EU ambassador calls death of journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna one of Russia's most heinous war crimes
Katarína Mathernová, EU Ambassador to Ukraine, has called the death of journalist and freelance writer for Ukrainska Pravda Viktoriia Roshchyna in captivity "one of the most horrific Russian war crimes".
Source: Mathernová on Facebook
Quote: "She was talented and brave. Only 27 years old. Her death is one of the most horrific Russian war crimes.
Many things have shaken me deeply during the past two years since the EU sent me to Kyiv. But the abduction, torture, and murder of Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna touched me not only as an ambassador, but also as a mother, a woman, and an admirer of unbreakable and heroic women who do not back down even in the face of military brutality.
We honour her memory."
Details: Mathernová added that Russia has killed 102 journalists and media workers since 24 February 2022.
Read also: The Viktoriia Project: the story of the captivity and torture endured by journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna and thousands of Ukrainians imprisoned by Russia
Background:
Roshchyna went missing on 3 August 2023 while reporting from Russian-occupied territory.
In May 2024, Russia admitted for the first time that it had detained Roshchyna. Russia's Ministry of Defence sent a letter of confirmation to her father, Volodymyr Roshchyn.
On 10 October 2024, Petro Yatsenko, the head of the press service for Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, reported that Roshchyna had died in Russian custody.
Investigators from Slidstvo.info, a Ukrainian investigative journalism outlet, found that Roshchyna had been brutally tortured while in Russian captivity: her body bore stab wounds, she had been subjected to electric shocks, and was hidden from inspections by staff at a Russian penal colony.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
France to produce drones in Ukraine, minister says
French automotive and defense companies will produce drones on Ukrainian soil, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced on June 6, Le Monde reported. "We are going to embark on a completely unprecedented partnership where a large French car company – I won't name it because it's up to them to announce it – will join forces with a French defense SME (small to medium-sized enterprise) to equip production lines in Ukraine to be able to produce drones," Lecornu said, as quoted by the newspaper. Lecornu did not specify the types of drones to be produced. He said that, apart from Ukraine, the drones will be also provided "to our own armies… to have ongoing tactical and operational training that reflects the reality." Lecornu also said there is "no need" to send French citizens to work on the production line, since it will be set up in Ukraine, where Ukrainians "are better than us at designing drones and especially at developing the strategies that accompany them." Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has been developing and deploying technological innovations and cutting-edge unmanned systems. Both Ukraine and Russia have increasingly relied on drone warfare, using aerial, naval, and ground-based drones for reconnaissance and combat missions. In late March, presidential advisor Alexander Kamyshin said in an interview with Radio Khartia that Ukrainian manufacturers had the capacity to produce over 5 million FPV drones per year. Read also: Ukraine war latest: Russia hits Ukraine with large-scale attack days after Operation Spiderweb; Ukraine targets Russian air bases in 'preemptive strike' We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Three dead as Ukraine hit with third-straight day of overnight attacks
A Russian missile and drone attack in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv early Saturday killed at least three people and injured more than 20 others, officials have confirmed. Photo by Sergey Kozlov/EPA-EFE June 7 (UPI) -- A Russian missile and drone attack in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv early Saturday killed at least three people and injured more than 20 others, officials have confirmed. Mayor Ihor Terekhov called the attacks in the country's second-largest city "pure terror," as Ukraine faced overnight bombardment for the third straight day. At least four people died and more than 50 were injured during overnight missile and drone attacks early Friday morning that marked one of Russia's largest aerial assaults of the year, involving almost 500 drones. President Volodymyr Zelensky said the Friday attacks affected nearly the entire country. Kharkiv faced "at least 40 explosions" during the overnight attacks, Terekhov said on his Telegram social media account. "Kharkiv is currently experiencing the most powerful attack since the start of the full-scale war," Terekhov wrote. "The enemy is striking simultaneously with missiles, (drones) and guided aerial bombs. This is outright terror against peaceful Kharkiv." A 14-year-old girl and a boy under the age of two were among those injured in the latest Russian attacks carried out by over 50 drones and four guided aerial bombs, the Kharkiv regional prosecutor's office. Ukrainian officials said 18 apartment buildings and an additional 13 residential buildings were damaged in the attacks. "The strikes achieved their objectives. All designated targets were destroyed," Russia's Defense Ministry wrote on Telegram. The attacks came as the two countries were set to carry out a prisoner exchange that would see hundreds of soldiers on both sides repatriated, including the bodies of thousands of those killed in the conflict. Russian officials on Saturday said Ukraine "unexpectedly postponed both the acceptance of bodies and the exchange of prisoners of war for an indefinite period," following the latest round of attacks.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
