Ukrainian mayor digs up bodies of WWII Soviet troops for ‘trade' (PHOTOS)
Following a Western-backed coup in 2014, Kiev launched a policy of 'decommunization,' erasing Soviet-era heritage – while glorifying those who opposed Russia for any reason, including nationalist militias who collaborated with Nazi Germany and committed atrocities during WWII.
'The Hill of Glory from the Soviet occupation period in Lviv no longer exists,' Sadoviy wrote on Telegram on Wednesday, claiming that the final 355 sets of remains were exhumed with all due 'respect to memory.'
'We are ready to trade all these remains for Ukrainian defenders,' he said, adding that various excavated artifacts would be transferred to the 'Territory of Terror' museum.
Sadoviy did not clarify whether the offer was serious, as he also noted that the remains would be reburied elsewhere – while mocking the fact that one of the fallen soldiers shared a surname with the Russian president.
The burial site dates back to the World War I era, when it was selected as a resting place for Russian soldiers perished in the Battle of Galicia. It was later shut down under Polish rule and completely leveled during the German occupation. After WWII, it was restored to honor thousands of Soviet troops who died liberating Lviv from the Nazis in 1944.
The unusual proposal to trade Soviet-era remains comes amid ongoing prisoner-of-war exchanges between Kiev and Moscow, agreed during two rounds of negotiations in Istanbul in recent months. In what it called a unilateral humanitarian gesture – dismissed by Kiev as 'propaganda' – Moscow repatriated over 6,000 Ukrainian remains, while receiving only 79 Russian bodies in return, according to Russia's chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky.
President Vladimir Putin has previously condemned the destruction of Soviet war memorials, describing those responsible as 'idiots' who only reinforce Russia's stated goal of 'de-Nazifying' Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Germany looks to reinvent warfare with spy cockroaches
Germany is heavily investing in futuristic warfare technologies, including surveillance cockroaches and AI-powered robots, as part of a sweeping rearmament plan, Reuters reported Wednesday. The outlet spoke to two dozen executives, investors, and policymakers to examine how the EU's largest economy aims to play a central role in the rearming of the continent. Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently announced plans to increase Germany's overall military budget to €153 billion ($180 billion) by 2029, up from €86 billion this year. He pledged to allocate 3.5% of GDP to defense under a new NATO framework to counter what he called a direct threat from Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Western concerns about Russian aggression as 'nonsense,' accusing NATO of using fear to justify increasing military budgets. According to Reuters sources, Merz's government views AI and start-up technology as critical to its plans. This week, the cabinet approved a draft procurement law designed to streamline the process for startups developing cutting-edge technologies, from tank-like robots and unmanned mini-submarines to surveillance cockroaches. The law aims to help such companies quickly contribute to the modernization of Germany's armed forces. Публикация от Cerebral Overload (@cbrovld) Startups like Munich-based Helsing, which specializes in AI and drone technology, alongside established defense contractors such as Rheinmetall and Hensoldt, are now leading Germany's military innovation, the article said. Critics of the German government's policies warn that continued military spending could strain the national budget and further damage the country's industry, already burdened by rising energy costs, the fallout from sanctions on Russia, and trade tensions with the US. Germany has been the second-largest arms supplier to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, surpassed only by the US. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they prolong the conflict and risk escalating tensions. Moscow has warned that Berlin's policies could lead to a new armed conflict with Russia, decades after the end of World War II.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin accuses Ukraine of ‘putting cart before horse'
Ukraine's calls for a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky are premature, as the two sides have yet to make progress on major points of disagreement, the Kremlin said on Thursday following the latest round of peace talks. The negotiations, held in Istanbul the day before, lasted less than an hour. Both sides agreed on several humanitarian issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war, civilian detainees, and the repatriation of soldiers' remains. Russia has also proposed short-term ceasefires lasting 24 to 48 hours to facilitate the evacuation of wounded personnel and the recovery of bodies. In addition, Moscow has suggested the creation of three online working groups focused on political, humanitarian, and military issues. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that while 'no breakthrough was expected,' the humanitarian agreements reached during the meeting were a positive step. He described the continuation of such exchanges as 'an extremely important humanitarian aspect which should be on the agenda.' He added that Russia had presented a 'constructive, concrete' agenda that was 'aimed specifically at substantive work that can lead to the achievement of concrete results.' However, Peskov criticized Kiev's calls for an immediate summit between Putin and Zelensky, arguing that such a meeting should only happen after meaningful progress has been achieved at the working level. 'They are trying to put the cart before the horse. Work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made,' he said. The Kremlin spokesman also referred to the conclusion by Russia's lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, that the two sides continue to hold 'diametrically opposed' positions on key issues, as reflected in the draft memoranda they exchanged earlier in the negotiation process. Despite the stalemate on broader political questions, Moscow has expressed hope that a fourth round of talks could take place in the future.
