Ukraine says received 1,200 bodies from Russia
Ukraine on Friday said it has received 1,200 unidentified bodies from Russia as part of an agreement reached at peace talks in Istanbul.
"The bodies of 1,200 deceased persons were returned to Ukraine," said Ukraine's headquarters for the treatment of POWs.
"According to the Russian side, the bodies belong to Ukrainian citizens, including military personnel."
Also Read | Russia attacks Ukraine's Kharkiv with deadly nighttime barrage of drones
Moscow said last week it would unilaterally hand to Ukraine the bodies of 6,000 killed soldiers in total, in what Kyiv said would be an "exchange".
The agreement had appeared in doubt earlier this week after Russia accused Ukraine of not coming to collect the first set of bodies and Kyiv said Moscow was playing a "dirty, political game".
Also Read | Russian attack left Kyiv's world heritage cathedral damaged, says culture minister
Earlier this week, Russia said it handed over the bodies of 1,212 killed soldiers in the first stage of the arrangement.
The deals to hand over killed soldiers and exchange captured soldiers are the only agreements to have come out of two rounds of peace talks in Istanbul.
Russia has rejected calls to halt its three-year invasion and demanded Ukraine cede even more territory and renounce Western military support if it wants peace.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
3 hours ago
- United News of India
Russia blames IAEA's ‘anti-Iran hysteria' for Israel-Iran conflict, holds West accountable for tensions
Moscow, June 13 (UNI) Criticising the Israeli strikes against Iran, Russia has put the onus of the whole incident on the International Atomic Energy Agency's 'paranoia' over Iran's nuclear program, stating that the West should now realise the results of provoking anti-Iran sentiments in the IAEA. As per Russian state-media TASS, the country's Foreign Ministry, criticising the West said it hope that Western nations, 'which provoked anti-Iran hysteria in the IAEA Board of Governors and once again pushed through an opportunistic resolution to please their political preferences and phobias that did not receive universal support, will realise the disastrous effects of their course and the extent of their guilt for the tragedy." Accusing Jerusalem of making a deliberate choice towards further escalation of tensions, it said "Responsibility for all the consequences of this provocation will rest on the Israeli leadership.' Stating that it is carefully monitoring the IAEA's actions – which it also held accountable for the Israeli attack, it said 'The agency's staff, along with Iranian citizens, have also come under Israeli fire. 'We expect the IAEA director general to make balanced and objective assessments of what is happening, including a thorough analysis of the likely radiation consequences of the attacks on nuclear facilities," it noted. Russia had expressed concern over the escalating tensions between Tel Aviv and Tehran, and has said that it is monitoring the developments very carefully. UNI ANV GNK
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
India Eyes Russian Su-57 Over American F-35: Final Choice Will Be Strategic, Not Just Tactical
Last Updated: If India does go for a stop-gap foreign fighter, it must not forget the ultimate priority – AMCA. The skies may be contested, but sovereignty cannot be India stands at a historic crossroads. Should it embrace the American F-35 jet, or should it buy the Russian Su-57? Earlier this year, Us President Donald Trump offered India the fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighter, a move hailed as game-changing. But just as that offer began gaining traction, another twist emerged—this time from Russia. In a bold and unprecedented play, Moscow sweetened its Su-57 proposal by offering India access to the aircraft's source code. This surprising development sent shockwaves through global defence circles, highlighting India's growing geopolitical leverage while presenting a difficult choice: advanced American technology with restrictions, or Russian flexibility with an uncertain performance history. Reports now suggest that India is actively considering the Russian Su-57 offer over the American F-35. As per CNBC's Parikshit Luthra, government sources have confirmed that India is weighing the Su-57 offer, while no F-35 proposal is under consideration at the moment. What is driving this potential shift? And what should India ultimately choose—an American fighter jet, a Russian one, or should it double down on its indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme? The decision is complex, consequential, and likely to shape India's military capabilities, strategic autonomy, and position in the global fifth-generation fighter race. Urgency and Options in India's Jet Quest India's need for fifth-generation jets is urgent. China already has J-20 stealth fighters operational along the border and is preparing to export its J-35 fighter, possibly to Pakistan. India's own AMCA programme has been cleared but is still in its early stages. Even in the most optimistic scenario, it will take several years before a prototype is ready for induction. That timeline makes a stop-gap purchase probable, and global defence manufacturers have been quick to recognise India's dilemma. The American F-35 is widely regarded as the most advanced stealth fighter in the world. Over a thousand F-35s are already in service with countries like Israel and NATO members. The jet has seen real combat, is loaded with cutting-edge sensors and avionics, and excels in stealth and situational awareness. But there are significant problems with this offer. First, the cost: each F-35 is priced between $80 to $110 million, nearly double the cost of the Russian Su-57. Second, the United States has shown no willingness to transfer technology or allow joint production—both non-negotiable for India. Then come the concerns about operational sovereignty. There have long been rumours that the F-35 contains a 'kill switch', a remote mechanism that could disable the aircraft. Whether or not such a feature exists, the core issue is that the aircraft runs on millions of lines of code controlled exclusively by the United States. Without access to the source code, India will not be able to integrate indigenous weapons like the BrahMos, Rudram, or Astra missiles. It would be locked into American munitions and maintenance systems, making the overall cost and dependency much higher. Russia Plays Game-Changing Card This is where Russia's offer stands out. Moscow is offering India the Su-57E, the export version of its fifth-generation Su-57 fighter, along with full access to the source code. This offer includes joint production in India, complete technology transfer, and the freedom to customise the aircraft with Indian weapons systems. With access to the source code, India could upgrade the jet independently, integrate indigenous systems, and reduce dependence on Russian support over time. Even France did not offer source code access for the Rafale jets, which is why India has been unable to integrate its own weapons into those platforms. Russia's proposal also includes upgrades to India's Su-30MKI fleet and support for the AMCA programme, potentially fast-tracking India's overall aerospace capabilities. Russia's Motivation Why is Russia making such an unprecedented offer? One reason is that the Su-57 has very few buyers. The ongoing war in Ukraine and Western sanctions have weakened Russia's defence exports. Only Algeria has reportedly placed an order for the jet. Secondly, the Su-57 hasn't yet achieved mass production. Fewer than 40 jets have been built, and Russia needs financial and industrial support to scale up. Thirdly, India was once part of the Su-57 project. Back in 2007, India and Russia had signed an agreement to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter. However, India withdrew in 2018 over concerns about cost, performance, disagreements and delays. Still, it had already invested significant sums in the project, and Russia has kept the door open ever since. Reviving that partnership now makes both strategic and economic sense for Moscow. Su-57 vs F-35: Tactical Edges Technically, both the F-35 and Su-57 are fifth-generation jets, but they differ sharply in design philosophy. The F-35 excels in stealth, electronic warfare, and sensor fusion. It is designed to detect enemies first and strike from a distance, making it an ideal first-strike platform. The Su-57, on the other hand, is built for speed, agility, and manoeuvrability. In a long-range encounter, the F-35 would likely spot the Su-57 first. But in a close-range dogfight, the Su-57 could dominate owing to its manoeuvrability. To oversimplify: the F-35 is an offensive fighter, while the Su-57 is a defensive one. When viewed against the backdrop of Chinese capabilities, the Su-57 appears to offer a better match. China's J-20 is already deployed at the Himalayan border, and the J-35, while not yet in service with the Chinese air force, is being marketed aggressively, possibly at a discount to Pakistan. Both jets prioritise stealth, but their capabilities still lag behind the F-35. Compared to the Chinese fighters, the Su-57 holds clear advantages in speed, agility, and weapons integration. Moreover, India's ability to modify and customise the Su-57 would allow it to retain battlefield flexibility—something the F-35 deal cannot offer. F-35 wins in stealth and avionics, and it is battle tested unlike the Su-57, meanwhile while the Su-57 wins in manoeuvrability, weapons flexibility, sovereignty and access, and cost. Not Just Tactical, But Strategic But the decision going forward will not be exclusively tactical— it will be strategic. India weighing the Russian proposal signals that the time-tested India-Russia relationship still holds promise—despite today's geopolitical headwinds. What India seeks are favourable, future-ready deals—not lopsided ones forced at gun-point, even if they come from a key defence partner like the US. Ultimately, the jet should be thoroughly tested in Indian conditions to ensure it meets all operational needs. AMCA is Non-Negotiable top videos View all While this debate plays out, it is crucial that India does not lose sight of the AMCA programme. A big-ticket foreign purchase—whether American or Russian—should not divert attention from India's long-term goal of aerospace independence. The AMCA has been green-lit and is seeking international and private partners to co-develop engines and other critical systems. Talks are ongoing with Britain's Rolls-Royce and France's Safran for engine co-development with full technology transfer. DRDO has promised to deliver the AMCA by 2035. The choice India makes—between the F-35, Su-57 or solely AMCA—will not only shape the future of the Indian Air Force but also define the country's broader strategic posture. If India does go for a stop-gap foreign fighter, it must not forget that the ultimate priority is the AMCA. The skies may be contested, but sovereignty cannot be. About the Author Shubhangi Sharma Shubhangi Sharma is News Editor - Special Projects at News18. She covers foreign affairs and geopolitics, and also keeps a close watch on the national pulse of India. tags : China f35 Indian Air Force Russia Su-57 Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 14, 2025, 10:10 IST News opinion India Eyes Russian Su-57 Over American F-35: Final Choice Will Be Strategic, Not Just Tactical
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Why the Indian government needs to redefine the idea of reform
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, political scientist Francis Fukuyama prematurely declared the 'end of history'. He believed that capitalism and democracy—the Washington Consensus—had finally prevailed over socialism and totalitarianism. History has returned. Ideological conflict between democracy and capitalism has not ended. In fact the two ideologies are conflicting within the Western victors of the old Cold War. Civil society movements are speaking in the West on behalf of people left behind by the 'free market' of private enterprise. Other voices on 'the Left' demand a larger role for governments in providing public services and social security. And others speak for protection of the natural environment. Meanwhile the Right advocates for lower taxes, less regulation, and more freedom for capital to roam the world. The fundamental conflict between the core principles of capitalism and democracy—i.e. between the rights of owners of capital on one hand, and the rights of all humans on the other—continues. It is a conflict between political conservatives and political progressives. Between conservatives, who want to retain their power to fix the rules of the game from which they have benefitted, and progressives who want to change the rules for the benefit of those left behind. Also read: How John Matthai became a leading light of economic policy Democracy and capitalism are founded on different conceptions of fundamental rights. Capitalism's foundation is property rights. Democracy's is human rights. Capitalist institutions run on the principle that whosoever owns something has the right to use it as he wishes, and also that whosoever owns more of a shared resource must have a greater say in how that resource is used. Therefore, whoever owns more shares in a corporation has a larger vote than those who own fewer shares. On the other hand, ownership of property does not matter while assigning voting rights in democratic institutions. Because, in democracy, every living person, whether she has a billion dollars of wealth, or no dollars at all, has an equal vote in the governance of the collective human enterprise. The clash between capitalism and democracy is a clash of fundamental principles for good governance of societies. When appliances designed to run on AC power are plugged into sockets providing DC power, there will be blow-outs. Similarly, when institutions of governance designed to run on fundamentally different principles are plugged into each other, something will blow up. Fundamental contradictions between the principles of capitalism and democracy are causing violent conflicts amongst nations and within nations. To create an equitable, sustainable, and more harmonious world in the 21st century, institutions of democracy and capitalism must evolve, from the shape in which they have been locked in with the so-called 'Washington Consensus'. Humanity must find new solutions to many societal, economic, and environmental challenges in a hurry. They are listed in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals all governments have signed up for. Institutions are vehicles designed by humans to realize their collective aspirations. Institutions of capitalism, as well as institutions of democracy, must be reformed to solve the existential crises of increasing inequalities and rapid climate change that are threatening all humanity. Reforming Capitalism [Lawyer and Deputy Chairman of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company (Telco)] Nani Palkhivala supported private enterprise for economic growth. He was also a great defender of the democratic rights of citizens. When Indira Gandhi declared an Emergency and suspended political freedoms, he withdrew from a case in which he was representing her. This caused consternation in the Tata companies. J.R.D. Tata was naturally concerned about the effect Palkhivala's uprightness would have on Tata's businesses. But he supported Palkihivala nevertheless. Designs of new forms of capitalist institutions, such as the limited liability company invented in the 17th century enabled capitalism to expand. With the evolution of institutions for governing international finance and international trade in the twentieth century, capitalist corporations have been able to spread across national borders. Capitalist institutions have enabled global and national GPDs to increase and have lifted millions of people out of economic poverty. Also read: Fitzgerald's critique of capitalism in 'The Great Gatsby' remains valid 100 years later Economists promoting free markets gained more power within Anglo-Saxon governments from the 1970s onwards. Milton Friedman, who became famous for his dictum that 'the business of business must be only business', and Frederik Hayek, known for his thesis that more governance was 'the road to serfdom', persuaded Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US to push back against governments in their countries and to privatize public services. Reagan even said that Government is not the solution; rather, Government is the problem. This turn of ideology gave big capital greater power. Democratic governments, as mentioned before, must represent the interests of all people, rich and poor equally. Though the richest people within any society will always be numerically less than the numbers of poorer people (it is a mathematical distribution as the Italian economist Vilfred Pareto had pointed out in the nineteenth century). However, the rich few will acquire greater power in the governance of societies than the poorer many whenever the principle of property rights dominates. The shift in the balance between democracy and capitalism towards capitalism in the last thirty years is made vivid by the creation of international tribunals who adjudicate in disputes between foreign investors in countries and the governments of those countries. Governments of countries represent the interests of millions, even billions, of people in their countries. On the other side in the dispute are a few investors of capital. Global institutions have come to pander too much to financial investors, making it easier for them to enter and exit countries at will, while stopping human migrants searching for better opportunities across national borders. The rules of globalization have made life much easier for capitalists than for workers. The word 'reform' has taken on a one-sided connotation: reforms seem to imply removal of constraints on investors and businesses. This was starkly revealed in India, and other countries too, during the Covid pandemic. The poor lost incomes and homes while stock markets broke records making investors even richer. The Indian government's move at that time, to 'reform' labour laws to attract more foreign investments, making it easier for employers to fire workers and curbing unions too, made clear that large investors had more political power than common people. Excerpted with permission from Speaking Tiger Books. Also read: This women farmers' network envisions a feminist future for agriculture
