Wednesday, February 04, 2026

The extent of political repressions in Russia

From Novaya Gazeta Europe:

""Can you get eight years in prison in Russia for social media posts about Bucha?" the former president of Estonia questioned

Answer: yes, and there are many such sentences. "Novaya Evropa" [Novaya Gazeta Europe - M. M.] recalls them

November 12, 2025 Natalia Glukhova 

Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves expressed doubt that anyone could be sent to prison in Russia for posts about Bucha in Ukraine and the actions of the Russian army in that city during the occupation. 
 
 "I doubt anyone got eight years for social media posts about Bucha. But we're used to lies," he wrote in response to a tweet from a Facebook user about two of his acquaintances receiving more than eight years in prison for comments about the occupation of Bucha. 
 
 OVD-Info responded by stating that 13 people had been sentenced to prison terms of eight years or more for media publications, comments, or videos about the war in Ukraine. Six of them were sentenced to prison under the "fake news" article specifically for their comments about Bucha. Another 25 people received such sentences in absentia.

Igor Yakunichev, a resident of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug and YouTube blogger, was sentenced to 12 years in prison in September 2025 for anti-war publications, including several videos about the killings of civilians in the city of Bucha near Kyiv during the Russian occupation. He went on a hunger strike in pretrial detention. 

Dmitry Ivanov, a programmer and author of the popular Telegram channel "Protest MSU," received eight and a half years in a general regime penal colony, including for publications about crimes committed by Russian troops against civilians in Bucha and Mariupol.

Sergei Mikhailov, an Altai journalist and publisher of the newspaper Listok, was sentenced in August 2024 to eight years in prison for allegedly authorizing the publication of materials about Russian military actions in Ukraine, specifically in Bucha and Mariupol. 

Richard Rose, a resident of Kirov, was sentenced in September 2023 to eight years in prison for posts on VKontakte about the massacres of civilians in Bucha. 

Konstantin Seleznev, a Moscow retiree, was sentenced in January 2025 to eight years in prison for posts on VKontakte demanding that those responsible for the massacres in Bucha be brought to justice. 

Olga Menshikh, a nurse and civil activist, received an eight-year prison sentence in October 2024 for a post claiming that during the five-week occupation of Bucha, Russian troops killed dozens of civilians by shooting random passersby in the streets. 

People effectively sentenced to less than eight years in prison 

Igor Orlovsky, a resident of Krasnoyarsk, was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison in November 2023: security forces identified "fakes" in his comments about the attack on the drama theater in Mariupol, Bucha, and the actions of the Russian army in general. 

Roman Ivanov, a journalist from the Moscow region, was sentenced to seven years in a general regime penal colony in March 2024 for three social media posts about the war in Ukraine, one of which discussed the killing of civilians in Bucha. 

Andrey Lugovoy, an IT specialist and activist from Kaliningrad, was sentenced to six years in prison in September 2024 for a post about Bucha. 

Aleksandr Somryakov, a resident of Krasnodar, was sentenced to six years in prison in July 2023 for posts about the shelling of Ukrainian cities and for calling Russian military violence against Ukrainians in Bucha "a mass slaughter of civilians." 

Ruben Pogosyan, a resident of Karelia, was sentenced to six years in a maximum-security prison colony in April 2024 for five reposts, including those about Russian military crimes in Bucha. 

Sergey Nevorotin, a coach from the Tver region, was sentenced to six years in a minimum-security prison colony in December 2023 for, among other things, publishing videos titled "Bucha after the zombie invasion and mercenaries for money 2022." In September 2024, he was released from prison due to health reasons; he died in January 2025 after a long illness. 

Anna Bazhutova, a Moscow resident, was sentenced to five and a half years in prison in June 2024 for quoting the memories of Bucha residents on her Twitch channel. 

Andrei Etkeev, a resident of the Kirov region, was sentenced in November 2023 to five years in a general regime penal colony for reposting media reports on Odnoklassniki about Russian military crimes, including the killing of civilians in Bucha.

Vasily Melnikov, a resident of the Volgograd region, was sentenced to five years in prison in March 2024 for a comment on VKontakte about the killings of civilians in Bucha. 
 
Yuri Kokhovets, a Moscow resident, was sentenced to five years in prison during an appellate court hearing in September 2024 for participating in an interview with Radio Liberty, in which he discussed, among other things, the killings of civilians in Bucha. He was initially sentenced to forced labor. 
 
Alexander Glushkin, a former security guard at School No. 443 in the Frunzensky District of St. Petersburg, was sentenced to five years in prison in September 2025 for reposting about Bucha. 
 
 Dmitry Prozorov, a resident of Kirov and former security officer, was sentenced to five years in a general regime penal colony in February 2025 for comments about Bucha in the "Typical Kirov" community in 2022.
 
Vsevolod Korolev, a documentary filmmaker from St. Petersburg, was sentenced to three years in prison in March 2024 for reporting on mass killings in Bucha, Borodyanka, and the shelling in Donetsk. 
 
Winter Gregory Marcus Severin, a human rights activist from Cherepovets, was sentenced to three years in a general regime penal colony in January 2024 for commenting on the deaths of civilians in Bucha. 
 
Effectively sentenced to prison but later released

Ilya Yashin, a Russian politician, was sentenced to eight and a half years in a general regime penal colony in December 2022 for a livestream about Bucha. He was released on August 1, 2024, as part of an international prisoner exchange..."

Why negotiations with Putin are futile

From UNIAN:

""It's not working": A diplomat explained why it's futile to hope for negotiations with Putin 

Oleg Davygora, 11/13/25 

Negotiations with Russian leader Vladimir Putin will yield no results – he can only be persuaded by force, not persuasion. This opinion was expressed by diplomat and former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko on Kyiv24. 

According to him, dialogue with a state waging a war of annihilation has no practical value. 

"Sometimes I wonder if this is subtle trolling on the part of some of our security partners, including the Americans, or if it's sheer ignorance. Let's imagine Zelenskyy and Putin sitting down at the negotiating table – is that some kind of major victory? Absolutely not," he said. 

The expert also emphasized that even if the Ukrainian and Russian leaders sat down at the same table, it "wouldn't change anything," as Putin cannot be persuaded to stop his aggression. 

"He can only be forced to do what the civilized world wants, not persuaded to please stop committing these atrocities. That won't work," Ohryzko emphasized." 

***

The same thing has been repeatedly pointed out by Israelis and their supporters - that it is to no avail to try to negotiate with people who are out to murder you; but nevertheless, the world keeps pushing both Israel and Ukraine into negotiations with, and concessions to, their genocidal enemies. 

Putin clones his office to hide his location

From Radio Free Europe:

"Where's Putin? How The Kremlin Hides His Location With Three Nearly Identical Offices

In a report aired on October 11, 2020, a Russian state TV journalist breathlessly tells viewers what's in store: excerpts from his interview with President Vladimir Putin and news about the test of a hypersonic missile Moscow has been boasting about, among other things.

"After the interview, more work," the reporter says, repeating the Kremlin narrative that Putin labors nonstop to keep the country safe and strong. A tag in a corner of the screen says "Novo-Ogaryovo" -- the main presidential residence in the Moscow suburbs -- and the footage shows Putin heading for his office door and reaching for the handle.

And that's the giveaway: The placement of the door handle and a few other details reveal the footage was not filmed at Novo-Ogaryovo at all, an RFE/RL investigation has determined.

In fact, it was shot more than 1,500 kilometers to the south in an almost identical office at Bocharov Ruchei, a state residence in Sochi, on the Black Sea coast.

Systema, RFE/RL's Russian investigative unit, found there are not just one but two copies of Putin's office at Novo-Ogaryovo -- one in Sochi and the other at Valdai, roughly halfway between Moscow and St. Petersburg -- and that the Kremlin has been dishonest about the president's location hundreds of times in recent years.

In most cases established by Systema, meetings that ostensibly took place at Novo-Ogaryovo were actually filmed in Sochi or at Valdai, a lakeside town whose forested location Putin has favored since he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has led to Ukrainian drone attacks on military and industrial targets in Russia.

The investigation points to a highly secretive Kremlin that has misled the public about Putin's location on a regular basis for several years at least. It also adds to questions about the timing of the meetings and talks Putin's administration publicizes.

In an investigative report published in August, Systema revealed that at least five Kremlin meetings that ostensibly took place in April or May were actually filmed months earlier. Putin has continued that ruse this autumn: Since August, the Kremlin has released at least seven old videos of the president's meetings, passing them off as new, Systema found.

Among other methods, Systema made its findings about the three nearly identical offices by closely watching some 700 videos published by Putin's administration or shown on state TV and examining images posted on the Kremlin website.

Journalists also combed thorough reams of material including social media posts and leaked travel records describing plans and actual trips by people on the edges of Putin's entourage, such as security personnel and the state TV journalists who cover him.

The October 2020 report is a simple but stunning example.

In the Novo-Ogaryovo office, the handle on the door near Putin's desk is set slightly lower than a seam that separates wall panels on either side -- a fact that is clear from footage and photos of the room, including images from the company that laid the parquet floor.

But while the handle Putin reaches for as he leaves the office looks the same, it is set slightly higher than the wall seam -- a difference of a few centimeters, but nonetheless unmistakable. And what it means is that the interview was filmed in Sochi, not outside Moscow.

Among other details that reveal discrepancies between the location announced by the Kremlin and the actual location of numerous meetings purportedly held at Novo-Ogaryovo: the patterns on Putin's neckties, the shape of a TV stand, the hue of a tabletop, and the grain of a wooden document tray on the desk.

Systema corroborated findings about Putin's location in video footage by examining travel documents. For example, an August 2020 TV interview that the Kremlin said took place at Novo-Ogaryovo appeared to have actually been filmed in Sochi, judging by details including the door handle.

Sure enough, an e-ticket purchased by a travel agency with ties to the Kremlin and obtained by Systema indicated that the interviewer, Sergei Brilyov, flew from Sochi to Moscow on August 27, the day the interview aired on state television...

Separately, footage filmed in September 2020 was purportedly shot at Novo-Ogaryovo. But in an e-mail seen by Systema, a state TV producer asked a colleague to organize a trip to Sochi for prominent journalist Pavel Zarubin and several other TV crew members at that time.

Zarubin, a co-creator of a weekly news show on state-run Rossia-1 that focuses on Putin, has frequently traveled to Sochi and brought back footage that the Kremlin then represented as having been filmed at Novo-Ogaryovo, Systema found.

A leaked travel document and a short portion of one of Zarubin's shows revealed that a presidential security staffer involved in communications stayed a night in Sochi at a time when footage of Putin purportedly shot at Novo-Ogaryovo, but actually shot at Bocharov Ruchei, was filmed in October 2021.

In addition to the door handle, there are other differences between the office at Novo-Ogaryovo and the one at Bocharov Ruchei. The placement of a seam on the wall behind Putin's back is one; the legs of the TV stand are another..." 

 

 

 

 

 


In the surreal world of Lavrov's statements

From UNIAN:

"Lavrov: The Budapest summit was disrupted by "backroom reports" to Trump

Marta Gichko, 11/13/25 

...Moscow hopes to deter the US from taking actions that could further escalate the war in Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera...

"We're counting on common sense and Washington to refrain from actions that could escalate the conflict to a new level," Lavrov stated. Furthermore, Lavrov explained why the Budapest summit was abruptly canceled after his conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  

"Trump received 'undercover (manipulative - UNIAN) reports,' after which the summit with Russia in Budapest did not take place," he stated. The Kremlin minister also noted that US President Donald Trump is "committed to finding a sustainable peaceful solution" and "seeks to understand Russia's position on Ukraine." According to Lavrov, Trump acknowledged that Russia's actions were partly a reaction to NATO expansion near its borders. "This is precisely what President Putin and Russia have been warning about for the past 20 years," he added...

The Russian Foreign Minister also made harsh comments about Europe, accusing it of thwarting peace initiatives: "Europe is sabotaging all peacekeeping efforts, imposing new sanctions, and preparing for a new major European war against Russia." He stated that Russia is ready to resume contacts with European countries only "when the Russophobic frenzy subsides." Lavrov's comments were initially part of an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera. However, according to Reuters, the Italian newspaper declined to publish the interview."

Sunday, February 01, 2026

AfD is shame for Germany

From the Politico:

"AfD leader says Putin poses no threat to Germany, warning instead of Poland

The face of Putin's war

 From UNIAN:

"The ruins of Pokrovsk revealed the true face of Putin's war - WSJ 

Marta Gichko, 12.11.25 

By the time Russian troops outnumbered Ukrainian defenders in Pokrovsk, the city was already in ruins, and bodies littered the streets. This brutal battle demonstrates the Kremlin's true goal: not simply to seize Donbas, but to restore Russia's influence in Ukraine and restore Moscow's status as a great power, writes The Wall Street Journal. 

Despite the efforts of US President Donald Trump, who called on both sides to "stop the killing" and attempted to seek a territorial compromise, the White House peace initiative is stalling. As analysts note, Putin isn't bargaining over territory, but fighting over history, symbols, and the "restoration of the Russian Empire." 

"Trump is trying to solve the problem, but Putin is consulting Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, and Catherine the Great on his vision," William Courtney, a senior fellow at Rand and former US ambassador, wryly observed. "He thinks in imperial terms." 

Even before the full-scale invasion, Putin published an essay in which he claimed that Ukrainians and Russians were "one people" and that Ukraine itself was "Lenin's creation." On the eve of the invasion, he reiterated this in an address: 

"For us, Ukraine is not just a neighboring country; it is an integral part of our own history." 

For the Russian leader, who experienced the collapse of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century," the war is an attempt to rewrite history and restore Russia to its role as a power equal to America. 

"Putin is waging this war to reverse the results of the Cold War and restore Russia's status as a great power," explained military analyst Ruslan Pukhov.

Following the meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska, Russian media portrayed the summit as a symbol of equality between the two superpowers. For the Kremlin, experts say, true success lies not in peace, but in recognition of Russia as a force dictating terms to others..." 

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Trump's special relations with Orban

From the Obozrevatel:

"The US is preparing for war, Trump is giving Orbán a "respite," and Russia is setting conditions for ending its aggression against Ukraine. Interview with former Ambassador to the US Shamshur 

Roman Pryadun, 11/12/2025 

Oleh Shamshur, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States and France, shared his thoughts... in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA. 

- ...Trump's "personal" foreign policy once again revealed itself – a meeting at the White House with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. After which, the American leader, as if from a king's shoulder, announced: sanctions against Budapest will not be imposed for a year. Orbán can safely receive Russian energy resources, despite demanding the opposite from the EU. Yes, there is a caveat: Hungary must also purchase American gas, nuclear fuel, and certain technologies. What does Trump's decision mean for the US? Because it clearly benefits Budapest and Moscow: the oil is flowing, Orbán is happy, and so is Putin. But for Europe, it means a dilution of sanctions pressure. If Trump made an exception for Orbán today, tomorrow he will do the same for someone else he will be pleased with. 

Let's start with the logic of the visit itself. First, Orbán is undoubtedly pleased with the results. Yes, he didn't achieve his "maximum program," but he achieved his goal—the sanctions have been postponed. We'll see what happens in a year, but the fact itself is a political victory for him. 

When explaining the postponement, Trump stated that Hungary had reached a "dead end" and could not act differently. In other words, he effectively vindicated Orbán before Europe. And this already creates a sense of "most favored nation" treatment for Budapest from Washington. 

Next up is nuclear energy. We've already heard about the easing of sanctions that could have blocked the completion of the Hungarian nuclear power plant. However, Orbán has promised to buy American nuclear fuel. How this will be implemented remains to be seen, but Orbán's main goal now is to continue joint projects with Russia.

The political aspect is no less interesting. It's quite possible that Orbán was "whispering" his narratives on Ukraine to Trump. And, judging by some of Trump's statements after the meeting, these whispers fell on fertile ground. There is a certain commonality in their ideas about "settling" the war. It's possible that the topic of the "Budapest meetings" was raised again behind the scenes: the idea of ​​returning to the format that Orbán has long been trying to revive. He certainly brought home something that can be presented as a political victory. And, of course, he has something to report to "friend Volodymyr." After all, Trump seems to regard Orbán not just with understanding, but with a certain reverence.

– As for Russia... 

 Here, everything is clear: the easing of sanctions is "music to Putin's ears," as they say. But for the European Union, this story is another cold shower. Anyone in Brussels who seriously considers strategic autonomy has received further confirmation: Orbán is Moscow's Trojan horse. And that easing the sanctions regime, even as imperfect as it is, is a dangerous game. Trump's showering of compliments on Orbán came as a shock to Europeans. Because it seemed almost like a direct appeal: "Follow Orbán's example." After this, Brussels was once again convinced that Budapest is the problem, and that now there is a "protector" behind it, namely, Trump himself.

- And finally, the United States... 

My subjective opinion is that Trump isn't thrilled about this meeting, but he couldn't avoid it. Preparations dragged on for a long time. Clearly, there were debates within the administration. The tightening of sanctions could have happened at a time when oil prices allowed it with minimal risk to the American market. But despite everything, Trump went along with it not only for political reasons, but also for ideology. He likes Orbán: a conservative, anti-Brussels, "strongman." He's beloved among Trump's base. Therefore, Trump couldn't refuse him. It's telling that a meeting with a seemingly "minor" prime minister turned into an international event. This, in fact, is the main harm – political and symbolic.    

- More broadly, Trump has recently adopted a very active policy toward Moscow's allies. The leaders of five Central Asian states visited the White House for the first time. The Americans have noticeably intensified contacts with Minsk: Lukashenko is releasing hostages, Washington is easing sanctions, and there are promises to further lift restrictions. In some areas—Hungary, Belarus, and Central Asia—the US is actively expanding its influence among countries that were, until recently, in Moscow's orbit. Is this a coincidence or a deliberate strategy? 

As former Trump adviser John Bolton said, "Don't try to understand his foreign policy concept. He doesn't have one." Yes, formally speaking, a meeting with Central Asian leaders might seem like a strategic element. But we must be realistic: Trump's every strategy is a set of ad hoc agreements. He doesn't build systems; he bargains...

As for Belarus, if Trump is truly trying to initiate some kind of dialogue with Lukashenko, then, excuse me, it's complete nonsense. It's unclear why the US needs this. If the idea is to "pull Lukashenko away from Russia," then that's simply ridiculous. It's like back in the Obama era, when some people seriously thought Medvedev could be pulled away from Putin and exploited. Well, that's exactly the same story. Totally unrealistic.

Where could there be any pragmatic calculation here? Lukashenko is making demonstrative gestures—releasing political prisoners (though then immediately jailing others), and Trump will be able to say, "See, I can negotiate even with Belarus." So for him, this is a symbolic demonstration: I'm effective. 

One more thing. This could very well be part of Putin's game. He could very well use the Belarusian channel to push his signals to Trump. Like, "See, even Lukashenko says the same thing as us." And here again, a logical question arises: why do the Americans need this at all? After all, Trump can easily call Putin directly or even send his "emissary" Vitkoff—hugs, smiles, agreements. So, frankly, I don't see a rational explanation for this flirtation with Lukashenko.   

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated: "We are ready to meet with the Americans again, ready to negotiate an end to the conflict," as he calls it, "in Ukraine." But the "root causes" remain the same: "denazification" and all the rest. And another interesting detail – Anchorage. He says the agreements reached between Trump and Putin must be implemented. And Lavrov quotes: "The Americans assured us during Anchorage that they would ensure that Volodymyr Zelenskyy would not impede the peace process." So, it turns out that Trump allegedly promised them to essentially "break" Ukraine so that it would agree to Russia's terms, and they are waiting for that to happen.

I think, unfortunately, this assumption is not without foundation. Not "break," but at least influence. The US President wants "peace." He always has someone "bad": sometimes Zelensky, sometimes Putin, sometimes the other way around. It's a kind of "Trump swing." Therefore, what Lavrov said—about meetings, about Anchorage—all this shouldn't be dismissed. Obviously, it largely corresponds to what actually happened. Don't forget, after Alaska, Putin effectively "broke" Trump himself—and he emerged from the negotiations convinced that it wasn't simply necessary to stop the war, but to "address the global root causes." This is precisely what the Russians were counting on.  

Why is all this happening again now? We've seen it before: whenever Trump's temper flares or he enters a state of rage, Russia immediately throws something out there. Sometimes it's the idea of ​​mythical "economic projects," sometimes it's a "new bilateral meeting," sometimes it's Dmitriev, who's trying to "gently" test the waters. It's all a classic Russian "layered pie": pressure, a hint, and an attempt to defuse tension. And the effectiveness of this tactic shouldn't be underestimated, especially when it comes to influencing Trump."

Trump: Russia-Ukraine war did us damage but now we are profiting from it

From the American Presidency Project:

"Remarks at a Swearing-in Ceremony for Sergio Gor as United States Ambassador to India and Special Envoy to South and Central Asia and an Exchange With Reporters

November 10, 2025
 
"...Don't forget, I put out eight wars—nine to come. I think I'll get the other one taken care of. But I put out eight wars. And look at the damage that Russia-Ukraine has done to us as a country. I mean, they—we spent $350 billion. We're not spending any money anymore. Now they pay us, through NATO. You know, I got NATO to go from 2 percent to 5 percent. Well, that's very important... 
 
***
 
Of course, the alleged $350 billion is a brazen lie that has been disproved umpteen times, yet Trump keeps repeating it.

USA undermines UN resolution about Ukraine

From the KyivPost:

"Trump Admin Pushes to Weaken Ukraine Resolution on Russian Occupation at UN, Sources Tell Kyiv Post

by Alex Raufoglu | Nov. 11, 2025

WASHINGTON DC – In a surprise reversal that has alarmed Ukraine and its allies in the UN, the Trump administration is pushing to strip language from a resolution that affirms the country’s territorial integrity and condemns Russia’s occupation of Crimea and other regions, according to two people familiar with internal UN discussions.

The annual resolution, submitted by Ukraine to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly – formally titled: “Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol” – has for years been a diplomatic mainstay, reaffirming international support for the war-torn country’s sovereignty and documenting human-rights abuses in Russian-held areas.

Last December, the US joined 77 other countries in voting for the measure, which passed with 78 votes in favor.

The text explicitly recognized Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and detailed the worsening human-rights situation in occupied territories.

Now, Washington wants those references removed. Two diplomatic sources told Kyiv Post that the US side is pressing for the resolution to be recast under the broader label of the “war in Ukraine,” without references to “territorial integrity” or “aggression.”

Western partners privately fear that the move would effectively water down the UN’s most consistent annual rebuke of Russia’s invasion – and signal a sharp break from the bipartisan consensus that had held since 2014.

“This is another example of Washington walking away from Ukraine’s core interests at a critical diplomatic juncture,” one European envoy told Kyiv Post on Sunday. “If the language goes, the message to Moscow is that the US is no longer leading the defense of the international order.”...

For Kyiv, the stakes are high. The resolution not only condemns Russia’s occupation but also lays the groundwork for future accountability efforts at the International Criminal Court and in other international venues. 

The dispute comes just as the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine presented its latest findings to the same UN committee.

In its Oct. 27 report, the Commission concluded that Russian forces are committing crimes against humanity – including murder and forcible transfer – through systematic drone attacks and forced deportations in occupied territories..."

 

IAEA helps Russia destroy Ukrainian energy sector

From UNIAN:

"The enemy knows where to strike: The IAEA is helping Russia destroy our energy sector, says expert 

Andriy Kaut, 11.11.25 

Russia has access to IAEA inspection reports that inspect Ukraine's energy infrastructure. This significantly facilitates the enemy's missile and drone strikes against these facilities, energy expert Gennady Ryabtsev expressed this opinion on Ranok.LIVE. 
 
"IAEA inspections visited Ukrenergo substations and determined how well these facilities were protected. They filmed and photographed everything, and produced a huge report. And then the Russians received all this information from the IAEA," Ryabtsev reported. 
 
The enemy has direct access to the organization's reports because many Russian nationals continue to work there, the expert explains.
 
"Since Russians still sit in the IAEA's governing bodies and have access to all information concerning Ukraine, the competent authorities in the Russian Federation know everything that the IAEA inspectors know," Ryabtsev concludes."

Barcelona's Grand Theater loves Russia

 From UNIAN:

 "Ukrainians attacked in Spain while rallying with portraits of actors killed by Russia

Lyudmila Zhernovskaya, 11/11/25

In Barcelona, ​​Russians attacked protesters protesting the inclusion of ballerinas from leading Russian theaters in the Gran Teatro del Liceo's repertoire. This was reported in a statement by the Ukrainian Center in Barcelona, ​​which organized the event together with the organization "Campaign for Ukraine."

On November 9 and 10, Ukrainians gathered outside the building with posters and photographs of cultural figures killed by the Russian occupation army. 

According to the statement, the theater administration rejected the appeal to cancel the performance, stating that Russian culture is "apolitical." The city and parliamentary councils, as well as the Generalitat de Catalunya, ignored the appeal. 

One of the participants was attacked near the theater, and another in the concert hall when she unfurled a Ukrainian flag. The statement noted that the response to the Russian attacks was dignity, not aggression:

""Culture outside politics" does not exist during Russia's colonial war against Ukraine. Russian culture has become an instrument of semantic warfare, legitimizing violence and imperial policies. The choice of indifference becomes a position in favor of the aggressor.""

***

Catalunians at least should empathize with others fighting for self-determination.

Russia steals Ukrainian heritage

Below are a few of the numerous Ukrainian artworks stolen by Russian occupiers from galleries in the Kherson region (source: the War and Sanctions portal of Ukrainian government).

 

Name: A decorative panel. Tomatoes in a vase

Author:Maria Prymachenko 
 
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 

Name:Palm Sunday 
 
Author:Mykola Pymonenko 
 
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 
 
 Name: View of the city of Odesa 
 
Author:Ivan Aivazovsky 
 
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 

Name: Sea 
 
Author: Ivan Aivazovsky 
 
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 
 
Name: Fishermen on Kinburn / Rybalki na Kimburni 
 
Author:Valery Mashnitsky 
  
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 
 
Name: First snow / Persнyi snih 
 
Author:Ksenia Stetsenko 
 
Details of theft: It was taken out of the Kherson Art Museum by representatives of the russian federation 
 
Ancient heritage has also been stolen from occupied Ukrainian territories:
 

 
Name: Anthropomorphic archaic stele 
 
Details of theft: Removed from the National Historical and Archaeological Reserve "Stone Tomb" to the territory of Crimea under the guise of a temporary exhibition

"Russia invaded anyway": Stoltenberg regrets NATO's refusal to help Ukraine

First, from Kyiv Independent / Yahoo!News:

"More weapons for Ukraine in 2014 could have prevented full-scale war, Stoltenberg says

Abbey Fenbert

NATO allies could have done more to arm Ukraine in 2014, potentially averting Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with Politico published Oct. 9.

Stoltenberg stepped down as NATO Secretary General on Oct. 1 after serving in the role for 10 years. Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte now leads the alliance.

At the end of his term, Stoltenberg cited the insufficient response to Russian aggression in 2014 as his major regret.

"I continue to believe that if we had armed Ukraine more after 2014, we might have prevented Russia from invading — at least we would have increased the threshold for a full-scale invasion," he told Politico.

Stoltenberg pointed out that Russia's war in Ukraine did not begin with the 2022 invasion but with Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war in 2014.

"I worked hard to try to convince NATO allies to do more, to provide more military support, more training," Stoltenberg said.

"Some allies did, but it was relatively limited, and that was very difficult for many years because the policy in NATO was that NATO should not provide lethal support to Ukraine."

A greater willingness and more coordinated effort from member nations to send military aid to Kyiv may have deterred Russia, Stoltenberg speculated

"If we had delivered a fraction of the weapons we have delivered after 2022, we may have actually prevented the war," he said.

Stoltenberg said there were "some parallels" to NATO's past red lines and the current restrictions some member states have placed on which weapons they will send Ukraine and how Ukraine can use them.

The debate over the use of Western long-range missiles to strike military targets in Russia reflects contemporary divisions among NATO allies as to how best to support Ukraine's defense.

"According to international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defense, and the right to self-defense includes the right to strike legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor, Russia," Stoltenberg said."

***

And in the same line, a more recent material in the New Voice of Ukraine

"Stoltenberg: Timely aid might have prevented war in Ukraine

November 9, 2025

Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted Western aid to Ukraine was "too little and too late," saying stronger early support could have deterred Russia's full-scale invasion, The Sunday Times reported on Nov. 8.

"Ukraine demonstrates both the strength and the weakness of NATO," Stoltenberg said.

He noted that NATO allies since Russia's full-scale military invasion "provided unprecedented military support … without which Ukraine would most likely not have defended itself as it did."

On the other hand, the ex-NATO chief added, it must be recognized that Alliance support came too late and was too limited, because from 2014, when Russia occupied Crimea and invaded Donbas, until the full-scale invasion in February 2022, NATO allies provided almost no military support or it was too restricted. He also stated there was practically no lethal aid, as the Alliance feared it would push Moscow to invade Ukraine.

"But Russia invaded anyway," Stoltenberg stated.

He also believes Russia's military invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided.

"Had we provided more military support to Ukraine earlier, it could have prevented a full-scale invasion," the former NATO secretary general said.

Then, Stoltenberg pointed out, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin would have concluded that attacking Ukraine was impossible because NATO allies had armed the country.

"But we didn't do that, and therefore it was much easier for Russia to invade," he added."

***

Leonid Nevzlin commented in the Obozrevatel, 11.11.2025: 

"And this is the absolute truth. The war crimes Putin and his accomplices are committing today are the result of the civilized world's insufficient response to the seizure of Crimea. Impunity breeds impunity. And, apparently, this lesson has still not been learned.

Zaluzhny: Talks about negotiations with Russia and peace in Ukraine are dangerously premature

From the New York Post:

"Words are weapons — Russian diplomacy is just another front in its war on Ukraine

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Lavrov: Trump promised to convince Zelensky to capitulate but failed

From the Dialog, Nov 9, 2025:

"Lavrov, who has fallen out of favor with Putin, made a statement about "agreements" with the US on Ukraine 

The Russian Foreign Minister claims that the Americans allegedly made a promise to the Russians on Ukraine. 

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of the aggressor country returned to the public eye following rumors of his possible resignation and made a statement about negotiations with the United States to end the war unleashed by the Kremlin in Ukraine.  

In an interview with Russian propaganda media, Lavrov claimed that during US President Donald Trump's talks with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Washington allegedly promised Moscow that it would ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "does not impede the achievement of peace." 

"Apparently, certain difficulties have arisen in this matter," the minister of the aggressor country added..."

Ukraine loses land because the USA stops aid

From DonPress, Nov 9, 2025:

"An expert explained the cause of the difficult situation in Pokrovsk 

The complex situation around the town of Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region is directly linked to the lack of US military support for Ukraine. Journalist Vitaly Portnikov stated this live on the Espresso TV channel. The expert recalled: 
 
"When we lost Avdiivka, the Republicans blocked military aid to Ukraine. Now that we're about to lose Pokrovsk, it's simply the end of the military aid package we owe to US President Joseph Biden." 
 
According to Portnikov, for Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin, the seizure of Pokrovsk is a way to demonstrate that the Russian occupiers are continuing their offensive in Ukraine: 
 
"Many say Putin wants to strengthen his negotiating position with Donald Trump, but I don't think he needs that. If Putin were truly seeking to end the war, that would be logical. But he has no intention of ending anything. His goal is a protracted war. The only thing he's interested in is Trump not imposing serious sanctions against Russia." 
 
The expert explained that the Kremlin leader views the capture of every Ukrainian city as a step toward the complete seizure of Ukrainian territory: 
 
"It's impossible to say that the capture of Pokrovsk will fundamentally change the course of the war. Even if the Russians enter the ruins of the city, this doesn't mean they will quickly seize other settlements in the Donbas. We remember that the Russian army simultaneously advanced in various regions of Ukraine. This proves that Putin is seeking not just the occupation of the Donbas, but the conquest of the entire country. His main goal is to establish a puppet government in Kyiv." 
 
The journalist explained that the final point of the Russian offensive is not Kramatorsk or Sloviansk, but Uzhhorod [a city at the Western edge of Ukraine - M. M.]: 
 
"A large city like Pokrovsk hasn't fallen under Russian control since Bakhmut. Avdiivka was the smallest settlement. But both then and now, the reason is the same: a lack of military aid. When we lost Avdiivka, the Republicans blocked support." Now that we're losing Pokrovsk, the aid package Biden secured has simply run out. There's no new package, and European aid can't replace American aid. We need to address this by convincing Donald Trump.""
 
***
The problem with convincing Trump, of course, is that Trump wants the destruction of Ukraine. 

Disarmed by its Western "friends", Ukraine works hard to rearm

From the Independent:

"Inside Ukraine’s start-up weapons industry rising from the ashes

As Europe and the US ponder over what arms to send to help the war against Russia, Ukraine is forging ahead with homegrown missiles and drones made from carbon printers and lawnmower engines. World affairs editor Sam Kiley reports from Kyiv

08 November 2025 

Naive, self-sabotaging and riddled with Moscow’s agents, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and an arms industry that produced a third of the Soviet Union’s supply, trusted the West and the Kremlin to protect it, and was left fighting for its life.

Now, 30 years on, the start-up nation redefining how war is fought has been forced into a bodge-and-make-do world of arms production, fusing old technology with IT know-how to break the bonds its allies tied to make Kyiv fight one-handed.

The latest innovation is a cruise missile with a range of 3,000km, a maximum speed of 900kmph and a payload of over a tonne, which has been used in strikes deep into Russian territory.

The FP-5 “Flamingo” missile is powered by a rocket and a Soviet-era turbofan jet engine bolted on top. Some of those engines have been dug out of landfill dumps. 

It’s got twice the range of the US Tomahawk, carries twice as much explosive and costs about the same. 

But its main advantage is that it is entirely under the control of Ukraine’s forces. The UK and France restricted the use of the Anglo-French Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Russian targets inside Ukraine for many months.

The US reduced the ability of Ukraine to use American ATACM missiles against Russian targets in Russia and has not yet decided on whether to allow access to Tomahawks, that would be paid for by European allies.

In contrast, Kyiv can fire the Flamingo at any target it wants. It is not restricted by what Ukraine’s “allies” say it can and cannot do when fighting Russia’s invading forces...

Targeting oil refineries has had a measurable effect. Russia has at times lost about 20 per cent of its fuel capacity and pump prices have soared by 10 per cent...

With arms supplies from the West so uncertain, Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine now makes about 60 per cent of its own weapons. 

“When you have a gun being pointed towards your head, you don’t think about standards, you think that ‘this should be working’,” says Iyna Terekh, the chief technology officer of Fire Point, which makes Flamingos among other munitions.

“And the huge achievement of the Ukrainian government is to downgrade the bureaucracy pressure as much as possible so that technology can thrive.

“And that is what happened to our company. We didn’t care that we meet Nato standards.

“We only cared that our weapons would be effective on the front line, not on some paperwork. We could, as a result, make a very effective weapon.”

As well as Flamingos, Fire Point also produces the shorter-range Shahed-style drones FP1 and FP2. The former have been used frequently to attack Russia as far as Moscow.

The latter, which carry a payload of 150kg, have been mistaken for long-range American missiles because of their explosive power.

Their value lies in that they’re cheap and fast to make. It takes a couple of hours to make the wings and 30 minutes to fashion the fuselage from a mix of plastic and carbon.

The lightweight machines are glued together with carbon printers, use lawnmower engines and rely on open source navigation systems...

For Ukraine, price competition is important. The European Union, Kyiv biggest backer, is an economic bloc at least nine times the size of Russia’s economy with four times its spending power. Ukraine’s allies can outspend Russia, if they choose to, but so far they have not...

Russia has had years to prepare for its invasion of Ukraine. With hindsight, it was aided by the collapse of Ukraine’s arms industry after its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Back then, Ukraine had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. It produced 30 per cent of the Soviet Union’s weapons.

Ukraine produced some of the Kremlin’s most terrifying weapons –intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) like the SS-18 “Satan”...

But in 1994, Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nukes in return for an agreement from the US, UK, and Russia to guarantee its security.

Later, China and France signed up, but only Ukraine believed the memos were worth the ink spent on setting them down...

Ukraine’s weapons industry is now worth only $1bn, but it is growing very fast...

“We all have to grow up and build our own security with our own hands,” says Terekh."

Australia found a loophole to import Russion oil

From the Guardian:

"‘Loophole’ in sanctions allowing Russian oil to be imported to Australia through port part-owned by Macquarie Bank

Luca Ittimani, 9 Nov 2025

Millions of tonnes of Russian oil have been traded through a port part-owned by Macquarie Bank and potentially sold on to Australian businesses, new data shows.

The identification of a new link between Australia and the trade in Russian-origin products exposes further gaps in government sanctions, as Australia lags behind the EU and the UK in tightening import rules.

Australia stopped buying fuel directly from Russia after its invasion of Ukraine but has imported more than 3m tonnes of Russian-originating oil products since 2023, the Europe-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea) has found.

Australia’s sanctions allow purchases via third countries, which Crea’s Europe analyst Vaibhav Raghunandan said had indirectly supported Russia’s oil production and the Kremlin’s tax revenues.

“This is a significant loophole being exploited by Australian buyers who, while on the right side of the law, are undoubtedly on the wrong side of the ethics of it,” Raghunandan said.

“It clearly undermines Australia’s support for Ukraine. It not only allows the continued flow of Russian oil but also allows Australian companies to profit off it.”...

Kateryna Argyrou, chair of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, called on Macquarie Bank to review its investment and disclose whether the terminal had facilitated the handling of Russian oil.

“Australia cannot stand with Ukraine while Australian capital helps sustain Russia’s war economy,” Argyrou said.

“Every drop of Russian oil sold helps finance the destruction of Ukrainian homes and lives. Australians deserve to know whether their banks and investment funds are profiting from that.”... 

The European Union and United Kingdom in October announced sanctions on third-party refiners of Russian material from 2026, including by targeting specific terminals and refineries.

Matching those sanctions would be essential to reduce oil revenue to the Kremlin, according to Dr Anton Moiseienko, a senior lecturer in law at the Australian National University.

“It’s really important to move towards that step,” he said.

“Otherwise [refineries] … keep purchasing Russian oil, and then refined products go to places like Australia, and all of that combines to create a market that generates billions for the Russian government.”"