Russian human rights commissioner says Ukrainian soldiers shared food with residents of Kursk Oblast
Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova has said that Ukraine should not be seen only as an "evil empire" and described how Ukrainian soldiers shared food with residents of Russia's Kursk Oblast.
Source: Russian media citing a speech by Moskalkova in the State Duma on 30 January; Latvia-based Russian media outlet Meduza
Details: Moskalkova said she had spoken to residents of Kursk Oblast who had allegedly been taken to Ukraine and then returned to Russia. They told her "various things", she said.
In particular, they apparently said that Ukrainian soldiers had "brought them their own food and shared whatever food they had".
Moskalkova also said that Russians should not "dehumanise" Ukrainian soldiers and see them "only as an evil empire", because "they vary".Background:
Fighting in Russia's Kursk Oblast began on the morning of 6 August 2024 when the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border near the city of Sudzha. Ukrainian troops began advancing deep into Russian territory and gained control of several hundred square kilometres within a few days.
On 12 August, the Ukrainian government confirmed for the first time that the Armed Forces were involved in the offensive, and on 14 August they reported that Ukrainian troops had formed a buffer zone in self-defence. At the end of August, Ukrainian troops controlled about 1,100 sq km of Kursk Oblast; by the end of 2024, the territory had shrunk to about 460 sq km as a result of the Russian counteroffensive.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Trump is frustrated by his own success on immigration
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. The primary cause of this unrest has been less visible, but no less disorderly or disruptive. Behind the tensions in LA lies a radical escalation in the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants. To accelerate deportations, top White House adviser Stephen Miller instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in late May to dispense with norms and legal niceties that had previously constrained its activities, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Since then, the agency has deprioritized the removal of immigrants implicated in crimes, opting instead to target undocumented workers at random. It has stopped drafting lists of immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally and started arresting day laborers at businesses like Home Depot and 7-Eleven en masse, ensnaring some US citizens in the process. One such raid ignited the LA protests. Under Joe Biden, ICE had generally refrained from raiding schools, churches, and hospitals. Now it is reportedly arresting new mothers in maternity wards and then denying them their right to legal counsel. Most alarmingly, some ICE agents have allegedly embraced violent and unconstitutional tactics, according to the Journal's report. A union organizer for Washington farmworkers was driving his wife to her job at a tulip farm, when ICE agents stopped him, smashed in his car windows, and pulled him from the vehicle, all without showing badges or identification. A Russian man with a pending asylum case was reporting for his scheduled check-in at an ICE office, when a team of agents arrested him and then allegedly beat him. And ICE has not merely been targeting undocumented immigrants, but also those who exercise their First Amendment rights on the undocumented immigrants' behalf. In Irvine, California, ICE sent a 'phalanx of military vehicles' into an Orange County suburb to arrest a man who had allegedly posted fliers warning neighbors that ICE was in their area. The Trump administration's decision to greenlight such tactics might seem like an act of desperation — unable to stem the tide of undocumented immigration by conventional means, the White House is resorting to radical ones. But the opposite may be closer to the truth: The Trump administration is escalating its war on migration because it is winning that conflict. Unfortunately, the fruits of Donald Trump's victory appear to be weaker economic growth and more social unrest. Related The LA protests reveal what actually unites the Trump right Trump's bid to deter immigration has been wildly successful Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Biden-era surge in unauthorized immigration and restore order at the border. He has largely done so. Border crossings were already slowing during Biden's final year in office, after his administration tightened rules around asylum last summer. But inflows have plunged even further under Trump. Through belligerent rhetoric and restrictionist policies, the president has successfully deterred both legal and illegal migration into the United States. Over the past two months, America witnessed the largest decline in its foreign-born workforce since the pandemic in 2020. This contraction was driven partly by a collapse in unauthorized border crossings. Between January 2022 and June 2024, US Customs and Border Protection encountered an average of 200,000 people per month at America's Southwest border. According to an analysis of government data from Deutsche Bank, that figure has fallen to just 12,000 people per month since Trump's inauguration. How Trump's success on immigration is fueling his radicalism Yet the Trump administration has found little satisfaction in this success. And for a simple reason: The slowdown in border crossings has made it more difficult for the president to exceed Biden's deportation numbers. When border control was encountering 200,000 migrants each month, it was easy for the government to rack up high deportation totals. Such new arrivals possessed fewer legal protections than longtime US residents and were already in the government's custody. Although many qualified for the asylum process, border control could swiftly expel those who did not. Trump's success in deterring border crossings has therefore reduced the pace of deportations. Headlines earlier this year spotlighted the fact that Trump was deporting immigrants at a slower rate than Biden. Shortly after Trump took office, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy posted on X, 'In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week…These guys are terrible at everything.' Such unfavorable comparisons apparently displeased Trump. The Wall Street Journal suggests that it was Trump's failure to exceed 'the number of daily deportations carried out by the Biden administration in its final year' that led Stephen Miller to give ICE its new, draconian marching orders. Unable to generate flashy deportation statistics by turning away new arrivals at the border, the administration has opted to ramp up enforcement against law-abiding, long-time US residents throughout the country — and to do so in a violent and seemingly lawless manner. Trump's handling of immigration has been economically and socially destructive (but politically popular) If Trump's success at deterring immigration has brought him little contentment, it has brought his country little discernible benefit. The slowdown in new arrivals is hurting the US economy. Compared to native-born workers, immigrants are more willing to relocate to US communities that have labor shortages, or to enter industries suffering from chronic shortfalls of workers, such as construction, food processing, and childcare. The mass entrance of migrants into the US during the Biden administration therefore helped to mitigate supply chain disruptions and reduce inflationary pressures in key sectors. This immigration surge was also immensely beneficial for economic growth and the national debt. America has an aging population. As a result, we need immigrants to sustain the growth of our workforce and shore up funding for Medicare and Social Security. Partly for these reasons, the Biden-era surge in immigration increased America's projected economic growth over the coming decade by upwards of $8.9 trillion, while reducing its expected federal deficits by $900 billion, according to an analysis from the Dallas Federal Reserve. Trump's successful deterrence of immigration threatens to reverse these gains, slowing growth and exacerbating labor shortages in construction, agriculture, and other key industries. According to Deutsche Bank, the collapse of immigration under Trump 'represents a far more sustained negative supply shock for the economy than tariffs.' Although immigration restriction is bad for the economy, many have argued that it's beneficial for political stability and social peace. After all, large surges of immigration tend to induce nativist backlashes. And Biden's failure to avert a historically large jump in migration plausibly helped Trump return to the White House. For the moment, however, the collapse in border crossings appears to be increasing social tension and political unrest. The migration slowdown has translated into lower deportation figures, which has led the administration to embrace radical enforcement tactics, which have predictably sown mass protest and clashes between civilians and agents of the state. We are therefore getting all the economic harms of immigration restriction, without its theoretical benefits for social harmony.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Alberta premier faces raucous, angry town hall on province's coal policy
FORT MACLEOD — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and three of her ministers got an earful on Wednesday night from southern Alberta locals at a rowdy, hours-long town hall to discuss the province's coal policy. About 500 people, dressed in cowboy hats, belt buckles, and jeans, packed a community hall in Fort Macleod, Alta., for an event marked by heckling, competing applause and placards. "If we are not prepared to look and find middle-ground solutions to allow for industries to proceed while reducing our environmental footprint, you're going to find that different industries become the next on the hit list," Smith said through a chorus of protesting voices and verbal jabs. "Banning industries is just not something we are going to do." The premier and her ministers of energy, environment and agriculture took questions and were shouted down on several occasions by attendees as they defended changes to the province's coal policy. Many in the crowd held small placards reading "lie" and "false," raising them each time they disagreed with a statement. There was a notable group that came in support of the province's coal policy, frequently applauding the ministers and shooting back at other crowd members. Many attendees carried notebooks and pens, keenly taking notes throughout. The town hall came weeks after the Alberta Energy Regulator, or AER, granted an Australia-based coal company permission to start a controversial coal exploration on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Northback Holding Corp.'s project at Grassy Mountain was initially rejected in 2021 when a panel ruled that the likely environmental effects on fish and water quality outweighed the potential economic benefits. Late last year, the project was exempted from the Alberta government's decision to ban open-pit coal mines because Northback's application was considered an "advanced" proposal. The issue has been polarizing in southern Alberta, where the debate has primarily revolved around the economic implications of development against environmental effects. A non-binding referendum in Crowsnest Pass saw 70 per cent of voters saying they'd support the nearby coal project. Despite frequent pushback over the two-and-a-half-hour event, Smith rarely chose to get into back-and-forth discussions with attendees. She defended the province's approach to coal developments, pitching responsible development that prioritizes environmental standards. Smith also frequently cited a lawsuit by five coal companies that say they're owed $15 billion by the province in lost revenues and sunk costs. She argued again on Wednesday that she had taxpayers in mind when the province lifted its moratorium on coal mining and development on the eastern slopes. "If we do nothing, then we are told we'll likely lose those cases and have to pay ($15 billion)." An energetic Brian Jean, the province's energy minister, frequently challenged the boisterous crowd and at times trotted offstage to hand his business card to those asking questions. "I live in the oilsands. You can't tell me what I'm concerned about and what I'm not concerned about. I'm very concerned about our earth and our planet," he said. Several questions returned to a new study by Alberta government scientists, yet to be peer reviewed, which recently said old coal mines on the eastern slopes are poisoning fish and any further coal mining there would result in 'population collapse' of fish species in a nearby lake. Asked about the report, Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said the province is looking into the issue and is waiting for it to be confirmed by the peer-review process. She said further studies to be released later this year are being conducted. "We want to understand what is happening there so that we can prevent that from happening in the future." The premier also jousted with protesters while speaking to reporters before the town hall. When a group gathered behind her and started yelling, she turned around and asked them to let her finish the interview. "I'm looking for a little bit of courtesy," she said. The event was scheduled to last two hours, but Smith asked to take questions for an extra 30 minutes after the clock had run out. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Matthew Scace, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zelenskyy considers Serbian president's visit important, as he witnessed war firsthand
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the first visit of his Serbian counterpart, Aleksandar Vučić to Ukraine is important because he has seen the war firsthand. Source: Zelenskyy on X (Twitter), as reported by European Pravda Details: On the evening of Wednesday 11 June, Zelenskyy spoke about his conversation with Vučić, who visited Odesa and attended the Ukraine-Southeast Europe Summit. "This is the [Serbian] President's first visit to Ukraine, and it is truly important to be here in Ukraine and witness the war firsthand," the Ukrainian leader said. Zelenskyy and Vučić discussed mutual support on the path to the European Union, bilateral cooperation and Ukraine's recovery. Quote from Zelenskyy: "I thank [Vučić] for the initiative to help with the recovery efforts and to assume patronage over the reconstruction of several Ukrainian settlements. This is a truly effective form of cooperation, and we look forward to positive results." Background: Notably, the participants of the Ukraine-Southeast Europe Summit have signed a declaration in which they condemn Russia's war against Ukraine "in the strongest possible terms" and call on the international community "to maintain and further strengthen sanctions against the Russian Federation". Meanwhile, Vučić was the only participant in the event who did not sign it. Commenting on this, Vučić said that in this way he "did not betray Russia". Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
