Russia bans Amnesty International, calls it ‘Russophobic' and pro-Ukraine
MOSCOW: Russia on Monday labelled Amnesty International an "undesirable organisation", banning the rights group's activities and accusing it of being a hub of "Russophobia" and of supporting Ukraine.
Moscow has outlawed dozens of international civil society groups amid a years-long crackdown on dissent and criticism that has escalated since it launched its military offensive on Ukraine in February 2022.
Russia's Prosecutor General accused the London-headquartered body of being a "centre for the preparation of global Russophobic projects, paid for by accomplices of the Kyiv regime."
It said the group had "been doing everything possible to intensify the military confrontation in the region, justifying the crimes of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, calling for increased funding for them and supporting the political and economic isolation of our country."
Kyiv, the West and independent experts have repeatedly rejected Moscow's claims that it is fighting to "de-Nazify" Ukraine as baseless Kremlin propaganda.
On its website, Amnesty calls Russia's military offensive on Ukraine a "war of aggression".
"The rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association remained severely restricted," it adds, detailing "arbitrary persecution" of religious groups, children and LGBTQ groups, among others.
"Dissenters faced arbitrary prosecutions, unfair trials, heavy fines and lengthy prison terms under a plethora of laws that failed to meet international human rights standards," Amnesty stated.
Groups labelled "undesirable" are banned from operating in Russia.
Anybody accused of "cooperating" with them can face fines or a lengthy jail sentence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
AI- The Immortal Warrior: How AI Has Enhanced Strategic Planning and Decision Making During Warfare.
The Ukraine-Russia war: The Israel-Palestine conflict: Live Events The United States and China: India's Stand in the AI Warfare Landscape: Who Bears the Burden of a Machine's Mistake? In today's digital-first world, warfare has undergone a seismic shift. Military strategy no longer unfolds solely through hierarchical commands and paper maps. With the rise of AI, strategic planning and decision-making in the military have transformed, enabling real-time battlefield analytics autonomous drones , and predictive war games. AI has quietly taken a commanding position in modern conflict recent conflicts, such as those between Ukraine and Russia and the ones that happened in the Middle East, portray proof that warfare is not limited to human reaction time or situational awareness. AI-powered systems have begun to reshape how decisions are made in combat. As global militaries digitize their military infrastructure, the arms race has moved past missiles and reached war strategies relied on hierarchy-based decision-making and human-led intelligence analysis. AI-driven systems digest satellite imagery, sensor feeds, cyber intelligence, and troop movements in seconds. In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, 'Palantir's Gotham AI' supported the Ukrainian forces with decision-making by analyzing real-time combat data and offered optimal courses of action. As a result, the decisions made were faster, data-rich, and less prone to during the Israel-Palestine conflict, 'The Gospel' (reportedly) system was used to generate real-time target lists using behavioral pattern recognition. The complexities of Gaza's urban landscape—this software helped identify tunnel networks and enemy positions. By augmenting human judgment, these tools reduce reaction times and cognitive load in high-pressure Department of Defense's 'Project Maven' in the United States uses AI to analyze drone footage, identifying threats with accuracy. The purpose of Project Maven's existence was essentially for video analysis, to detect insurgents, vehicles, or weapons from the drone footage. China, too, as per speculations, has used AI for war-gaming and simulation training in their military scenarios, particularly in simulations involving Taiwan. They have also used AI-powered surveillance for population control and internal military security, particularly in regions like Ministry of Defence has initiated AI-focused collaborations with DRDO and private startups, aiming to integrate AI into logistics, surveillance, and threat detection. However, challenges persist, ranging from limited battlefield data and underdeveloped infrastructure to the absence of clear ethical frameworks. Even so, with rapidly growing interest in indigenous defense innovation and dual-use AI startups, India could emerge as a key player in the strategic AI landscape, not just as a user but as a policymaker and exporter of defense-related intelligence AI taking on active roles in warfare, the ethical landscape surrounding its use grows ever more complex. It prompts difficult questions, like who is held accountable when an autonomous drone goes off-target? How much autonomy should machines have when it comes to life-and-death decisions?Several other risks, like algorithmic bias embedded in AI systems, can distort decision-making in critical moments, while authoritarian regimes may exploit AI for disproportionate control or aggressive tactics. Furthermore, there exists the potential of an AI-driven psychological warfare, through the means of deepfakes, disinformation, and synthetic media, that poses threats beyond the boundaries of the battlefield.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Russian attacks kill 3 as drones hit Kharkiv amid stalled peace talks
Russian forces launched a fresh drone assault across Ukraine overnight Wednesday (June 11, 2025), killing three people and wounding 60 more, Ukrainian officials said. One of the hardest-hit areas was the city of Kharkiv in northeastern Ukraine, where 17 attack drones struck two residential districts, said Mayor Ihor Terekhov. Emergency crews, municipal workers and volunteers worked through the night to extinguish fires, rescue residents from burning homes, and restore gas, electricity and water services. 'Those are ordinary sites of peaceful life — those that should never be targeted,' Mr. Terekhov wrote on Telegram. Three people were confirmed killed and at least 60 injured, including nine children aged between 2 and 15, according to Kharkiv regional head Oleh Syniehubov. Repeatedly targeted Kharkiv has been repeatedly targeted frequently in recent months as Russia had launched repeated large-scale drone and missile attacks on civilian infrastructure. Moscow's forces have deployed high numbers of drones and missiles in recent days, with a record bombardment of almost 500 drones on Monday and a wave of 315 drones and seven missiles overnight on Tuesday. The attacks come despite discussions of a potential ceasefire. The two sides traded memoranda at direct peace talks in Istanbul on June 2 that set out conditions. However, the inclusion of clauses that both sides see as nonstarters make any quick deal unlikely. Wednesday's strikes also caused widespread destruction in the Slobidskyi and Osnovianskyi districts, hitting apartment buildings, private homes, playgrounds, industrial sites and public transport. Images from the scene published by Ukraine's Emergency Service on Telegram showed burning apartments, shattered windows and firefighters battling the blaze. 'We stand strong. We help one another. And we will endure,' Mr. Terekhov said. 'Kharkiv is Ukraine. And it cannot be broken.' Ukraine's air force said that 85 attack and decoy drones were fired over the country overnight. Air defence systems intercepted 40 of the drones, while nine more failed to reach their targets without causing damage.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Trust deficit is the stumbling block in the Russia-Ukraine peace talks
Written by Rajoli Siddharth Jayaprakash After multiple rounds of negotiations between Russia and the US, Russia and Ukraine began direct talks in May. These have led to prisoner exchanges so far, not a ceasefire. Despite Trump's commitment to bringing about a definitive resolution to the conflict, the chances in the near future aren't very high. A fundamental contradiction persists in how each side perceives its core security interests. Europe, on the other hand, has reiterated its commitment to defending Ukraine's sovereignty and subsequently enlarged its military budget. In the recent talks in June, Ukraine and Russia submitted a memorandum of their demands. Moscow's demands remain unchanged. It is calling for Ukrainian forces to withdraw from the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk, and wants the recognition of the territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Further, Russia demands Ukraine's neutrality — that it gives up its claims to joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and maintains a limited armed force. Other demands included the lifting of martial law and elections in Ukraine within 100 days after an end to the conflict. Ukraine, on the other hand, cites its membership in NATO and the European Union as central for its security guarantees. It also seeks the frozen Russian assets to be used as reparations. In the past, both sides have vehemently rejected these demands, citing them as a non-starter in the talks. In an abandoned 2022 draft deal, one condition laid out was that Ukraine would maintain neutrality in return for security guarantees from five permanent members of the United Nations, as well as other countries like Belarus, Germany, Turkey, Israel, Poland, and Canada. The talks failed. Three years on, while the framework of the deal has remained the same, Ukraine's negotiating heft has considerably reduced, despite the conclusion of the US–Ukraine critical minerals agreement, giving the US privileged access to Ukraine's mineral extraction. With Russia regaining territory in the Kursk region, its forces have now entered Sumy, with the plan of creating a buffer zone. Ukraine, in response, has launched a salvo of drone attacks on Russia on critical infrastructure to slow down its advance. The Russian delegation not pulling out of the talks after the biggest Ukrainian drone attack of the war (Operation Spider's Web) on 1 June reflects a degree of pragmatism on Moscow's part. Both sides are aware of the complexity of bringing the conflict to an end. For Russia, seeking the neutrality of Ukraine remains its primary interest, and its demands for territory secondary. Sanctions relief also comes under secondary interests. Ukraine, on the other hand, sees security guarantees as the most important, and the status of territories on the right bank of the Dnipro River as secondary. Moscow controls more than 75 per cent of the territories of Donetsk and Kherson, and more than 90 per cent of Luhansk. Apart from reaching an agreement on these territorial and security factors, other concerns remain with respect to how both sides plan to administer a ceasefire, as it would require a huge number of troops to secure the demilitarised zone. Then there is the issue of funding such a force. One reason for Moscow's reticence in pushing for a ceasefire stems from the fear that Ukraine will regroup and launch a counterattack. Thus, both sides are aiming to build trust, which can be reflected in their stepping up efforts to release an equal number of POWs. Both sides are aware that bringing an end to the hostilities will take place in a piecemeal fashion, with long-drawn negotiations and the prospects of further escalation. History shows us how, in the Vietnam War, the US and the erstwhile North Vietnam began negotiations in the summer of 1968, and the conclusion of the peace accord took more than five years to culminate in 1973. If Ukraine capitulates, it will be a significant blow to NATO allies, as Russia's dominance can alter the European security architecture. Thus, with both Russian and Ukrainian positions being divergent, with Europe backing Ukraine, and with earlier attempts in resolving the conflict across the span of 11 years failing (Minsk and Istanbul), it is unlikely that peace will return anytime soon. The writer is a Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation
