Category: Russia

  • The Iranian government “bears responsibility” for the physical violence that led to the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman who died in police custody in 2022, and for the brutal crackdown on largely peaceful street protests that followed, a report by a United Nations fact-finding mission says.

    The report, issued on March 8 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the mission “has established the existence of evidence of trauma to Ms. Amini’s body, inflicted while in the custody of the morality police.”

    It said the mission found the “physical violence in custody led to Ms. Amini’s unlawful death…. On that basis, the state bears responsibility for her unlawful death.”

    Amini was arrested in Tehran on September 13, 2022, while visiting the Iranian capital with her family. She was detained by Iran’s so-called “morality police” for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab, or hair-covering head scarf. Within hours of her detention, she was hospitalized in a coma and died on September 16.

    Her family has denied that Amini suffered from a preexisting health condition that may have contributed to her death, as claimed by the Iranian authorities, and her father has cited eyewitnesses as saying she was beaten while en route to a detention facility.

    The fact-finding report said the action “emphasizes the arbitrary character of Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, which were based on laws and policies governing the mandatory hijab, which fundamentally discriminate against women and girls and are not permissible under international human rights law.”

    “Those laws and policies violate the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and the autonomy of women and girls. Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, preceding her death in custody, constituted a violation of her right to liberty of person,” it said.

    The New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran hailed the findings and said they represented clear signs of “crimes against humanity.”

    “The Islamic republic’s violent repression of peaceful dissent and severe discrimination against women and girls in Iran has been confirmed as constituting nothing short of crimes against humanity,” said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the center.

    “The government’s brutal crackdown on the Women, Life, Freedom protests has seen a litany of atrocities that include extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape. These violations disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society, women, children, and minority groups,” he added.

    The report also said the Iranian government failed to “comply with its duty” to investigate the woman’s death promptly.

    “Most notably, judicial harassment and intimidation were aimed at her family in order to silence them and preempt them from seeking legal redress. Some family members faced arbitrary arrest, while the family’s lawyer, Saleh Nikbaht, and three journalists, Niloofar Hamedi, Elahe Mohammadi, and Nazila Maroufian, who reported on Ms. Amini’s death were arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to imprisonment,” it added.

    Amini’s death sparked mass protests, beginning in her home town of Saghez, then spreading around the country, and ultimately posed one of the biggest threats to Iran’s clerical establishment since the foundation of the Islamic republic in 1979. At least 500 people were reported killed in the government’s crackdown on demonstrators.

    The UN report said “violations and crimes” under international law committed in the context of the Women, Life, Freedom protests include “extrajudicial and unlawful killings and murder, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and gender persecution.

    “The violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls has led to serious human rights violations by the government of Iran, many amounting to crimes against humanity,” the report said.

    The UN mission acknowledged that some state security forces were killed and injured during the demonstrations, but said it found that the majority of protests were peaceful.

    The mission stems from the UN Human Rights Council’s mandate to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 24, 2022, to investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that followed Amini’s death.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Military strategists, foreign policy experts, and Russian dissidents have analyzed the Russian invasion of Ukraine for Western audiences. How accurate are pundits who always introduce a slight slant to please a specific audience? Read between the lines, choose the best fit and two years of Putin’s “special military operation” looks like this…to me.

    Initially, Russia sought to extend its borders to the Dnipro River, a natural dividing line, that would have incorporated Kyiv, Kharkiv, and possibly Odessa into the motherland.

    The initial thrust brought a caravan of Russian tanks to the gates of Kyiv. Special forces entered Kyiv and Kharkiv to ascertain defensive strengths and civilian and military resistance to invasion. Moscow learned that the urban street-to-street fighting would be merciless. Unlike Mariupol, which is a heavily industrialized city with some Russian cultural artifacts, Kyiv and Kharkiv are associated with Russia’s cultural heritage and historical founding. Capturing the cities, as seen later from the fighting in Mariupol, would destroy the cities and inflict excessive casualties on both sides. Administrating the area would be difficult. The predicted number of casualties did not warrant the onslaught. Putin and his general staff took a step back and developed an alternative strategy — surround both cities, move in slowly, infiltrate, and hope that a starving and isolated population would eventually capitulate. Out in the open and facing deadly attacks, Russian soldiers died and began to surrender. Extending Russia to the Dnipro was not viable. The Russian forces retreated.

    Technically, the Russians did not retreat; they realized an offensive was futile and stopped it at an incipient stage. Their forces vacated and moved to a strategic position — behind the lines of the Donbas battles and close to Russian territory. With the new strategy came a new goal — liberating the entire Donbas region, uniting southeastern Ukraine from Crimea to Zaporhizhia, and incorporating the Azov Sea coast from Rostov to Crimea. Most of those objectives had been accomplished before Ukraine started a counteroffensive that regained Kherson and halted the Russian advance in the south.

    The Russian military built a defensive perimeter that allowed recapture of limited territory, stalled the Ukraine counteroffensive, caused heavy casualties to the Ukrainian military, and decisively injured the morale of Ukraine soldiers and civilian population.

    Forming a defensive line requires more cooperation from military units than does starting an offensive. A stalled offense in one area may not affect an offensive in another area. Any weakness in the defenses affects the total defense. Prigozhin’s mercenary army’s offensive move and intent to occupy ground with troops rather than with mines endangered the defense line. Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, acted decisively and removed the mercenary army from the battlefront.

    With Ukraine weakened by its failed offense, Russia seized the offensive and made minor gains in the Donbass. Ukraine withdrew its forces from Avdivka and the Kremlin claimed control of the city. Its Defense Ministry said, “Capturing Avdivka would push the front line of the war farther from Donetsk city, making it more difficult for Ukraine to stage attempts to reclaim the regional capital.”

    Summarizing the two years after Russian forces invaded Ukraine and we have:

    (1)    Russia has almost accomplished the objectives of its secondary strategy.

    (2)    Both nations realize that huge offensives to gain large territory are no longer feasible.

    (3)    Sanctions against Russia have failed to stifle the economy or diminish Putin’s willingness to continue the war. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts Russia’s Gross domestic product to rise by 2.6 percent in 2024.

    (4)    Ukraine’s ability to mount another offensive and regain territory is doubtful.

    (5)    Civilian populations seem tired of the war and are operating as if there is no war.

    The Future

    The aggressive war with mass casualties has ended. The Russians want a little more of the Donetsk region and will extend their reach only if they know the battle will be successful and not incur excessive casualties. All is not quiet on the Eastern Front, but the war has a virtual armistice in which invisible lines are set by invisible contestants. Each side knows where it can walk without being challenged. Only the stubbornness of the leaders of the two nations prevents a formal armistice. Putin can claim victory and will remain President of Russia; not so, with President Volodymyr Zelensky. The war made Zelensky an internationally admired figure and brought attention to Ukraine. Zelensky has worn out his appearance, and without a war, he cannot lead. Expect his replacement in the near future.

    The undeclared armistice will continue until the two nations realize that an undeclared armistice allows their soldiers and civilians to remain open to attack. Better to have a formal armistice and end hostilities. Several years later, a new Ukraine government will sense it is better to bite the bullet than face the bullet. The present battle lines will become territorial lines and Ukraine will pledge neutrality.

    The nuclear threat will subside and the world will breathe easier until the next intrusion upon the free-loving people of the universe.

    The post Is the War in Ukraine over? first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • WASHINGTON — In a high-profile televised address, U.S. President Joe Biden ripped his likely Republican challenger Donald Trump for “bowing down” to Russian President Vladimir Putin and urged Congress to pass aid for Ukraine, warning that democracy around the world was under threat.

    In the annual State of the Union address, Biden came out swinging from the get-go against Putin and Trump — whom he called “my predecessor” without mentioning him by name — and on behalf of Ukraine, as he sought to win over undecided voters ahead of November’s election.

    The March 7 address to a joint session of Congress this year carried greater significance for the 81-year-old Biden as he faces a tough reelection in November, mostly likely against Trump. The president, who is dogged by questions about his physical and mental fitness for the job, showed a more feisty side during his hourlong speech, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Trump on a host of key foreign and domestic issues.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    Biden denounced Trump for recent remarks about NATO, the U.S.-led defense alliance that will mark its 75th anniversary this year, and compared him unfavorably to former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

    “Bowing down to a Russian leader, it is outrageous, dangerous, and unacceptable,” Biden said, referring to Trump, as he recalled how Reagan — who is fondly remembered by older Republicans — stood up to the Kremlin during the Cold War.

    At a campaign rally last month, Trump said that while serving in office he warned a NATO ally he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to alliance members who are “delinquent” in meeting defense-spending goals.

    The remark raised fears that Trump could try to pull the United States out of NATO should he win the election in November.

    Biden described NATO as “stronger than ever” as he recognized Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the audience. Earlier in the day, Sweden officially became the 32nd member of NATO, ending 200 years of nonalignment. Sweden applied to join the defense alliance after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Finland became a NATO member last year.

    Biden called on Congress to pass a Ukraine aid bill to help the country fend off a two-year-old Russian invasion. He warned that should Russia win, Putin will not stop at Ukraine’s border with NATO.

    A group of right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have for months been holding up a bill that would allocate some $60 billion in critical military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it defends its territory from Russian invaders.

    The gridlock in Washington has starved Ukrainian forces of U.S. ammunition and weapons, allowing Russia to regain the initiative in the war. Russia last month seized the eastern city of Avdiyivka, its first victory in more than a year.

    “Ukraine can stop Putin if we stand with Ukraine and provide the weapons it needs to defend itself,” Biden said.

    “My message to President Putin…is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down,” Biden said.

    Trump, who has expressed admiration for Putin, has questioned U.S. aid to Ukraine, though he recently supported the idea of loans to the country.

    Biden also criticized Trump for the former president’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, saying those efforts had posed a grave threat to democracy at home.

    “You can’t love your country only when you win,” he said, referring not just to Trump but Republicans in Congress who back the former president’s claim that the 2020 election was rigged.

    Biden “really strove to distinguish his policies from those of Donald Trump,” said Kathryn Stoner, a political-science professor at Stanford University and director of its Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

    By referencing Reagan, Biden was seeking “to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents to remind them that this is what your party was — standing up to Russia,” she told RFE/RL.

    The State of the Union address may be the biggest opportunity Biden has to reach American voters before the election. More than 27 million people watched Biden’s speech last year, equivalent to about 17 percent of eligible voters.

    Biden’s address this year carries greater importance as he faces reelection in November, most likely against Trump. The speech may be the biggest opportunity he has to reach American voters before the election.

    Trump won 14 of 15 primary races on March 5, all but wrapping up the Republican nomination for president. Biden beat Trump in 2020 but faces a tough reelection bid amid low ratings.

    A Pew Research poll published in January showed that just 33 percent of Americans approve of Biden’s job performance, while 65 percent disapprove. Biden’s job-approval rating has remained below 40 percent over the past two years as Americans feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates.

    Biden, the oldest U.S. president in history, has been dogged by worries over his age. Two thirds of voters say he is too old to effectively serve another term, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

    Last month, a special counsel report raised questions about his memory, intensifying concerns over his mental capacity to run the country for four more years.

    As a result, Biden’s physical performance during the address was under close watch. Biden was animated during the speech and avoided any major gaffes.

    “I thought he sounded really strong, very determined and very clear,” Stoner said.

    Instead of avoiding the subject of his age, Biden took it head on, saying the issue facing our nation “isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are.

    He warned Trump was trying to take the country back to a darker period.

    “Some other people my age see a different story: an American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution,” Biden said, referring to the 77-year-old Trump.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Armour, while useful in attack, needs ways and means to stop it being taken out by the plethora or weapons in now faces. Asia possesses very capable armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) manufacturers, but various systems can improve their survivability, situational awareness, firepower and mobility on modern battlefields. Asia-Pacific militaries are slowly adopting some elements in […]

    The post Shielding Armour appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Iranian state media says hard-liners are ahead in the capital, Tehran, as vote counting progresses in Iran’s March 1 elections, which were marred by what appears to be a record-low turnout prompted by voter apathy and calls for a boycott by reformists.

    The elections for a new parliament, or Majlis, and a new Assembly of Experts, which elects Iran’s supreme leader, were the first since the deadly nationwide protests that erupted following the September 2022 death while in police custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who had been detained for an alleged Islamic dress-code violation.

    Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency said 1,960 from 5,000 ballots in Tehran have been counted so far, with hard-liners ahead as expected.

    An alliance led by hard-liner Hamid Rasaee won 17 out of 30 seats in Tehran, state radio reported, while the incumbent parliamentary speaker, conservative Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf also obtained a new seat.

    The turnout appears to be at a record low, according to unofficial accounts, despite the officials’ repeated appeals to Iranians to show up en masse at the polls as Iran’s theocracy scrambles to restore its legitimacy in the wake of a wave of repression in 2022 and amid deteriorating economic conditions.

    The Mehr news agency, citing unofficial results, reported that voter turnout in Tehran was only 24 percent.

    Iran’s rulers needed a high turnout to repair their legitimacy following the unrest, but many Iranians said they would not vote in “meaningless” elections in which more than 15,000 candidates were running for the 290-seat parliament.

    State media reported that the turnout was “good.” Official surveys before the election, however, suggested that only some 41 percent of eligible Iranians would come out to vote.

    The Hamshahri newspaper said on March 2 that more than 25 million people, or 41 percent of eligible voters, had turned out, thus confirming the official survey.

    If the figure is confirmed, it will be the lowest election turnout in Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that brought the current theocracy to power, despite officials twice extending voting hours to allow late-comers to cast ballots.

    The pro-reform newspaper Ham Mihan published an opinion piece titled The Silent Majority, reporting a turnout of some 40 percent.

    Shortly afterwards, however, the title of the piece was changed to Roll Call without any explanation, which commenters on social media networks blamed on pressure exerted on the newspaper by authorities.

    So far, the lowest turnout, 42.5 percent, was registered in the February 2020 parliamentary elections, while in 2016, the turnout was some 62 percent.

    As the voting concluded, the United States made clear that the international community was aware that the results of the poll would not reflect the will of the Iranian people.

    “As some Iranians vote today in their first parliamentary election since the regime’s latest violent crackdown, the world knows the Iranian people do not have a true say at the ballot box,” U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Iran Abram Paley wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

    Ahead of the vote, prominent figures, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, said they would boycott the elections, labeling them as superficial and predetermined.

    Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s first reformist president, was among the critics who did not vote on March 1.

    Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister, has also voiced his refusal to vote, criticizing the supreme leader’s indifference to the country’s crises.

    Voter apathy, along with general dissatisfaction over living standards and a clampdown on basic human rights in Iran, has been growing for years.

    Even before Amini’s death, which sparked massive protests and the Women, Life, Freedom movement, unrest had rattled Iran for months in response to declining living standards, wage arrears, and a lack of insurance support.

    In a last-ditch effort to encourage a high turnout, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after casting his ballot in Tehran that voting would “make friends happy and ill-wishers unhappy.”

    While domestically attention is mostly focused on the parliamentary elections, it is perhaps the Assembly of Experts polls that are more significant.

    The 88-seat assembly, whose members are elected for eight-year terms, is tasked with appointing the next supreme leader. Given that Khamenei is 84, the next assembly may end up having to name his successor.

    Analysts and activists said the elections were “engineered” because only candidates vetted and approved by the Guardian Council were allowed to run. The council is made up of six clerics and six jurists who are all appointed directly and indirectly by Khamenei.

    In dozens of audio and written messages sent to RFE/RL’s Radio Farda from inside Iran, many said they were opting against voting because the elections were “meaningless” and likely to consolidate the hard-liners’ grip on power.

    With reporting by Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Corruption and military effectiveness do not go hand-in-hand. This has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by the performance of Russian forces during the war in Ukraine, where in many cases (and even literally in some instances), ‘the wheels have fallen off’ military kit and overall effectiveness. The Red Army, once feared by NATO planners who may have […]

    The post Endemic Corruption Doesn’t Win Wars appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow’s military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

    The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can “facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine.”

    China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

    Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

    The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

    “Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns,” the report says.

    “These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow’s desire for a military breakthrough.”

    According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex.

    5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G “has the potential to reshape the battlefield” through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

    These are “precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context — and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine,” the report adds.

    Although the report says that there are currently “operational and institutional constraints” to Russia’s battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an “appealing priority” for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

    “As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications — both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles — an even more appealing priority,” Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

    Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

    In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia — in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia’s Far East.

    Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

    According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

    The anticipated construction of Beidou’s Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

    In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The two companies — HEAD Aerospace and Spacety — are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

    “For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line,” Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

    “However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia’s geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too.”

    “Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine,” the report says.

    The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia’s attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

    On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and “providing backdoor support for Russia’s war machine.”

    The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting “Russia’s military-industrial base.”

    With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • WASHINGTON — U.S. semiconductor firms must strengthen oversight of their foreign partners and work more closely with the government and investigative groups, a group of experts told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, saying the outsourcing of production overseas has made tracking chip sales more difficult, enabling sanctions evasion by Russia and other adversaries.

    U.S. semiconductor firms largely produce their chips in China and other Asian countries from where they are further distributed around the world, making it difficult to ascertain who exactly is buying their products, the experts told the committee at a hearing in Washington on February 27.

    The United States and the European Union imposed sweeping technology sanctions on Russia to weaken its ability to wage war following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia’s military industrial complex is heavily reliant on Western technology, including semiconductors, for the production of sophisticated weapons.

    “Western companies design chips made by specialized plants in other countries, and they sell them by the millions, with little visibility over the supply chain of their products beyond one or two layers of distribution,” Damien Spleeters, deputy director of operations at Conflict Armament Research, told senators.

    He added that, if manufacturers required point-of-sale data from distributors, it would vastly improve their ability to trace the path of semiconductors recovered from Russian weapons and thereby identify sanctions-busting supply networks.

    The banned Western chips are said to be flowing to Russia via networks in China, Turkey, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.

    Spleeters said he discovered a Chinese company diverting millions of dollars of components to sanctioned Russian companies by working with U.S. companies whose chips were found in Russian weapons.

    That company was sanctioned earlier this month by the United States.

    ‘It’s Going To Be Whack-A-Mole’

    The committee is scrutinizing several U.S. chip firms whose products have turned up in Russian weapons, Senator Richard Blumenthal (Democrat-Connecticut) said, adding “these companies know or should know where their components are going.”

    Spleeters threw cold water on the idea that Russia is acquiring chips from household appliances such as washing machines or from major online retail websites.

    “We have seen no evidence of chips being ripped off and then repurposed for this,” he said.

    “It makes little sense that Russia would buy a $500 washing machine for a $1 part that they could obtain more easily,” Spleeters added.

    In his opening statement, Senator Ron Johnson (Republican-Wisconsin) said he doubted whether any of the solutions proposed by the experts would work, noting that Russia was ramping up weapons production despite sweeping sanctions.

    “You plug one hole, another hole is gonna be opening up, it’s gonna be whack-a-mole. So it’s a reality we have to face,” said Johnson.

    Russia last year imported $1.7 billion worth of foreign-made microchips despite international sanctions, Bloomberg reported last month, citing classified Russian customs service data.

    Johnson also expressed concern that sanctions would hurt Western nations and companies.

    “My guess is they’re just going to get more and more sophisticated evading the sanctions and finding components, or potentially finding other suppliers…like Huawei,” Johnson said.

    Huawei is a leading Chinese technology company that produces chips among other products.

    James Byrne, the founder and director of the open-source intelligence and analysis group at the Royal United Services Institute, said that officials and companies should not give up trying to track the chips just because it is difficult.

    ‘Shocking’ Dependency On Western Technology

    He said that the West has leverage because Russia is so dependent on Western technology for its arms industry.

    “Modern weapons platforms cannot work without these things. They are the brains of almost all modern weapons platforms,” Byrne said.

    “These semiconductors vary in sophistication and importance, but it is fair to say that without them Russia … would not have been able to sustain their war effort,” he said.

    Byrne said the depth of the dependency on Western technology — which goes beyond semiconductors to include carbon fiber, polymers, lenses, and cameras — was “really quite shocking” considering the Kremlin’s rhetoric about import substitution and independence.

    Elina Ribakova, a Russia expert and economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said an analysis of 2,800 components taken from Russian weapons collected in Ukraine showed that 95 percent came from countries allied with Ukraine, with the vast majority coming from the United States. The sample, however, may not be representative of the actual distribution of component origin.

    Ribakova warned that Russia has been accelerating imports of semiconductor machine components in case the United States imposes such export controls on China.

    China can legally buy advanced Western components for semiconductor manufacturing equipment and use them to manufacture and sell advanced semiconductors to Russia, Senator Margaret Hassan (Democrat-New Hampshire) said.

    Ribakova said the manufacturing components would potentially allow Russia to “insulate themselves for somewhat longer.”

    Ribakova said technology companies are hesitant to beef up their compliance divisions because it can be costly. She recommended that the United States toughen punishment for noncompliance as the effects would be felt beyond helping Ukraine.

    “It is also about the credibility of our whole system of economic statecraft. Malign actors worldwide are watching whether they will be credible or it’s just words that were put on paper,” she said.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • If a direct war would erupt between the United States and Russia, it is not going to be conventional and would surely involve NATO via article 5, and maybe China, Japan, Australia, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Israel. Arguments attributing to Russia the responsibility for the evolving mess because it intervened in Ukraine do not hold up. Background, facts, and conflict timeline irrefutably point to the United States. If war comes, it is going to be another American war—no more and no less.

    On the specific issue of the U.S. domination of NATO and its war decisions, consider the following arguments. Currently, NATO has 31 members including the United States. If we remove the United States from the count, could NATO’s remaining 30 members opt for war with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian Question? The answer is no.

    First, it is assumed that a war involving any NATO member would automatically trigger Article 5 above. Most importantly, even if NATO-minus-USA has the means to wage war, it cannot do that—technically, as much as politically. NATO’s inability to act independently from the United States is not due to lack of military capabilities or willpower (e.g., Britain and France are nuclear powers with hardened animosity toward Russia). The reason, therefore, lies elsewhere—the United States holds all political, military, and financial cards, as well as decision- making processes.

    Alternatively, could the United States go to war without the backing of NATO-minus-USA? Yes, it can. But the premise is false. First, the United States will not take high risks without minor actors doing the legwork. Second, it needs other participants for cover-up and sharing of consequences. This explains why the United States chained up NATO members to the Collective Defense Obligation tool.

    Now, because Russia has not attacked the United States, and because Ukraine is not a NATO state, could an alliance member refuse joining U.S. war projects? Technically, the answer should be yes because Article 5 does not apply to the situation. In reality though, the United States, experienced at creating pretexts and rationales, could invent favorable conditions to ease involvement by reluctant states, or simply enforce Article 5 without appeal.

    For the record, discussing statute and obligations by NATO members is Byzantine. Based on NATO’s history, the treaty was written with one thing in mind: upholding the interests and views of the largest powers–especially the United States. What matters at the end are two interchangeable facts: (1) the U.S. has the power to impose its will on NATO, and (2) NATO is subservient to the United States. Proving this assertion is the U.S.-NATO’s bombing of Serbia, Libya, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—especially knowing that none of these countries had attacked the United States or any other NATO member. Did these facts stop the U.S. and NATO from invoking Article 5 as an alibi for all subsequent U.S. imperialist wars?

    Is the assertion that NATO is an appendage to and a foot soldier for U.S. global agendas and military objectives verifiable? Yes. The United States is the boss of the group—politically, diplomatically, and militarily.

    With over 22%  (as per the British-imperialist BBC) and 70% (as per the hyper-imperialist SCIS of Anthony Cordesman) of  the organization’s costs paid for by the United States, and with about 85,000 U.S. troops stationed on European soil, the United States is, de facto, the occupying power of Europe and decision maker inside NATO. (Also read, “Number of active-duty United States military personnel in Europe in 2022, by country”. For the record, Cordesman’s talk about percentages and billions spent is meant to confound the issues of the U.S. super role within NATO. He justified it under the rubric that the United States must spend all that money to keep its status as a superpower)

    Confirming the assertion that NATO is a U.S. tool to control Europe is uncomplicated. A 42-word passage in the Department of Defense’s Military Construction Program (fiscal year 2023) provides an authoritative clue. Under the heading: United States (U.S.) Interests in NATO, the authors of the program put it this way:

    The United States has an abiding national security interest in a stable, integrated European region. The political and military presence of the U.S. and of NATO fosters the conditions necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region.

    Reading between the Lines

    • The sentence, “Abiding national security interest” is a self-centered claim that the U.S. looks at Europe as a useful accessory to ensure its own “security” schemes—abiding is the keyword. Accordingly, NATO is a U.S. pawn.
    • The sentence, “In a stable, integrated European region” is code for the U.S. implying that Europe is no more than an unstable area thus NATO is going to be the means by which the United States would put it under its control and command. Besides, recalling the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Balkan wars, hegemonic U.S.A. is the direct cause for Europe’s instability. Meaning, U.S. rulers create conditions of instability, and thereafter use them as a pretext for expanded management and control.
    • The sentence, “Necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region”, is a code for implementing subaltern economic systems to ensure their lasting submission to the U.S. financial interests and control. As for the diction “democratic based-institution”, this is rubish. Europe has been always a theater for great social changes and differing forms of government. For the record, U.S. ruling circles have gutted the word “democracy” from any intelligent meaning while keeping the veneer—voting—visible.

    Special Comment on NATO’s NSIP (NATO Security Investment Programme): the statement thatNSIP programming and authorization decisions are based on consensus decision-making among the 30 Allied nations” is a brazen lie. Does anyone really think that Albania, Montenegro, or Romania have the audacity to dissent from whatever the U.S. wants?
    Pay attention to how the U.S. is using the so-called defensive alliance to further its imperialistic objectives. Article (a) of “The most essential NSIP CPP [Cultural Property Protection] Categories” spells out U.S. basic plans with the following deceptive wording:

    “Alliance Operations and Missions: Infrastructure to support ongoing military operations and missions, including Iraq and Kosovo.”

    REMARK: after 25 years of the United States and vassals occupying Kosovo, and after 21 years of continuing occupation of Iraq with NATO’s participation under the guise of “coalition of the willing”, the United States is imposing or involving NATO states to continue with the occupation of both regions. By itself, this shows NATO’s collective will to impose U.S. imperialist order on the world. As a curiosity, what missions are these? Who ordered them and under which rulings and authority? What is their scope? Do they have expiration date?

    Through the U.S. conceived structure of NATO, the United States not only declared its military occupation of Europe as a vital matter for its “national security”, but also established its paramount leading role within the organization. A Wall Street Journal article (“The U.S. Controls NATO”) confirms my arguments and conclusion on NATO right from the opening paragraph:

    “Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been primarily concerned with serving American political and military interests. That has been its problem. It has been the Greek gift that just keeps on giving, enabling America to maintain bases and a large contingent of military manpower in Europe.”

    When They Talk about War with Russia

    For decades, a war with Russia has been a fixture on the minds of U.S. ruling circles. Still, thinking of war is something, preparing for it is something else. In the latter case, it is a tangible process whereby rationales and program act as one entity. In concrete terms, it means building all required political, cultural, and military structures, and then coalesce them by ideology to implement that goal. Oddly, the dismantlement of the USSR did not end U.S. preparation process—it only accelerated it. Explanation: U.S. fanaticized project to subjugate Russia and rule it by proxy remained unchanged.

    Now, given that a direct military confrontation is possible, it is extraordinary that something so important is consistently missing from the conversations about war. I am alluding to the loss of life on both sides. With regard to potential civilian loss, have a look at the following figures from WWII and compare it to what might happen today—while keeping in mind that advancement in modern military technology make any comparison with the old data incongruous.

    For instance, the United States—protected by two oceans—had lost only six civilians due to a Japanese balloon attack. During the same war, the Soviet Union lost 19 million civilians, Italy: over 150,000 civilians, Japan: 337,000 civilian by firebombing plus 165,000 by Truman’s nuclear holocaust, Germany: 410,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing. (For further reading: Casualties of World War II)

    Discussion: when countless Americans clamor for war with any country that opposes the dictatorial unipolarism of the Zionist “exceptional nation”, the scenario of what would happen if equally powerful opponents hit back is rarely mentioned in the daily conversations. Regardless, where is the logic that the mostly uninformed American society is blasé to the consequences of war with Russia?

    On top of all that, we have to deal with warmongering morons dispensing sermons on how to confront Russia and win. Is that hot air or pathetic figures of speech? Further, because elliptical thinking, deceptive speaking patterns, and convoluted semantics are dominant, untangling what we hear and read is a challenge. Recalling that the linguistics of imperialism is not something to be taken too lightly— it hides ideology, political determinism, and plan for action—, can we, for once, decode what western politicians are saying when they talk about Russia?

    The Cloaked Languages of War

    Asserting that Western politicians are practitioners of doublespeak, circular thinking, and elliptical verbiage is easy to demonstrate. Consider the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On June 30, 2023, he stated, “We are not a party to what is happening in Russia, our goal is not a regime change in Russia. Instead, Berlin seeks to continue to help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”.

    Scholz introduces his goal for a protracted war with Russia via Ukraine with a lie. He stated that Germany is “Not a party to what is happening in Russia”. He was referring to the Wagner Group’s rebellion episode, which, of course, is an internal Russian affair. Face value, this appears to be correct—we have no knowledge of occurred collusion between the group and external forces fighting Russia by proxy. However, the fact that Germany has been attacking Russia tenaciously through Ukraine for the past two years makes Germany a party to the conflict.

    This is how the reasoning goes. Dialectically, within the context of war between Russia and Ukraine, any event that could alter the course of war in either country is necessarily going to affect the sponsors of Ukraine including Germany. Meaning, radical changes in the internal affairs of Russia or Ukraine would have direct consequences not only on both countries, but also on the sponsors of Ukraine. To back up the assertion that Germany is a real party to what might happen in Russia can be argued along the following lines.

    When Germany applies across-the-board sanctions on Russia, when it declares it wants to freeze or takeover Russian assets in Germany, and when it declares that it wants Ukraine to win (defeat Russia), then the manifest purpose is evident. With their military supplies, training, political support, logistic, and financial contribution to the war against Russia, German politicians are counting on the theory that all such combined measures would provoke widespread domestic troubles inside Russia thus possibly leading to social and military unrest culminating in a revolt against the legitimate government of Vladimir Putin. By all tools of analysis, Scholz was indeed plotting for a regime change in Russia.

    (For the record, the United States has been applying this strategy to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran with the hope that coercion, sanctions, blockades, and selective military measures could induce national unrest in the targeted countries thus leading to “regime change”.)

    Second, who are “we” in the statement: Germany, the U.S., or collective NATO? Here is a clue: if the U.S. were to change course in Ukraine, Germany would, for sure, fold its bellicose tail and gag its mouth. Third, with billions of dollars in aid and advanced weapons to Ukraine, Germany is certainly a big party to the conflict. Fourth, with his allusion to regime change, Scholz insinuated that if Germany (the West] wants, it has the means to destabilize Russia. If so, he is deluding himself. Excluding the circumstances when Gorbachev and Yeltsin caved in to the United States, Russia’s traditional political structures are not prone to coups.

    Now, since neither Germany nor U.S.-led NATO has the ability to overthrow the president of a superpower [Russia] unless by a total direct war that ends with the defeat of Russia, why did Scholz bother to insinuate he could? Overall, what did Scholz say exactly?

    Aside from rhetorical boasting to hide failure, Scholz’ oblique meaning is transparent: Germany and NATO have the means and are capable to keep the fight in Ukraine going—and could even extend it to Russia proper, which they did. Is that what he meant with the phrase, “To help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”? Deduction: Scholz, following in the footsteps of the U.S., is treating Russia’s military action in Donbass as aggression and trespass—that is why “he wants to punish it”. If so, are we to assume that he is upholding some sort of lofty Teutonic principles against interventions and aggressions?

    Let us now consider another German politician, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. In a conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Von Der Leyen told Zelensky, “But what we can tell you is that you’ll have your European friends by your side as long as it takes”. She said that in February 2022 right after the intervention. Now, because what has started as a limited Russian operation has transformed into a protracted proxy war, the implication is apparent: Germany, U.S., and all other leaders of the European Union are taken over by the delusion that they can defeat Russia. (To inspect Von Der Leyen’s imperialist mindset on Russia, read the statement she made on behalf of the Commission in February 27, 2022.)

    As with Scholz, was Von Der Leyen trying to uphold “lofty” German principles? The wider question: has Germany ever applied those principles in other arenas? First, Germany was a party—in active support positions—to U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. Second, I never heard or read that post-WWII Germany supplied any sort of military aid to the Palestinians so they could fight the genocidal settler state of Israel that has been occupying their ancestral lands officially since 1948? What is reason for which Scholz and Von Der Leyen are so determined to help the Ukrainians but not the Palestinians?

    Conclusion: “noble” principles are not the motive for Scholz and Der Leyen’s declared enmity toward Russia. Fact: Germany is not a free country as it wishes to depict itself. Germany has lost its independent status since it lost WWII. With never-ending U.S. soft occupation (over 35,000 U.S. military personnel) even after its re-unification, Germany is technically a militarily occupied country.

    Further, Germany’s political and military servitude to the United States is not only about a great power that succumbed to the U.S. order, but also about the United States castrating it for good. Now, if mighty Germany has been reduced to a vassal status, then it would be easy to explain why weak NATO countries (including self-important France and Britain) have become vassals— and supporters for U.S. war against Russia.

    Based on how things work amidst U.S. system of center and periphery, there can be only one answer. Decisions taken by a single big power belonging to a club whose members share similar ideologies are more than what they appear. On the surface, those decisions give the idea to have been taken independently. In reality, they are (a) transnational by fact of membership and charters, and (b) they are always directed by the higher power that set the club’s policies.

    From ideology to practice, and from language of war to possible America-Russia war, how the U.S. enmity to Russia is debated, institutionalized, and adopted?

    Next: Part 6

    The post Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 5) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia has expressed its gratitude to North Korea again for supporting its aggression against Ukraine in a show of solidarity as fresh claims of arms trading between the two authoritarian regimes emerged. 

    “We are pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is standing with us at the forefront of this struggle,” the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang said in a Facebook post on Feb. 29, to update developments in Ukraine.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is North Korea’s official name. 

    “The United States and its puppets are responsible for the bloodshed and destruction brought about by their policies of repression in Russia,” the embassy said, adding that “Russia will win and this will be a shared victory for all who adhere to the new world order.”

    North Korea has supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling it a “righteous struggle to defend its strategic security and interests.”

    The message from the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang came a few days after Seoul said North Korea has sent some 6,700 containers carrying more than three million artillery shells to Russia since August last year. 

    North Korea and Russia have been accused of engaging in arms trading, with the Ukrainians alleging that Russian forces have used North Korean missiles to attack them – a claim that both Pyongyang and Moscow have denied.

    South Korea’s defense minister Shin Won-sik told journalists on Tuesday that judging by the number of containers; he estimates that millions of rounds have been delivered to Russia, including more than three million 152mm artillery shells and more than half a million 122mm rocket launchers. 

    Shin noted that among the hundreds of munitions factories in North Korea, he estimates only about 30% are operational. However, those involved in Russian-related activities seem to be functioning at full capacity.

    Separately, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service said in November last year that Moscow has likely offered Pyongyang technological advice for its satellite launch, as it has received more than 1 million artillery shells from North Korea since early August.

    Edited by Elaine Chan and Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This month marks the 10th anniversary of the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych and in turn prompted the Russian seizure of Crimea and the Russian-backed secessionist movement in the Donbas. It also marks the second anniversary of the Russian invasion eight years later. Western anti-imperialists have correctly recognized a number of provocative actions and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the winter of 2021-2, while figure skaters were competing in North America and Europe and preparing for the Beijing Winter Olympics, the tensions around Ukraine were building. NATO trained  Ukrainian troops were intensifying attacks on the border of  the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of eastern Ukraine.  Russia was building up its forces on the international border.  In December 2021, Russia proposed treaties with the US and NATO, only to be brushed aside. Neocons running US foreign policy seemed to be intentionally provoking Russia. Perhaps they wanted Russia to invade Ukraine and saw that as a way to defeat Putin and breakup Russia, just as the Soviet Union had broken up? As Hillary Clinton said, “Afghanistan is the model”.

    On February 7, three days into the Beijing Olympics and after the Russians had won the team skating event, news emerged that one of the Russian skaters had previously tested positive for a banned substance. It soon emerged that the skater in question was the brilliant young Kamila Valieva. The charges created one of the biggest international sport controversies of the past 50 years. A single positive test for a banned medication upended the 2022 Beijing Olympics and resulted in bitter accusations. Although the controversy started over two years ago,  the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was only issued a few weeks ago in early February.

    The dispute over Valieva’s doping test is a reflection of  global political contention and the politicization of sports. In this article I will show how the CAS decision was biased and unfair. I will also show how western media has misreported the situation and how it is likely that US secret services intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and “unbalance” the adversary.

    Russia’s expected medal sweep in figure skating was intentionally sabotaged. The victim was Kamila Valieva. The target was Russia. Disrupting the first winter Olympics in China was a bonus.

    What Happened

    The key skating milestone are:

    30 October 2021 – In her debut as a senior, 15 year old Kamila Valieva wins first place at the Skate Canada International. Her performance leaves the audience and commentators in awe. Her urine sample is “clean” (no prohibited chemicals).

    27 November 2021 – Valieva wins the Rostelecom Cup (another event in the International Skating Union (ISU) Grand Prix). She posts the highest score ever recorded. Her urine sample is clean.

    25 December 2021 – Valieva wins the Russian national figure skating championship in St. Petersburg. Her urine sample is sent to a certified laboratory in Sweden.

    15 January 2022 – Valieva wins gold at the European Figure Skating Championship. Her urine test is clean.

    4 February 2022 – Olympic Games begin in Beijing China.

    6 February 2022 – Valieva performs skating short program flawlessly, earning first place.

    7 February 2022 – Valieva wows the audience in the free skate (long program), again winning first place. Urine sample is clean.

    7 February 2022 – Over a month late, Stockholm laboratory reports an “Adverse Analytic Finding” for Valieva’s sample which they received 6 weeks earlier. They report the presence of a tiny amount of trimetazadine (TMZ) in Valieva’s urine sample.

    8 -15 February 2022 – News of the positive doping test rapidly circulates and soon dominates the Olympics. Media and most western athletes assume Valieva’s guilt and urge her removal from the Games. Because she is a 15 year old minor, the Court for Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides that Valieva should be allowed to continue competing at the Beijing Olympics with the consequences of the positive test to be determined later.

    17 February 2022 – Under enormous pressure, Valieva falls apart in the free skate (long program). Team skating medal awards are postponed due to uncertainty whether Valieva will be disqualified. The US team which won 2nd place is angry over the postponement of the medal ceremony.

    13 January 2023 – After a long delay, the Russian Anti Doping Agency (RUSADA) determines that Valieva bore “no fault or negligence” for the single positive test.

    21 February 2023 – World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)  and International Skating Union (ISU), both western dominated organizations, appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to have Valieva banned and all her winnings after 25 Dec 2021 annulled.

    26 September 2023 – Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) begins the hearing regarding the Valieva positive test.

    7 February 2024 – CAS announces the decision and reasoning. The panel rules that Valieva  committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), is banned for four years and must forfeit all any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money subsequent to 25 Dec 2021.

    The CAS Decision

    Confirming that this was a judgment call, this was a 2-1 split decision. They explain the decision as follows: “The Athlete did not discharge her burden of proving …that her ADRV was not intentional on the balance of probabilities.”

    The panel said it was NOT proven Valieva intentionally ingested the banned substance.“The appellants have not established that the Athlete committed the ADRV intentionally …. there was no evidence that she had acted intentionally.”

    They also said “The Panel most certainly has not concluded that Ms. Valieva is a cheat or that she cheated on 25 December 2021 at the Russian National Championships or that she cheated  when she won gold at the Beijing Olympics (or at any other time).”

    The panel acknowledged that the punishment may be considered “harsh” given that they did not establish that she committed the ADRV intentionally.  That is certainly correct considering the punishment was the same as if she HAD cheated and the punishment is widely seen as confirming GUILT.

    Critique of the CAS Decision

     1.  The panel was biased. 

    The panel was comprised of adjudicators from the US, UK and France. Valieva’s legal team appointed French attorney Mathieu Maisonneuve. The appellants, World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and Ice Skating Union (ISU), appointed American attorney Jeffrey Mishkin. The CAS Appeals Division appointed the president of the panel, James Drake. He is a citizen of the UK and Australia who studied and worked in the USA.

    CAS rules say that the president of a panel should be selected considering the criteria of “expertise, diversity, equality and turnover of adjudicators”. Drake was a poor choice for both equality and diversity.  Two of  the adjudicators have strong connections to the US which is hostile to Russia and whose figure skating team stood to benefit if Valieva was disqualified.

    James Drake was panel president in two previous cases involving Russian athletes, canoeist Alexandra Dupik and track athlete Natalya Antyukh. Both cases were decided against the appealing Russian athletes. With Drake as president, this had the appearance of a Kangaroo Court.

    2.  The panel created a straw man to knock down.

    The panel exaggerated the importance of the theory that Kamila accidentally imbibed  TMZ  through her contact with her “grandfather”. Mr. Solovyov was called her grandfather but was actually the father of a previous partner of Kamila’s mother. Since the mother was working, Mr. Solovyov acted as driver and guardian for Kamila who trained three hours in the morning, went home for lunch and rest, then trained three hours in the afternoon. Presumably Solovyov was being compensated for his help for the family. Solovyov was taking heart medication including TMZ due to previous heart attacks. After the surprise news that Valieva tested positive for the heart medication trimetazadine (TMZ), Kamila and her mother speculated that Kamila may have imbibed TMZ from drinking from the same glass or by consuming a strawberry dessert that grandfather made with a cutting board on which there were TMZ particles from his medication.  Media and the panel poured skepticism on this theory, especially when the grandfather declined to provide basic information or verification. It appears the stress of the situation may have resulted in Solovyov – who had previous heart attacks – not wanting to be further involved. The appellants and panel pounced on this. In the panel’s report there are 96 references to “grandfather”, 75 references to “dessert”, 43 references to “strawberry”, and 98 references to “Solovyov”. The panel effectively said they are skeptical of the “grandfather” explanation and that is all there is.

    In contrast, Valieva’s legal team put forward the “grandfather” contact as one of three possibilities. Another theory was that some food or permitted supplement that Valieva consumed was contaminated with TMZ. This happened to a Russian bobsledder at the 2018 Peyongchang Winter Olympics.

    The third theory was sabotage. This is the most likely cause of the positive doping test as I will show below.

    3.  The panel minimized what was most important: Valieva had no motive to take a banned substance.

    As shown at international events in October and November 2021, Kamila Valieva was at the peak of her profession. She was the best figure skater in the world. She was not only winning skate competitions, she was setting all time records.  She was training  6 hours per day under a very successful coach. She was well schooled in the dangers of anti doping violations. Since 2016 Russian athletes have been widely accused of being the worst violators of doping standards. Ugly and unproven accusations, such as from WADA’s Richard McLaren, have been widely broadcast. When Russian athletes are exonerated, it is ignored in the West.  The probability that Kamila Valieva would risk her reputation and career to intentionally take a banned medication prior to an event where she will certainly be tested is near zero.

    Adding to the unreality of this case, the medication Trimetazadine (TMZ) is of no value to a figure skater. It is for people with heart troubles, not young athletes. When it has been used by athletes, it is for endurance sports where heart palpitations may occur. As heart specialist Dr. Benjamin Levine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School said, “The chance that trimetazadine would improve her performance, in my opinion, is zero… The only chance would be for it to hurt her.”

    One of the  side effects of TMZ is dizziness, the worst thing for a figure skater.  The panel dismissed the significance by glibly saying, “It is enough to say that not all side effects manifest in all people.”

    Dr Levine noted that it is the legs, not the heart, that gets tired in figure skating. If one looks at Valieva’s performances, it is clear she in fine shape and not even breathing hard at the end of the performance. The trace amount of TMZ detected once in her system would have no effect at all. Dr. Levine notes that the US equivalent of trimetazadine,  ranolazine, is NOT prohibited.

    The legal challenge for Kamila Valieva’s team was to show that she did not intentionally take the banned substance. The CAS panel minimized the fact that Valieva had every reason and motive to NOT take a banned substance. Her dedication to the sport and talent is obvious. It should have been also obvious that this sole positive case for a trace amount of  TMZ is odd and suspicious.

    4.  The panel minimizes the problems and violations of the Swedish laboratory 

    According to International Standards for Laboratories,  “Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur in ADAMS within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Sample. The reporting time required for specific occasions  may be substantially less than twenty (20) days.”

    So the laboratory in Sweden took TWICE as long as it should have under normal circumstances.  But the circumstances were not normal. The European figure skating championship was in January and the Winter Olympics in February.

    Why was this failure ignored? Media has reported the delay was due to staffing shortages caused by Covid 19. However, the report describes a different reason for the extreme delay: there  were two incidents of  “unsatisfactory quality control” plus the need to find a “new confirmation method”. A Swedish scientist and chemical analysis expert gave his confidential assessment: “It is obvious that they were not prepared for the task and had even to develop a new procedure.” Despite the reporting failure and quality control issues at the Swedish laboratory, there was no criticism or comment by the panel or in the media.

    The report says there were “lengthy submissions in relation to the conduct of the Stockholm Laboratory in its analysis and reporting of the AAF” but they do not say more.

    5.  Valieva’s legitimate medications and supplements were distorted.

    WADA and ISU made much of the sixty medications and supplements that Valieva was authorized to take. Evidently this was a list of all the permissible medications that she COULD take if she or her doctor wished. As it was, she only took a few: There is nothing devious about these supplements. Many professional and amateur athletes use them. Here are the ones she was taking:

    Carnitine is naturally present in many foods—especially foods of animal origin—and is available as a dietary supplement…Carnitine plays a critical role in energy production.”

    Hypoxen provides a reduction in oxygen consumption with significant physical exertion, improved tissue respiration, a decrease in mental and physical fatigue, and the successful implementation of labor-intensive physical operations.”

    Supradyn is a brand name for a multivitamin and mineral supplement.”

    Ecdysterone is the main compound in spinach extract.”

    How and Why Kamila Valieva was Sabotaged

    Since 2014, the US and western allies have imposed sanctions, waged information war and treated Russia as an enemy. The US does not hide its animosity and goal to weaken Russia.  The  2019 Rand Report titled Overextending and Unbalancing  Russia is an example. Commissioned by the US Defense Department, the report discusses tactics and strategies to “weaken Russia”.

    The report recommends, “Undermining Russia’s image … diminishing Russian standing and influence …Western efforts to damage Russia’s international prestige can be effective if broadly implemented. Further sanctions, the removal of Russia from non-UN international forums, and boycotting of international events are largely within the power of Western states to unilaterally implement and would damage Russian prestige … the loss of international sporting events or access to key forums is likely to deepen concerns within Russia that the current regime might not be effectively pursuing policies that are returning Russia to glory.”

    International sports, with the Olympics being paramount, is an important part of a nation’s image abroad and at home. With its goal of “undermining Russia’s image”, the US establishment had a MOTIVE in preventing Russians from winning  at  the Olympics. Figure skating is one of the most widely watched Olympics events and a Russian sweep of the medals, with Valieva leading the way, would impress the viewing public and enhance Russia’s image. It is impossible to look at Valieva skating and not be impressed with her artistry and skill.

    At the end of October 2021, US secret services knew that Valieva was likely to win the figure skating gold.  Commentators at Ice Skate Canada International made that clear.  That may be when the decision was taken to sabotage Valieva.  All they had to do was insure she had one positive doping test. There are numerous ways they could have done this. They might have surveilled Kamila and her guardian grandfather for a couple weeks, learned when and where he went shopping, then sabotaged the fruit he purchased. Or perhaps they contaminated her lipstick or cosmetics with TMZ. Chemicals can enter the body through the skin. Her cosmetics are kept in a locked case, but how hard would it be for a trained CIA agent to unlock it? Cracking locks  is standard training. This is clearly within their MEANS. What is more likely, they could have replaced a legitimate pill with a lookalike pill  contaminated with TMZ. The CIA has their own chemical laboratory.

    As to the OPPORTUNITY, the Russian National Championships were a good occasion with less athlete security as mentioned by Valieva in the hearing. Or perhaps the agents entered her house in Moscow or St Petersburg hotel room when she was not there. With a small team of trained people, this would not be difficult. Based on the very low amount of TMZ in her sample from 25 December 2021, the swap may have occurred in Moscow before she left.

    Was it incompetence or worse at the Stockholm Lab?

    A remaining question is regarding the extraordinary delay in reporting the Adverse Analytic Finding (AAF) by the Swedish laboratory. Some experts have questioned why there is not a time limit. In this case, the finding was extremely late and test analysis involved multiple errors and a “new confirmation method”. Why was this allowed?

    The late report was hugely disruptive to the Beijing Olympics. Instead of being sorry, the Biden administration may have been pleased. They had already criticized the Olympics and were carrying out a diplomatic boycott.

    Senate leader Nancy Pelosi tried to get world leaders to support a boycott with the accusation that China was committing “genocide”.  Trying to derail the Olympics, another US official earlier suggested the Beijing Olympics should be “postponed”.

    Mission Accomplished

    The positive doping test for the Russian skater distracted from the other events at the Games, undercut the Russian figure skating team achievements, renewed allegations of excess doping in Russia and disrupted China’s first winter Olympics. For the US foreign policy establishment, in a cold war with both China and Russia, this was a victory.

    From the comfort of studios and sidelines, jingoistic athletes and commentators derided Kamila, assumed she was guilty, and said she should not be competing. Pretending to “defend” her, many critics accused Valieva’s coaches and doctors of “child abuse”. Like the athlete herself, Kamila’s coach and doctors had no reason to encourage a banned substance. They had very reason and motive to NOT allow that.

    Unfortunately, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and some athletic federations have become part and parcel of  Western  hybrid warfare against “adversaries” Russia and China. WADA has expended enormous resources and efforts to ban top athletes from China and Russia. The International Skating Union  “welcomed”  the decision to ban 15 year old Kamila Valieva for four years. The top US men’s figure skater, Nathan Chen, said  that Valieva’s banning was a “win for clean sport.” On the contrary, it was a win for dirty politics, the politicization of sport and undermining the Olympic charter and its honorable ideals.

    The news had the desired effect of provoking hostility and Russophobia. It is a shame that so few announcers and athletes expressed any skepticism. They immediately assumed her guilt and condemned Valieva’s coach Eteri Tutberidze and doctors. This was done with crocodile tears of concern for “child abuse”.  When Valieva faltered under the immense pressure, announcer Christine Brennan fumed, “You could not help but see the results of the abuse of a child…. This is one of the greatest talents we have ever seen … Shame on Russia. Shame on those coaches for putting her in this position.”  Patrick McEnroe opined, “Russians – are you happy now? … An absolute disgrace.”

    Kamila had no idea why she tested positive for the banned substance because she was secretly sabotaged. How could she prove that she did not intentionally ingest the banned substance?   Arbitrators Drake and Mishkin came to their decision because of national and political bias.

    Only a Temporary Win

    On 8 February 2022, as Kamila’s positive test was stealing the show in Beijing, US President Joe Biden was in Germany.  With the tensions around Ukraine building, he threatened that if Russia intervened in Ukraine, “There will no longer be a Nordstream pipeline …. we will bring an end to it.” Around the same time, the Ukraine military and Azov militias escalated their attacks on the Donbas, perhaps preparing for a major attack. On 24 February Russia crossed the border and thus the Ukraine war began.  Supporting the belief that the US and West intentionally provoked and prolonged the war hoping to “weaken Russia”, the US and UK effectively stopped peace negotiations between Kiev and Moscow early in the conflict.

    The Ukraine war continues with horrendous loss of life. Russia seems to be slowly winning and the end is hopefully in sight.

    Kamila Valieva appears stronger than ever. She is no longer a girl, but a young woman skating in performances with tons of support. She is honored in Russia as the Olympic champion she is.

    Provoking the Ukraine war and sabotaging the best figure skater in the world can at best be temporary victories for the US and western elites.

    The post How the West Robbed and Abused the Best Figure Skater in the World While Provoking the War in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It has been two years since Russia invaded Ukraine, sparking a brutal war in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have died. With Ukraine running low on both weapons and new recruits, and with more U.S. funding stalled in Congress, we host a discussion on the future of the conflict with peace activist Medea Benjamin of CodePink and Oberlin professor Stephen Crowley…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Oleg Orlov, 70, tells court he has committed no crime and regrets nothing before being sentenced to two and a half years in prison

    One of Russia’s longest-serving and most respected human rights campaigners, Oleg Orlov, has been sentenced to two and a half years in jail for denouncing the war in Ukraine.

    Orlov, who is 70, has served for more than two decades as one of the leaders of the Memorial human rights organisation, which won a share of the Nobel peace prize in 2022 a year after being banned in Russia.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Parliamentary elections in Belarus are being viewed as a dress rehearsal for the presidential election that is scheduled to take place next year in which the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, is expected to be the only viable candidate.

    Lukashenka’s pledge to run again — repeated on February 25 after he cast his ballot — was not seen as an off-the-cuff comment.

    “Tell them (the opposition) I’ll [run],” Lukashenka said in response to a question about the 2025 presidential election, according to BelTA, adding that there could be pressure from the opposition to hold elections sooner, but voters should not worry because the elections will be carried out “the way it is necessary for Belarus.”

    The expectation is that there will be no real opposition candidates in the race, and if there is an alternative to Lukashenka, it will be only a nominal one. Lukashenka has been in power since 1994, and under his rule, Belarus has become an increasingly repressive state, being called by some Western diplomats “Europe’s last dictatorship.”

    Election authorities in Belarus said earlier that all 110 mandates of the lower parliament chamber had been occupied following the tightly controlled parliamentary elections held on February 25, which were held under heavy securityamid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The Central Election Commission said that voter turnout was nearly 74 percent amid reports of people being intimidated into going to polling stations against their will.

    The vote was criticized by the U.S. State Department, which called it a “sham” election held amid a “climate of fear.”

    Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    The Crisis In Belarus

    Read our coverage as Belarusian strongman Alyaksandr Lukashenka continues his brutal crackdown on NGOs, activists, and independent media following the August 2020 presidential election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott, saying the regime had only allowed “puppets” onto the ballot.

    Tsikhanouskaya on February 26 took part in a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, reminding the council that the situation in Belarus remains serious and that thousands of political prisoners suffer in prisons in inhumane conditions.

    The international community’s response to the crisis in Belarus and similar repressive regimes should be decisive and unwavering, she said, and any actions taken against these regimes should have a real impact on the ground.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the commission, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Paval Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Polls have closed for Belarus’s tightly controlled parliamentary elections, which were held under heavy security at polling stations and amid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The February 25 elections were widely expected to solidify the position of the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    Polls opened for the general elections at 8 a.m. local time and closed at 8 p.m.

    According to the Central Election Commission, as of 6 p.m., voter turnout was 70.3 percent.

    Results are expected to be announced on February 26, the commission said.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott.

    “There are no people on the ballot who would offer real changes because the regime only has allowed puppets convenient for it to take part,” Tsikhanouskaya said in a video statement from her exile in Lithuania, where she moved following a brutal crackdown on protests against the 2020 election results. “We are calling to boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    In a separate message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tsikhanouskaya said on February 25 that her video address to the Belarusian people about the elections and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been displayed on 2,000 screens in public spaces throughout Belarus. The action, she said, was organized by a coalition of former police and security forces officers.

    The U.S. State Department blasted what it called a “sham” election, held amid a “climate of fear.”

    “The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus,” it said in a statement.

    “The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic. The regime continues to hold more than 1,400 political prisoners. All independent political figures have either been detained or exiled. All independent political parties were denied registration.”

    “The Belarusian people deserve better,” it said.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to "boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice."
    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to “boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    On the occasion, Lukashenka told journalists after voting that he plans to run again for president in 2025.

    “Tell them (the exiled opposition) that I’ll run,” the state news agency BelTa quoted Lukashenka as saying.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission (CEC) announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the CEC, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Pavel Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests, and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law-enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.

    In the run-up to the vote, rights organizations uncovered violations pertaining to how local election committees were formed. An expert mission organized by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Viasna said in late January that the lower number of local election committees and their compositions could indicate higher control by the authorities over the election process and an effort to stack the committees with government loyalists.

    Following the vote, Belarus is expected to form a new, 1,200-seat All-Belarus Popular Assembly that will have broad powers to appoint judges and election officials and to consider amendments to the constitution. The new body will include elected local legislators, as well as top officials, union members, and pro-government activists.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Two years of fighting after Russia’s brutal 2022 invasion of Ukraine has the world asking what peace between the two nations can possibly look like and what is the possible path to end a war that has left a nation shredded and hundreds of thousands dead. Calling the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine a violation of the UN Charter and international law, UN Secretary-General António Guterres on…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Polls have closed for Belarus’s tightly controlled parliamentary elections, which were held under heavy security at polling stations and amid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The February 25 elections were widely expected to solidify the position of the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    Polls opened for the general elections at 8 a.m. local time and closed at 8 p.m.

    According to the Central Election Commission, as of 6 p.m., voter turnout was 70.3 percent.

    Results are expected to be announced on February 26, the commission said.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott.

    “There are no people on the ballot who would offer real changes because the regime only has allowed puppets convenient for it to take part,” Tsikhanouskaya said in a video statement from her exile in Lithuania, where she moved following a brutal crackdown on protests against the 2020 election results. “We are calling to boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    In a separate message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tsikhanouskaya said on February 25 that her video address to the Belarusian people about the elections and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been displayed on 2,000 screens in public spaces throughout Belarus. The action, she said, was organized by a coalition of former police and security forces officers.

    The U.S. State Department blasted what it called a “sham” election, held amid a “climate of fear.”

    “The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus,” it said in a statement.

    “The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic. The regime continues to hold more than 1,400 political prisoners. All independent political figures have either been detained or exiled. All independent political parties were denied registration.”

    “The Belarusian people deserve better,” it said.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to "boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice."
    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to “boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    On the occasion, Lukashenka told journalists after voting that he plans to run again for president in 2025.

    “Tell them (the exiled opposition) that I’ll run,” the state news agency BelTa quoted Lukashenka as saying.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission (CEC) announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the CEC, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Pavel Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests, and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law-enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.

    In the run-up to the vote, rights organizations uncovered violations pertaining to how local election committees were formed. An expert mission organized by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Viasna said in late January that the lower number of local election committees and their compositions could indicate higher control by the authorities over the election process and an effort to stack the committees with government loyalists.

    Following the vote, Belarus is expected to form a new, 1,200-seat All-Belarus Popular Assembly that will have broad powers to appoint judges and election officials and to consider amendments to the constitution. The new body will include elected local legislators, as well as top officials, union members, and pro-government activists.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Polls have closed for Belarus’s tightly controlled parliamentary elections, which were held under heavy security at polling stations and amid calls for a boycott by the country’s beleaguered opposition.

    The February 25 elections were widely expected to solidify the position of the country’s authoritarian leader, Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Only four parties, all of which support Lukashenka’s policies, were officially registered to compete in the polls — Belaya Rus, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Party of Labor and Justice. About a dozen parties were denied registration last year.

    Polls opened for the general elections at 8 a.m. local time and closed at 8 p.m.

    According to the Central Election Commission, as of 6 p.m., voter turnout was 70.3 percent.

    Results are expected to be announced on February 26, the commission said.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has claimed her victory over Lukashenka in the 2020 presidential election was stolen, described the elections as a “farce” and called for a boycott.

    “There are no people on the ballot who would offer real changes because the regime only has allowed puppets convenient for it to take part,” Tsikhanouskaya said in a video statement from her exile in Lithuania, where she moved following a brutal crackdown on protests against the 2020 election results. “We are calling to boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    In a separate message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tsikhanouskaya said on February 25 that her video address to the Belarusian people about the elections and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had been displayed on 2,000 screens in public spaces throughout Belarus. The action, she said, was organized by a coalition of former police and security forces officers.

    The U.S. State Department blasted what it called a “sham” election, held amid a “climate of fear.”

    “The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus,” it said in a statement.

    “The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic. The regime continues to hold more than 1,400 political prisoners. All independent political figures have either been detained or exiled. All independent political parties were denied registration.”

    “The Belarusian people deserve better,” it said.

    The general elections were the first to be held in Belarus since the 2020 presidential election, which handed Lukashenka a sixth term in office. More than 35,000 people were arrested in the monthslong mass protests that followed the controversial election.

    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to "boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice."
    Belarusian opposition leader Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya called on people to “boycott this senseless farce, to ignore this election without choice.”

    On the occasion, Lukashenka told journalists after voting that he plans to run again for president in 2025.

    “Tell them (the exiled opposition) that I’ll run,” the state news agency BelTa quoted Lukashenka as saying.

    Ahead of the voting in parliamentary and local council elections, the country’s Central Election Commission (CEC) announced a record amount of early voting, which began on February 20. Nearly 48 percent of registered voters had already voted by February 24, according to the CEC, eclipsing the nearly 42 percent of early voting recorded for the contentious 2020 presidential election.

    Early voting is widely seen by observers as a mechanism employed by the Belarusian authorities to falsify elections. The Belarusian opposition has said the early voting process allows for voting manipulation, with ballot boxes unprotected for a five-day period.

    The Vyasna Human Rights Center alleged that many voters were forced to participate in early voting, including students, soldiers, teachers, and other civil servants.

    “Authorities are using all available means to ensure the result they need — from airing TV propaganda to forcing voters to cast ballots early,” said Vyasna representative Pavel Sapelka. “Detentions, arrests, and searches are taking place during the vote.”

    The Belarusian authorities stepped up security on the streets and at polling stations around the country, with Interior Ministry police conducting drills on how to deal with voters who might try to violate restrictive rules imposed for the elections.

    For the first time, curtains were removed from voting booths, and voters were barred from taking pictures of their ballots — a practice encouraged by activists in previous elections in an effort to prevent authorities from manipulating vote counts.

    Polling stations were guarded by police, along with members of a youth law-enforcement organization and retired security personnel. Armed rapid-response teams were also formed to deal with potential disturbances.

    Lukashenka this week alleged without offering proof that Western countries were considering ways to stage a coup and ordered police to boost armed patrols across the country in order to ensure “law and order.”

    For the first time, election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were denied access to monitor the vote in OSCE-member Belarus.

    In the run-up to the vote, rights organizations uncovered violations pertaining to how local election committees were formed. An expert mission organized by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Viasna said in late January that the lower number of local election committees and their compositions could indicate higher control by the authorities over the election process and an effort to stack the committees with government loyalists.

    Following the vote, Belarus is expected to form a new, 1,200-seat All-Belarus Popular Assembly that will have broad powers to appoint judges and election officials and to consider amendments to the constitution. The new body will include elected local legislators, as well as top officials, union members, and pro-government activists.


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Alexei Navalny under arrest

    Alexei Navalny, a Russian political opposition figure whose popularity in the West far exceeded his support in Russia, died while incarcerated in a Russian prison. He was serving a combined 30-and-a-half-year sentence for fraud and political extremism, charges that Navalny and his supporters claim were little more than trumped up accusations designed to silence a man who had emerged in recent years as the most vocal Russian critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    According to a statement released by the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service, “On February 16, 2024, in penal colony number 3, convict Alexei Navalny felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness. The medical staff of the institution arrived immediately, and an ambulance team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, which did not yield positive results. Doctors of the ambulance stated the death of the convict. The causes of death are being established.”

    Alexei Navalny was 47 at the time of his death. He left behind his wife, Yulia, and two children.

    Navalny was serving out his sentence at the IK-3 prison colony in Kharp, a settlement in the Yamal-Nenets autonomous district some 2,000 kilometers northeast of Moscow, one of the most remote prisons in Russia with a reputation for austerity and—according to inmates who had served time there—brutality.


    Scott Ritter will discuss this article on Ep. 136 of Ask the Inspector.

    Navalny’s death has been widely condemned in the West, with President Joe Biden weighing in with a lengthy statement issued from the White House’s Roosevelt Room. Navalny, Biden said, “bravely stood up to the corruption, the violence and…all the bad things that the Putin government was doing. In response, Putin had him poisoned. He had him arrested. He had him prosecuted for fabricated crimes. He sentenced him to prison. He was held in isolation. Even all that didn’t stop him from calling out Putin’s lies.”

    Biden noted that “Even in prison he [Navalny] was a powerful voice for the truth, which is kind of amazing when you think about it. And he could have lived safely in exile after the assassination attempt on him in 2020, which nearly killed him, I might add. And — but he — he was traveling outside the country at the time. Instead, he returned to Russia. He returned to Russia knowing he’d likely be imprisoned or even killed if he continued his work, but he did it anyway because he believed so deeply in his country, in Russia.”

    Biden cast the blame for Navalny’s death squarely at the feet of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Make no mistake. Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death. Putin is responsible. What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin’s brutality. No one should be fooled, not in Russia, not at home, not anywhere in the world.” Navalny, Biden said, “was so many things that Putin was not. He was brave. He was principled. He was dedicated to building a Russia where the rule of law existed and of where it applied to everybody. Navalny believed in that Russia, that Russia. He knew it was a cause worth fighting for, and obviously even dying for.”

    Yulia Navalny at the Munich Security Conference, February 16, 2024—the day her husband died.

    Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, addressed his death before the Munich Security Conference, with Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in attendance. “I want Putin and his entire surrounding…Putin’s friends, his government [to] know – that they will have to pay for what they’ve done with our country, with my family, and my husband. And that day will come very soon,” she declared, adding that “Vladimir Putin must be held accountable for all the horrors they are doing to my country, to our country – to Russia.”

    Similar outpourings of grief and support have emerged from the leaders and media of nations that have historically been aligned against Russia. Navalny, it seems, has been able to rally more support to his cause in death than he could while alive.

    Navalny has been elevated into near mythical status as the idealized symbol of “Russian democracy.”

    But the truth is far different.

    Alexei Navalny with his parents and younger brother, Oleg, in the mid-1980’s.

    Navalny was born on June 4, 1976. His father was a career Soviet Army officer. According to Navalny’s mother, her son was radicalized by listening to the conversations her husband had with other Soviet officers about the deteriorating conditions in the Soviet Union. Navalny earned a law degree from People’s Friendship University in Moscow in 1998, before earning his master’s in economics from State Finance Academy in 2001. While studying, Navalny became involved in politics, joining the liberal opposition association, Yabloko, in 1999.

    Yabloko (which means “apple” in Russian) began its life 1993 as a voting bloc in the Russian Duma that viewed itself as the political opposition to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. In 1995 Yabloko became an association of political parties which continued to oppose Yeltsin’s presidency—indeed, in May 1999 (the year Navalny joined) the Yabloko association voted in favor of the impeachment of Yeltsin (ironically, given its future political orientation, the bloc also voted, in August 1999, in favor of the selection of Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister.) Navalny went on to cut his political teeth as a local organizer at a time when life in Russia had hit nearly rock bottom—the decade of the 1990’s was marked by massive deterioration in Russian living conditions, and corruption marked nearly every aspect of Russian political, economic, and social existence. In December 2001, Yabloko applied for and was given permission to register as a political party.

    Navalny’s political maturation came at a time when Russian democratic institutions were almost exclusively organized and funded by western institutions. The US State Department, for example, conducted what it called the “democracy assistance program,” whose mission was “to capitalize on the historic opportunity to build democracy in place of a centralized Communist system” by creating and nurturing “the full range of democratic institutions, processes, and values” so that the “responsiveness and effectiveness of the Russian government” would be increased. The program provided financial and managerial support to “prodemocracy political activists and political parties, proreform trade unions, court systems, legal academies, officials throughout the government, and members of the media.” US-funded political party development programs in Russia were implemented through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) grants to the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI).

    In 2005, Navalny started working with another political activist, Maria Gaidar (the daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, and a member of the Union of Right Forces political party) to form a coalition known as the Democratic Alternative, or DA. In a statement made to US government officials in 2005, Maria Gaidar admitted that most of her funding came from the NED, although she did not publicize this fact out of fear of the political and legal consequences of being openly affiliated with the United States. Another recipient of NED funding was Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion-turned-political activist, who in 2005 formed the United Civil Front, an organization dedicated to dismantling the current electoral system in Russia so that new leadership could be elected to the Duma and presidency in the 2007-2008 election cycle.

    The 2007–2008 time frame was critical. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was appointed President by Boris Yeltsin on New Years Eve 1999, and elected President in March 2000, was coming to the end of his second term as President. The Russian Constitution only permitted two consecutive terms as President, so Putin was unable to run for reelection. However, Putin and his United Russia Party had come up with a solution—if the United Russia Party could hold on to its majority in the Russian Duma, then Putin would be appointed as Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, Dmitri Medvedev, would then run for president.

    This scheme, however, opened the door in the minds of the Russian political opposition (and their western masters) for sweeping political change. If United Russia could be denied its Duma majority, then Putin would not be able to serve as Prime Minister. And a United Russia defeat in the Duma elections in December 2007 could pave the way for a similar defeat in the presidential election in March 2008. For Kasparov, Gaidar, Navalny, and other leaders of the opposition, this was an opportunity to bring an end to what they viewed as the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin.

    Gary Kasparov and Alexei Navalny at the “Dissenter’s March” in March 2006.

    The promoters of “democratic reform” (i.e., regime change) in the State Department likewise believed this to be a unique opportunity for change. Already, US-funded “color revolutions” had swept aside autocratic governments in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia. The hope was that a similar “revolution” could be organized in Russia. One of the key elements for making this happen was making sure that the opposition groups received the funding necessary to enable their training and organization. In addition to the NED and its two affiliates, the NDI and IRI, money was dispatched to various NGOs and Russian individuals covertly, using the CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS).

    The CIA was also involved in identifying, grooming, recruiting and managing Russian political dissidents who could help implement the American regime change strategy which targeted Putin and his United Russia Party for the 2007-2008 election cycle. One such dissident was a Russian journalist named Yevgenia Albats.

    Albats graduated from Moscow State University in 1980 with a degree in journalism. She was the recipient of an Alfred Friendly fellowship which saw her assigned to the Chicago Tribune as a visiting journalist in 1990. Albats spent 1993 at Harvard University after winning a prestigious Nieman Fellowship, where she spent two semesters “auditing classes with some of the university’s greatest thinkers, participating in Nieman events and collaborating with peers.”

    Yevgenia Albats, Moscow, 2006.

    The CIA’s Directorate of Operations, responsible for clandestine intelligence collection, operates what is known as the National Resources Division (NRD). The NRD is responsible for the CIA’s human intelligence collection activities inside the United States. The NRD has two major programs. The first involves the voluntary debriefing of US citizens—primarily businessmen—who travel to destinations of interest that the CIA might otherwise have difficulty gaining access to.

    The second involves the assessment and development of foreigners on US soil—students, visiting professors, businessmen, etc.—for possible recruitment by the CIA. NRD maintains relationships with major universities—such as Harvard—that host prestigious fellowships and conferences capable of attracting up and rising foreign talent. Albats had been placed on the CIA’s radar through her Alfred Friendly fellowship. While at Harvard there is little doubt that she was further groomed—perhaps without her being cognizant that it was happening.

    Albats was to return to Cambridge in 2000, where she studied for her PhD. One of her areas of specialty was what she called “grassroots organizations.” Albats spent the 2003-2004 academic year teaching at Yale University, where she became familiar with the Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Program, a four-month, full-time residential program based out of Yale’s International Leadership Center and housed within the Jackson School of Global Affairs. The Program runs annually from mid-August to mid-December and brings together up and rising leaders from around the world—in short, the perfect targets for assessment and grooming by the NRD case officers.

    Her thesis advisor at Harvard was Timothy Colton, a professor of government and Russian studies. Colton specialized in the intricacies of Russian elections. The year Albats arrived at Harvard, Colton published a book, Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia, and while Albats was preparing her thesis, Colton, together with Michael McFaul, a Stanford professor who had helped bring Boris Yeltsin to power in the 1990’s (and who would go on to serve as President Barack Obama’s principle Russian expert, first in the National Security Council, and later as the US Ambassador to Russia), collaborated on a second book, Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000.

    Working with Colton, whose research had been heavily subsidized by the Department of State through the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, Albats focused on ways to exploit nationalism in Russia from an electoral perspective. She differentiated between what she termed imperial nationalism and ethnic nationalism, with imperial nationalism being the purview of the state and as such something to be opposed. Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, wasn’t deemed by Albats to be dangerous, especially in a politically unstructured society such as Russia, where there was a natural tendency to unite on an ethnic basis.

    Albats returned to Russia in 2004, after successfully defending her PhD thesis in political science. One of the first things Albats did was to turn her Moscow apartment into a political science parlor where she gathered young activists together for the purpose of organizing them into politically viable entities capable of impacting the upcoming Russian elections in 2007-2008.

    One of these young activists she attracted was Alexei Navalny.

    The Albats-run political parlor sessions, which began in 2004, helped bring Navalny together with Maria Gaidar, and led to the creation of the Democratic Alternative organization, as well as Gary Kasparov (another member of the Albats parlor scene) and his United Civil Front movement. One of the goals of the parlor was to try and find a way to recreate in Russia the kind of youth movement that was created in 2004 in Ukraine that helped bring about the so-called Orange Revolution that prevented Viktor Yanukovich from becoming president. This movement, Pora, played an essential role in mobilizing opposition to Yanukovich. Albats and her team of aspiring political scientists conceived a Russian equivalent, which was called Oborona, or “defense.” The hope of Albats, Gaidar, Kasparov, and Navalny was that Oborona could serve as the impetus for the mobilization of the Russian youth to oust Vladimir Putin from power.

    As Albats worked to organize political dissent in Russia, the foundation of western support upon which Russian political opposition was built, namely the funding provided by non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) such as the NED, was exposed as being little more than a vehicle for the channeling of illicit foreign intelligence services. In the winter of 2005-2006, the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB, broke up a sophisticated ring run out of the British Embassy involving a so-called “spy rock”—a sophisticated digital communications platform disguised as a rock—which enabled British spies to communicate with their Russian agents without ever having to meet with them.

    The Russian agent would pass near the rock and, using a hand-held communication device like a Blackberry, download an electronic message onto a server contained inside the rock. The British spies would then approach the rock and, using the same kind of device, upload the message to their own device. The scheme was discovered when a British spy, unable to retrieve the message, approached the rock and gave it a few kicks to see if the system would work. This attracted the attention of the FSB officers following him, which led to the rock being seized and evaluated. One Russian citizen, said to be employed by a sensitive military industrial facility, was arrested.

    The “Spy Rock” used by British intelligence officers to covertly communicate with Russian agents.

    But the most surprising aspect of the data retrieved from the “spy rock” was the fact that at least one of the British spies was using the device to transmit information about how various NGOs could access covert funds being provided by the British government. Persons from the NGOs in question, who had been issued similar devices to those used by their British masters, would download these instructions from the “rock.” Based upon the intelligence gathered from the captured server, the FSB was able to inform the Russian leadership about the specific NGOs involved in these illicit transactions. All in all, 12 Russian NGOs—including the Committee Against Torture, the Center for Development of Democracy, the Eurasia Foundation, and the Moscow Helsinki Group—were identified as receiving the illicit funds, which were administered as part of the British Foreign Office’s Global Opportunities Fund.

    In the aftermath of the “spy rock” scandal, the Russian government moved to create a new law on NGOs that imposed harsh conditions on the registration and operation of NGOs, effectively banning any NGO involved in politics from receiving foreign funding. While the NGOs impacted by this new law, which took effect in April 2006, denied any wrongdoing, they acknowledged that the impact of the law would be to stifle dissent before the 2007 Duma elections and the 2008 presidential race.

    Despite the crackdown on the British-affiliated NGOs, the Albats-run “political parlor” continued to aggressively try to coalesce a viable opposition effort in Russia. Egged on by Albats and her theories about the political potential of ethnic nationalism, in 2007 Navalny co-founded the democratic nationalist National Russian Liberation Movement, an umbrella organization which attracted far-right, ultranationalist movements. The ideology of these groups is perhaps best explained by Navalny’s efforts in coopting them to his cause. Navalny made two videos during this time as a means of introducing the new party to a larger Russian public. The first video had Navalny comparing Muslims in Russia to pests and ended with Navalny shooting a Muslim with a handgun, then declaring that pistols were to Muslims like flyswatters and slippers were to flies and cockroaches. The second video had Navalny comparing interethnic conflict to dental cavities, implying that the only solution was extraction.

    Alexei Navalny in a 2007 video where he likens Muslims to cockroaches who should be shot.

    Navalny was kicked out of Yabloko in the summer of 2007, his affiliation with far-right wing Russian nationalism a bridge too far for the neo-liberal political party. But before his falling out, Navalny was able to make an impression on his underwriters. In March 2007 Navalny participated in the so-called “Dissenter’s March,” walking side-by-side with one of the major organizers of the protest, Gary Kasparov.

    In the aftermath of the Russian crackdown on foreign funding for NGOs, Kasparov had turned to a network of Russian oligarchs operating out of London, where they colluded with the British Secret Intelligence Service to fund political opposition in Russia. The leader of this effort was the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, who had founded a non-profit organization, the International Foundation for Civil Liberties, which served as a front to accomplish Berezovsky’s publicly stated mission of bringing down Putin “by force” or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky was assisted in this venture by a number of Russian oligarchs, including Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil tycoon who was imprisoned on corruption charges in 2005, but whose foundation, Open Russia, continued to provide funding to Russian political opposition groups such as Kasparov’s United Civil Front; the Governor of Saint Petersburg at the time, Valentina Matviyenko, singled out Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky as the source of the money used to put on the “Dissenter’s March.”

    Gary Kasparov likewise noted that the bulk of the media support for the march was provided by Yevgenia Albats through her “Echo of Saint Petersburg” broadcasts.

    Albats’ influence on Navalny was discernable. Later, when explaining why he had embraced right-wing nationalism, Navalny’s response sounded like it could have been lifted from Albats’ Harvard doctoral thesis. “My idea is that you have to communicate with nationalists and educate them,” Navalny said. “Many Russian nationalists have no clear ideology. What they have is a sense of general injustice to which they respond with aggression against people with a different skin color or eyes of a different shape. I think it’s extremely important to explain to them that beating up migrants is not the solution to the problem of illegal immigration; the solution is a return to competitive elections that would allow us to get rid of the thieves and crooks who are getting rich off of illegal immigration.”

    Despite the direction provided by the State Department and CIA through proxies (witting or unwitting) such as Albats, and the covert funding provided via the British intelligence services, the goal of generating a Russian “Color Revolution” that could sweep Vladimir Putin and his United Russia Party from power failed. United Russia dominated the 2007 Duma elections, winning 65% of the vote and securing 315 of 450 seats; in March 2008, Dmitri Medvedev won the presidential race, securing 71.25% of the vote. Medvedev then followed up on his promise to appoint Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister.

    The 2007-2008 election cycle represented a devastating defeat for the political opponents of Vladimir Putin and their western supporters. For Navalny, however, it was liberating—he had grown weary of the constant infighting and jostling for power within the ranks of Russia’s political opposition. Instead, Navalny began to pour himself into his new passion—”shareholder activism.” In 2008, Navalny bought 300,000 rubles worth of stock in five Russian oil and gas companies with the goal of becoming an activist shareholder. He founded the Minority Shareholders Association, through which he used his status as a shareholder to push for transparency regarding the financial assets of these companies, as required by law.

    Navalny began attending shareholders meetings of some of the wealthiest companies, demanding answers to uncomfortable questions he was able to formulate by reviewing company paperwork legally available to shareholders. One of his first targets was SurgutNeftGas, or Surgut oil and gas company. Navalny had purchased $2,000 in stock and used his status as a minority shareholder to crash a meeting of shareholders in the Siberian city of Surgut. When the shareholders were asked if there were any questions, Navalny took the microphone and proceeded to ask the senior management of the company about the small size of their dividends and the opaque nature of the company’s ownership. His questions made the management uncomfortable and drew applause from many of the 300 shareholders in attendance.

    Navalny was riding on the coattails of the newly minted president, Dmitri Medvedev, and his stated goal of stamping out corruption. In addition to SurgutNeftGas, Navalny had placed his sights on such giants as Gazprom and Rosneft, and in doing so was peripherally attacking Medvedev, the former chairman of Gazprom, and Vladmir Putin, whose close associate, Igor Sechin, served as both chairman of Rosneft and deputy Prime Minister.

    Navalny wrote about his various campaigns online, through his LiveJournal blog. Hundreds of thousands of Russians followed his work, and the comments were mostly favorable (although several subscribers questioned Navalny’s motives, accusing him of running an extortion racket designed to make money, a charge Navalny dismissed without denying.)

    By tying his anti-corruption campaign in with the anti-corruption platform of Medvedev, Navalny not only shielded himself from direct retaliation, but was able to attract the attention—and support—of the Russian mainstream. Sergei Guriev, the Dean of Moscow’s New Economic School, and his deputy, Alexei Sitnikov, began supporting Navalny’s work.

    The main problem for Navalny, however, was income. He had yet to master the art of online fundraising, and he wasn’t yet established as one of the designated political opposition for whom western financing would be made available. In December 2008, an offer came in from Nikita Belykh, the Governor of Kirov, which, given his dire financial situation, he could not refuse.

    Nikita Belykh, a native of the Perm Region, had served in local government in multiple capacities, including Deputy Governor, up until May 2005, when he was elected as the leader of the Union of Right Forces, a leading opposition party, succeeding Boris Nemtsov, a noted critic of President Vladimir Putin. Belykh assumed the role of opposition leader, and in October 2005 helped form a coalition with the Yabloko Party, known as the Yabloko-United Democrats, to run in the Moscow City Duma elections, held on December 4, 2005. While the coalition won 11% of the vote and was able to be represented in the Moscow City Duma and became one of only three parties (along with United Russia and the Communist Party) to enter the new Moscow legislature, it was not to prove lasting; plans to merge with Yabloko were shelved in late 2006.

    The Union of Right Forces, like all opposition parties, was demoralized by the results of the 2007-2008 election cycle. Following the presidential election, in March 2008, the president-elect, Dmitri Medvedev, reached out to Belykh and offered him the post of Governor of the Kirov Region. Belykh, to the surprise of nearly everyone, accepted the job. His former political allies, like Maria Gaidar and Alexei Navalny, condemned Belykh for what they viewed as a betrayal—while they continued to struggle against the deeply entrenched pro-Putin apparatchiks who governed Russia, Belykh had jumped ship, and was now part of the establishment they so despised.

    Kirov Region Governor Nikita Belykh (right) meets with President Dmitri Medvedev, May 2009.

    Back in Moscow, Alexei Navalny and Maria Gaidar were trapped in a political post-apocalyptic nightmare. Money had dried up along with their political fortunes, and no one was in the mood for renewed political mischief. While Belykh had departed the Moscow political scene, he was still a friend. On November 18, 2008, Belykh reached out to Navalny to see if he was interested in serving as a volunteer consultant, advising the new governor on ways to enhance the transparency of the Kirov Region’s property management.

    Navalny accepted.

    (Maria Gaidar likewise followed Navalny to the Kirov Region, accepting an appointment in February 2009 as a deputy Governor.)

    The capital of the Kirov Region is the city of Kirov, located some 560 miles northeast of Moscow. While Kirov is known for its heavy industry, the Kirov region is also a leading producer of lumber. In 2007, the Kirov Region undertook a reorganization of the region’s timber industry, consolidating control over thirty-six timber mills under a single roof, a State unitary enterprise known as Kirovles. One of the problems confronting Kirovles was curtailing the practice of selling lumber for cash undertaken by many of the timber mills. The managers of the timber mills made a pretty profit, but this money was not registered as income for Kirovles, and as such the enterprise was operating at a deficit.

    One of Navalny’s first projects was to meet with the director of Kirovles. During this meeting, Navalny suggested that the best way to stop the unauthorized direct sale of timber by the managers of the timber mills would be for Kirovles to work with an intermediary timber trading company that would be responsible for finding clients for the timber produced by Kirovles. It just so happened that Navalny had coordinated with a friend, Petr Ofitserov, who had formed a timber trading company, the Vyatskaya Forest Company, or VLK, for this purpose. On April 15, 2009, Kirovles signed the first of several contracts for the purchase of timber from Kirovles by VLK worth, in their aggregate, around 330,000 Euros. VLK was then responsible for selling this timber to customers and would collect a commission of 7% for these sales.

    A KirovLes lumber outlet store.

    In July, Navalny undertook an audit of Kirovles. As a part of the audit, Belykh set up a working group for the purpose of restructuring Kirovles. Navalny was appointed the head of this working group. Based upon the findings of the audit, on August 17 the director of Kirovles was suspended from his position for mismanagement.

    On September 1, Kirovles terminated its contracts with VLK.

    Navalny finished his work in Kirov on September 11, 2009, and returned to Moscow.

    For the better part of the next year, Alexei Navalny focused on his work with the Minority Shareholders Association, which he publicly chronicled through his LiveJournal blog. Navalny was still a relatively unknown person in Russia, but his David versus Goliath approach toward uncovering corruption was starting to attract the attention of government officials and political junkies alike. Some people accused Navalny, through his shareholder activism, of simply running a giant grift, exposing corruption to extort payouts from the targeted entities. Others questioned how he was able to pay for all of his work, suggesting that he was being underwritten by entities who did not have the best interests of the Russian government in mind.

    Others worried about his security. Navalny spoke about this aspect of his life with a journalist in the winter of 2009, noting that his fears revolved around being arrested “or in the worst-case scenario with someone quietly having me killed.”

    Before he had left Kirov, Alexei Navalny met with Maria Gaidar to discuss his future. Gaidar had been a part of the political science parlor run by Yevgenia Albats, and shared the opinion expressed by Albats and Gary Kasparov that Navalny had potential as an activist but lacked the kind of political refinement needed to break out on the national stage. Gaidar was aware of the Yale World Fellows Program, and strongly encouraged Navalny to apply.

    Back in Moscow, Navalny took Gaidar’s suggestion to heart. Navalny consulted with Sergey Guriev, the Dean of the New Economic School, who agreed to nominate Navalny for the fellowship. Guriev wrote a recommendation, and turned to Yevgenia Albats and Gary Kasparov, who likewise agreed to write recommendations for Navalny. Albats turned to her Yale connections, and put Navalny in touch with Oleg Tsyvinsky, a Yale economics professor, who helped guide Navalny through the application process. Navalny was put in touch with Maxim Trudolyubov, an editor with the well-regarded Vedomosti business daily and an alumni of the Yale World Fellow Program, Class of 2009. Trudolyubov used his connections to have Vedomosti name Navalny its “Private Individual of the Year” for 2009, helping firm up his resumé.

    Sergei Guriev, the Dean of the New Economic School.

    The Yale World Fellows program requires that its applicants be “five and twenty-five years into their professional careers, with demonstrated and significant accomplishments at a regional, national, or international level.” Alexei Navalny’s “job description” at Yale was “Founder, Minority Shareholders Association,” a position he had held for less than a year at the time of his application. Navalny was also listed as being the “co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement.” Left unsaid was that while he was, in fact, a co-founder of this movement in 2005, he did so in the capacity of a member of the Yabloko Party, which kicked Navalny out in 2007 because of his links to right-wing nationalists.

    The Yale World Fellows Program, Class of 2010. Navalny is standing, fourth from the right.

    On April 28, 2010, Alexei Navalny made the following announcement in his LiveJournal blog:

    “Girls and Boys, I was lucky enough to get into the Yale World fellows program at Yale University. It was not easy, the competition was something like 1000 people for 15 places. Therefore, I will spend the second half of 2010 in the city of New Haven, Connecticut.”

    Navalny laid out his expectations from this experience. “I want to seriously expand the tools of our work and learn/understand how to use all sorts of laws on foreign corruption, US/EU anti-money laundering legislation, exchange rules, etc. against Effective Managers [EM]. We must be able to destroy EM where they will not be protected by greedy swindlers from the General Prosecutors Office and Russian courts. Therefore,” Navalny concluded, “our activities will only expand…soon we will hit EM in all time zones and jurisdictions.”

    In early August, Navalny, his wife Yulia, and their two children left Moscow for New Haven. There, a new world order beckoned that would forever change, and eventually cost, Navalny’s life.

    The post The Tragic Death of a Traitor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • The Author (left) with the Head of the Crimean Republic, Sergei Aksyanov (right)

    Deliberate neglect, followed by a blockade and now war have failed to break the resolve of the peninsula’s inhabitants.

    As the Russian military operation against Ukraine approaches its third year, the focus on the ongoing conflict has allowed another anniversary to go relatively unnoticed – it’s now around ten years since the violent events in Kiev’s Maidan Square that put in motion the circumstances which precipitated the current conflict.

    Over the course of five days, from February 18 to 23, 2014, neo-Nazi provocateurs from the Svoboda (All Ukrainian Union ‘Freedom’) Party and the Right Sector, a coalition of far-right Ukrainian nationalists who follow the political teachings of Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, engaged in targeted violence against the government of President Viktor Yanukovich. It was designed to remove him from power and replace him with a new, US-backed government. They were successful; Yanukovich fled to Russia on February 23, 2014.

    Soon thereafter, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea undertook actions to separate from the new Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. On March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, both of which at that time were legally considered to be part of Ukraine, held a referendum on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine. Over 97% of the votes cast were in favor of joining Russia. Five days later, on March 21, Crimea formally became part of the Russian Federation.


    The Northern Crimea Canal after Ukraine blocked the water supply.

    Shortly afterwards, Ukraine built a concrete dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit transporting water from the Dnieper River that provided around 85% of the peninsula’s water supply. In doing so, Ukraine effectively destroyed Crimea’s agricultural industry. Then, in November 2015, Ukrainian nationalists blew up pylons carrying power lines from Ukraine to Crimea, thrusting the peninsula into a blackout that prompted a declaration of emergency by the regional government.

    The Ukrainian assault on Crimea’s water and electricity was merely an extension of the lack of regard shown to the Crimean population during the two-plus decades that Kiev ruled the peninsula. The local economy was stagnant, and the pro-Russian locals were subjected to a policy of total Ukrainization. In general, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Crimea was well below the average of Ukraine (43.6% less in 2000, and 29.5% less in 2013). In short, the Kiev government made no meaningful attempt to develop Crimea culturally or infrastructurally. The Crimean Peninsula was in a state of decay perpetrated by Ukrainian governments.

    The damming of the North Crimean Canal and the destruction of the electrical transmission lines were simply the radical expression of the indifference shown by Kiev.

    Scott Ritter will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 138 of Ask the Inspector.

    In the years that followed the return of the peninsula to Russian control, there has been a gradual improvement in the economy of Crimea. The Russian government undertook a $680 million program to bolster water supplies which involved repairing long-neglected infrastructure, drilling wells, adding storage capacity, and building desalination plants. While this effort wasn’t sufficient to save much of Crimea’s agriculture, it did provide for the basic needs of the population. The Russian government also constructed the Crimean ‘Energy Bridge,’ laying down several undersea energy cables across the Kerch Strait that effectively compensated for the loss of power brought on by the destruction of the Ukrainian power lines.


    The Crimean Bridge at night.

    But the greatest symbol of Russia’s commitment to the people of Crimea was the construction of a $3.7 billion, 19-kilometer-long road-and-rail bridge connecting Krasnodar Region in southern Russia with the Crimean Peninsula. The bridge is the longest in Europe. Construction began in 2016, and it was opened for car traffic in a little more than two years. It has become a symbol of pride for the Russian people and their leadership; President Vladimir Putin personally drove across the bridge during its formal opening ceremony in 2018. The rail line was opened to passenger traffic in 2019, and freight traffic in 2020. The construction of the Crimean Bridge coincided with the building of the Tavrida Highway, a 250-kilometer, $2.5 billion four-lane road connecting the Crimean Bridge with the cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol. Construction of the road began in 2017 and is still ongoing.

    From 2014 to 2022, Crimea saw its population grow by more than 200,000 (from 2.28 million to nearly 2.5 million) as families forced to flee from Ukrainian oppression arrived, and other Russians were attracted by the business opportunities that came with Crimea’s economic revival. With the population surge came new investments by the Russian government in schools, roads, hospitals, and power stations. Tourism flourished as Russians flocked to the beaches of the Crimean coast. A modern airport was built in Simferopol to help manage the flow of visitors.

    Life in Crimea was looking up.

    And then came the war.

    The drive across the Crimea Bridge is an awe-inspiring experience. Coming in from the southern Russian region of Krasnodar at night, one is struck by the lights that line the highway leading to the bridge, a seemingly never-ending line of illumination. However, since the twin attacks on the bridge by the Ukrainian government (the first on October 8, 2022, involving a truck bomb, the second on July 17, 2023, involving unmanned sea drones), the transit now involves an element of risk manifested in the heightened security procedures put in place – barges and nets blocking the water approaches, and extensive physical inspections of vehicles entering the bridge.

    I was aware of the attacks against the Crimean Bridge when I drove across it on the night on January 14, taking note of the moment when we crossed the sites of the two attacks, which had dropped a span of the highway each time, and scanning the skies for any evidence of an attack by Kiev’s British-made Storm Shadow missiles. I must admit to breathing a slight sigh of relief when we crossed over onto Crimean soil, cognizant for the first time of the daily reality of Crimeans who look to it as their lifeline.

    Coming off the bridge, one enters the Tavrida Highway where, after a bit of a drive, the city of Feodosia appears on the horizon. It has a rich history spanning over two millennia, over the course of which it had been an ancient Greek colony, a Genoese trading port, an Ottoman fortress, and part of the Russian Empire. Now, Feodosia is one of the prime destinations for Russian tourists, and its coast is lined with hotels and restaurants. Like much of Crimea, Feodosia bears the scars of the years of neglect at the hands of the Ukrainian authorities – crumbling buildings, abandoned structures painted in graffiti, and roads in need of repair. But it is a vibrant city nonetheless, and the people are getting on with their daily lives.

    War has not escaped Feodosia. On December 26, 2023, the Ukrainian air force launched several Storm Shadow cruise missiles at Feodosia, some of which penetrated Russian air defenses, hitting the Novocherkassk, a large landing ship, and lighting up the night sky in a dramatic fireball. And anyone driving in and around Feodosia cannot help but notice the presence of Russian defenses.

    The Black Sea beachfront at Feodosia.

    This reality touches the lives of all who live there. Driving northeast out of Feodosia along the Black Sea coast, one comes to the tiny village of Batalnoye. This was the birthplace of my host, Aleksandr Zyryanov, the director general of the Novosibirsk Region Development Corporation. Aleksandr’s family left Batalnoye in 2007, following a new wave of Ukrainian nationalist oppression brought on by the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004-2005, which saw Viktor Yushchenko installed as Ukraine’s president. When Aleksandr returned to Batalnoye in 2014, after Crimea rejoined Russia, he didn’t know what he would find – his family home had been abandoned. Instead of ruins, however, he found a building painted in immaculate white, its contents preserved intact. Alexander’s neighbors, a Crimean Tatar family whose matriarch, Fatima, had helped raise him as a child, had made it a point every year to paint the house in anticipation of the return of its rightful owners.

    The loving bond between Aleksandr and Fatima’s family was evident to anyone who bore witness, as I did, to their reunion. Fatima, her husband, and her two sons were gracious hosts, laying out a table typical of Tatar hospitality. Life was not easy for Fatima and her family – they made a living off the land, and the war had suppressed the demand for the milk Fatima brought forth from her cows, and the vegetables she grew in her garden. Her sons were able to find work helping build the Tavrida Highway, but the construction had moved on closer to Simferopol, making the commute prohibitive.

    They had felt their house shake when Ukrainian missiles struck the Novocherkassk, and their nights were often interrupted by the sounds of Ukrainian drones flying overhead, and the launch of Russian air defense missiles in response. It’s a hard life, made even more so by the neglect shown the village during the time of Ukrainian rule.

    Gas lines being installed outside Fatima’s home in Batalnoye, January 2024

    Since the Russians took over, improvements have been incremental – a new school, and some road work. But when I visited Fatima in May of last year, they had no gas, no sewage, and their water came from the initiative of the villagers, who dug their own well despite a water line existing on the village boundary. Now, in January 2024, Batalnoye had been connected to the water line, and the infrastructure for bringing gas to the homes in the village was being installed.

    But still no sewage lines.

    There are hundreds of Batalnoyes across Crimea, small villages and towns which lack the priority of the big cities when it comes to infrastructure repair and development. But they have not been forgotten – the work in Batalnoye is evidence of that. It’s just that progress takes time, especially when trying to undo years of Ukrainian neglect and the ongoing consequences of the present conflict. This was one of the many points made to me by the head of the Crimean Republic, Sergey Aksyonov, during our meeting on January 15, 2024.

    Sergey Aksyonov, who had been a thorn in the side of Ukrainian authorities during Ukraine’s 22-year rule over the Crimean Peninsula, is a man on a mission. To say that Crimea is his passion would be an understatement – Crimea is his life. Even before he was picked by Putin to serve as the head of the Crimean Republic, Aksyonov worked hard to protect the Russian character of Crimea, working to prevent Ukrainian nationalists from erasing the history, culture, language, and religion.

    Sevastopol at night, January 15, 2024.

    Today, with Crimea returned to Russia, Aksyonov has turned his attention to the task of improving the lives of the citizens of Crimea – Russian, Tatar, and Ukrainian alike. Undoing two decades of neglect is a tall order. Doing so under a veritable economic siege imposed by Ukraine and the West in the aftermath of 2014 verges on the impossible. But Aksyonov is in the business of doing the impossible, a task made somewhat more bearable given the high priority that the Russian government has placed on restoring Crimea to its rightful status as the jewel of the Black Sea. Aksyonov was proud – rightly so – of all he had accomplished. Before we ended our meeting, he issued an invitation for a group of Americans to come to Crimea, all expenses paid, to see for themselves the miracle that he and the Russian government had created.

    Russia is at war with Ukraine and the Collective West, and Crimea has found itself on the front lines of this conflict. As Aleksandr and I drove out of Crimea, north toward Kherson and the New Territories (a collective name used in Russia to denoted the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye after they officially became part of Russia), I was struck by the reality of this conflict, manifested in the form of Russian military vehicles which crowded the highway in both directions. The highway itself was a mess. In 2022, it was freshly paved. But in the two years that have passed since Russia started the military operation, the heavy military traffic has taken its toll, the road buckling under the weight of the trucks, tanks, artillery pieces, and armored fighting vehicles that plied its asphalt surface.

    We crossed the Northern Crimean Canal, its channel filled with water in the aftermath of the Russian military blowing up the dam Ukraine had built for the express purpose of choking off the Crimean people and their economy. Now, the life-sustaining liquid flows freely. Crimea is coming back to life. We paused at the border between Crimea and Kherson to make sure our personal protective equipment (flak vests and helmets) fit properly and was readily available. We were about to enter an active war zone and had to be prepared for all eventualities.

    But even as Aleksandr adjusted the straps of my flak vest, my mind kept drifting back to Crimea, and the offer Sergey Aksyonov had made. I thought of Fatima, her family, and the citizens of Batalnoye. I thought of the men and women I met on the streets of Feodosia, Sevastopol, and Simferopol, both last May, and in January of this year. I thought of the pride in Sergey’s eyes, a pride that was shared by everyone I met.

    Crimea is their home. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is Tatar. Crimea is.

    And it was important for all these people to make sure that the rest of the world knew and understood this fact, this reality.

    The Russian ‘Path of Redemption’ through Crimea may have some potholes in it, but it exists nonetheless. The people of Crimea have been redeemed from the sin of more than two decades of Ukrainian misrule, and the further sins on the part of the Collective West and the Ukrainian nationalists in trying to violently suppress the desire of the majority of the Crimean people to live as part of the Russian Federation.

    I don’t know if I will be able to take advantage of Sergey Aksyonov’s kind offer – the reality of Western sanctions has a chilling effect on initiatives of this sort. But I will never shirk from my status as an eyewitness to the reality of Crimea today, from telling the truth about what I experienced during my visits to the remarkable land. Fatima and all the people I met in Crimea deserve nothing less.

    Fatima (left) with the author’s daughter, Victoria. May 2024.

    Note: This article was firstlished on the RT website, on February 18, 2024. It is part of a three-part series. It is republished here because censorship undertaken by various online platforms has limited the audience for such a far-ranging and important subject.

    The post The Russian “Path of Redemption first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • EU and other Western leaders and dignitaries arrived in Kyiv early on February 24 eager to send a defiant message on the second anniversary of Russia’s launch of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, while Moscow sought to capitalize on its recent gains by announcing a visit by Russia’s defense minister to occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zeleinskiy told his countrymen in a recorded video address from a Kyiv-area airport that was a scene of intense fighting early in the invasion that two years of bitter fighting means “we are 730 days closer to victory.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “Two years ago, we met an enemy landing force here with fire,” Zelenskiy said, before adding in a reference to the array of foreign leaders in Ukraine and at Hostomel Airport to mark the anniversary that “two years later, we meet here our friends, our partners.”

    He added that it was important that the war end “on our terms.”

    European Commission President Von der Leyen reportedly traveled to the Ukrainian capital from Poland by train along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

    Meloni is scheduled to host a videoconference involving Group of Seven (G7) democracy leaders during which Zelenskiy is expected to encourage ongoing support to beat back Europe’s first full-scale military invasion since World War II.

    On her arrival, von der Leyen said alongside a photo of herself on a train platform in Kyiv that she was there to mark the grim anniversary “and to celebrate the extraordinary resistance of the Ukrainian people.”

    “More than ever, we stand firmly by Ukraine,” she said, “Financially, economically, militarily, morally…[u]ntil the country is finally free.”

    Before arriving in Ukraine, Trudeau shared his Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s sentiment via X, formerly Twitter, that Canada and its allies were “sending a clear message to [Russia]: Ukraine will not be defeated in the face of Putin’s illegal war.”

    Words of support have been pouring in from Western leaders.

    U.S. President Joe Biden praised the determination of Ukrainians and said “the unprecedented 50-nation global coalition in support of Ukraine, led by the United States, remains committed to providing critical assistance to Ukraine and holding Russia accountable for its aggression.”

    “The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Germans and all Europeans to “do even more — so that we can defend ourselves effectively.”

    Scholz said that Germany was completely fulfilling its NATO target of 2 percent investment of total economic output into its military for the first time in decades.

    Recently installed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cited “Two years of Ukrainian heroism. Two years of Russian barbarism. Two years of disgrace of those who remain indifferent.”

    Maia Sandu, the president of Ukraine’s neighbor Moldova, where concerns are high and a long-standing contingent of Russian troops has refused to depart, thanked “Ukrainians for their tireless fight for freedom and for protecting peace in Moldova too.”

    “In these two years, the free world has shown unprecedented solidarity, yet the war persists; our support must endure fiercely,” she said on X.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must renew our determination…on this grim anniversary. This is the moment to show that tyranny will never triumph and to say once again that we will stand with Ukraine today and tomorrow.”

    The anniversary falls one day after the United States and European Union announced new rounds of hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia and officials responsible for the war, but with Ukrainian officials desperately pleading with the international community to avoid cutoffs in support or a “depletion of empathy.”

    Ukrainians have battled fiercely since a Russian invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops began on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to cast doubt on Ukrainian nationhood and eventually said Moscow’s goal was the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine’s government.

    It was a new phase in a land grab that had begun eight years earlier in 2014, when Russia covertly invaded and then annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began intensive support of armed Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted to back Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    WATCH: Current Time correspondents Borys Sachalko, Andriy Kuzakov, and Oleksiy Prodayvod reflect on their wartime experiences together with the cameramen and drivers who form a critical part of their reporting teams.

    But a massive assistance package proposed by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has been blocked primarily by Republicans in Congress.

    The European Union managed to pass its own $54 billion aid package for Ukraine earlier this month despite reluctance from member Hungary and talk of Ukraine fatigue.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recorded statement for the anniversary that “the situation on the battlefield remains extremely serious” and “President Putin’s aim to dominate Ukraine has not changed, and there are no indications that he is preparing for peace. But we must not lose heart.”

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the alliance was an advantage that neither Russia nor China could match.

    At the UN General Assembly on February 23, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said “Russia’s aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it,” adding that “The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and its continued colonial conquest.”

    Russian forces last week captured the mostly destroyed eastern city of Avdiyivka as remaining Ukrainian troops withdrew amid reported ammunition shortages to hand Moscow its first significant gain of territory in nearly a year.

    The Russian military said on February 24 that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited troops in occupied Ukraine in a clear effort to send a message to Ukraine and its defenders, as well as to a Russian public subjected to heavy censorship and punishments for anti-war dissenters as the “special military operation” has ground on.

    “Today, in terms of the ratio of forces, the advantage is on our side,” officials quoted Shoigu as telling troops at a Russian command center.

    The Russian military further said its troops were on the offensive after having taken Avdiyivka, in the Donetsk region.

    Zelenskiy used an interview on the conservative Fox News channel this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package to help his country defend itself, saying it is cheaper than the consequences of a Russian victory.

    Zelenskiy echoed warnings among Russia’s other neighbors that Putin will push further into Eastern Europe if he conquers Ukraine.

    “Will Ukraine survive without Congress’s support? Of course. But not all of us,” Zelenskiy said.

    On February 24, senior Zelenskiy aide Mykhaylo Podolyak said Ukraine was auditing its “available resources” and said it’s impossible to predict when the war might end without a good idea of the amount of weapons and ammunition Kyiv will have at its disposal.

    He also suggested the Ukrainian president’s office is not currently in favor of peace talks with Russia as it would mean the “gradual death of Ukraine.”

    Separately, Swiss President Viola Amherd was quoted as telling the Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper that Russia was unlikely to participate at the start of a senior-level peace conference that neutral Switzerland hopes to host in the next few months.

    The remarks followed Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis telling the United Nations that the idea was broached in January and Bern hoped for such a conference “by this summer.”

    Russia currently is thought to control around one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

    The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft after a new round of Russian drone and missile strikes on several Ukrainian regions on February 23, which if confirmed would mark the loss of the second A-50 in just over a month.

    The general appointed recently by Zelenskiy as commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskiy, said on February 24 that he is “convinced that unity is our victory.”

    “And it will definitely happen,” he said, “because light always conquers darkness!”

    Noting the two-year mark in the invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff asserted that Russia had suffered troop casualties of around 409,000 since February 24, 2022.

    Both sides classify casualty figures, and RFE/RL cannot confirm the accuracy of accounts by either side of battlefield developments in areas of heavy fighting or of casualty claims.

    With reporting by dpa, AFP, and Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • EU and other Western leaders and dignitaries arrived in Kyiv early on February 24 eager to send a defiant message on the second anniversary of Russia’s launch of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, while Moscow sought to capitalize on its recent gains by announcing a visit by Russia’s defense minister to occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zeleinskiy told his countrymen in a recorded video address from a Kyiv-area airport that was a scene of intense fighting early in the invasion that two years of bitter fighting means “we are 730 days closer to victory.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “Two years ago, we met an enemy landing force here with fire,” Zelenskiy said, before adding in a reference to the array of foreign leaders in Ukraine and at Hostomel Airport to mark the anniversary that “two years later, we meet here our friends, our partners.”

    He added that it was important that the war end “on our terms.”

    European Commission President Von der Leyen reportedly traveled to the Ukrainian capital from Poland by train along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

    Meloni is scheduled to host a videoconference involving Group of Seven (G7) democracy leaders during which Zelenskiy is expected to encourage ongoing support to beat back Europe’s first full-scale military invasion since World War II.

    On her arrival, von der Leyen said alongside a photo of herself on a train platform in Kyiv that she was there to mark the grim anniversary “and to celebrate the extraordinary resistance of the Ukrainian people.”

    “More than ever, we stand firmly by Ukraine,” she said, “Financially, economically, militarily, morally…[u]ntil the country is finally free.”

    Before arriving in Ukraine, Trudeau shared his Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s sentiment via X, formerly Twitter, that Canada and its allies were “sending a clear message to [Russia]: Ukraine will not be defeated in the face of Putin’s illegal war.”

    Words of support have been pouring in from Western leaders.

    U.S. President Joe Biden praised the determination of Ukrainians and said “the unprecedented 50-nation global coalition in support of Ukraine, led by the United States, remains committed to providing critical assistance to Ukraine and holding Russia accountable for its aggression.”

    “The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Germans and all Europeans to “do even more — so that we can defend ourselves effectively.”

    Scholz said that Germany was completely fulfilling its NATO target of 2 percent investment of total economic output into its military for the first time in decades.

    Recently installed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cited “Two years of Ukrainian heroism. Two years of Russian barbarism. Two years of disgrace of those who remain indifferent.”

    Maia Sandu, the president of Ukraine’s neighbor Moldova, where concerns are high and a long-standing contingent of Russian troops has refused to depart, thanked “Ukrainians for their tireless fight for freedom and for protecting peace in Moldova too.”

    “In these two years, the free world has shown unprecedented solidarity, yet the war persists; our support must endure fiercely,” she said on X.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must renew our determination…on this grim anniversary. This is the moment to show that tyranny will never triumph and to say once again that we will stand with Ukraine today and tomorrow.”

    The anniversary falls one day after the United States and European Union announced new rounds of hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia and officials responsible for the war, but with Ukrainian officials desperately pleading with the international community to avoid cutoffs in support or a “depletion of empathy.”

    Ukrainians have battled fiercely since a Russian invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops began on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to cast doubt on Ukrainian nationhood and eventually said Moscow’s goal was the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine’s government.

    It was a new phase in a land grab that had begun eight years earlier in 2014, when Russia covertly invaded and then annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began intensive support of armed Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted to back Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    WATCH: Current Time correspondents Borys Sachalko, Andriy Kuzakov, and Oleksiy Prodayvod reflect on their wartime experiences together with the cameramen and drivers who form a critical part of their reporting teams.

    But a massive assistance package proposed by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has been blocked primarily by Republicans in Congress.

    The European Union managed to pass its own $54 billion aid package for Ukraine earlier this month despite reluctance from member Hungary and talk of Ukraine fatigue.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recorded statement for the anniversary that “the situation on the battlefield remains extremely serious” and “President Putin’s aim to dominate Ukraine has not changed, and there are no indications that he is preparing for peace. But we must not lose heart.”

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the alliance was an advantage that neither Russia nor China could match.

    At the UN General Assembly on February 23, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said “Russia’s aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it,” adding that “The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and its continued colonial conquest.”

    Russian forces last week captured the mostly destroyed eastern city of Avdiyivka as remaining Ukrainian troops withdrew amid reported ammunition shortages to hand Moscow its first significant gain of territory in nearly a year.

    The Russian military said on February 24 that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited troops in occupied Ukraine in a clear effort to send a message to Ukraine and its defenders, as well as to a Russian public subjected to heavy censorship and punishments for anti-war dissenters as the “special military operation” has ground on.

    “Today, in terms of the ratio of forces, the advantage is on our side,” officials quoted Shoigu as telling troops at a Russian command center.

    The Russian military further said its troops were on the offensive after having taken Avdiyivka, in the Donetsk region.

    Zelenskiy used an interview on the conservative Fox News channel this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package to help his country defend itself, saying it is cheaper than the consequences of a Russian victory.

    Zelenskiy echoed warnings among Russia’s other neighbors that Putin will push further into Eastern Europe if he conquers Ukraine.

    “Will Ukraine survive without Congress’s support? Of course. But not all of us,” Zelenskiy said.

    On February 24, senior Zelenskiy aide Mykhaylo Podolyak said Ukraine was auditing its “available resources” and said it’s impossible to predict when the war might end without a good idea of the amount of weapons and ammunition Kyiv will have at its disposal.

    He also suggested the Ukrainian president’s office is not currently in favor of peace talks with Russia as it would mean the “gradual death of Ukraine.”

    Separately, Swiss President Viola Amherd was quoted as telling the Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper that Russia was unlikely to participate at the start of a senior-level peace conference that neutral Switzerland hopes to host in the next few months.

    The remarks followed Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis telling the United Nations that the idea was broached in January and Bern hoped for such a conference “by this summer.”

    Russia currently is thought to control around one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

    The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft after a new round of Russian drone and missile strikes on several Ukrainian regions on February 23, which if confirmed would mark the loss of the second A-50 in just over a month.

    The general appointed recently by Zelenskiy as commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskiy, said on February 24 that he is “convinced that unity is our victory.”

    “And it will definitely happen,” he said, “because light always conquers darkness!”

    Noting the two-year mark in the invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff asserted that Russia had suffered troop casualties of around 409,000 since February 24, 2022.

    Both sides classify casualty figures, and RFE/RL cannot confirm the accuracy of accounts by either side of battlefield developments in areas of heavy fighting or of casualty claims.

    With reporting by dpa, AFP, and Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • EU and other Western leaders and dignitaries arrived in Kyiv early on February 24 eager to send a defiant message on the second anniversary of Russia’s launch of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, while Moscow sought to capitalize on its recent gains by announcing a visit by Russia’s defense minister to occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zeleinskiy told his countrymen in a recorded video address from a Kyiv-area airport that was a scene of intense fighting early in the invasion that two years of bitter fighting means “we are 730 days closer to victory.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “Two years ago, we met an enemy landing force here with fire,” Zelenskiy said, before adding in a reference to the array of foreign leaders in Ukraine and at Hostomel Airport to mark the anniversary that “two years later, we meet here our friends, our partners.”

    He added that it was important that the war end “on our terms.”

    European Commission President Von der Leyen reportedly traveled to the Ukrainian capital from Poland by train along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

    Meloni is scheduled to host a videoconference involving Group of Seven (G7) democracy leaders during which Zelenskiy is expected to encourage ongoing support to beat back Europe’s first full-scale military invasion since World War II.

    On her arrival, von der Leyen said alongside a photo of herself on a train platform in Kyiv that she was there to mark the grim anniversary “and to celebrate the extraordinary resistance of the Ukrainian people.”

    “More than ever, we stand firmly by Ukraine,” she said, “Financially, economically, militarily, morally…[u]ntil the country is finally free.”

    Before arriving in Ukraine, Trudeau shared his Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s sentiment via X, formerly Twitter, that Canada and its allies were “sending a clear message to [Russia]: Ukraine will not be defeated in the face of Putin’s illegal war.”

    Words of support have been pouring in from Western leaders.

    U.S. President Joe Biden praised the determination of Ukrainians and said “the unprecedented 50-nation global coalition in support of Ukraine, led by the United States, remains committed to providing critical assistance to Ukraine and holding Russia accountable for its aggression.”

    “The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Germans and all Europeans to “do even more — so that we can defend ourselves effectively.”

    Scholz said that Germany was completely fulfilling its NATO target of 2 percent investment of total economic output into its military for the first time in decades.

    Recently installed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cited “Two years of Ukrainian heroism. Two years of Russian barbarism. Two years of disgrace of those who remain indifferent.”

    Maia Sandu, the president of Ukraine’s neighbor Moldova, where concerns are high and a long-standing contingent of Russian troops has refused to depart, thanked “Ukrainians for their tireless fight for freedom and for protecting peace in Moldova too.”

    “In these two years, the free world has shown unprecedented solidarity, yet the war persists; our support must endure fiercely,” she said on X.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must renew our determination…on this grim anniversary. This is the moment to show that tyranny will never triumph and to say once again that we will stand with Ukraine today and tomorrow.”

    The anniversary falls one day after the United States and European Union announced new rounds of hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia and officials responsible for the war, but with Ukrainian officials desperately pleading with the international community to avoid cutoffs in support or a “depletion of empathy.”

    Ukrainians have battled fiercely since a Russian invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops began on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to cast doubt on Ukrainian nationhood and eventually said Moscow’s goal was the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine’s government.

    It was a new phase in a land grab that had begun eight years earlier in 2014, when Russia covertly invaded and then annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began intensive support of armed Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted to back Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    WATCH: Current Time correspondents Borys Sachalko, Andriy Kuzakov, and Oleksiy Prodayvod reflect on their wartime experiences together with the cameramen and drivers who form a critical part of their reporting teams.

    But a massive assistance package proposed by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has been blocked primarily by Republicans in Congress.

    The European Union managed to pass its own $54 billion aid package for Ukraine earlier this month despite reluctance from member Hungary and talk of Ukraine fatigue.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recorded statement for the anniversary that “the situation on the battlefield remains extremely serious” and “President Putin’s aim to dominate Ukraine has not changed, and there are no indications that he is preparing for peace. But we must not lose heart.”

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the alliance was an advantage that neither Russia nor China could match.

    At the UN General Assembly on February 23, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said “Russia’s aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it,” adding that “The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and its continued colonial conquest.”

    Russian forces last week captured the mostly destroyed eastern city of Avdiyivka as remaining Ukrainian troops withdrew amid reported ammunition shortages to hand Moscow its first significant gain of territory in nearly a year.

    The Russian military said on February 24 that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited troops in occupied Ukraine in a clear effort to send a message to Ukraine and its defenders, as well as to a Russian public subjected to heavy censorship and punishments for anti-war dissenters as the “special military operation” has ground on.

    “Today, in terms of the ratio of forces, the advantage is on our side,” officials quoted Shoigu as telling troops at a Russian command center.

    The Russian military further said its troops were on the offensive after having taken Avdiyivka, in the Donetsk region.

    Zelenskiy used an interview on the conservative Fox News channel this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package to help his country defend itself, saying it is cheaper than the consequences of a Russian victory.

    Zelenskiy echoed warnings among Russia’s other neighbors that Putin will push further into Eastern Europe if he conquers Ukraine.

    “Will Ukraine survive without Congress’s support? Of course. But not all of us,” Zelenskiy said.

    On February 24, senior Zelenskiy aide Mykhaylo Podolyak said Ukraine was auditing its “available resources” and said it’s impossible to predict when the war might end without a good idea of the amount of weapons and ammunition Kyiv will have at its disposal.

    He also suggested the Ukrainian president’s office is not currently in favor of peace talks with Russia as it would mean the “gradual death of Ukraine.”

    Separately, Swiss President Viola Amherd was quoted as telling the Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper that Russia was unlikely to participate at the start of a senior-level peace conference that neutral Switzerland hopes to host in the next few months.

    The remarks followed Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis telling the United Nations that the idea was broached in January and Bern hoped for such a conference “by this summer.”

    Russia currently is thought to control around one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

    The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft after a new round of Russian drone and missile strikes on several Ukrainian regions on February 23, which if confirmed would mark the loss of the second A-50 in just over a month.

    The general appointed recently by Zelenskiy as commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskiy, said on February 24 that he is “convinced that unity is our victory.”

    “And it will definitely happen,” he said, “because light always conquers darkness!”

    Noting the two-year mark in the invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff asserted that Russia had suffered troop casualties of around 409,000 since February 24, 2022.

    Both sides classify casualty figures, and RFE/RL cannot confirm the accuracy of accounts by either side of battlefield developments in areas of heavy fighting or of casualty claims.

    With reporting by dpa, AFP, and Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This week’s bonus show answers questions from our listeners at the Democracy Defender-level and higher, starting with incarceration rates in the U.S. vs. Russia. Spoiler alert: GOP-led states and swing states are as bad or worse than Russia, starting with Mike Johnson’s Louisiana. We look at prison incarceration rates and what they can tell us about the struggle for democracy in America, what we’re up against, and how to overcome it, and more, in this week’s bonus show.

     

    There’s a lot to discuss given the recent news, with new sweeping sanctions against Russia; new DOJ indictments against Russia; Libs of TikTok killing Nex, a trans teen in Oklahoma; Alabama going full Taliban by banning IVF, and more. Join Gaslit Nation and Kremlin File for a live Q&A this Wednesday February 28 at 12pm ET. To our subscribers at the Truth-teller level and higher, look out for a Zoom link on the morning of the Q&A on Wednesday. We hope to see you there! 

     

    A special message to our Gaslit Nation community: Several listeners sent messages about the hate crime that killed Nex, a trans teen in Oklahoma. Nex was targeted and killed by the genocidal far-right echo chamber led by Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok, which, in any functional society, would have been banned by now. Erin Reed has written an essential, must-read piece on Nex’s murder, featured in the show notes of this episode. What happened to Nex is authoritarian scapegoating 101. Genocidal movements consolidate around violence to rally the sadists who will serve as the trusted lackeys to carry out a mass purge once in power, turning a former democracy into a prison. Chaya Raichik will undoubtedly be included in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan to mass purge our government should Trump win the Electoral College in 2024. Nex’s murder is a tragedy that must be recognized for what it is: a hate crime. It is also an urgent warning as Trump and his supporters consolidate with the desire to carry out genocide against the most vulnerable among us, especially LGBTQ+ people and their families, friends, doctors, teachers, and others in their support networks. 

    Our hearts go out to all those who feel unsafe due to this heinous crime. The Gaslit Nation community is here for you. Look out for an upcoming episode on ways to fight back and protect each other. In the meantime, listen to our spring 2022 interview with Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, included in our show notes. 

    If you didn’t hear your question answered this week, look out for it next week as our Gaslit Nation Q&A continues! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you! 

    Join the conversation with a community of listeners at Patreon.com/Gaslit and get bonus shows, all episodes ad free, submit questions to our regular Q&As, get exclusive invites to live events, and more. 

     

    Show Notes: 

     

    Event: Thursday February 29 at 1pm – Russian-diaspora led roundtable on Russian anti-war activities 

    https://www.facebook.com/events/439307928421886

     

    Chaya Raichik Was Appointed To “Make Schools Safer” In Oklahoma; Now A Trans Teen Is Dead. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/chaya-raichik-was-appointed-to-make?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

     

    Protect the LGBTQ Community: An Interview with Chase Strangio of the ACLU

    https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/episodes-transcripts-20/2022/5/26/chase-strangio-interview

     

    The Sentencing Project: U.S. Continues to be the World Leader in Rate in Incarceration https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/usno1.pdf

     

    Prison Policy Initiative: States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2021

    https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html

     

    Justice Department indicts more Russian businessmen, their aides, vowing to keep pressure on Putin

    https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/02/22/justice-department-arrests-russia-businessmen-putin

    Fani Willis calls out Nathan Wade, earning the women vote in her upcoming election: https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1758247461993283909


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • EU and other Western leaders and dignitaries arrived in Kyiv early on February 24 eager to send a defiant message on the second anniversary of Russia’s launch of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, while Moscow sought to capitalize on its recent gains by announcing a visit by Russia’s defense minister to occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zeleinskiy told his countrymen in a recorded video address from a Kyiv-area airport that was a scene of intense fighting early in the invasion that two years of bitter fighting means “we are 730 days closer to victory.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “Two years ago, we met an enemy landing force here with fire,” Zelenskiy said, before adding in a reference to the array of foreign leaders in Ukraine and at Hostomel Airport to mark the anniversary that “two years later, we meet here our friends, our partners.”

    He added that it was important that the war end “on our terms.”

    European Commission President Von der Leyen reportedly traveled to the Ukrainian capital from Poland by train along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

    Meloni is scheduled to host a videoconference involving Group of Seven (G7) democracy leaders during which Zelenskiy is expected to encourage ongoing support to beat back Europe’s first full-scale military invasion since World War II.

    On her arrival, von der Leyen said alongside a photo of herself on a train platform in Kyiv that she was there to mark the grim anniversary “and to celebrate the extraordinary resistance of the Ukrainian people.”

    “More than ever, we stand firmly by Ukraine,” she said, “Financially, economically, militarily, morally…[u]ntil the country is finally free.”

    Before arriving in Ukraine, Trudeau shared his Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s sentiment via X, formerly Twitter, that Canada and its allies were “sending a clear message to [Russia]: Ukraine will not be defeated in the face of Putin’s illegal war.”

    Words of support have been pouring in from Western leaders.

    U.S. President Joe Biden praised the determination of Ukrainians and said “the unprecedented 50-nation global coalition in support of Ukraine, led by the United States, remains committed to providing critical assistance to Ukraine and holding Russia accountable for its aggression.”

    “The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Germans and all Europeans to “do even more — so that we can defend ourselves effectively.”

    Scholz said that Germany was completely fulfilling its NATO target of 2 percent investment of total economic output into its military for the first time in decades.

    Recently installed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cited “Two years of Ukrainian heroism. Two years of Russian barbarism. Two years of disgrace of those who remain indifferent.”

    Maia Sandu, the president of Ukraine’s neighbor Moldova, where concerns are high and a long-standing contingent of Russian troops has refused to depart, thanked “Ukrainians for their tireless fight for freedom and for protecting peace in Moldova too.”

    “In these two years, the free world has shown unprecedented solidarity, yet the war persists; our support must endure fiercely,” she said on X.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must renew our determination…on this grim anniversary. This is the moment to show that tyranny will never triumph and to say once again that we will stand with Ukraine today and tomorrow.”

    The anniversary falls one day after the United States and European Union announced new rounds of hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia and officials responsible for the war, but with Ukrainian officials desperately pleading with the international community to avoid cutoffs in support or a “depletion of empathy.”

    Ukrainians have battled fiercely since a Russian invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops began on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to cast doubt on Ukrainian nationhood and eventually said Moscow’s goal was the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine’s government.

    It was a new phase in a land grab that had begun eight years earlier in 2014, when Russia covertly invaded and then annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began intensive support of armed Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted to back Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    WATCH: Current Time correspondents Borys Sachalko, Andriy Kuzakov, and Oleksiy Prodayvod reflect on their wartime experiences together with the cameramen and drivers who form a critical part of their reporting teams.

    But a massive assistance package proposed by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has been blocked primarily by Republicans in Congress.

    The European Union managed to pass its own $54 billion aid package for Ukraine earlier this month despite reluctance from member Hungary and talk of Ukraine fatigue.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recorded statement for the anniversary that “the situation on the battlefield remains extremely serious” and “President Putin’s aim to dominate Ukraine has not changed, and there are no indications that he is preparing for peace. But we must not lose heart.”

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the alliance was an advantage that neither Russia nor China could match.

    At the UN General Assembly on February 23, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said “Russia’s aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it,” adding that “The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and its continued colonial conquest.”

    Russian forces last week captured the mostly destroyed eastern city of Avdiyivka as remaining Ukrainian troops withdrew amid reported ammunition shortages to hand Moscow its first significant gain of territory in nearly a year.

    The Russian military said on February 24 that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited troops in occupied Ukraine in a clear effort to send a message to Ukraine and its defenders, as well as to a Russian public subjected to heavy censorship and punishments for anti-war dissenters as the “special military operation” has ground on.

    “Today, in terms of the ratio of forces, the advantage is on our side,” officials quoted Shoigu as telling troops at a Russian command center.

    The Russian military further said its troops were on the offensive after having taken Avdiyivka, in the Donetsk region.

    Zelenskiy used an interview on the conservative Fox News channel this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package to help his country defend itself, saying it is cheaper than the consequences of a Russian victory.

    Zelenskiy echoed warnings among Russia’s other neighbors that Putin will push further into Eastern Europe if he conquers Ukraine.

    “Will Ukraine survive without Congress’s support? Of course. But not all of us,” Zelenskiy said.

    On February 24, senior Zelenskiy aide Mykhaylo Podolyak said Ukraine was auditing its “available resources” and said it’s impossible to predict when the war might end without a good idea of the amount of weapons and ammunition Kyiv will have at its disposal.

    He also suggested the Ukrainian president’s office is not currently in favor of peace talks with Russia as it would mean the “gradual death of Ukraine.”

    Separately, Swiss President Viola Amherd was quoted as telling the Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper that Russia was unlikely to participate at the start of a senior-level peace conference that neutral Switzerland hopes to host in the next few months.

    The remarks followed Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis telling the United Nations that the idea was broached in January and Bern hoped for such a conference “by this summer.”

    Russia currently is thought to control around one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

    The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft after a new round of Russian drone and missile strikes on several Ukrainian regions on February 23, which if confirmed would mark the loss of the second A-50 in just over a month.

    The general appointed recently by Zelenskiy as commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskiy, said on February 24 that he is “convinced that unity is our victory.”

    “And it will definitely happen,” he said, “because light always conquers darkness!”

    Noting the two-year mark in the invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff asserted that Russia had suffered troop casualties of around 409,000 since February 24, 2022.

    Both sides classify casualty figures, and RFE/RL cannot confirm the accuracy of accounts by either side of battlefield developments in areas of heavy fighting or of casualty claims.

    With reporting by dpa, AFP, and Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • EU and other Western leaders and dignitaries arrived in Kyiv early on February 24 eager to send a defiant message on the second anniversary of Russia’s launch of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, while Moscow sought to capitalize on its recent gains by announcing a visit by Russia’s defense minister to occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zeleinskiy told his countrymen in a recorded video address from a Kyiv-area airport that was a scene of intense fighting early in the invasion that two years of bitter fighting means “we are 730 days closer to victory.”

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “Two years ago, we met an enemy landing force here with fire,” Zelenskiy said, before adding in a reference to the array of foreign leaders in Ukraine and at Hostomel Airport to mark the anniversary that “two years later, we meet here our friends, our partners.”

    He added that it was important that the war end “on our terms.”

    European Commission President Von der Leyen reportedly traveled to the Ukrainian capital from Poland by train along with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

    Meloni is scheduled to host a videoconference involving Group of Seven (G7) democracy leaders during which Zelenskiy is expected to encourage ongoing support to beat back Europe’s first full-scale military invasion since World War II.

    On her arrival, von der Leyen said alongside a photo of herself on a train platform in Kyiv that she was there to mark the grim anniversary “and to celebrate the extraordinary resistance of the Ukrainian people.”

    “More than ever, we stand firmly by Ukraine,” she said, “Financially, economically, militarily, morally…[u]ntil the country is finally free.”

    Before arriving in Ukraine, Trudeau shared his Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s sentiment via X, formerly Twitter, that Canada and its allies were “sending a clear message to [Russia]: Ukraine will not be defeated in the face of Putin’s illegal war.”

    Words of support have been pouring in from Western leaders.

    U.S. President Joe Biden praised the determination of Ukrainians and said “the unprecedented 50-nation global coalition in support of Ukraine, led by the United States, remains committed to providing critical assistance to Ukraine and holding Russia accountable for its aggression.”

    “The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Germans and all Europeans to “do even more — so that we can defend ourselves effectively.”

    Scholz said that Germany was completely fulfilling its NATO target of 2 percent investment of total economic output into its military for the first time in decades.

    Recently installed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cited “Two years of Ukrainian heroism. Two years of Russian barbarism. Two years of disgrace of those who remain indifferent.”

    Maia Sandu, the president of Ukraine’s neighbor Moldova, where concerns are high and a long-standing contingent of Russian troops has refused to depart, thanked “Ukrainians for their tireless fight for freedom and for protecting peace in Moldova too.”

    “In these two years, the free world has shown unprecedented solidarity, yet the war persists; our support must endure fiercely,” she said on X.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “We must renew our determination…on this grim anniversary. This is the moment to show that tyranny will never triumph and to say once again that we will stand with Ukraine today and tomorrow.”

    The anniversary falls one day after the United States and European Union announced new rounds of hundreds of sanctions targeting Russia and officials responsible for the war, but with Ukrainian officials desperately pleading with the international community to avoid cutoffs in support or a “depletion of empathy.”

    Ukrainians have battled fiercely since a Russian invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops began on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to cast doubt on Ukrainian nationhood and eventually said Moscow’s goal was the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine’s government.

    It was a new phase in a land grab that had begun eight years earlier in 2014, when Russia covertly invaded and then annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began intensive support of armed Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted to back Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    WATCH: Current Time correspondents Borys Sachalko, Andriy Kuzakov, and Oleksiy Prodayvod reflect on their wartime experiences together with the cameramen and drivers who form a critical part of their reporting teams.

    But a massive assistance package proposed by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has been blocked primarily by Republicans in Congress.

    The European Union managed to pass its own $54 billion aid package for Ukraine earlier this month despite reluctance from member Hungary and talk of Ukraine fatigue.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recorded statement for the anniversary that “the situation on the battlefield remains extremely serious” and “President Putin’s aim to dominate Ukraine has not changed, and there are no indications that he is preparing for peace. But we must not lose heart.”

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that the alliance was an advantage that neither Russia nor China could match.

    At the UN General Assembly on February 23, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said “Russia’s aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it,” adding that “The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and its continued colonial conquest.”

    Russian forces last week captured the mostly destroyed eastern city of Avdiyivka as remaining Ukrainian troops withdrew amid reported ammunition shortages to hand Moscow its first significant gain of territory in nearly a year.

    The Russian military said on February 24 that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited troops in occupied Ukraine in a clear effort to send a message to Ukraine and its defenders, as well as to a Russian public subjected to heavy censorship and punishments for anti-war dissenters as the “special military operation” has ground on.

    “Today, in terms of the ratio of forces, the advantage is on our side,” officials quoted Shoigu as telling troops at a Russian command center.

    The Russian military further said its troops were on the offensive after having taken Avdiyivka, in the Donetsk region.

    Zelenskiy used an interview on the conservative Fox News channel this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package to help his country defend itself, saying it is cheaper than the consequences of a Russian victory.

    Zelenskiy echoed warnings among Russia’s other neighbors that Putin will push further into Eastern Europe if he conquers Ukraine.

    “Will Ukraine survive without Congress’s support? Of course. But not all of us,” Zelenskiy said.

    On February 24, senior Zelenskiy aide Mykhaylo Podolyak said Ukraine was auditing its “available resources” and said it’s impossible to predict when the war might end without a good idea of the amount of weapons and ammunition Kyiv will have at its disposal.

    He also suggested the Ukrainian president’s office is not currently in favor of peace talks with Russia as it would mean the “gradual death of Ukraine.”

    Separately, Swiss President Viola Amherd was quoted as telling the Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper that Russia was unlikely to participate at the start of a senior-level peace conference that neutral Switzerland hopes to host in the next few months.

    The remarks followed Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis telling the United Nations that the idea was broached in January and Bern hoped for such a conference “by this summer.”

    Russia currently is thought to control around one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

    The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft after a new round of Russian drone and missile strikes on several Ukrainian regions on February 23, which if confirmed would mark the loss of the second A-50 in just over a month.

    The general appointed recently by Zelenskiy as commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskiy, said on February 24 that he is “convinced that unity is our victory.”

    “And it will definitely happen,” he said, “because light always conquers darkness!”

    Noting the two-year mark in the invasion, Ukraine’s General Staff asserted that Russia had suffered troop casualties of around 409,000 since February 24, 2022.

    Both sides classify casualty figures, and RFE/RL cannot confirm the accuracy of accounts by either side of battlefield developments in areas of heavy fighting or of casualty claims.

    With reporting by dpa, AFP, and Reuters


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.