This year will be one of “recovery and preparation on both sides, like 1916 and 1941-42 in the last world wars,” said Marc Thys, who retired as Belgium’s deputy defense chief last year with the rank of lieutenant general.
Looking ahead
To assess prospects for the year ahead, POLITICO asked analysts, serving officers and military experts to give their view on the course of the war.
Nobody could provide a precise roadmap for 2024, but all agreed that three fundamentals will determine the trajectory of the coming months. First, this spring is about managing expectations as Ukraine won’t have the gear or the personnel to launch a significant counteroffensive; second, Russia, with the help of its allies, has secured artillery superiority and, together with relentless ground attacks, is pounding Ukrainian positions; and third, without Western air defense and long-range missiles as well as artillery shells, Kyiv will struggle to mount a credible, sustained defense.
“The year will be difficult, no one can predict from which direction Russia will go or whether we will advance this year,” said Taras Chmut, a Ukrainian military analyst and sergeant with the Naval Forces Marine Corps Reserve.
It’s clear, however, that Ukraine is on the back foot.
After many weeks of bloody fighting, Russia finally took the fortress city of Avdiivka this month. Without pausing for a breather, its military proceeded to launch attacks on other key Ukrainian strongpoints and logistical hubs: Robotyne in the region of Zaporizhzia, Kupiansk in Kharkiv, and Chasiv Yar in Donetsk region.
[ad_2]
Joshua Posaner, Veronika Melkozerova, Stuart Lau, Paul McLeary and Henry Donovan
August 19, 2014 –Perry voluntarily appears at the Travis County Court house to be booked and fingerprinted and to have his mug shot taken. He pleads not guilty to charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of official capacity. The next day he makes the first of six campaign style stops across New Hampshire.
July 24, 2015 – A Texas appeals court dismisses one of two criminal charges against Perry. The court agrees with the argument from Perry’s legal team that a Texas law concerning “coercion of a public servant” violates Perry’s First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The court is allowing a charge related to abuse of power to move forward.
September 27, 2016 – Is eliminated from “Dancing With The Stars.”
November 22, 2016 – Returns to “Dancing With The Stars” for the season finale. Perry dances with Vanilla Ice during a live performance of “Ice Ice Baby.”
Ksenia Karelina, an American with dual Russian citizenship has been arrested in Russia and charged with espionage and treason. Karelina’s detainment comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin cracks down on dissent in the wake of opposition leader Alexey Navalny’s death. CBS News foreign correspondent Imtiaz Tyab has more.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
On Feb. 17 at 9 a.m., we encountered significantly long security lines at Denver International Airport’s west side, leading to delays and frustrations for hundreds if not thousands of passengers. Lines snaked through common areas, adding to the inconvenience. Certainly not an upgraded experience.
While millions of dollars were supposedly invested in security upgrades, the recent experience suggests further improvements are needed. Are there staffing limitations contributing to the issue?
I urge the airport authorities and Denver City Council to investigate the root cause of these long lines. The city spent millions of dollars and obviously didn’t improve the security process. This makes our airport look like a third-rate facility. If the City of Denver can’t run the airport, hire professionals to do the job.
I am filled with gladness at the hiring of Troy Renck as a sports columnist and especially happy with the departure of Mark Kiszla, who was, in my opinion, a journalistic hack, a peddler of negativity, and a troll who unnecessarily attacked and demeaned the character and personality of Denver sports personalities. Most recently, his remarks about Broncos coach Sean Payton were odious, and he was unkind to quarterback Russell Wilson before he ever stepped on the field. This represents a move toward more balanced and positive reporting by The Post and I hope it continues.
Republicans in the U.S. House have abandoned the freedom fighters in Ukraine. When Ronald Reagan built the strongest military force in the world and stoutly supported freedom, Ukraine and other states were able to throw off Russian domination. Vladimir Putin is determined to rebuild that “evil empire,” and today’s Republican appeasers are happy to open the door for him.
Ukraine will not be the last country Putin enslaves. We can stop him now by supplying ammunition, or we can retreat and imperil our future.
Ray Harlan, Denver
Ronald Reagan would turn in his grave if he knew Donald Trump’s puppet, House Speaker Mike Johnson, is sitting on Ukraine aid. If Trump’s buddy, Putin, succeeds in ensnaring the Ukrainian people, who is next? We need to help Ukraine for their sake and for our own sake.
If Johnson continues to deny more weapons for Ukraine’s self-defense, then the next best thing is the Lend-Lease process we used in WWII, with the hope that someday Ukraine could pay us back.
I am so glad to hear the Rockies are going to stream their games this year at the low price of $99.99 for the entire season. That’s less than a dollar a loss!
The owner of an agricultural company in Hrakove, near Kharkiv, Kryvtsov found his land littered with land mines. That region of Ukraine, occupied by Russian forces for nearly eight months, had been pockmarked with explosive ordinances. The threat meant that farmers like Kryvtsov had to let their fields lay fallow. Even though Kryvstov’s fields were once part of Europe’s breadbasket, Ukraine’s mine clearance teams were overworked and under-resourced.
So Kryvtsov came up with his own solution. He jimmyrigged a plow onto an old tractor, with massive steel rollers underneath. On the side, he painted the yellow and blue Ukrainian flag. Kryvtsov connected a remote-control steering system and, from afar, he drove his Mad Max-style tractor over his fields, detonating any mines lurking under the soil.
The makeshift operation has worked well, Kryvtsov told Reuters, even clearing an anti-tank mine.
Kryvstov’s story is an example of incredible Ukrainian ingenuity—a nation of gilders, working to invent, adapt, and repurpose technology to defend themselves against a better-resourced, larger, determined enemy. But it’s also an ominous sign of just how bad the problem is.
WIRED has spoken to a range of engineers, government officials, and humanitarian mine-clearance experts, and consulted Ukraine’s new mine clearance plan. It is apparent that Kyiv is prioritizing the problem, but without a significant new influx of money, personnel, and technology, the threat of these mines could hobble Ukraine’s economy, frustrate future counteroffensives, and pose a humanitarian crisis for decades to come.
A Humanitarian Crisis, an Economic Cost
Ukraine’s mine problem has been acute for a decade. The full-scale war with Russia has only made it worse. From 2014, when Russia first invaded, to the end of 2021, the United Nations says 312 Ukraines were killed by land mines. Since Russia’s February 2022 invasion, Ukraine has recorded at least 269 civilian casualties, including 14 children. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal has taken to calling Eastern Ukraine “the largest minefield in the world.”
Those casualty figures only capture the deaths on territory currently held by Ukraine. Behind the front lines, in the Russian-occupied regions of Eastern Ukraine, at least a hundred more have reportedly been killed.
“Twenty percent of the whole territory is dangerous,” Ihor Bezkaravainyi, Ukraine’s deputy minister of finance, tells WIRED. “Right now we’re talking about 150,000 square kilometers.” (The total area, including water littered with naval mines, is nearly 175,000 km².)
Bezkaravainyi is a veteran of the war in Eastern Ukraine—he lost a leg to an anti-tank mine in 2016. He’s now responsible for coordinating the mine-clearance effort behind the front lines, giving Ukrainians back their property and recovering damaged agricultural lands. It’s not an easy task.
“It looks like the zone rogue in France after World War One,” Bezkaravainyi says, referring to the areas near Germany and Belgium that remain contaminated by land mines to this day.
This week on “Face the Nation,” former President Donald Trump faces yet another legal setback, and with the South Carolina Republican primary less than a week away, Nikki Haley is fighting for her home state. We’ll hear from both of South Carolina’s Republican senators — Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham — about their recent trip to the U.S.-Mexico border, and how the death of Putin critic Alexey Navalny will impact the push to aid Ukraine.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
U.S. President Joe Biden said “Ukrainian soldiers had to ration ammunition due to dwindling supplies as a result of congressional inaction, resulting in Russia’s first notable gains in months.” Biden called on lawmakers to approve $60 billion in aid to Ukraine that has been held up in the U.S. Congress.
The fall of Avdiivka is Russia’s biggest gain since capturing the city of Bakhmut in May 2023, and comes almost two years to the day since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine’s newly appointed military chief, Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, said in a statement that he decided to withdraw forces from the embattled city to “avoid encirclement [by Russian troops] and preserve the lives and health of servicemen.”
Moscow said that some Ukrainian troops were still holed up in an industrial plant in the Avdiivka area, according to media reports. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told the Kremlin that Russian forces were working to clear final pockets of resistance at the Avdiivka Coke and Chemical Plant, officials said in a statement.
Outnumbered Ukrainian defenders had battled a Russian assault around Avdiivka for four months in one of the most intense battles of the war. Zelenskyy said Russian forces had been suffering seven casualties for every Ukrainian death in Avdiivka, but even that death rate wasn’t stopping the attacks.
“Russia has only one specific advantage, complete devaluation of human life,” Zelenskyy said.
“I cannot get over the feeling that something terrible is going to happen to this city,” said Mystislav Chernov, in his documentary, “20 Days in Mariupol.”
Something terrible did happen to the Ukrainian city, and Chernov, of the Associated Press, was there to witness it. “What I did not expect is that the bombardment will be so intensive,” he told CBS News.
Chernov and his team spent the first 20 days of the Russian invasion inside Mariupol, sending out images that horrified the world, and are now part of an Oscar-nominated documentary. “The whole city was suffering; the whole city was starving; the whole city was without water,” Chernov said. “So many people dying.”
The film includes frantic efforts to save a four-year-old, and a doctor urging the camera to capture it all. “Show this Putin bastard the eyes of this child,” the doctor says.
Another infant is rushed in, but he is beyond saving. There is shock and grief beyond comprehension.
As narrator, Chernov notes, “My brain will want to forget all this, but my camera will not let it happen.”
To watch a trailer for “20 Days in Mariupol,” click on the video player below:
The bombs started hitting schools and civilian buildings, and eventually hit the maternity hospital. One scene of a woman named Irina with her unborn child – neither of whom would live – was denounced by Russia as “staged,” the women “actresses” … a preposterous claim in the face of Chernov’s unblinking camera. But with power failing and communications dwindling, he could only transmit snippets of video to the outside world.
One man tells Chernov’s camera, “Russian troops commit war crimes. Our families, our women, our children need help. Our people need help from international society. Please, help Mariupol.”
For the world to see what the Russians did in Mariupol, Chernov had to get his 30 hours of video out of the city. Ukrainian troops went in to rescue him. He left the city on Day 20; Mariupol fell on Day 86. Chernov said, “Believe it or not, it became even worse. It seemed that it can’t be worse, just can’t. But it was.”
That was the beginning of a war that has now gone on for two years.
Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have lost limbs. And a tiny fraction has been brought to the United States to be fitted for advanced prosthetics.
Before the war, Oleksii Dernov was a martial arts enthusiast; Petro Kulyk worked in construction; Levgen Kaliuzhnyi was a lumberjack; and Serhii Volyk repaired cars.
Oleksii Dernov lost his right arm in the war. He was fitted with a new right arm and hand. “I’m Jedi!” he laughed.
CBS News
They tell of being outgunned and outmanned by the Russians.
Asked how heavy Russian artillery fire was, Kaliuzhnyi replied, “In ratio to our artillery, it’s one to ten.”
Dernov didn’t know by how much Russians outnumbered Ukrainians, “but there’s lots.”
Kulyk added, “They come and come and come.”
The combat was so intense there was no quick evacuation from the front lines. It took Kaliuzhnyi more than 24 hours to get to a hospital, Kulyk around 20.
Serhii Volyk, Oleksii Dernov, Petro Kulyk and Levgen Kaliuzhnyi.
CBS News
These soldiers were wounded in Ukraine’s much vaunted counter-offensive – last year’s drive to take back occupied territory, a drive that attempted to use American mine clearing equipment and armored vehicles to break through Russian lines, but faltered in the face of mine fields and dug-in defenders.
Now the American supply line which sent Ukraine over three million artillery shells is drying up, and funding for more military aid is trapped in the caustic politics of Washington.
President Joe Biden had a message to those who were blocking military aid: “For Republicans in Congress who think they can oppose funding for Ukraine and not be held accountable, history is watching.”
In a floor speech, Senator Angus King (I-Me.) said, “When the history of this day is written, as it surely will be, do you really want to be recorded as being on the side of Vladimir Putin? All those in favor of Putin say aye.”
King, who has traveled to Ukraine and met with its leader, said what happens next will be a turning point: “If we walk away, it will be the greatest geopolitical mistake this country has made in generations, and it will haunt this country for 50 years.”
Serving on both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, King paints a dark picture of what will happen to Ukraine without U.S. aid: “There’ll be one of two results: Russia will just take over and the Ukrainian people’s desire for freedom and democracy is gone; the other option is that it turns into a sort of guerilla war where Ukrainians are fighting from behind trees and buildings.”
The inevitable conclusion, said King, is that in about six months the front lines as we know them today will collapse and the Russians will break through. “I think that’s a distinct possibility,” he said.
In his documentary “20 Days in Mariupol,” Chernov captures the battle for survival in one unforgettable scene – a wounded mother giving birth.
“They got the child out and the child was silent,” he said. “It was this tension – I’ve never felt anything like that before. No one would be able to bear one more child’s death. … and then she screamed, and everyone was in tears.”
He called it the defining moment of the whole horrifying 20 days. “One of the doctors told me that people were only dying in this room, and this is the first time a human was born in this room,” Chernov said.
In the midst of Russia’s attack on the Ukrainian city of Mariupol, a child was born.
From “20 Days in Mariupol”
The baby whose birth we witnessed is coming up on her second birthday. The war is coming up on its second birthday, too. More cities and towns have fallen since Mariupol, and many more are under attack.
Chernov said, “All of those cities, their story is represented by Mariupol. It’s a symbol of all these cities. It’s not the past; it’s present.”
For more info:
Story produced by Mary Walsh. Editor: Joseph Frandino.
PUTIN has resorted to recruiting Neo-Nazis and football hooligans to form his own private army – the ruthless Española group.
By gathering die-hard football fans across Russia, the group’s leader Orlov Stanislav – dubbed “The Spaniard” – has created a military unit that has fought in some of the most intense battles of the Ukraine war.
16
The Española group was formed after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022Credit: AFP
16
The group consists of football fans from different teams across RussiaCredit: ESPAÑOLA’S TELEGRAM CHANNEL
16
The Spaniard, a well-known CSKA fan claimed he fought in the second Chechen WarCredit: East2West
16
The group has fought in the most intense battles of the warCredit: AFP
16
It is estimated to have around 1,000 members todayCredit: East2West
16
The Española group are recruited through Telegram and then trained in sites near MoscowCredit: AFP
Ukraine‘s Defence Intelligence confirmed last month that Putin’s United Russia had officially granted the group the status of private military company (PMC).
The unit recruits football thugs, particularly those closer to the Nazi ideology, as well as civilians from poor parts of Russia and occupied territories.
As it gained popularity following the invasion of Ukraine, the battalion ended up fighting in major battles, including in Mariupol, Bakhmut, Soledar, and Vuhledar, according to Lucas Webber, co-founder of the Militant Wire research network.
With “hundreds” of fighters, the volunteer brigade “operates with some degree of independence” from the Russian Armed Forces, he said.
He told The Sun: “Española plays an important role in its outreach to Russia’s ultra/hooligan communities and in drawing recruits and support from these population segments for the war in Ukraine.
“Española appeals to a unique subset of Russia’s far-right militarist ecosystem and is distinct from the neo-Nazi Rusich organisation and the hard-line Orthodox Russian Imperialist Movement.
“Española is a volunteer brigade that operates with some degree of independence from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
“The group has historical ties to the Donetsk People’s Republic forces and has hundreds of fighters.
“Its propaganda describes how it is multifaceted and has artillery, anti-aircraft weapons, sniper teams, drone operators, and more.”
While various rogue mercenary groups have emerged since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Española has gradually started to form since the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The group – previously associated with the militant group Vostok Battalion – was operating mainly in the Russian-held region of Donetsk.
The group’s leader is Stanislav Orlov, 43, is a prominent figure among CSKA fans.
A radical member of the team’s ultras Red-Blue Warriors, Orlov claims to have joined the Russian army in 1999 and fought in the Second Chechen War.
He is said to have fought Donbas in 2014 alongside other ultras and earned his nickname “The Spaniard” thanks to his language skills as he was able to recruit foreign mercenaries.
Following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Orlov created the Española group as Putin was desperately trying to boost ranks in the frontline – with even ex-international footballer Andrey Solomatin, 47, signing up.
Webber said one of the most visible members of the group is former MMA fighter and Zenit hooligan Mikhail “Pitbull” Turkanov.
Turkanov – who has tattoos of the swastika – has been wounded in combat and has received awards from the Russian military.
16
Orlov was a hardcore member of the CSKA ultras Red-Blue WarriorsCredit: East2West
16
The recruits come from Dynamo, Lokomotiv, Spartak, Zenit and other hooligansCredit: AFP
16
Stanislav Orlov also known as the Spaniard has been fighting in Donbas since 2014Credit: East2West
16
Mikhail “Pitbull” Turkanov is also a member of the private army unitCredit: You Tube/FIGHT NIGHTS GLOBAL TV
16
Other members are hooligans from Moscow-based football teamsCredit: AFP
Dr Stephen Hall Lecturer in Russian and Post-Soviet Politics at the University of Bath estimates the elite army unit has roughly 1,000 members and has been actively supported by Russia throughout the war.
He told The Sun: “Orlov probably has close links to someone in the Ministry of Defence.
“He’s been fighting since 2014 in the Donbas and he’s been there for a long time.
“He certainly has a past of being a football thug and he created the Española mercenary group in February 2022 just after the war began – so clearly someone had been preparing.
“They’ve relied heavily on football thugs across the Moscow-based football teams such as Dynamo, Lokomotiv and Spartak.
“They seem to be well prepared, well trained and well equipped by the Russian army.
“The Russian Army has given them a lot of support as they are the ones fighting against Azov the group that Russian state propaganda has stated they’re Nazis and the ones behind the Ukrainian regime.”
Dr Hall notes the “shady” group does not have a strong social media presence – unlike Wagner- but explains how they use Telegram to target recruits.
He added: “It’s quite a shady group whereas in Wagner they very ran their social media campaign Espanola doesn’t have a social media footprint.
“That always leads to the question of who is behind them, and who is protecting them and I say the Ministry of Defence.”
They seem to be well prepared, well trained and well equipped by the Russian army
Dr Stephen Hall
Telegram is widely used across Russia and is “a more effective way of getting the people you want to join,” he adds.
The potential candidates are interviewed through the platform and if successful they are taken for training in Moscow and St Petersburg.
Volunteers are offered a salary of £1,900 a month for at least six months at the frontline, according to Ukrainian intelligence.
Russia is also using “insurance payments” to lure civilians into battle – that can vary from £8,700 to £43,500 depending on the severity of the injury.
But Ukraine’s intelligence notes that for most civilians the first battle is a “one-way ticket” as they are used as cannon fodder.
The dead and those seriously injured are registered as “missing” so Russia avoids paying the families.
Russian ultras: The ‘Battle of Marseille’
The notorious Battle of Marseille happened during England’s opening match for Euro 2016.
The massive brawl erupted when Russian football fans attacked England supporters leaving many of them with serious injuries following a 1-1 draw.
14 England fans were left in hospital – including two with life-threatening injuries.
Dad-of-three Stewart Gray was left fighting for his life after being ambushed by hooligans.
His brother Duncan described the scenes as “like a war zone, the worst violence I have ever seen.”
Dr Hall told The Sun: “This is the “beauty” of East European football.
“As we know from 2016 when Russian and English football fans met one another in Marseille – it was definitely eye-opening what Russian fans were doing
“They had these football wars and battles so they were versed in that.”
Lucas Webber added: “Española both leverages its online propaganda apparatus and real-world domestic networks.
“It runs several channels on Telegram and VK. Its propaganda campaign also involves community initiatives and humanitarian work inside occupied regions in Ukraine to boost its profile and grow its ranks.
“One example is the founding of a youth football team in occupied Ukraine.
“This was apparent during the Wagner Group’s mutiny, for instance.”
“In its propaganda, Española presents a patriotic message of soccer ultras overcoming previous divisions to unite over a nationalistic cause.
“The group has sometimes voiced criticisms of the Russian government and military establishment.”
The Española group is one of a long list of units operating in Ukraine.
Apart from Wagner which was hit by the death of its leader Yevgeny Prigozhin last summer, other smaller paramilitary forces include Ptok, by energy giant Gazprom, Redut, the Patriot, the Orthodox Brotherhood, ENOT.
They all operate around the world and recruit all types of soldiers – seemingly with Russia’s support.
16
Volunteers earn a salary of £1,900 – pictured volunteer Chernika (Blueberry)Credit: AFP
16
Lucas Webber says the unit is equipped with weapons, sniper teams and drone operatorsCredit: Hudson.org
16
The group also offers insurance payments for those injured on the battlefieldCredit: AFP
16
Ukrainian intelligence suggests that volunteers are used as cannon fodder in battleCredit: AFP
16
Dr Stephen Hall estimates the group has about 1,000 membersCredit: Linkedin
“This is Russia’s war against any rules at all,” Zelenskyy said, to applause from the auditorium, adding:” If you do not manage to act now, Putin will make the next years catastrophic for other countries as well.”
Zelenskyy’s appearance in Munich is part on an ongoing campaign to strengthen Kyiv’s ties with its Western allies. Before coming to Munich, he was in Berlin and Paris to sign security agreements, adding to a similar pact with the United Kingdom.
Although Russia has more ammunition, the war is also causing problems, forcing it to plead for help from ramshackle dictatorships. “For the first time in Russian history, Russia bowed to Iran and North Korea for help,” said Zelenskyy.
Despite problems like ammunition shortages and retreats from cities like Avdiivka, Zelenskyy insisted that Ukraine can prevail in the war against Russia, especially if its allies give it more arms and ammunition.
“We can get our land back, and Putin can lose,” he said, adding: “We should not be afraid of Putin‘s defeat and the destruction of his regime. It is his fate to lose — not the fate of the rules-based order to vanish.”
Alexey Navalny, a potent political foe of Russian President Vladimir Putin who survived at least two suspected poisonings, has died in a Russian penal colony, Russian prison authorities said Friday. The Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District reported his death, saying he “felt unwell” after going for a walk on Friday and “almost immediately” lost consciousness.
“Medical workers from the institution arrived immediately and an emergency medical team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, but did not yield positive results,” the prison authority said in a statement. “Emergency doctors confirmed the death of the convict.”
“For more than a decade, the Russian government, Putin, persecuted, poisoned and imprisoned Alexei Navalny and now, reports of his death,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Friday. “If these reports are accurate, our hearts go out to his wife and his family. Beyond that, his death in a Russian prison and the fixation and fear of one man only underscores the weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built. Russia is responsible for this. We’ll be talking to the many other countries concerned about Alexei Navalny, especially if these reports bear out to be true,” Blinken said.
Navalny’s spokesperson, Kira Yarmysh, said her team was unable to confirm the information from the prison service.
“The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug is spreading the news of Alexey Navalny’s death in IK-3. We have no confirmation of this yet. Alexey’s lawyer is currently on his way to Kharp. As soon as we have some information, we will report on it,” Yarmysh said on social media. The IK-3 penal colony is about 1,200 miles from Moscow, in Russia’s remote, far north Urals region.
Leonid Volkov, the Chief of Staff for Navalny, said on social media that his team had “no reason to believe state propaganda. If this is true, then it’s not ‘Navalny died,’ but ‘Putin killed Navalny,’ and only that. But I don’t trust them one penny.”
Russian opposition politician, anti-corruption campaigner and founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), Alexey Navalny is seen on the screen during a legal appeal against his nine-year prison sentence, in Moscow’s City Court, May 24, 2022, in Moscow, Russia.
Contributor/Getty
Navalny made an appearance in a Russian court via video link on Thursday, where, according to local media, he appeared cheerful and healthy. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Friday that Putin had been briefed on Navalny’s death, and told journalists that “it should be up to the medics to clarify” the cause.
White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Friday that it would be a “terrible tragedy” if Navalny’s death was confirmed, and that it would raise questions about what happened to him. He said the U.S. government was still seeking information, and it would determine what comes next based on the full picture.
Who was Alexey Navalny?
Alexey Navalny, 47, was the most outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government before he was imprisoned in Russia in 2021. He was initially handed a nine-year sentence in a high-security prison about 150 miles east of Moscow for parole violations, fraud, and contempt of court when he was convicted of promoting “extremism.” That sentence was extended by 19 years in August 2023.
Navalny and many outside observers have always considered the charges against him retaliation for his criticism of Putin and the Kremlin’s policies, both foreign and domestic. The U.S. State Department also considered his prosecution and imprisonment “politically motivated.”
Navalny criticized Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Just a month after it started, he slammed Putin as a “madman” who had launched a “stupid war” and said Russia’s leaders would “burn in hell” for their actions.
He was born in 1976 in Butyn, a village west of Moscow, and grew up in a town about 60 miles from the capital city. In 1997, he graduated with a law degree from Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia in Moscow and spent a year in the U.S. as a Yale world fellow in 2010.
Around that time, he began his public opposition to the Kremlin.
Navalny the politician, and the poisonings
Navalny unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, denouncing an election he said was rigged by his opponent, a Putin ally. He described the Russian president’s party as one of “crooks and thieves,” which became a rallying cry for his millions of Twitter and YouTube followers and a thorn in Putin’s side.
He attempted to challenge Putin in the country’s 2018 presidential election, but the Kremlin barred him from running due to a prior fraud conviction that Navalny said was politically motivated.
Then, after he was jailed for organizing an “unauthorized protest” in 2019, Navalny suddenly became sick. Russian doctors called his illness “contact dermatitis,” but Navalny and his personal doctor suspected he had been poisoned. Two years earlier, he had been assaulted with a green dye that left a serious chemical burn in his right eye.
Speaking to “60 Minutes” that year, he wondered why he was still alive.
“Maybe they missed their good timing for it when I was less famous,” Navalny said.
Then, in the summer of 2020, the anti-corruption activist plunged into fits of agony while on a flight. His plane was forced to make an emergency landing in Siberia. Initially, Navalny — who had fallen into a coma — was not permitted to leave the country. Russia said it was purely a medical decision, but his team feared the worst.
After 48 hours, the Kremlin allowed Navalny to be flown by air ambulance to a hospital in Berlin known for its experience with victims of poison attacks. There, doctors confirmed he had been poisoned with Novichok, a highly toxic nerve agent said to be 10 times more potent than sarin gas.
After making a dramatic recovery, Navalny blamed Putin for the attack, telling “60 Minutes” that he was “sure he’s responsible.”
Navalny’s defiant return to Russia
Despite the danger, in January 2021, Navalny decided to return to Russia, which denied any involvement in his illness. Upon his return, he was detained at a Moscow airport and charged with violating the terms of a previous suspended sentence for failing to check in with prison officials while in Germany. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demand his release, according to The Associated Press.
“My life isn’t worth two cents, but I will do everything I can so that the law prevails,” Navalny said at the time.
While in prison, he went on a 24-day hunger strike — a protest over a perceived lack of proper medical care. He ended the strike after he said he had been examined by non-prison doctors. Thousands of people again took to the street to support him.
In April 2021, his wife Yulia told “60 Minutes” that no matter what came next for her husband, “Alexey has already won.”
“He survived this horrible poisoning and returned to Moscow to face those who tried to murder him,” she said. “Putin knows it. His advisers, his friends, his government, everybody in his inner circle know it.”
In March 2022, Navalny was found guilty of fraud and contempt of court and sentenced to nine additional years of detention in a penal colony in a high-security prison. He again decried the charges as baseless and politically motivated.
In August 2023, a court added another 19 years to his sentence, and a few months later, Navalny was transferred to a high-security prison with a reputation for abuse — known as the “torture conveyor belt” — which raised further concerns about his safety.
“Without public protection, Alexey will be face to face with those who have already tried to kill him, and nothing will stop them from trying again,” his spokeswoman, Yarmysh, said after the court’s decision in March. “Therefore, we are now talking not only about Alexey’s freedom, but also about his life.”
In December 2023, Navalny’s supporters said they lost touch with him for two weeks as he was apparently being moved to another site in Russia’s prison system, heightening already serious concerns about his welfare.
Navalny is survived by his wife, Yulia, and their two children, Daria and Zakhar.
Haley Ott is cbsnews.com’s foreign reporter, based in the CBS News London bureau. Haley joined the cbsnews.com team in 2018, prior to which she worked for outlets including Al Jazeera, Monocle, and Vice News.
Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands. Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion. A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York. “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.” In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.The legislation remains pending.The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities. In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia. In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years. Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them. Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue. Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships. In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed. Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox. Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote. Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.
Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.
Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.
But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.
Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024
Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.
Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.
Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion.
A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.
In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.
Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.
The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.
Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”
Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York.
“In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.”
In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.
In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.
The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.
The legislation remains pending.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.
Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities.
In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.
Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.
After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”
In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia.
In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years.
Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.
Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them.
Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.
Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.
The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.
Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.
Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue.
Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.
In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships.
In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.
In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”
Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.
In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed.
Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox.
Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.
The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.
Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.
Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote.
Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.
Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands. Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion. A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York. “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.” In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.The legislation remains pending.The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities. In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia. In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years. Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them. Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue. Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships. In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed. Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox. Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote. Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.
Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.
Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.
But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.
Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024
Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.
Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.
Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion.
A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.
In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.
Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.
The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.
Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”
Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York.
“In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.”
In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.
In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.
The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.
The legislation remains pending.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.
Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities.
In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.
Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.
After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”
In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia.
In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years.
Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.
Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them.
Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.
Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.
The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.
Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.
Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue.
Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.
In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships.
In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.
In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”
Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.
In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed.
Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox.
Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.
The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.
Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.
Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote.
Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.
Germany’s Ministry of Defense announced an additional $100 million in military aid for Ukraine as Berlin ramps up its support of Kyiv’s armed forces against Russia’s invasion.
During a recent meeting with Ukraine’s newly appointed commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, Berlin’s highest-ranking military officer General Carsten Breuer pledged a new defense package to provide Ukraine with “short-term support,” including mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, explosives to arm small drones, medical supplies, 77 multi 1A1 trucks and spare parts for a variety of weapon systems.
The package in total is worth around $107 million.
“Overall, we are very close to what is happening in Ukraine and what Ukraine needs,” German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius said in a statement Thursday.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius answers journalists during a defense ministers’ meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels on February 14. Germany pledged an additional $100 million in defense aid to… German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius answers journalists during a defense ministers’ meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels on February 14. Germany pledged an additional $100 million in defense aid to Ukraine on Thursday.
JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images
Newsweek reached out to Ukraine’s Defense Ministry for comment.
The new deal follows a day after Pistorius pledged to increase Ukraine’s artillery supplies “by three to four times” in 2024 during a meeting in Brussels for the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. The defense minister added that Germany is planning on spending $3.75 billion on ammunition production in the year to come, an “unprecedented” amount for the country.
Berlin’s government has doubled its budget for military assistance for Ukraine this year, a lifeline for Kyiv as support from its largest ally, the United States, is held up in Congress. The Bundestag, or Germany’s parliament, approved the country’s 2024 budget on February 2, which included an allocated $8.2 billion in funding for Ukraine—the country’s budget a year prior allocated $4 billion in military aid.
According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, as of January 15, Germany is the second-largest supporter of Ukraine behind the U.S., pledging over $19 billion in total in military assistance since the start of the war in February 2022. Washington has pledged $42.2 billion to Kyiv in military aid in nearly two years.
President Joe Biden has requested U.S. lawmakers to pass a $95 billion foreign aid package for emergency defense spending, which includes $61 billion in aid to Kyiv. House Republicans, however, have refused to take up the deal unless the federal administration takes action to address what they describe as a “crisis” along the U.S. southern border.
The Senate passed Biden’s spending bill, which also includes aid for Israel and Taiwan, in a 70-29 vote on Tuesday. White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby warned earlier this week that withholding the additional military assistance could impact American troops down the line, claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s aggression in Ukraine poses a threat to the NATO alliance.
“So, we got to take this seriously because I’ll tell you if you think it costs a lot right now to support Ukraine, think about the cost to American blood and treasure if, in fact, [Putin] goes after our NATO ally and then you got American troops on the ground involved in combat,” Kirby said while appearing on CNN This Morning on Wednesday.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
On February 24, 2022, 5:30 am Moscow time, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced to the world that Russia was initiating a “special military operation” to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine. In reality, Russia was launching a full-scale invasion to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government. Bombs began to fall on cities across Ukraine the moment Putin ended his speech. While the air campaign continued, Russian forces descended on Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Sumy, and other large cities.
A major portion of Putin’s force also converged on Mariupol. Prior to the invasion, Mariupol was Ukraine’s tenth-largest city with an estimated population of 431,000. More importantly, it was one of Ukraine’s largest ports that serviced approximately 2550 ships and 17 million tons of cargo annually. Located on the Sea of Azov, it was the largest city along the “land bridge” that connected the Donbas, Ukrainian territory that Russian-led separatists seized in 2014-2015, with the Crimean Peninsula that Russia had illegally annexed in 2014.
Russian forces rapidly attacked the city from three directions. Russian forces and Russian-controlled military forces from the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics advanced on Mariupol from the city’s northeast. Russian Naval Infantry advanced on the city’s west, after having conducted an amphibious landing on February 25. Russian forces originating from Crimea and advancing through Berdyansk had reached Mariupol’s west and began initial assaults into the city on February 27. By March 2, less than a week into the war, Russian forces had surrounded Mariupol by land and sea. With the rest of the country under siege, the limited Ukrainian forces now trapped in the city were left to defend it without any hope of reinforcements or resupply.
The Russian attackers quickly pushed the greatly outnumbered defenders into a large industrial zone along the city’s southeastern coastline that included the Azovstal steel plant. The plant’s many underground passages and bunkers offered an ideal location for the defender’s headquarters and as much of a rear area as possible for a surrounded force. The remnants of disparate defending forces fell under the command of Lt. Col. Denys Prokopenko (call sign “Redys,” pronounced “Red-Is”), the regimental commander of Ukraine’s National Guard Azov Regiment. This force included what remained of his Azov Regiment and elements from the 12th National Guard Brigade, 36th Separate Marine Brigade, Border Guards, KORD Special Police (similar to U.S. SWAT), Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and Territorial Defense Forces.
Over the next couple weeks, the situation in Mariupol looked more and more grim. Prokopenko’s small force, numbering approximately 3,000 with varying levels of military training, was surrounded by approximately 20,000 Russian forces. The Ukrainian defenders lacked the necessary weapons to hold back the advancing Russian armor and mechanized infantry units and were being constrained into a smaller and smaller space. Their ammunition was running dangerously low, casualties continued to mount, and they had little ability to treat wounded soldiers and no ability to evacuate them. Medical personnel were forced to conduct amputations without painkillers and infections became deadly. The Ukrainian defenders maintained their morale against these immense odds, but morale alone would not be enough. Even highly motivated soldiers require ammunition and medical supplies to sustain a fight.
A secret and dangerous mission
Even though Ukrainian leaders knew that Mariupol was lost, holding onto Mariupol was strategically important. The small number of defenders were tying up tens of thousands of Russian forces and preventing Russia from moving them to support offensive operations elsewhere. At this point in the war, it was not clear that Ukraine would hold Kyiv and if the capital fell, so would the nation. Defending Kyiv was the priority, so the Ukraine’s military leadership could dedicate little to support Mariupol’s defenders.
Thus, Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov, the chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence within Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, developed an audacious, and what many might consider a foolhardy plan to reinforce the desperate defenders. His plan: Conduct a resupply mission into Mariupol by helicopters that had to fly through advanced Russian air defense systems. According to retired U.S. Army Aviation Colonel Jimmy Blackmon, “This mission would require practiced skill for highly trained and proficient crews. It’s not a mission you would consider for an aviator’s first combat experience.”
The infiltration flight would take 80 minutes, 42 of which would be flown over enemy-controlled territory. Sometimes it is said that for military operations “speed is security,” and this mission followed that age-old adage. The helicopters would fly at maximum speed and minimum height, below the tree line many areas, to minimize their exposure to Russian air defenses. They would be flying what pilots call nap-of-the-earth. Flying so low would reduce their risk to enemy air defense systems but would put them at risk from rocket propelled grenades—the weapons that Somalis used to shoot down U.S. helicopters in Mogadishu in 1993.
If they were lucky, they would avoid trees, powerlines, missiles, and rockets to reach their objective: The Azovstal steel plant where the Ukrainian defender had established their headquarters. As hard as getting in might be, getting out might be even tougher because they would have to fly a similar flight path home, with the Russians now alerted to their presence. It would be similar climbing Mount Everest, where far more die during the descent than during the ascent.
The Ukrainians conducted their first helicopter resupply mission on March 21, 2022 when two Mi-8 helicopters launched from an airfield outside Dnipro, 82 kilometers northeast of Mariupol. After taking off, the helicopters headed southeast before continuing to the coast. As planned, they flew low and fast…maybe too fast as one of the helicopters damaged its wheel when it hit a tree. Luckily, this was the only damage they sustained as they were able to complete the mission and deliver critically needed ammunition, medical supplies, and Starlink internet terminals.
The Ukrainians launched their second resupply mission a few days later. This mission looked much like the first, but the Russians would not be caught by surprise a second time. The Russians hit one of the helicopters with missile, but luckily for the Ukrainians it failed to explode. The missile did, however, pierce one of the helicopter’s engines, forcing the pilots to shut it off. Despite the gaping hole in the side of aircraft, the pilots were able to continue flying, albeit slower, and limp back to Dnipro along with approximately twenty wounded soldiers that had been loaded onto the helicopter at the Azovstal steel plant.
Pilot VitaliyCourtesy of Vitaliy
The pilot and the third mission
Vitaliy served as a helicopter pilot in the Ukrainian Army in the early 1990s. His combat experience, however, only included flying transport missions during peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia. He served his mandatory service time and then left the military to fly commercially for the next two-plus decades. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Vitaliy was mobilized on March 14.
On March 22, Vitaliy and other pilots were summoned to Kyiv for training. Vitaliy did not find the training to be particularly unique, but he was a bit surprised when he was asked to fly at night using night vision goggles, something he had not done in a very long time.
On March 26, Vitaliy was partnered with a co-pilot and a flight engineer and ordered to fly to an airfield outside Dnipro. When Vitaliy asked, “Why Dnipro?” He was given no answer, just that it would be a simple mission. It was clear that they had a mission planned for him, but they did not seem particularly keen to share the details, so Vitaliy did not ask any more questions.
The following day, Vitaliy and his crew arrived at the airfield outside of Dnipro. Immediately after landing, Vitaliy once again asked about the mission. The short reply, “You are going to Mariupol,” told him all he really needed to know. He knew this would be nothing like the transport missions that he had flown more than 20 years earlier. This would be a combat mission against a military that was ranked as the second most powerful in the world. The crews that had flown on of the two previous missions were there and they talked Vitaliy and his crew through the map and showed them some videos. The command element then provided them additional details about the mission. They would fly directly into Mariupol using two Mi-8s, deliver supplies, pickup casualties, and then fly out, refueling on the way back.
Soldiers from the Intelligence Directorate explained the mission and briefed the crews with the details of the Russian air defenses. They told the crews that the helicopters would be loaded with weapons and medicine only. Upon landing, they would keep their engines running and have only ten minutes to unload the supplies and onload critically wounded fighters. Additionally, one intelligence officer would ride in each helicopter. This last part Vitaliy found surprising. In all his previous missions, he had never flown with an intelligence officer onboard. He could have guessed possible reasons for such an unorthodox move. Maybe the officer was there to gather intelligence that would be useful for future resupply missions or for the operational fight. Perhaps, he was there to deliver intelligence and directives to Mariupol’s defenders. Maybe he was there to ensure, by threat of force, if necessary, that the flight crew did not abort the mission prematurely. Given the responses that he received from previous questions, Vitaliy thought it best not to ask and thus, he was never certain as to the officer’s purpose.
On the night on March 27, they loaded the helicopter with the carefully manifested ammunition and medicine. But almost as soon as they finished loading, they were told that they needed to carry an additional 200 kilograms of medicine. They had carefully calculated the helicopter’s maximum weight-carrying capacity and were now being directed to carry 200 additional kilograms. Something had to give. They could not reduce the payload, nor could they eliminate anyone from the crew. Thus, Vitaliy decided that their only option was to remove the helicopter’s weapons. They would have to fly defenseless, an extremely risky proposition given a helicopter on the previous mission had been hit by enemy fire. But the crew understood the dire circumstances being faced by the brave defenders of Mariupol. Those fighters were at risk every day. They would only be at risk for a single mission, although that risk seemed almost astronomical.
After loading the helicopter, they had to wait. Like any pilot who has ever flown what had a strong possibility of being a one-way mission, the anticipation killed Vitaliy. He prayed to God, “Let’s make it tomorrow.” Late in the night, the command element told Vitality the mission would go the following day. The command element provided the mission brief which directed the flight path, the exact time and location they needed to cross the enemy’s frontline (so that artillery could create a distraction to cover the crossing), the current enemy composition and disposition to include their air defenses (that included Pantsir-S1 air defense units but not Buk anti-air missile systems), and precise landing spots for each aircraft inside Mariupol’s Azovstal steel compound.
After placing the updated enemy air defense positions on a map overlay, Vitaliy determined the flight path they were given would not work, so he changed it, notifying the command element so that the artillery fires required to support the infiltration would remain synchronized. After completing their mission planning, they went to sleep. After waking up, they made a final call with the ground commander, Lt. Col. Prokopenko. When Prokopenko stated, “all clear,” they knew the mission was a go. Shortly before takeoff, they were given one final instruction: This was not a two-helicopter mission, it was two missions with one helicopter each.
An experienced pilot like Vitaliy knew what this meant. Even if the two helicopters were infiltrating and exfiltrating together, if something should happen to one of the helicopters, the other must continue the mission even if they could help the downed crew. This ran counter to everything he had been trained but he understood that this was one of those rare times when the mission of delivering supplies and evacuating the wounded trumped everything else, including a helicopter and its crew.
Like the previous missions, the flight would be approximately 80 minutes, with half of it over enemy-controlled territory. Vitaliy and his crew flew started in hours of darkness, but it was dawn by the time they reached the sea. Tensions climbed when they crossed into Russian-controlled territory and remained high until they exited nearly 90 minutes later. They flew the first segment under night vision goggles, approximately ten to fifteen meters above ground level. Once the sun began to rise, they were able to ditch their night vision goggles and fly closer to the ground.
Vitaliy saw some enemy positions during the infiltration flight, but the more immediate threats were obstacles such as trees and powerlines. Vitality did not know if the Russians were asleep, confused, or just in awe at a passing Ukrainian helicopter. All that mattered was that Vitaliy and his crew did not receive any fire. The flight was eerily quiet and lacked the chatter Vitaliy was used to when flying transport missions. The only comments made during the flight was Vitaliy asking his flight engineer, “How long to the sea?” Once they got closer, Vitaliy asked him to, “Count it down by kilometers.” They did not even talk when they saw Russian positions. Since they had ditched their defensive weapons, there was nothing they could have done anyway.
Once Vitaliy reached the sea, he flew so low he thought he was touching the water at times. Since the buildings at the Azovstal steel plant stretched many meters into the sky, Vitaliy knew that it would be impossible to miss. But a heavy fog covered the entire coastline, so now he was not so sure. Eventually, he saw the plant’s prominent pipes poking through the fog and felt some relief. As he approached the plant, Vitaliy saw the large power lines, 30 to 40 meters in height, that pilots from the previous missions had described. Vitaliy climbed out of the low sea level flight path high enough to clear the wires and then immediately dove back down into the plant to make his landing spot. It was likely the most dangerous part of the flight, due to being so exposed and vulnerable, during daylight hours right in front of Russian besieging the plant. To make matters worse, this was the third time that helicopters had flown this same approach, so surprise was seemingly lost.
Service member of the Ukrainian armed forces is seen within the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works complex in Mariupol, Ukraine, in this handout picture taken May 7, 2022. Dmytro Orest Kozatskyi—Azov regiment press service /Handout via Reuters
Vitaliy felt relief after he cleared the powerlines and completed the dive, but the mission would only get harder. Vitaliy now had to rapidly identify the exact landing spot within the complex compound and then hit the landing while avoiding the plant’s vertical obstacles that seemed to be everywhere. Additionally, being allowed only ten minutes on the ground, if he landed in the wrong location, he might be forced into leaving before all the supplies could be offloaded or the casualties onloaded. Staying any longer not only risked additional exposure to enemy fire, but more importantly, they only carried enough fuel for a limited time on the ground. If they stayed too long, they would not be able to make it back. Upon identifying the correct landing sport, Vitaliy felt what must have been at least the tenth sigh of relief and then proceeded to land at the exact coordinates he had been given.
Immediately after landing, fighters seemingly appeared out of nowhere and immediately started offloading the supplies. After such a stressful flight, Vitaliy needed a short break, so he stepped out the helicopter and hugged many of the fighters. He remembered embracing one fighter, turning to look at his copilot and by time Vitaliy turned his head back, the fighter was gone. Vitaliy had never met any of the fighters before, but he immediately felt an immense respect and brotherhood for them. With high-risk missions like this that served a common purpose, it is not uncommon for people to feel an intense kinship with people they have only briefly or may have never met and that is what Vitaliy was experiencing.
Once Mariupol’s fighters had off-loaded the ammunition and medicine, they rapidly loaded their severely wounded into the helicopter while its engines were still running. Vitaliy heard one of fighters frantically screaming, “Do it faster!” Vitaliy approached the leader and said, “Don’t worry. Don’t worry. We are here. We will take everyone.” Vitaliy was willing to risk additional time on the ground to get as many wounded out as the helicopter could hold. After the last casualty had been loaded, Vitaliy looked at his watch. They had been on the ground twelve minutes.
After liftoff, Vitaliy pushed the aircraft to its limits, flying it as fast as it could go. During the exfiltration flight, Vitaliy only wanted to know when he was out of enemy territory. They flew directly to a site on the Ukrainian side of the front that had been established to refuel the helicopters—a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) in military parlance. To maximize the carrying capacity of the aircraft, they only carried enough fuel to make it to the friendly lines. Thus, they had to refuel to make it back to the airfield. The fuel consumption for the flight had been meticulously calculated. Vitaliy had spent an extra two minutes at the Azovstal plant, but he knew this was within the small buffer of fuel reserve that had been built into the mission. Once they reached the refuel site, they turned the engines off and felt a huge rush of relief. After refueling, they flew back to the Dnipro site where a massive convoy of ambulances was waiting to evacuate the casualties.
The volunteer fighter
The aircrews were not the only ones willing to risk their lives to get to Mariupol. While Vitaliy’s helicopter was loaded with only ammunition and medical supplies, some of the sorties also carried volunteer fighters to help reinforce Prokopenko’s defense. Ruslan Serbov, callsign “David,” was one such fighter. Ruslan had previously served in the Azov Regiment, Prokopenko’s unit that was currently leading the defense of Mariupol, and as a member of the Presidential Guard unit. When the Russians invaded, Ruslan was living in Kyiv.
At the end of March, Ruslan saw a message in a closed Telegram room asking for volunteer fighters to join the Azov unit in the defense of Mariupol. He had read the news of the Russian attack so he knew that the city’s defenders had been cut off weeks earlier and were facing a much larger Russian force that surrounded the city. Yet, Ruslan did not hesitate despite the great risk. He followed the instructions from the Telegram group and immediately took a train from Kyiv to Zaporizhya where he met Ukrainian intelligence officers and other volunteers. After a quick assessment, he along with other volunteers conducted some quick refresher training. By early April, they moved him to Dnipro to be flown into Mariupol on one of the secret helicopter missions.
Ruslan was likely flown in on the fourth or fifth mission. On the night of his flight, he was so nervous that he could not sleep. He remembers lifting off at 2 AM, April fifth, and the harrowing nap-of-the-earth flight on the way in. He swore the helicopters were touching the water when they flew over the sea. He had given himself a “50/50 chance” of surviving the flight. he figured if the Russians did not get the aircraft, powerlines or trees would. His aircraft included the standard crew—pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, and intelligence officer—along with three other volunteer fighters and a bunch of ammunition and medical supplies.
After landing, he was immediately assigned to the Azov Regiment’s 1st battalion. A few hours later, they moved him to a building within the Azov steel plant compound and assigned him to stand guard on the fifth floor of the building. The following morning, he observed a small team of Russians moving and immediately engaged them with his rifle. The fellow soldiers in his position told him that he should not have engaged them. They were only sent out to bait the Ukrainians into shooting at them, so that it would give away their position. After giving away their positions, the Russians would launch artillery strikes or use tanks or other higher caliber weapons such as artillery to eliminate them. Ruslan described the Russians using “waves of humans” as cannon fodder. They seemed to care little for the soldiers’ lives and only viewed them as a tool to identify Ukrainian defensive positions.
Ruslan said the fighting was fierce and, at times, desperate. On the evening of May 15, he was part of a squad that was attempting to rescue a wounded soldier in the open between a giant ore pile and the railroad tracks within the steel factory compound. But it was a trap. As soon as they reached the solder, Russians ambushed them with heavy machine gun fire and anti-tank munitions. One of the anti-armor rounds hit Ruslan. He believed it had been fired from a MATADOR 90-mm man-portable, disposable anti-armor system. It was a weapon system meant for vehicles, not humans.
The round hit him in his left leg, severing his foot (he showed us a photograph of his severed foot still inside its boot that a fellow solider had taken the following day) and peppered his entire lower body with shrapnel. It knocked Ruslan unconscious. He drifted in and out of consciousness before he awoke in a dark bunker under the Azovstal plant. The bunker was full of severely wounded soldiers. Ruslan was in immense pain and lacking the necessary medical supplies to treat him, he asked his friend, “Shoot me.” But his friend replied, “Not today.”
The following morning, someone told Ruslan that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had ordered the defenders to surrender in a negotiated deal with the Russians. As happens all too often in war, Ruslan was injured only hours before the call had been made.
Despite the surrender, Ruslan was not immediately returned to Ukrainian hands. The details as to how the two sides would exchange prisoners of war were included in the agreement. Prior to being returned, the Russians transported Ruslan to the Donetsk Hospital to treat and stabilize him. But Ruslan described the hospital as having only very basic medical supplies and equipment and not much better than the bunker that had been treated in after being injured. Being one of the more severely injured prisoners of war, Ruslan was one of the first to be exchanged. After being returned, Ukrainian doctors were forced to amputate most of his leg due not only to the injury but also due to an infection that had resulted from the sub-standard treatment that he had received.
He later authored the book, Mariupol: The Book of the Brave, that describes his fight in Mariupol. In the eyes of many Ukrainians, Ruslan is a hero. He conducted an extremely risky flight just to get to Mariupol, and then fought for many weeks, against great odds, against a vastly superior foe. Yet, Ruslan is adamant that he is no hero. In his book and in our conversations with him, he stated, “I am not a hero. All the heroes are dead. I was just lucky.”
Conclusion
The story of these missions is not their brazen audacity, but the bravery of the pilots and soldiers involved. The military leadership must have factored the psychological ability of the crews to conduct the operation, because they never allowed a pilot to fly the mission a second time. While having an experienced pilot that had flown the route previously offered immense benefit, they obviously felt that the stress of flying the mission a second time was too great. It was the rare case where it is better not to know what you are up against, because if you did, you probably would not even try. .
Each flight team experienced a similar yet unique experience to that of Vitaliy and his crew. All the helicopters survived the first four missions. The Ukrainians lost their first helicopter on the fifth mission after Russians shot down one of the helicopters during exfiltration. On the sixth mission, the Ukrainians had an Mi-24 attack helicopter fly near enemy air defenses to distract them. Unfortunately, it did not work as the Russians successfully engaged both Mi-8s during exfiltration. Luckily, both were able to crash land into Ukrainian controlled territory. The composition and fate of the seventh mission remains unknown, at least publicly. All that is certain is that it was the final resupply mission.
A Ukrainian soldier stands inside the ruined Azovstal steel plant prior to surrender to the Russian forces in Mariupol, Ukraine, May 16, 2022. Dmytro Kozatski—Azov Special Forces Regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard Press Office via AP
In total, the Ukrainians flew missions consisting of a total of 16 helicopters. They delivered over thirty tons of precious cargo and 72 reinforcement soldiers, and evacuated 64 critically wounded soldiers. They lost three helicopters during exfiltration, but all 16 helicopters were able to deliver their payloads to the defenders of Mariupol.
After the seventh mission, the Intelligence Directorate assessed that it was too risky to conduct any more resupply missions. But by this time, the valiant defenders of Mariupol had helped Ukraine achieve its strategic objective and its first real victory in the war: Ukraine had successfully defended its capital. The last Russian forces withdrew from the Kyiv region on April 6, around the time of the fifth resupply mission.
No doubt it was a difficult decision, but with ammunition and medical supplies running out and no ability to resupply them, President Zelensky saw no other option than to order Prokopenko to surrender. Zelensky knew these stubborn fighters would never surrender on their own and to fight to death with ammunition nearly exhausted served no tactical, operational, or strategic purpose. A surrender would allow these heroes to live and fight another day.
Many know that the defenders of Mariupol held out for an unimaginable 83 days. But few know the story of the seven resupply missions. And while it can never be known how much longer the resupply missions allowed the defenders to hold out, it is almost certain they would not have made it to 83 days without them. Likewise, Russia made most of its gains during the opening weeks of the war. So, it will never be known how significant of an impact the 3,000 fighters had on the larger war by tying up tens of thousands of Russian fighters, but it is reasonable to conclude the impact was significant. At a minimum, it prevented the Russian’s from capturing the city of Zaporizhzhia, at least according to a military statement. In the end, Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov’s secret resupply missions may have been extremely risky, but they were never foolhardy because he knew the capability and will of the Ukrainian people.
Of course, had Putin actually wanted to go toe-to-toe with a formidable opponent, the Kremlin wouldn’t have hand-picked Carlson for his first interview with a Western journalist since he launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Carlson, the famously Russia-friendly ex-Fox News host, is known more for a penchant for cozying up to autocrats than for probing reportage.
Putin, who famously enjoys trolling Western figures, smirked while describing Carlson’s passivity to Russian TV propagandist Pavel Zarubin: “He tried to interrupt me several times, but still, surprisingly for a Western journalist, he turned out to be patient and listened to my lengthy dialogues, especially those related to history, and didn’t give me reason to do what I was ready for. So frankly, I didn’t get complete satisfaction from this interview.”
During the over two-hour-long Carlson interview, Putin delivered a 20-plus-minute soliloquy about Russian history and mocked Carlson over his failed attempt to join CIA.
Putin also took the opportunity to troll Joe Biden while speaking with Zarubin, saying he would prefer to see the current president reelected than a return of Donald Trump following the November ballot.
The Republican-led House of Representatives voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday under two articles of impeachment accusing him of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law.” CBS News’ Nancy Cordes and Nikole Killion report on the impeachment vote and what happens next on Capitol Hill.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The Republican Civil War of Texas that became tremendously public in May 2023 continues to rage on as the primaries draw ever nearer. The latest battle took place not in the state Capitol, nor on a ballot, but in the Twitterverse. State Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton, who has made it his mission to fight against as many Republican state senators and representatives as he can, took aim at U.S. Senator John Cornyn on Tuesday morning.
Cornyn, for his part, seemed ready to fight back, regardless of party affiliation, and he brought out the big guns.
Ken, your criminal defense lawyers are calling to suggest you spend less time pushing Russian propaganda and more time defending longstanding felony charges against you in Houston, as well as ongoing federal grand jury proceedings in San Antonio that will probably result in… https://t.co/6dfvvqJSfV
It all started when Paxton sent out an X post quoting another post from conservative publisher Michael Quinn Sullivan, which took a shot at Cornyn over his vote in favor of the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel. Sullivan wrote that “while Texans slept” the senator, seemingly all by himself, sent billions of dollars “to help with their border problems.”
Paxton, keen hearing the screech one of the GOP’s favorite dog whistles — anything related to the border — added that it was “unbelievable” that Cornyn would “stay up all night to defend other countries [sic] borders, but not America.”
Seems quality sleep is something Paxton and a certain sect of conservatives are passionate about.
In a mic drop moment not often seen between two prominent members of the same party, Cornyn lit the fuse to every cannon he had at his disposal against the embattled but empowered attorney general.
“Ken, your criminal defense lawyers are calling to suggest you spend less time pushing Russian propaganda and more time defending longstanding felony charges against you in Houston, as well as ongoing federal grand jury proceedings in San Antonio that will probably result in further criminal charges,” Cornyn wrote.
In reliable fashion, the rest of X was as ready to pounce as Cornyn was. GIFs involving popcorn eating, girls fighting and dudes popping out their lawn chairs to take it all in populated timelines across the state immediately. One person posted that this testy exchange was something “you didn’t expect to see,” but we’ll assume he isn’t from around these parts, because in Texas in 2024, there’s very little as reliable as death, Texas and Republicans bickering with other Republicans.
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a $95.3 billion military aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after a rare all-night session. While the bill’s passage marks a win for the Biden Administration after months of GOP resistance to the $60 billion intended for Ukraine, the bill faces a steep hurdle clearing the Republican-controlled House. That resistance is threatening to undermine what has defined America’s role in the world—and our national identity—since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared us the “great arsenal of democracy” in 1940.
A Ukrainian friend and classmate recently asked me why any American joins the military when they’re surrounded by Mexico and Canada, two countries that pose no threat of invasion. As a U.S. Army veteran, I found this question funny at first; the likelihood of our neighbors attacking never crossed my mind, let alone factored into my decision.
It then got me thinking. Why isn’t that something I ever considered? Why do so many Americans decide to put their lives at risk by joining the military when there hasn’t been a war fought on U.S. territory in over a century? There are practical explanations like pay, healthcare, and tuition benefits, but when service members are asked why they joined, “patriotism” and a “sense of duty” rank at the top.
This sense of duty is tied to serving abroad. Members of the military aren’t alone in their motivation for international service. Private citizens in America donate more money overseas per capita than any other nation. The very identity of the U.S. is rooted in the belief that when we perceive a global injustice, it’s our responsibility to intervene, and crucially, that we’re capable of succeeding when we do.
This belief is anchored to World War II, when America first emerged as the world’s premier superpower. We established our global position by declaring it our moral imperative to prevent fascism from consuming the world and using our unparalleled resources to make that happen. It’s the era we proudly return to most frequently in pop-culture, films, and television. We’ve affectionately named those who lived through the period the “greatest generation.” This is the American ideal we’ve clung to ever since, built on three foundational pillars: a clear moral cause, the hubris to believe it’s our responsibility to act, and the unmatched resources needed to realize our vision.
Many of our geopolitical efforts since have maintained the same facade—superior resources and the cross-continental exertion of our will—but have lacked the clearcut moral raison d’être behind them. Our misguided nation-building efforts in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and our invasion of Iraq based on the false pretense of WMDs, all underscore a lacking sense of purpose. The war in Ukraine is different. An outright evil Russian conquest has killed tens of thousands as Moscow seeks to dismantle democracy and reassume hegemonic control of its neighbor. Ukraine isn’t asking for manpower, just the means to fully repel an invasion that has captured nearly 20% of its land.
While traveling across Ukraine last summer with a nonprofit aid group, the sight of a small town in eastern Ukraine hammered into me the indiscriminate nature of Russia’s onslaught. Two kids rode bikes in the decimated town center. One boy told our group of volunteers what each surrounding building once was—apartments, a hospital, a town administrative office—and where he was when Russian artillery rained down. His family survived. Many of his neighbors did not. European nations are providing crucial assistance to hold Russia at bay and avoid their own similar fate, but to stop Russia’s advance and maintain its sovereignty, Ukraine needs military resources only the U.S. can provide.
But we are at risk of abandoning Ukraine, and with it, our NATO partners. Donald Trump’s “America First” ideology permeates the far-right argument that supporting Ukraine puts “America last.” Matt Gaetz’s “Ukraine Fatigue Resolution” claims aid packages are “weakening United States readiness.” Rand Paul asserts that there is “no end in sight” to the war and that we can’t afford to support Ukraine in an ”endless quagmire.” JD Vance concedes we must “accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians.” If these lawmakers want to make America great again, could their fatalistic rhetoric stray further from what defined the “greatest generation”?
The rationalizations for opposing further aid have been refuted time and again; we’ve provided less than 2% of our massive federal budget, and a majority of the money designated for Ukraine in fact stays in the U.S. Our support has helped Ukraine deplete a significant portion of our longest standing foe’s materiel and personnel, without the loss of one American soldier. What’s most alarming about Republicans’ resistance to Ukraine aid is not the tired financial arguments, it’s the defeatist resignation that the U.S. is no longer willing and able to step up when we’re needed.
As the world approaches a boiling point and U.S. interests become increasingly threatened in the Middle East, Europe, and the Asia Pacific, demonstrating unwavering commitment to our allies should be a no-brainer. Yet Republican lawmakers have played political games to block aid packages, and nearly half of their voters now feel we’re giving Ukraine too much support. Russia appears content to suffer casualties, biding its time until Ukraine exhausts the means to defend itself.
Much of the world still believes the U.S. is a force for global peace and stability. In the hospital recovering after Russian artillery shells landed near his trench, Yurii, a Ukrainian soldier and newly minted grandfather, told me last August that American backing matters “because we feel that we are not alone, that truth is on our side.” Ceasing support for Ukraine would not just spell a moral and geopolitical failure, it would serve as the final straw, officially pronouncing the death of the American mythos we have clung to for generations.
Washington — The Senate approved a major foreign aid package Tuesday, as a bipartisan group of senators propelled the long-delayed legislation over the finish line after an overnight session. But new, steep opposition from House Speaker Mike Johnson has thrown the bill’s prospects in the lower chamber into question.
The vote on final passage of the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific was 70 in favor to 29 opposed early Tuesday morning. The upper chamber pushed through a number of procedural hurdles in recent days, remaining in Washington through the weekend despite a planned recess that was set to begin this week.
The vote comes months after the White House requested the supplemental funding package, when Republicans demanded that the foreign aid be tied to enhanced border security measures. But when a long-sought bipartisan border security agreement was released last week, and then quickly rejected after former President Donald Trump weighed in, the deal’s prospects in Congress disappeared. But soon after, Schumer made a push to proceed with the aid package without the border provisions.
For a short period, the foreign aid package itself appeared to be threatened in the Senate by GOP opposition. Some Republicans wanted an opportunity to amend the bill to include border security provisions, even though they had rejected the bipartisan deal days earlier. And Trump has similarly railed against the legislation in recent days, worsening its prospects among his allies. But enough moderate Republicans and Democrats ultimately coalesced to ensure the bill would pass.
Still, getting the package approved became a slog this week as Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, slowed the bill’s march toward passage at every opportunity.
Paul took to the floor on Monday to filibuster the bill, warning in a lengthy floor speech that “they will take the $60 billion to Kyiv, crack the champagne,” while the U.S.-Mexico border sees an influx of migration.
“We have a disaster at our southern border and ranking Republicans and the ranking Democrats — there is no difference, they’re on the same team — they’ll be on the same plane to Kyiv,” Paul said.
Nevertheless, most of his Senate colleagues ultimately backed the bill, as defense hawks warned of the national security implications should the U.S. fail to back its allies.
“I know it’s become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard the global interests we have as a global power, to bemoan the responsibilities of global leadership, to lament the commitment that is underpinned the longest drought of great power conflict in human history,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Sunday. “This is the idle work for idle minds, and it has no place in the United States Senate.”
But even with the upper chamber’s approval, the legislation’s prospects in the House grew dimmer Monday night.
How would the foreign aid package fare in the House?
Whether the House would take up a Senate-passed foreign aid bill remains to be seen. Though House Speaker Mike Johnson was noncommittal last week when asked whether the lower chamber would vote on the bill, he clarified his position on Monday night. Hours ahead of the vote, he released a statement steeped in criticism about the aid package, while suggesting that the House would not consider the bill.
“The mandate of national security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid around the world,” Johnson said in the statement. “Now, in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters.”
The calculus for Johnson, who took the reins of the chamber and its narrow GOP majority in late October, appears complicated. While there may be a group of House moderates ready to back the foreign aid bill, among many House conservatives, additional aid for Ukraine is a nonstarter. And some House progressives may feel similarly about additional aid to Israel.
House leaders tried to approve standalone Israel aid in a vote last week, which required the backing of two-thirds of the chamber under suspension of the rules. But support for the move fell short, complicating the attempt to separate Israel aid — a high priority for House Republicans — from the broader foreign aid package.
Should Johnson ultimately decide not to bring the foreign aid package to the floor, it remains possible that Democrats and some moderate Republicans could force a vote with a discharge petition. The idea has appeared to gain traction in recent days, but the maneuver would be a heavy lift and would fly in the face of GOP leadership, with no guarantee of success.
