sparked immediate controversy, first in Ukraine, and then in the United States itself.
It was precisely because of the protests from inside the USA that President Trump was at first forced to abandon his plan to aggressively force what he considered a weakened Zelensky into publicly accepting these most recent proposals. Within two days, the pressure on Zelensky was relaxed and the “plan” – a list of demands Ukraine should accept in exchange for peace or a ceasefire – began to shrink in scope and mutate, resulting quickly in rejection by Russia.
Under the original Putin-Witkoff plan, Ukraine was supposed to reduce its army, renounce possession of long-range missiles, withdraw from its own territory, and guarantee non-accession to NATO. For good measure, the plan also promised the US a 50% share of the profits from the reconstruction of devastated Ukraine, but omitted to make any demands on Russia – the aggressor country that has violated all possible international treaties and obligations. The idea that the USA should take 50% profits from reconstruction of Ukraine is so surreal it is hardly worth mentioning, except as a joke.
Even if Ukraine had agreed to all the demands, the plan would have remained a roadmap for Russia’s further aggression against Kyiv because it lacked the one element required to bring the aggression to an end – a change to the Russian Constitution.
The original 28-point plan guarantees the continuation of the war because it does not demand that Russia rescind the inclusion of four Ukrainian regions and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the Russian Constitution. At the very least, Russia should first remove from its constitution the two regions through which the front line currently runs – Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts.
In Russia, every captured Ukrainian village is called “liberated” precisely because, in early October 2022, Putin signed constitutional amendments, which the Russian State Duma dutifully voted for. According to the amendments, five Ukrainian regions became the so-called “new territories” of Russia. Until they are are repealed, Russia will continue not only to occupy Ukrainian territories but also to seize further territory.
In just a couple of days, a 28-point pro-Russian plan has morphed into a draft of a 19-point, more pro-justice plan that Russia will not sign up to. Trump is no longer demanding Zelensky’s immediate agreement to negotiate, but preliminary talks are ongoing. Moreover, information has emerged about contacts in Abu Dhabi between Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials and while Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, states that Russia rejects this “American” plan, other Russian politicians are less categorical.
Last week another information bomb exploded across the world. Bloomberg gained access to recordings of phone calls between Steve Witkoff and Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, as well as a conversation between Dmitriev and Putin aide Ushakov. These conversations confirmed the theory of the “peace plan’s” Russian origin.
But, what appears far more dangerous for Ukraine, it became clear that Witkoff, through Dmitriev, was advising Putin on when to call Trump and how best to communicate with the US president. Although Trump has so far defended Witkoff in this situation, just as Zelensky defended Yermak until it wasn’t possible any more, it is clear that Trump represents Russian interests more than those of Ukraine and Europe in the peace negotiations.
These are very dangerous times for Ukraine as the country seeks to negotiate a peace plan with Russia, backed by an unreliable US administration, all the while uncovering a major corruption scandal which goes to the heart of its president’s office.
1 Dec 2025 | Bahrain, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom
While Donald Trump might dismiss the most egregious actions of Gulf States as “things happen”, dissidents are taking justice into their own hands. The Saudi comedian and activist Ghanem Al-Masarir, for instance, has sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for psychological damage resulting from the misuse of private information, harassment and assault after he was attacked in London in 2018. A core part of Al-Masarir’s case rested on Pegasus spyware, which was found on his phone. Such spyware is difficult to definitively trace back, but in this case the court stated that there was “good evidence” Saudi Arabia was responsible. The High Court also ruled that Saudi Arabia did not have immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, a point the Saudi government appealed in an effort to get the case struck out. They didn’t succeed. The case continues.
A similar case is being heard in the UK’s Supreme Court this week. Saeed Shehabi, a leading Bahraini opposition figure, and Moosa Mohammed, a pro-democracy activist and photojournalist, allege the Bahraini government used FinSpy software back in 2011 to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, also resulting in psychological harm. Like Pegasus, FinSpy can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices. The hacks occurred months after anti-government protests began in Bahrain. Shehabi and Mohammed were in touch with other activists, journalists and political prisoners.
Bahrain denies being behind the hack and is also claiming state immunity. They’ve lost twice on these grounds in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. Now they’ve taken their case to the Supreme Court, saying prior judges have misinterpreted section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 and unduly broadened the scope of its exception to immunity. Judges have argued to the contrary – that under Section 5 a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission which happened in the UK. The Supreme Court can now clarify this point once and for all.
It’s an important moment. If the Supreme Court rules against Bahrain, it sends a clear message about accountability and rule of law on UK shores. For too long the UK has been a playground for the world’s autocrats, who’ve targeted their overseas dissidents here through a variety of means. It would also be a moment of victory for the victims themselves. The psychological impact of surveillance is real. We’ve seen this in action, with Al-Masarir, a contributor of ours. He was due to perform at an Index comedy event two years ago and had to pull out because of poor mental health. The damage caused to these individuals can’t be undone, but at least it can be acknowledged. That’s something.
29 Nov 2025 | News, Spotlight
Tom Stoppard’s path to literary success is a story that would be worthy of the stage. Born in Czechoslovakia (as it was then known) as Tomás Straüssler in 1937, he endured a turbulent childhood before rising to fame as one of the great playwrights of his time. Known for his intelligent wordplay and intellectual prowess, Stoppard’s career spanned more than 60 years, across stage, screen and radio.
As well as being a literary great, he was also a staunch advocate for free speech. Although he often suggested that his works were not politically motivated, much of his writing centred around themes of censorship and human rights.
Stoppard joined the advisory board of Index on Censorship in 1978 and made several contributions to the magazine in defence of free speech, declaring in one interview that “free expression was what made all the other freedoms possible, so it was everything.”
Stoppard first rose to fame in 1967 with his play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, a tragicomedy revolving around the actions of two minor characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which brought overnight success after its London debut at the Old Vic. The play was responsible for the first of his five Tony award wins for Best Play, a record unmatched by any other playwright. Other works to earn this accolade include his 1974 comedy Travesties, 1982 drama The Real Thing and his 2002 drama The Coast of Utopia.
The 1990s signalled a decade of unparalleled success for Stoppard. His services to literature were acknowledged with a knighthood in 1997, and he won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for his 1998 film Shakespeare in Love.
Age proved no barrier to the writer, who continued his work well into his 80s with his last play Leopoldstadt, a drama centred around a Jewish family in Vienna, which earned him his final Tony award for Best Play in 2023.
His achievements are perhaps even more impressive considering the challenges he faced in early life. Soon after he was born, his family, who were non-practising Jews, were forced to flee Czechoslovakia to escape the Nazis. After four years in Singapore, Stoppard once again found himself fleeing conflict. An invasion by Japan caused him to move to India with his mother and brother, while his father stayed behind and was killed at sea by a bomb dropped by Japanese forces. In 1946, Stoppard’s mother married a British army major who gave the family his name and moved them over to England.
These roots influenced his later role as an advocate for free speech. The authoritarian regime that engulfed his homeland of Czechoslovakia in the years between the Soviet Union invasion in 1968 until the fall of communism there in 1989 helped to shape his opposition to totalitarianism and media repression. After reading about Victor Fainberg’s experience of being detained in the USSR in an issue of Index on Censorship in 1975, Stoppard was inspired to write Every Good Boy Deserves Favour, a drama set in a Soviet mental hospital. He dedicated the play to Fainberg and Vladimir Bukovsky, another incarcerated dissident, and an excerpt was published in the magazine in 1978.
Stoppard worked as a journalist prior to his transition to the world of theatre. His early career influenced some of his later causes. For example, he voiced his support for Hacked Off’s campaign for a free and accountable press due to his belief that “free expression in the context of British journalism seemed to me to be about as important a subject for any kind of writing, including plays, as you would find.”
In his final interview with Index in 2021, he warned against the modern culture of intolerance, identity politics and cancel culture, declaring that “the danger to society of actual censorship has probably never been greater”. A year later he wrote playfully but seriously on identity politics.
Such talents as Stoppard come few and far between, and his contributions to both literature and the fight for free speech will be sorely missed.
28 Nov 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News, United Kingdom
Index on Censorship has today published a new report entitled Breaking encryption is legally and practically unworkable which sets out our position on why governments should not break end-to-end encryption (E2EE).
Major service providers such as WhatsApp – which alone services 42 million users in the UK – Telegram, and Signal, use E2EE, allowing their users to securely send private messages that only they can read. E2EE works by scrambling the contents of a message into unintelligible code using a pair of cryptographic keys. In systems protected by E2EE, only the sender and the recipient hold the keys needed to decrypt the message, meaning that no one else – not even the service provider itself – can access its contents.
E2EE is an essential factor in protecting individuals and businesses from hacking, identity and personal data theft, and fraud, and it is a critical tool used by individuals for whom their safety and security depend on their communications being private and secure. This includes journalists communicating with their sources, dissidents under authoritarian regimes, human rights defenders, and victims in victim support groups.
The report builds upon years of work by Index on Censorship, parliamentarians, and independent counsel at Matrix Chambers to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that “Technology Notices” that can be issued by Ofcom under s. 121 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (the “OSA”) are fundamentally incompatible with international and domestic human rights laws: their effect would amount to ending access to end-to-end encrypted messaging in the United Kingdom, contravening Articles 8 and 10 of the European Court of Human Rights and breaching Ofcom’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, fundamentally alter the face of digital communications in the United Kingdom, and leave the UK government vulnerable to a barrage of diplomatic and international legal disputes.
At Index on Censorship, we have published censored writers across the globe since 1972. Today, we’re using encrypted messaging apps to keep in touch with our network of correspondents around the world, from Iran, to Afghanistan, to Hong Kong.
We were vindicated in raising the alarm over the government’s ongoing crusade against encryption, its potential abuse under the IPA, and we have repeatedly called for Ofcom’s power to issue Technology Notices to be removed from the OSA given their legal and practical failings.
While the OSA’s aims are commendable, the road to mass censorship is paved with good intentions, and the Government still has the chance to avoid this legal headache and practical international embarrassment.
Read the report here or flip through it below.
