Ukrainians hold service to mark war anniversary
Ukrainians living in Cumbria have come together to mark the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of their homeland.
A service was held at Carlisle Cathedral on Sunday followed by a march for peace.
It is estimated about 600 Ukrainians live in the county.
Alla Stoica, who organised the service and march, said: "I think it was really important for me and for the Ukrainian community in Cumbria to come here and remind the world about the ongoing struggle."
The war has killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and destroyed swathes of Ukraine.
It began when Russia launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022 following its earlier annexation of Ukrainian territory.
Ms Stoica added: "It's an opportunity for us to commemorate the people who died for our freedom."
The UK welcomed many displaced people under the government's Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Now closed, it allowed Ukrainian nationals and their immediate family members to apply for permission to come to the country if they had an approved sponsor.
Among those in Carlisle on Sunday to have used it was Olga Leintovea, who has two teenage sons.
"It was very hard for them to adapt," she said. "It took a while, but now we are more or less settled.
"I work in a school, they go to school, so at least we are here safe."
Ms Leintovea said recent remarks by US President Donald Trump around peace talks had proved worrying.
Mr Trump last week called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a "dictator", blamed Ukraine for starting the war and said he believed Russia had "the cards" in any peace talks because it has "taken a lot of territory".
"It's heart-breaking to hear that after all the support we've had from the Western world," Ms Leintovea said.
"Of course it's frustrating for us. That's why we need to be united - all Ukrainains, all Europeans - to stand for freedom and for peace."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Charity brings Ukraine pizza efforts to 'sad' halt
Three years on, Ukraine's extinction nightmare has returned
Zelensky willing to give up presidency in exchange for Nato membership
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Ukraine alleges Russia is mixing its dead into collection of returned bodies
June 16 (UPI) --Ukraine alleged Monday that Russia mixed bodies of its own dead soldiers among the Ukrainian military dead that have been returned, and that more than a million Russians have been killed since conflict began. Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War announced on Telegram that Russia repatriated 1,245 bodies Monday, as per an agreement made between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul. The agency asserts that Ukraine has received a total of 6,057 bodies so far. Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky posted to Telegram Monday that Russia has so far transferred the bodies of 6,060 Ukrainian military members back to Ukraine and received 78 in return. Russia's Ministry of Defense made a separate follow-up announcement that Russia is also ready to transfer the bodies of another 2,239 Ukrainian service members. However, Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko posted to Telegram Monday that among the bodies Ukraine has received, 'the bodies of the Russian military were also handed over to us, mixed with the bodies of Ukrainians.' Klymenko alleged that Russia may have unknowingly included some of their dead along with the Ukrainian bodies returned, or 'This could have been done by the Russians deliberately to increase the number of transferred bodies and load the work of our experts, supplementing all this with cynical information pressure.' Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service had announced Sunday that it anticipated Russia would soon start to share false information in regard to a POW exchange slated for Friday and would purport that Ukraine has refused to accept the return of dead soldiers in order to 'provoke a wave of panic and indignation in Ukrainian society and shift responsibility for the crimes committed to the Ukrainian authorities.' The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also stated that as of Monday Russian losses in its war on Ukraine have surpassed one million dead since it began in February of 2022, as well as more than 40,000 drones, 22,000 armored fighting vehicles and nearly 11,000 tanks. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump muses about turning the G7 back into the G8 — or even the G9 with China
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump kicked off his time at the Group of Seven summit on Monday by suggesting that Russia and maybe even China should be part of the organization. The U.S. leader indicated that he would rather have the G7 become the G8 or possibly even the G9, although Russia and China would notably be authoritarian governments in an organization whose members are democracies. Trump asserted that it was a 'very big mistake' to remove Russia in 2014 after it annexed Crimea, a move that precipitated Russia's wider invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The comments added more complexity regarding Trump's interests as he is set to meet on Tuesday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about ending the brutal war started by the invasion. 'I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in, and you wouldn't have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,' Trump said. 'They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake, even though I wasn't in politics then.' Trump added that Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, is 'no longer at the table, so it makes life more complicated.' Asked by a reporter if China should also be added, Trump said: 'It's not a bad idea. I don't mind that if somebody wants to see just China coming in.' The U.S. president said it's important for world leaders to be able to speak with one another at summits. 'Putin speaks to me. He doesn't speak to anybody else," Trump said. "He doesn't want to talk because he was very insulted when he got thrown out of the G8, as I would be, as you would be, as anybody would be.' Trump was speaking to reporters after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is hosting the summit in Kananaskis, along the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The U.S. president has levied steep tariffs against dozens of countries, and the G7 leaders are also trying to address the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But Carney tried to flatter Trump by noting that the G7 would be rudderless without the U.S. 'The G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership,' Carney said.
