
Exclusive Interview With Detained Activist Dr Mahrang Baloch
Also since its beginning, the BYC has been led by women – including Dr. Mahrang Baloch. The 32-year-old became an activist after her father was 'disappeared' in 2009. He was released – only to be abducted again in 2011, and this time killed. Ever since, Mahrang had been a central figure in the movement for human rights and justice in Balochistan, including being honored by Time magazine as of the 100 most influential leaders of 2024.
Led prominently by women, including Dr. Mahrang Baloch herself, the BYC represents a new generation of progressive political activism in a region long marred by conflict and marginalization. The Pakistani state has responded to this peaceful mobilization with a sweeping crackdown and arrests, disinformation campaigns, and detentions without due process.
In March 2025, Mahrang – along with several other BYC leaders – was arrested, and she has been held in detention ever since, where they report 'continuous mistreatment and harassment.' This exclusive interview with Mahrang, conducted via an intermediary who was able to visit her in prison, offers a rare and urgent insight into the thinking of a movement that, in recent months, has mobilized tens of thousands across Balochistan in protests against enforced disappearances and state repression. Mahrang offers her perspective on the current state of the BYC and its leadership while under state custody, as well as the broader challenge of extremism and the future of political activism and human rights advocacy under increased state repression and now threats from the Islamic State's local branch.
In recent months, Balochistan has witnessed a troubling surge in religious extremism, most notably with the emergence of Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), a group that appears to operate at both regional and international levels. This group has singled you out, publishing your photo in a booklet and labeling you as 'evil' and a 'Western puppet.' How do you respond to these personal attacks? And more broadly, what does the rise of such groups signal for the future of progressive politics in Balochistan?
Balochistan has a peculiar and complex history with religious extremism. However, the roots of this extremism are not embedded in Baloch society itself. Based on clear evidence, we assert that religious extremism was imposed upon Baloch society – it was, in a sense, installed from the outside. The influence of religious radicalism in Balochistan began to emerge prominently during the Afghan War and became more pronounced after 9/11.
If we study Baloch society from a historical perspective, it is inherently secular, a society that has traditionally embraced religious, ethnic, and regional tolerance and coexistence.
The emergence of Islamic State in Balochistan and the threats made against me or declaring me an apostate are not something new. For the past two decades, we have witnessed how religious extremists have been used as a tool against the progressive Baloch political movement and against progressive educators, writers, intellectuals, and journalists.
For example, Professor Saba Dashtiari, a Baloch intellectual and teacher at the University of Balochistan, openly criticized the state for human rights violations in Balochistan. In 2011, he was murdered in broad daylight in front of the university. A religious extremist group claimed responsibility for his assassination through the media. Similarly, Professor Razzaq Zehri in Khuzdar was killed merely for promoting co-education and free education for all deserving students. Likewise, in Gwadar, Sir Zahid Askani was also murdered for the same reason. And just last year in Turbat, another educator, Sir Rauf Baloch, met a similar fate.
Progressive political activists in Balochistan, those who criticize the policies of the Pakistani state and advocate for human rights, face a dual threat. On one hand, they are subjected to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings by the state of Pakistan. On the other hand, they receive death threats from religious extremist armed groups.
Last month, Islamic State released my photo, branded me a European agent and an apostate, and warned the public not to attend our events. This rhetoric mirrors the language used against me by ISPR [Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistani military] in their press conferences. I had long anticipated that a group like Islamic State would eventually be activated and deployed against us, because we have been observing this pattern in Balochistan for the past 20 years, as exemplified by the cases I mentioned above.
I believe that threats from Islamic State or their activation against us will not significantly impact progressive politics in Balochistan. The Baloch political society has matured considerably, and the people of Balochistan are well aware of the truth, specifically, who is backing these religious extremists and why. The public fully understands this reality.
Our greatest success is that the majority of the Baloch people stand with us. And as long as that remains true, the use of extremist groups like Islamic State against us will not put an end to our struggle. The progressive political circles in Balochistan are deeply rooted. Tactics like these will not silence the progressive political movement in Balochistan, nor will threats from Islamic State silence us.
You have now been imprisoned for over three months. During this period, Pakistan's military spokesperson, in multiple ISPR press briefings, has described you as a 'proxy of terror' and used terms like 'evil face' in reference to your activism. How do you respond to these characterizations by the state's military apparatus?
For the past three months, I have been detained unlawfully. During this time, according to the information available to me, ISPR has mentioned me in three to four press conferences or media briefings. In each instance, the same baseless accusations were repeated, such as: 'Mahrang is a proxy of terrorists,' or 'Mahrang is a foreign agent,' and so on.
Despite being a powerful state with a 600,000-strong army, numerous intelligence agencies, and various civil institutions, ISPR has not presented even one piece of actual evidence against me. Instead, they have relied solely on false accusations and a media trial aimed at character assassination.
The military spokesperson has repeatedly misrepresented the press conference I held on March 19 at the Quetta Press Club. That press conference was not about the armed attack on the Jaffar Express or the return of the bodies of armed individuals. In reality, it was held to highlight the harassment faced by our fellow human rights defenders at the hands of Pakistani security forces. We had also submitted related cases to the United Nations Human Rights bodies.
The video and written transcript of that press conference are still publicly available in the media. At the end of the press conference, a journalist asked a question regarding the return of bodies lying in the Civil Hospital Quetta to their families. In response, I merely said that the bodies should be identified and handed over to the families, as this is their constitutional right. That is the only comment I made on the matter.
The full recording of the press conference exists, and any institution can verify that I made no unlawful or unconstitutional remarks during it.
The second allegation that the Pakistani military repeatedly makes against me and my colleagues is that we broke into the gates of the Civil Hospital Quetta to retrieve the bodies of armed individuals. I challenge the Pakistani military to provide evidence to support this claim. If they can, I will declare myself guilty. On that evening, I was at the Quetta Press Club, and afterward, I went straight to my home. Any independent investigative body is welcome to review CCTV footage from the Quetta Press Club and the city of Quetta, or to interview individuals present on that day.
My colleagues, our organization, the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), and I have consistently spoken out against violence and injustice. Wherever I've had the opportunity to speak or write, whether in Pakistan or internationally, I have clearly and unequivocally opposed violence. This is our well-established policy.
I believe the real issue ISPR and the Pakistani military have with us is that we raise our voices against the state's violent policies and human rights violations in Balochistan. We question them, we hold different views, and our position has gained international recognition. Our peaceful struggle has been acknowledged globally, and our voice is being heard. This is what troubles the Pakistani military most.
That is why ISPR, in its repeated press conferences, is branding me and our organization, the BYC, as terrorists without providing a shred of evidence. The purpose of these statements is clearly to create a false international narrative that Mahrang and the BYC are proxies of terrorists, in an attempt to silence international discourse on human rights violations in Balochistan and to delegitimize our voice.
However, it seems the Pakistani military wrongly assumes that international human rights organizations operate like domestic Pakistani media – that they will believe anything, no matter how baseless. But no credible person or institution accepts accusations without evidence. They demand proof or valid evidence.
In response to ISPR's false allegations, I have issued a legal notice demanding that either ISPR prove these allegations in court or issue a formal apology. Now we will see how the Pakistani judiciary fulfills its responsibility and whether it will hold the military spokesperson accountable.
Reports have emerged through social media, open letters, and messages from your colleagues that you and other detained members of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee have faced harassment, mistreatment, and denial of basic rights in prison. There are accounts of torture, a hunger strike, and the severe case of Beebow Baloch. Can you describe the conditions of your imprisonment and your other colleagues and the nature of the treatment you and other BYC detained leaders have received?
Yes, in prison, we have been subjected to continuous mistreatment, harassment, and denial of our basic rights. On the night of April 24 at 8:00 p.m., personnel from the Quetta Police and Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) unlawfully entered the prison and brutally assaulted me and my colleagues, Beebow Baloch and Gulzadi Baloch.
During this incident, Beebow Baloch was transferred from Hudda Jail Quetta to Pishin Jail, where she was severely tortured during the transfer. Surveillance cameras were even installed inside her barracks and restroom, violating her privacy.
In protest against her transfer and the inhumane treatment she faced, we went on a five-day hunger strike. Ten days later, Beebow Baloch was brought back to Hudda Jail, and she continued her hunger strike for ten consecutive days.
Inside the prison, we are continuously harassed and threatened. Our family has been denied access to basic facilities and necessities on multiple occasions, and we have had to suspend visits and meetings with legal counsel.
Following the Jaffar Express attack, the Pakistani state – through its media apparatus, official channels, and social media team – directly accused you and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee of supporting terrorism. Yet the BYC is widely known, both locally and internationally, as a peaceful human rights movement. Why do you believe the state is attempting to criminalize your activism? What political calculations or anxieties do you think lie behind this campaign?
In March 2025, following an armed attack on the Jaffar Express in Balochistan, the state used the incident as a pretext to target our peaceful political organization, the BYC. A severe crackdown was launched against us, despite the fact that we had no any type of connection to the attack or any act of violence. The entire episode appeared orchestrated, with one clear objective: to silence or dismantle the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, as we have been a strong and consistent voice against human rights violations in Balochistan.
We have always raised our voices against all forms of injustice and abuse, and it is this peaceful dissent that the state finds intolerable. Consequently, efforts were made to associate our non-violent struggle with an act of armed violence. However, the BYC is a peaceful political organization. We have never engaged in nor endorsed violent politics. Since our inception, our position and method of struggle have been clear: we resist the state's oppression and brutality in Balochistan through non-violent means. To date, not a single stone has been broken at any of our gatherings or protests – yet we have faced violent crackdowns from the state from day one.
After the Jaffer Express attack, the state launched an aggressive media campaign against the BYC, attempting to malign our peaceful political efforts by falsely linking us to the incident. We were repeatedly pressured to issue condemnations that served the state's narrative. But our stance has always been unequivocal: we do not support armed struggle or violence in any form, and this position has been documented in the media multiple times.
Nevertheless, our organization has faced an intense crackdown.
Following the attack, the Balochistan government suspiciously buried several unidentified bodies in the Kaasi Graveyard in Quetta. Some bodies were stored in the morgue at Civil Hospital Quetta, with no access granted to anyone. This sparked panic and fear among the families of Baloch victims of enforced disappearances, as they feared their missing loved ones might be among the dead.
For years, the state has used armed attacks as a cover to execute extrajudicial killings. Victims of enforced disappearances are taken from secret detention centers, killed, and then falsely portrayed as militants killed in combat. Sometimes, the bodies of actual militants are accompanied by those of forcibly disappeared persons to suggest they died together. These incidents are not isolated; as an organization, we have documented evidence of many such cases.
The same fear gripped families once again. Every day, relatives of missing persons visited Civil Hospital Quetta, demanding a basic and constitutionally protected right: access to the bodies or disclosure of their identities, so they could determine whether their loved ones were among them. In retaliation for these lawful and peaceful demands, the state brutally targeted these families, subjecting them to violence and further enforced disappearances.
The Baloch Yakjehti Committee stood with these families, raised their voices, and supported them through this painful ordeal. As a consequence, our leadership and members have faced the harshest state repression.
The recent crackdown against our organization began on March 20, when, at 5 a.m., our colleague Bibagar Baloch was arrested at his home. When we launched a peaceful protest against his arrest, the state responded with violent repression and opened direct fire on the protesters. This resulted in the deaths of three people, including a young child, and left dozens injured.
We then held a peaceful sit-in alongside the bodies of those killed. It was during this protest that Beebow Baloch and I were arrested, followed by the arrest of several of our other members.
The real reason behind the state crackdown on the BYC is our non-violent resistance to Pakistan's human rights violations, violence, and injustice in Balochistan. Instead of acknowledging our peaceful movement or addressing our demands for justice, the Pakistani state continues to delegitimize our struggle by leveling baseless accusations and using force against our activists.
I believe that my arrest and the arrest of my colleagues, the crackdown on the BYC, the state-led media campaign to malign us, and ongoing efforts to damage our reputation are all part of a deliberate attempt to psychologically pressure us into abandoning our political principles and programs. The aim is to silence our voice against human rights abuses in Balochistan, so that the Pakistani military can continue its exploitation of the region's resources and oppression of its people without resistance or accountability.
With the emergence of ISKP in Balochistan, and given its explicit threats toward you and other BYC members, how does the Baloch Yakjehti Committee plan to respond? What strategies do you envision for navigating this increasingly volatile political and security environment?
As I have already mentioned above, both Islamic State and the spokespersons of the Pakistan military are using the same language against us. Their tone is identical. Both are troubled by our struggle, both speak of eliminating us, both label us as foreign agents, and both feel threatened by our progressive stance. They view our political and human rights struggle as a danger, and in response, ISPR's press conferences and Islamic State's threatening audio-visual content and pamphlets have used hateful and violent language against us.
I believe their sole aim is to silence me and my colleague, or to coerce us into abandoning our struggle. We are being subjected to relentless psychological pressure through various means. First, I was arrested. Then, ISPR held repeated press conferences against me, launching character assassination campaigns. A false and misleading media narrative was spread to manipulate international public opinion. The families of my colleagues, Dr. Sabiha Baloch and Beebow Baloch, were collectively punished. Over 300 of our members were detained. An undeclared ban was imposed on the political activities of our organization. The law was weaponized against me and my colleagues. Every peaceful protest was met with violence against our members.
Despite all this, our colleagues have remained committed to their peaceful political and human rights activism. Even in the face of imprisonment, torture, arrest, media trials, and false accusations, neither I nor my colleagues have chosen silence. We have remained resolute in continuing our peaceful struggle against human rights violations in Balochistan.
When our unwavering commitment became evident, Daesh ultimately became active against us, issuing death threats and calling for our elimination.
Yet, we are fully determined that we will not remain silent about the human rights abuses in Balochistan. No matter the cost, we will continue our peaceful struggle, because our demands are simple and lawful: an immediate end to all forms of oppression and violence in Balochistan, and the constitutional and legal right of the Baloch people to make their own decisions regarding their future.
Crackdowns on political dissent in Pakistan have intensified in recent years, affecting movements across the ideological spectrum, from the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Given this broader climate of repression, how do you see the future of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee? What role do you believe it can continue to play, both within Balochistan and nationally?
From day one, the BYC has strived to unite all oppressed and state-affected people within Pakistan, to foster harmony among them, and to lead a collective struggle against human rights violations and for the attainment of public rights. This effort stems from the reality that every community and nation in Pakistan today is suffering under state oppression and injustice.
A majority of political leaders have been imprisoned, peaceful political activism has been criminalized, dissenting voices are being silenced, the media is fully controlled, and even the judiciary is being manipulated through controversial measures like the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
In essence, a full-fledged authoritarian regime is in place in Pakistan. In the face of this, it is imperative that all oppressed nations and communities come together in a united struggle against this dictatorship.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Rwanda Reached Deal with US to Take in up to 250 Migrants, Government Says
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) – The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to accept up to 250 migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, first reported by Reuters, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect basic human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. US TO PROVIDE GRANT TO RWANDA Rwanda will be paid by the United States in the form of a grant, the official said, adding that the grant letter was finalized in July. The official declined to say how much the grant was for. The U.S. and Rwanda could extend the agreement beyond 250 people by mutual consent, the official said, adding that those deported to Rwanda do not have to stay in the country and can leave anytime they choose. Kigali will only accept those whose prison terms are complete or who have no criminal case against them, as there is no agreement with Washington that would allow people to serve out their U.S. sentence in Rwanda, the official said. No child sex offenders will be accepted. The Trump administration has pressed other countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Western and regional leaders have praised President Paul Kagame for transforming Rwanda from the ruins of the 1994 genocide that killed more than 1 million people into a thriving economy. Rights groups have accused him of abuses and of supporting rebels in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, accusations that he denies. Rwanda has also engaged in peace talks led by the Trump administration to bring an end to fighting in eastern Congo. The two African nations signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement in Washington in June, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement to accept migrants deported from the U.S. is not the first such agreement Rwanda has reached. Kigali signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.


The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Bangladesh's Post-Hasina Foreign Policy Reset
Following Sheikh Hasina's exit from power in August 2024, Bangladesh began reshaping its foreign policy, gradually moving away from its India-centric posture and pursuing a more diversified diplomatic approach. The interim government has sought to deepen engagement with China, Pakistan, and Western powers such as the United States and the European Union. India, long considered a supporter of Hasina's regime, now faces criticism from Bangladeshis who accuse it of meddling. A major milestone came during Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus' visit to China in March 2025. The trip underscored Beijing's emergence as a key economic partner. Bangladesh secured $2.1 billion in loans, investments, and grants, including $400 million for the modernization of Mongla Port and $350 million for the Chinese Industrial Economic Zone in Chattogram. Eight MoUs were signed, covering areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, manufacturing, and hydrological data sharing related to the Yarlung Tsangpo-Yamuna River. Notably, China's renewed interest in the Teesta River project – long stalled due to tensions with India – illustrates Dhaka's strategic pivot toward Beijing as a counterweight to Indian influence. Other outcomes included an extension of duty-free access for 99 percent of Bangladeshi exports until 2028, discussions to reduce interest rates on Chinese loans, and talks on setting up Chinese factories in textiles, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy. Moreover, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently warned that China is considering establishing a military presence in several countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar. However, Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh Yao Wen has dismissed the report, denying that China has any such intentions regarding Bangladesh. The potential launch of a direct Chittagong-Kunming flight and a boost in cultural exchanges further solidified this evolving partnership. China also reiterated support for Bangladesh on the Rohingya issue, aligning with Dhaka's push for international cooperation. China has also engaged with Bangladesh's political actors. In June and July 2025, both the BNP and JI sent delegations to China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party. The BNP team, led by Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, held high-level meetings with CCP Politburo member Li Hongzhong, who extended an invitation to the BNP's acting chairman, Tarique Rahman. Around the same time, a high level JI delegation focused on party-to-party governance exchanges and future development projects. These visits reflect Beijing's effort to build ties across Bangladesh's political spectrum as the BNP and JI gain momentum in the post-Hasina landscape. At the same time, Bangladesh has rekindled relations with Pakistan, which were strained under Hasina due to historical baggage from the 1971 Liberation War. Since August 2024, bilateral trade has grown, with new cooperation in construction, food, pharmaceuticals, and IT. The formation of a joint business council and Pakistan's offer of 300 fully funded scholarships signal growing warmth. Defense ties have also progressed, with January 2025 talks on joint exercises and potential procurement of JF-17 Thunder jets as part of Bangladesh's Forces Goal 2030 modernization plan. In a further sign of shifting regional dynamics, a trilateral meeting took place in Kunming in June, involving representatives from China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Although Dhaka declined to join any alliance, the timing suggests growing coordination. These developments point to Beijing's broader ambition to reshape the strategic landscape in South Asia through Pakistan and Bangladesh, leveraging its economic and political clout to challenge India's traditional dominance. This recent activity of China's strategic presence has not gone unnoticed in New Delhi. Yunus' earlier remarks in China, describing Bangladesh as a gateway to India's Northeast and an extension of China's economy, have only amplified Indian anxieties. In Bangladesh, the perception that India supported Hasina's regime has deepened public mistrust. Bangladesh's relations with India have thus sharply deteriorated. Tensions were exacerbated by Dhaka's demand for Hasina's extradition. The interim government wants her returned to Bangladesh to face charges related to corruption and human rights abuses during her tenure. India's reluctance to comply, citing legal and diplomatic complexities, has fueled accusations in Bangladesh that it is shielding a discredited leader. This standoff has deepened anti-India sentiment, with many Bangladeshis viewing New Delhi's stance as evidence of continued interference in their country's affairs. Efforts to stabilize bilateral ties have been hampered by mutual distrust and competing narratives. India has expressed unease over Bangladesh's warming relations with China and Pakistan, particularly the trilateral Kunming meeting, which New Delhi may perceive as a deliberate attempt to counterbalance its influence. In response, India has doubled down on its narrative of protecting minority rights in Bangladesh, particularly for Hindus, which Dhaka dismisses as a pretext for meddling. Critics in Bangladesh, however, view India's focus on minority rights as hypocritical, given its own internal record. The attack on Bangladesh's diplomatic compound in Agartala in December last year, where protesters from Indian far-right organizations burned the national flag of Bangladesh, served as a warning signal for the trajectory of relations. The attack triggered outrage in Dhaka. Bangladesh's Foreign Ministry condemned the Agartala attack as a breach of the Vienna Convention, signaling a more assertive diplomatic posture. The interim government's push for accountability regarding Hasina's regime, coupled with India's strategic imperative to maintain a foothold in Bangladesh, suggests that relations will remain turbulent unless a framework can address the extradition issue and broader geopolitical concerns. Bangladesh's foreign policy has clearly changed in the year since Hasina's exit. The country is moving away from its heavy reliance on India and building stronger ties with China, Pakistan, and Western nations. As Bangladesh becomes more confident on the global stage, relations with India have become tense. Unless both sides find a common ground this mistrust is likely to continue.


Japan Today
7 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump's deadline for Kremlin looms but Putin shows no sign of making concessions
White House special envoy Steve Witkoff waits for the arrival of President Donald Trump at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, N.J., en route to attend the Club World Cup final soccer match, Sunday, July 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) The coming week could mark a pivotal moment in the war between Russia and Ukraine, as U.S. President Donald Trump's deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal approaches — or it could quietly pass without consequence. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff was expected in Moscow midweek, just before Trump's Friday deadline for the Kremlin to stop the killing or face potentially severe economic penalties from Washington. So far Trump's promises, threats and cajoling have failed to shift the Kremlin's position, and the stubborn diplomatic stalemate remains in place. Meanwhile, Ukraine is losing more territory on the front line, although there is no sign of a looming collapse of its defenses. Witkoff is expected to land in the Russian capital on Wednesday or Thursday, according to Trump, following his trip to Israel and Gaza. 'They would like to see (Witkoff),' Trump said Sunday of the Russians. 'They've asked that he meet so we'll see what happens.' Trump, exasperated that Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't heeded his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, a week ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia as well as introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil, including China and India. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that officials are happy to meet with Trump's envoy. 'We are always glad to see Mr. Witkoff in Moscow,' he said. 'We consider (talks with Witkoff) important, substantive and very useful.' Trump said Sunday that Russia has proven to be 'pretty good at avoiding sanctions.' 'They're wily characters,' he said of the Russians. The Kremlin has insisted that international sanctions imposed since its February 2022 invasion of its neighbor have had a limited impact. Ukraine insists the sanctions are taking their toll on Moscow's war machine and wants Western allies to ramp them up. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday urged the United States, Europe and other nations to impose stronger secondary sanctions on Moscow's energy, trade and banking sectors. Trump's comments appeared to signal he doesn't have much hope that sanctions will force Putin's hand. The secondary sanctions also complicate Washington's relations with China and India, who stand accused of helping finance Russia's war effort by buying its oil. Since returning to office in January, Trump has found that stopping the war is harder than he perhaps imagined. Senior American officials have warned that the U.S. could walk away from the conflict if peace efforts make no progress. The diplomatic atmosphere has become more heated as Trump's deadline approaches. Putin announced last Friday that Russia's new hypersonic missile, the Oreshnik, has entered service. The Russian leader has hailed its capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds of up to Mach 10 cannot be intercepted. He claimed that they are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Separately, one of Putin's top lieutenants warned that the Ukraine war could nudge Russia and the U.S. into armed conflict. Trump responded to what he called the 'highly provocative statements' by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev by ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines. Putin has repeated the same message throughout the war: He will only accept a settlement on his terms and will keep fighting until they're met. Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line have killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. It has pushed on with that tactic despite Trump's public calls for it to stop over the past three months. On the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, Russia's bigger army has made slow and costly progress. It is carrying out a sustained operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a key logistical hub whose fall could open the way for a deeper drive into Ukraine. Ukraine has developed technology that has allowed it to launch long-range drone attacks deep inside Russia. In its latest strike it hit an oil depot near Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi, starting a major fire. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.