It is time to pull the plug on the corrupt Kiev regime and make peace.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The breakthrough localized ceasefire on the Kherson front line has so far held in place, allowing critical humanitarian supplies into the besieged town of Alyoshki, where thousands of residents were facing starvation.

Convoys from Russia carrying food supplies, medicines, sanitary materials and fuel began arriving Friday. The town had been largely cut off from outside contact since May this year. For nearly six months, the people of Alyoshki have been living in extreme deprivation under deadly assault from drones and mines fired by the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime.

Yet the gutter-level Western media have portrayed the suffering of Alyoshki as being caused by Russia.

The plight of the people came to worldwide attention earlier this month when Pope Leo XIV appealed to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian side to cooperate on breaking the siege. Then the dire situation facing the town was raised in a phone call between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump on October 9.

To her credit, America’s First Lady Melania Trump offered assistance in mediating a ceasefire to enable a humanitarian relief mission. It was Melania who announced on October 23 that a truce had been accepted by both sides. The cessation came into effect this week on October 27 at 4 am Moscow time. It is due to end on Sunday at midnight. The window of five days has permitted critical humanitarian supplies for the residents. Buses have also entered the town to evacuate those who want to leave.

Russia’s human rights commissioner Yana Lantratova and her Ukrainian counterpart, Dmitry Lubinets, led a joint mission to deliver aid and oversee arrangements for evacuation.

The relief mission has been a logistical challenge. Alyoshki sits on the left bank of the Dnieper River, facing the city of Kherson on the other bank. Russian troops took Alyoshki (Oleshky in Ukrainian) during the first weeks of the Special Military Operation in March 2022. The Kherson Oblast (region) voted in a referendum to join the Russian Federation four years ago, along with the oblasts of Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk. But the city of Kherson remains under the control of Ukraine. The four provinces are historically Russian territory, also known as Novorossiya.

Alyoshki residents have been living on the front line in a pitiful crossfire. The conditions worsened after the Kakhovka dam was blown up by the NATO-backed Kiev regime forces using HIMARS rockets in June 2023. The flood destroyed much of the town’s civilian infrastructure and utilities for drinking water, electricity, and heating. Its population dwindled from a pre-war 25,000 to the present estimated 2,000. Their situation deteriorated in March 2025, when the Ukrainian forces blew up a major bridge over the Dnieper. That meant all access to the town was by road from the East through Russian-held territory.

Earlier this year, the Ukrainian forces on the right bank of the river intensified the assault on Alyoshki with swarms of drones firing on inhabitants and their houses while dropping hundreds of mines on the town and its exit roads. Residents who were able to escape spoke of the hellish conditions of starvation while under constant threat of being fired on. Several people were killed or maimed by drones as they attempted to scavenge for food.

In previous months, Russian vehicles attempting to bring in food supplies were routinely targeted by the Ukrainian drones. That was how the town ended up living under siege, and its people were facing starvation. It was methodically cut off by the NATO-backed regime.

Rodion Miroshnik, Russia’s foreign ministry envoy, described the situation as a “medieval blockade using modern methods.”

The Kiev regime and the Western news media have gone into overdrive with propaganda. They have accused Russia of blockading the town and “exploiting” the humanitarian crisis. This is peddling incredible lies and doublethink. So, Russian troops who control Alyoshki are shooting at their own supply efforts? There are also other vile lies, such as Russia denying aid to residents unless they accept Russian citizenship.

Yana Lantratova, the Russian human rights commissioner, said anyone who wishes to relocate to Ukraine will be facilitated. All evacuees will have to be transported into Russia as a first step, then, if they wish, be flown to Belarus and from there to Ukraine. The circuitous route is because the Ukrainian forces blew up the bridge crossing the Dnieper. Most evacuees have been glad to be received by Russia.

The Western propaganda distortion is similar to the siege of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). The civilian nuclear installation has been under the control of Russian forces since 2022 and has been shelled constantly by the Ukrainian side with NATO weapons. Yet the Western media make out that it is the Russian forces that are targeting the ZNPP.

Another confounding fact for the regime and the Western backers is that most of the Alyoshki residents want to remain in place now that humanitarian needs have been met. They are not fleeing to Ukraine.

Praise is due to Melania Trump for getting personally involved in this crisis and helping bring relief to the people of Alyoshki. She said that American journalists have been allowed to observe the humanitarian mission along with their Russian counterparts. The U.S. news crew was said to be from the Newsmax outlet, which tends to be favorable to President Trump in its coverage. Though, notably, before the arrival of the relief mission on Friday, Newsmax anchors were repeating the Western media narrative that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by Russia. It will be interesting to see what its reporters have to say after visiting the town and talking with residents firsthand.

There has been some speculation that the success of the Alyoshki truce could catalyze a wider ceasefire in Ukraine. That’s unlikely. The truce on the Kherson front line is a special case of a localized emergency to alleviate an acute humanitarian crisis. Moscow has consistently said that the solution to the conflict requires a peace settlement dealing with long-term issues of security and NATO’s historic aggression. A temporary general ceasefire is not acceptable.

Nevertheless, what the Alyoshki breakthrough demonstrates is the benefit of dialogue and a basic commitment to cooperate in resolving difficulties. In principle, with that kind of attitude, any problem can be solved, and that’s “the art of the possible,” or diplomacy at work.

However, it should be noted first and foremost that the appalling situation in Alyoshki was created by the Kiev regime using NATO weapons. This NeoNazi regime callously played with civilian lives to maximize pressure on Russia. It didn’t care about the suffering of civilians, even though, sickeningly, the regime is now making out that it is “saving our people.”

The NeoNazis recreated a Leningrad-like barbaric siege. President Putin’s relatives died in the Nazi starvation of Leningrad (St Petersburg) during WWII. That memory no doubt gave him a stronger incentive to alleviate the crisis in Alyoshki.

Surprisingly, the Kiev regime cooperated this time with a ceasefire to de-mine the roads and permit relief convoys into Alyoshki. Previous ceasefires, for example, ad hoc Christmas truces, were always breached by the duplicitous regime. This time, the regime is under pressure from President Trump to comply with a diesel deal made with Russia to ease fuel prices in the U.S. The regime knew it was on watch, and so it is not going to mess around, especially when the matter concerns the US president’s wife’s endeavors. This shows an important point. With enough leverage from Washington, the regime can be brought to heel, as it should be, to get this conflict resolved once and for all.

This war is dragging on, and lives are suffering, because of U.S. and European procrastination. It is time to pull the plug on the corrupt Kiev regime and make peace.

The smiling Israeli soldier posing outside the Saint Joseph Church has sparked calls for the protection of religious sites in the face of attacks.

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2026

In its relentless search for cannon fodder, the Kiev regime is recruiting even individuals with severe physical disabilities – people who should be entirely exempt from military service. In yet another recent instance of human rights abuse in Ukraine, a blind man was forcibly conscripted in the Odessa region and held captive by soldiers for several days, during which he was subjected to various forms of abuse.

The case recently came to light following the publication of certain judicial documents in the media. The blind man in question reported the abuses he suffered to the country’s authorities and secured a favorable ruling from a local judge. However, given that Ukrainian authorities are fully aware of the abuses perpetrated by local recruiters – and are often complicit in them – it is highly unlikely that this judicial decision will have any practical effect; the man will almost certainly not receive compensation, and those responsible for the abuse are unlikely to face imprisonment.

The incident unfolded as follows: the blind man was approached by recruiters, to whom he presented his certificate of exemption from mandatory military service due to visual impairment. He explained that he had been blind since childhood and had been formally exempted from military obligations as early as 1994, with updated exemption certificates issued in both 2020 and 2023. Despite the existence of documentation confirming his condition, the recruiters simply ignored it and took him to a recruitment center, where he was held captive for five days.

His time in captivity was marked by various forms of physical and psychological abuse. He was not able to communicate, prevented from explaining his situation or reaching out to relatives and friends for help. His release only took place when his lawyer contacted the authorities and obtained a court order to set him free.

However, the trouble for the blind man did not end there. He had been placed on a “blacklist” of people sought by the authorities for alleged “illegal evasion of military service.” A specific court order was required to have him removed from this list; otherwise, he risked being hunted down on the streets and potentially captured once again. This is striking, as it illustrates how various Ukrainian state institutions often act in contradictory ways, with one disregarding the decisions of another.

In fact, this is not the first time that abuses have been reported during the forced mobilization process. Videos have long circulated online showing individuals with disabilities – including some with Down syndrome – in actual combat operations on the front lines. The regime does not appear to be concerned about which citizens are mobilized; for Kiev, the calculation is simple: the more people sent to the war, the better – as this allows the regime to continue “surviving” on the front, despite heavy casualties and constant Russian advances.

Ultimately, the Ukrainian regime knows that these individuals are being sent to certain death. Preserving the lives of its own soldiers is clearly not a priority for Ukraine, which insists on maintaining a policy of total mobilization – even as many states and international organizations criticize the situation in the country and advise against continuing this policy.

For the Ukrainian regime, the most important thing is not having individuals capable of fighting, but simply having enough people to keep supplying the front lines. Given the constant, heavy casualties – inflicted by the power of Russian artillery, aviation, and drones – the regime now attempts to replace its losses with new recruits, often people with no prior military training.

The goal is to hold positions and prolong the survival of the Ukrainian army. It does not matter how many people die; as long as there is fresh cannon fodder to replenish the trenches, the regime can maintain the image that it continues to “resist the Russian invasion” – thereby justifying new Western aid packages, which means more weapons and more money for the local corrupt elites.

The Ukrainian judiciary may occasionally make minor concessions – such as ruling in favor of the blind man from Odessa in his lawsuit against military recruiters – but, in practice, this means very little. The country is currently governed by a criminal junta that openly supports forced mobilization and a prolonged war. Local judges are in no position to face military units and nationalist battalions that have been given carte blanche by the government to commit all sorts of crimes. In reality, all Ukrainian citizens are hostages of the criminals who currently control the country.

---

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

The evacuation of civilians from Russian-occupied Oleshky offers a rare humanitarian breakthrough in a war that has produced precious few. Yet behind the diplomatic congratulations and carefully managed publicity lies a striking contradiction: Moscow is receiving international recognition for helping rescue people whose suffering is inseparable from its own occupation. For Vladimir Putin, it is an opportunity to appear conciliatory without changing his military objectives. For Donald Trump, it is a diplomatic achievement conveniently timed ahead of the American congressional elections.

In Oleshky, the humanitarian convoys have finally arrived. So have the television cameras. After more than four years of Russian occupation, hunger and isolation, the surviving inhabitants of this devastated Ukrainian town have suddenly found themselves at the centre of international diplomacy.

Their predicament has acquired a political significance extending far beyond the immediate question of how to get food into Oleshky and its people out.

On Friday, 30 October, Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office, confirmed that humanitarian assistance had reached the town and transport was ready for residents wishing to evacuate to Ukrainian-controlled territory.

Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, is coordinating the operation. Twenty-five buses, capable of transporting 750 passengers, together with ambulances for vulnerable residents, have been prepared.

The temporary ceasefire, which began on 27 October, is scheduled to expire on 1 November.

The number of evacuees remains uncertain. Ukraine’s prime minister withdrew an earlier estimate, explaining that the figures were changing and that premature disclosures could compromise the mission.

For civilians who have endured years of occupation, the operation offers something considerably more valuable than diplomatic recognition: a chance to survive.

For the governments involved, however, the calculations are rather different.

The concession that costs Putin remarkably little

The White House announced the agreement on 23 October, crediting Melania Trump with securing the humanitarian ceasefire.

It was an unusual intervention by an American First Lady, and one that Ukrainian officials have publicly welcomed.

But the limited scope of the arrangement deserves attention.

Moscow has agreed to suspend hostilities temporarily, permit humanitarian deliveries and facilitate civilian evacuations. It has not agreed to withdraw its forces, reconsider its territorial demands or substantially alter its conduct of the wider war.

The political return, meanwhile, could be considerable.

Russia can demonstrate cooperation with Washington. The Trump administration can point to a negotiated outcome. The First Lady receives international recognition for a humanitarian initiative.

All this comes just days before the American congressional elections on 3 November, offering the White House a visible diplomatic success without requiring the Kremlin to sacrifice anything strategically important.

Whether the operation will actually deliver Republican votes is another matter. There is no evidence that it will materially influence electoral preferences.

But the publicity value is unmistakable.

For Putin, the arrangement offers something perhaps more useful than an electoral favour to Trump: an opportunity to cultivate the image of a reasonable negotiating partner while preserving Russia’s freedom of military action.

The occupying power as humanitarian benefactor

There is a deeper irony in Russia’s new role as a partner in Oleshky’s rescue.

Before the invasion, approximately 24,000 people lived in the town. Today, an estimated 1,700–2,000 remain.

The survivors have endured Russian occupation since 2022, widespread destruction, restrictions on movement and severe shortages of basic necessities. The catastrophic flooding following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 compounded their predicament.

Yet Moscow can now present itself as a participant in relieving the humanitarian catastrophe.

The transformation is politically convenient.

Images of Russian officials accompanying aid convoys may help construct a narrative of humanitarian responsibility, particularly for international audiences unfamiliar with the town’s recent history.

Facilitating an evacuation does not, however, absolve an occupying power of its obligations towards civilians.

Nor should cooperation on a single humanitarian operation be mistaken for evidence that Moscow has reconsidered the policies that produced the crisis.

When survivors become instruments of propaganda

The information campaign surrounding Oleshky is particularly revealing.

On 7 October, Ukraine’s Security Service warned that Russian military personnel were allegedly preparing interviews in which residents would blame Ukrainian forces for their suffering while praising Russian troops.

These allegations require independent scrutiny. But they raise an uncomfortable question: how much weight should be attached to political declarations made by people emerging from years of occupation?

Fear can produce silence. It can also produce conformity.

Civilians dependent upon the authorities controlling their territory may repeat the language of those authorities, whether from conviction, intimidation or self-preservation.

Some residents may genuinely support Russia. That does not make them less entitled to humanitarian assistance.

There is a fundamental distinction between holding pro-Russian political opinions and actively collaborating in crimes against Ukraine.

A state defending its sovereignty need not demand ideological conformity from citizens it seeks to protect.

Indeed, rescuing them irrespective of their political sympathies is a more meaningful demonstration of democratic principles than any carefully staged declaration of gratitude.

Melania Trump and the choreography of compassion

The American dimension introduces its own peculiarities.

The White House has portrayed the ceasefire as an achievement of the First Lady’s personal diplomacy. Yet Washington was not the only party attempting to secure an agreement.

On 16 October, a week before the White House announcement, Pope Leo XIV appealed directly to Putin for a ceasefire in Oleshky to permit food deliveries, medical assistance and voluntary evacuations.

Three days later, the pontiff raised the same issue with Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Vatican’s documented intervention does not negate Melania Trump’s involvement, which Ukrainian and Russian officials have acknowledged. It does, however, complicate the suggestion that the breakthrough was exclusively an American diplomatic achievement.

In the meantime, the publicity surrounding the operation has assumed a conspicuous political character.

On 29 October, Melania Trump announced that four journalists from Newsmax, a broadcaster closely associated with Trump’s conservative constituency, would accompany the mission as neutral observers.

The broadcaster’s involvement was also welcomed by Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s special representative for international economic cooperation.

The interests converge rather neatly.

Washington obtains images of successful humanitarian diplomacy. Moscow gains an opportunity to appear cooperative before an American audience. The First Lady receives recognition for an initiative that has produced tangible results where much broader diplomatic efforts have struggled.

None of this diminishes the importance of saving civilians. But the political presentation risks becoming an achievement in its own right, potentially obscuring the question of why those civilians required rescuing in the first place.

The ceasefire ends at Oleshky

The military reality provides a rather less reassuring picture.

Oleshky lies on the Russian-controlled eastern bank of the Dnipro, opposite Ukrainian-held Kherson.

According to reporting by Le Monde, Ukrainian officials fear that Russian forces could exploit the temporary pause to replenish supplies and prepare further operations around Kherson.

Such concerns do not establish that a new offensive is imminent. Nevertheless, they highlight the distinction between a local humanitarian agreement and a genuine reduction in military confrontation.

The evacuation route reflects these security sensitivities.

Rather than crossing the Dnipro directly, residents wishing to reach Ukrainian-controlled territory are expected to travel through Russia and Belarus.

The arrangement avoids an immediate frontline crossing but creates separate concerns about possible coercion, screening and freedom of movement.

Meanwhile, Russia has made clear that its willingness to negotiate humanitarian pauses does not imply a willingness to suspend its broader offensive.

The distinction is critical. Moscow can cooperate over evacuation buses while continuing to launch missiles elsewhere in Ukraine.

What Europe should take from Oleshky

For European governments, the danger lies in confusing limited cooperation with strategic change.

The Kremlin has demonstrated that it can make a carefully circumscribed humanitarian concession, receive international recognition and retain its fundamental negotiating position.

The wider implications are significant.

A diplomatic process that rewards Moscow for temporary gestures while leaving its military objectives untouched risks producing the appearance of progress rather than progress itself.

Europe’s interest is not merely in securing occasional humanitarian agreements, valuable though they are. It is in ensuring that negotiations lead towards a settlement that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and does not leave the continent facing an emboldened Russia.

For now, Oleshky offers no evidence that Moscow has moved substantially closer to such an outcome.

The humanitarian mission may save hundreds of Ukrainian lives. If it succeeds, those who negotiated and implemented it deserve recognition.

But political recognition should not become historical absolution.

The occupying power has agreed to help evacuate civilians from a town it continues to occupy. Washington has secured a diplomatic achievement that places few constraints on Russia’s military ambitions.

The cameras will eventually leave Oleshky. The temporary ceasefire will expire.

And unless something more substantial changes, Russia’s occupation — and the war that made the evacuation necessary — will continue.

Forums for discussion of feminist and LGBTQ+ views face growing intolerance from Chinese state, say experts

Beijing’s annual independent queer film festival has been cancelled after what is understood to have been a campaign of sustained harassment from authorities.

Beijing Queer film festival, which was due to begin on Friday in China’s capital, is one of the country’s oldest independent film festivals.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP

© Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP

© Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP

A temporary ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine has held for a third day around the occupied town of Oleshky, allowing preparations for food deliveries and civilian evacuations. The agreement, mediated with the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump, represents a limited diplomatic development in a war where attempts to establish broader ceasefires have repeatedly failed.

Russia and Ukraine have maintained a localised ceasefire around Oleshky in the southern Kherson region, creating an opportunity to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians who have spent months effectively isolated from regular supplies of food, medicine and drinking water.

Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said on 29 October that neither side had reported violations of the agreement and that teams were continuing to clear mines from roads intended for humanitarian convoys.

According to Associated Press, the six-day arrangement began on 27 October and is expected to remain in force until 1 November.

The first substantial humanitarian delivery is scheduled for Friday, 30 October.

An estimated 1,700 to 2,000 civilians remain in Oleshky, many of them elderly residents whose health, mobility or personal circumstances have prevented them from leaving.

The town is situated on the Russian-occupied eastern bank of the Dnipro River, opposite Ukrainian-controlled Kherson.

Its geographical position has made it particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the fighting, while damaged infrastructure, mines and military restrictions have complicated access for humanitarian organisations.

Melania Trump’s Unusual Diplomatic Role

The agreement has attracted attention because of the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump.

In a White House statement issued on 23 October, her office announced that she had worked with Russian and Ukrainian representatives to secure arrangements for a temporary cessation of military activity.

The statement described her as the intermediary in the negotiations, covering the timing of the ceasefire, humanitarian access, evacuation procedures and operational coordination.

Lubinets subsequently acknowledged her involvement and said communication with his Russian counterpart, Yana Lantratova, had helped maintain the arrangement.

The White House originally announced 29 October as the starting date, but Ukrainian officials later reported that the ceasefire had taken effect at 3am on 27 October.

By Thursday, both sides were describing the agreement as holding without recorded violations.

The participation of the American First Lady is an unusual feature of international humanitarian diplomacy, which is more commonly conducted through governments, international organisations or specialist humanitarian agencies.

However, the immediate significance of the agreement will be determined by whether assistance reaches residents and whether those wishing to leave can do so safely.

A Town Cut Off from Essential Supplies

Oleshky has experienced prolonged humanitarian difficulties under Russian occupation.

The town suffered extensive disruption following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023, which caused severe flooding across communities along the Dnipro.

Subsequent fighting, damage to infrastructure and restrictions on movement further complicated access to essential goods.

According to Ukrainian officials, normal deliveries of food to the town have been effectively interrupted since late May 2026.

Residents have faced shortages of medicines and clean water, while the presence of mines has made movement beyond residential areas hazardous.

The remaining population is believed to consist largely of older people and residents requiring medical attention.

For these civilians, humanitarian access is not simply a matter of replenishing household supplies.

It may determine whether individuals can receive essential treatment, obtain prescription medicines or leave areas where normal medical and social services have ceased functioning.

The Evacuation Challenge

The ceasefire provides for humanitarian teams to assess residents’ needs and arrange transport for those who wish to leave.

The White House has indicated that residents should be able to choose their destination, including Ukrainian-controlled territory or Russia.

Ensuring that such decisions are genuinely voluntary is particularly important in occupied territory.

International humanitarian law provides protections for civilians under occupation, including restrictions concerning forcible transfers and deportations.

A credible evacuation process therefore requires clear information, freedom from coercion and practical arrangements allowing residents to travel safely.

The presence of journalists accompanying the mission may provide additional documentation, although media access does not replace independent humanitarian monitoring.

Russian and Ukrainian representatives have also been coordinating mine clearance along routes intended for humanitarian vehicles.

Until those routes are confirmed safe, the delivery of assistance and movement of civilians remain dependent on operational conditions.

A Ceasefire That Does Not Extend Beyond Oleshky

The agreement remains geographically limited.

Russian strikes continued elsewhere in Ukraine on 29 October, killing civilians in several cities, including Dnipro.

The continuing attacks demonstrate that the localised humanitarian arrangement does not represent a broader change in Russian military operations or the strategic direction of the war.

Nevertheless, the pause has also brought some relief to residents of nearby Ukrainian-controlled Kherson, where repeated attacks have disrupted daily life.

The absence of reported violations around Oleshky suggests that the two sides retain the ability to coordinate narrowly defined humanitarian measures when political and operational arrangements are in place.

That does not necessarily imply an increased willingness to compromise over territory or broader security questions.

What Happens After 1 November?

The agreement is scheduled to expire on 1 November, leaving only a limited period for delivering aid and facilitating departures.

Its effectiveness will depend on the quantities of assistance delivered, the number of residents reached and whether evacuation arrangements operate as intended.

It will also be necessary to establish what protection, if any, is available to civilians who remain after the ceasefire ends.

A successful operation could provide a model for similarly limited humanitarian arrangements elsewhere along the front.

However, extending such cooperation would require further political consent and practical security guarantees.

For Oleshky’s remaining residents, the immediate question is more urgent: whether several days without fighting can provide the assistance and safe passage that months of war have denied them.

The prime minister’s ambitions might be ambiguous, but unlike the Conservative leader, he is following voters and the facts

British politics is still polarised around Brexit, although 10 years on from the referendum, the terms of debate are very different. Or they should be. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has moved discussions of European solidarity from the realm of abstraction to a matter of urgent defence partnership. Donald Trump’s presidency in the US, marked by scorn for European democracies and indulgence of Vladimir Putin, has undermined confidence that Britain can rely on any “special relationship” with Washington.

Under these circumstances, it would be absurd to deny that a reappraisal of Brexit is in order. The prime minister acknowledged this in his speech at the Labour party conference last month, calling for a national conversation about the future relationship with every option, including rejoining, on the table. The Eurosceptic opposition are having none of it. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, accuses the government of stirring division by raising the European question. She told MPs this week that Labour should thank the Tories for the Brexit deal they negotiated.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

Intermediaries on Iranian Telegram channels are offering newborns for up to $1,100 under the guise of charity, with some promising to falsify birth records and others arranging placements with Iranian families abroad, despite a ban on the sale of babies.

By Uriel Araujo | October 29, 2026

President Volodymyr Zelensky recently signed Bill No.16119, a law expanding educational rights for national minorities and indigenous peoples. Ukraine is thereby selectively adjusting, rather than reversing, its post-2014 Ukrainization policies.

The measure was presented as progress on minority rights and a step that could help open further EU accession clusters. Romanian President Nicusor Dan welcomed the legislation, noting that mother-tongue education for ethnic Romanians is “no abstract matter” for families living in Ukraine.

The law expands the use of eligible minority languages in schools, recognizes special institutional status for minority-language schools, and strengthens continuity of education.

Crucially, the additional protections apply only to official languages of the European Union and to indigenous languages such as Crimean Tatar. Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Bulgarian and Slovak qualify. Russian does not. The Ukrainian Ministry of Education clarified that the additional rights “do not apply to the Russian language.”

Russian remains widely spoken, with 28% or even more Ukrainians still using both Russian and Ukrainian at home despite years of Ukrainization and wartime restrictions.

The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe flagged the problem years ago: in its 2017 opinion, it found the less favorable treatment of non-EU languages, particularly Russian, difficult to justify and raised discrimination concerns. Its 2023 opinion report on national minorities legislation reiterated that promoting Ukrainian as the state language does not justify withholding equivalent protections from Russian speakers.

Ukraine’s Constitutional Court took a different view in 2021, holding that preferential treatment for EU languages was permissible – the European advisory body’s criticism and Kyiv’s domestic position have never fully aligned.

The expanded guarantees for ethnic Hungarians and Romanians may reflect Budapest’s and Bucharest’s ability to block or delay Ukraine’s EU accession process.

It is no accident Roma inclusion follows a separate track: a national strategy running to 2030 addresses education, housing and discrimination. These measures concern the social integration of marginalized Gypsies communities, rather than reversing Ukrainization.

Similarly, Russian speakers and ethnic Russians, who cannot exercise comparable leverage inside the EU process, remain outside the new framework.

By comparison, although the ongoing war complicates it, Russia formally recognizes ethnic Ukrainians, while its Constitution and laws guarantee the preservation and study of minority languages.

In any case, Kyiv explicitly differentiates between Russian and EU minority languages, while Moscow formally has an inclusive framework.

Ukraine’s Russian minority-rights controversy predates the 2022 invasion: differential treatment has been a structural feature of post-Maidan policy, rather than just a temporary wartime measure.

After 2014, language, media and minority legislation steadily elevated Ukrainian while narrowing the public space for Russian. US political scientist Nicolai N. Petro, writing in Foreign Policy in late 2023, described policies that further relegated Russian speakers to a permanent second-class status – and warned that such approaches risk alienating a significant share of the population even once fighting ends.

Ukrainian officials have at times declared there is simply “no Russian minority”, a claim that sits uneasily with census data and everyday bilingual reality, to say the least.

Meanwhile, nationalist historical narratives persist: a Lviv’s museum dedicated to Nazi collaborator Roman Shukhevych was being rebuilt just weeks before the education law was signed. Shukhevych incited anti-Polish pogroms in 1930.

The continued public commemoration of such figures is hard to reconcile with any claim of comprehensive ideological retreat from post-Maidan nation-building. Moreover, the reforms will be viewed by Ukrainian ultranationalists as a setback forced by European partners – and are likely to generate domestic pushback.

They may also, on the other hand, encourage further demands from minority communities, including over the glorification of controversial wartime figures – an issue that still strains relations with Poland. Not surprisingly, Ukrainian tensions with neighbors have been a recurring feature of the regional landscape – Hungary being a case in point.

As part of its EU accession plans, Kyiv is reviewing chauvinistic policies regarding some minorities – while leaving the largest linguistic community outside the latest concessions.

The “macro” dimension of the conflict involves great-power rivalry, proxy dynamics and the long trajectory of NATO expansion. The micro or rather “meso”-level dimension remains the unresolved issue of post-Soviet borders and the ethnopolitics of a post-Soviet republic still consolidating its nation-building project.

In the words of Kristin Henrard (Professor of International Law at the Brussels School of Governance): “Ukraine will need to acknowledge that the Russian minority, as one of the several minorities with kinstates in its territory, is special because of that strong numerical size, and traditional presence.” This would be “in line with Ukraine’s international obligations”, she writes.

So much for the idea that minority-rights problems were ever merely “Russian propaganda.” They were real enough for Hungarians and Romanians that Kyiv had to legislate; they remain real for Russian speakers. The civil-rights issue remains.

---

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

RT | October 29, 2026

Albania has imposed steep fines on people who take part in violent protests, citing a recent law imposed in France, in an attempt to quell weeks of clashes between police and protesters demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Under measures adopted Wednesday, remaining at a demonstration that turns violent will be a criminal offense, even for those not directly involved in clashes. Anyone who “chooses to remain in a crowd” engaged in violence or looting, or is found “concealing their identity,” faces fines of up to 500,000 leks ($6,130), over six-times the Balkan country’s average monthly salary.

Initially sparked by student anger over education costs and deteriorating facilities, the demonstrations have evolved into nationwide protests against inequality, soaring living costs, and cuts to public services.

Citing “urban anarchy” when announcing the crackdown, Rama acknowledged France’s controversial ‘casseurs-payeurs’ (rioters pay) bill, which would hold demonstrators liable for up to €10,000 ($11,160) in damages. The bill passed the French Senate on Wednesday and is now headed to the National Assembly, following weeks of protests and riots in which over 1,300 protesters were arrested in a single day.

Italy has also followed suit. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government approved measures last week that criminalize “violent participation in a demonstration,” punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to €20,000.

In Albania, a “special electronic register” will track suspected offenders, while police gain powers to restrict gatherings near schools, hospitals, and government buildings over potential violence. The measures – which also provide compensation for businesses damaged in the unrest – are already in place and require parliamentary approval within 45 days to remain in force.

What’s behind the protests in Albania?

Anti-government protests in the country began peacefully in May over plans for a luxury resort in the Zvernec nature reserve, a project linked to US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

By mid-October, the protests escalated into daily clashes with police amid growing anger over corruption, economic mismanagement, unemployment, and failing public services. Demands for Rama’s resignation took center stage, but the prime minister, who has been in power since 2013 and was elected to a fourth term last year, has refused to budge.

The unrest has caused over €2 million in damage, according to official estimates, as rioters torched ministries and attacked police stations, public buildings, and businesses. Clashes flared up again over the weekend, with protesters chanting “Revolution” and “Rama in prison” and police using tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons in Tirana.

The Russia blame game

Despite the protests being driven by grievances over domestic matters, Rama blamed the violence on a “hybrid war” by foreign actors, specifically Russia and Iran.

Russia has dismissed the accusations. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested last week that Rama should look closer to home. “These are citizens of your own country who took to the streets to protest. Don’t shift your responsibility onto others. Deal with your own domestic problems.”

Updates on the dire state of religious freedom in Ukraine

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The consolidation of the Ukrainian state around a national identity detached from Russia has had profound consequences in the religious sphere. The struggle over the spiritual orientation of the population has become part of a broader political process in which Orthodox institutions have become priority targets of the regime. Reports of pressure against clergy and communities affiliated with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) reveal a dimension of the conflict that deserves greater international attention.

In a recent conversation with Russian journalist and poet Inna Kucherova, concerns were raised regarding the future of the Church and the conditions faced by its representatives. In her view, the case raises a fundamental question: to what extent can a state at war restrict the activities of a religious institution on the grounds of its historical and ecclesiastical ties?

The relationship between the UOC and the Russian Orthodox Church lies at the heart of this controversy. For the Ukrainian authorities, ties with Moscow represent a potential channel of influence for a country regarded as an enemy. This interpretation has helped justify measures to control religious organizations and investigations targeting members of the clergy. Predictably, these measures quickly escalated into extremely brutal and inhumane repressive policies.

The legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament in August 2024 deepened the crisis. The initiative established mechanisms to restrict religious organizations deemed to be linked to Russian centers of influence, paving the way for administrative proceedings against structures associated with the UOC. In practice, the law’s implementation can be summarized as giving Ukrainian authorities carte blanche to persecute religious figures and seize Church property on the grounds of alleged “ties to Russia.”

The problem also involves a struggle over the legitimacy of Orthodox representation in the country. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), recognized only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, enjoys a privileged position under the ultranationalist and Russophobic ideology promoted by the Ukrainian state. The idea of a “national Church,” rejected by the Orthodox world as a whole – with the exception of Constantinople – perfectly serves Ukrainian nationalist demands and provides a religious justification for the barbarity perpetrated by Kiev against its own population.

Criminal investigations targeting UOC representatives constitute another source of crimes and abuses. Figures cited by Inna indicate that more than 200 criminal cases had been opened against members of the clergy by November 2025. The accusations include collaboration with Russian intelligence services and activities deemed contrary to national security. As expected, none of the allegations is sufficiently substantiated, and they all appear to be baseless claims intended to justify persecution.

Military mobilization adds another serious concern. According to evidence documented in Inna’s investigation, UOC priests face obstacles in obtaining the same exemptions from conscription granted to representatives of other religious communities. Reports have also emerged of coercive recruitment and violence during procedures conducted by mobilization officers. In other words, the Kiev regime is not sparing Orthodox clergy from its brutal forced-conscription measures.

The issue has both domestic and international implications. Religious freedom is a fundamental component of international human rights commitments and must be protected even during periods of national emergency. Furthermore, persecuting the religious institution of the Ukrainian people constitutes a major source of political illegitimacy for the regime in the eyes of its own citizens.

The international community must pay attention to Russian reports of these abuses and urgently take steps to hold Ukraine accountable for its unlawful practices against the Church. Ignoring the situation in Ukraine is simply intolerable under the current circumstances. Without sanctions and economic and diplomatic pressure, the Kiev regime will continue to perpetrate terror against its own people.

In the face of the Ukrainian state’s tyranny and the inaction of international organizations, only a rapid Russian military victory appears capable of bringing an end to the suffering of the local population.

Survivors tell rights group that serving officers who worked as guards administered electric shocks and beatings

Cambodian police and military officers worked as private security guards in scam compounds where thousands were forced to work in the online fraud industry, according to a report by Amnesty International.

The global rights group alleged they worked for security companies as part of a system that enabled slavery and rape in the compounds, with some guards using electric batons to keep people trapped.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images

A new book, free to download, gathers scholars, lawyers, a journalist, and the young mother cast as a “victim” who says she never met the accused. In March 2025, a young Russian woman, heavily pregnant, sat in a hospital in Bariloche, in Argentine Patagonia. She had come to Argentina, as thousands of Russian women do […]

RT | October 28, 2026

An Israeli online advertising company implicated in spyware attacks targeting internet users was heavily active on SpaceX’s Starlink service, Japanese researchers have found, bolstering claims that the firm was running a “targeting and tracking” operation masquerading as a commercial advertising business.

Earlier this month, Canadian cybersecurity watchdog Citizen Lab and New York-based ad security firm Confiant published extensive investigations identifying Discover-Tech, an Israeli advertising technology company, as a middleman helping spyware firms, including Candiru and Intelos, as well as a little-known US-linked operator known as Dark Cartographer, track internet users and potentially infect their devices without their knowledge.

Discover-Tech’s operation involved purchasing advertising space on hundreds of thousands of websites and apps, using ads to collect information about users who viewed them, and making the data available to spyware companies. Those firms could then identify specific targets and potentially install spyware on their devices through malicious advertising code.

Despite presenting itself as a commercial operation, Discover-Tech concentrated much of its advertising spending on markets that would be of limited interest to conventional advertisers. Of 228 countries and territories examined, Palestine was the most heavily targeted, despite its population having severely limited access to Western goods and relatively little purchasing power.

In more than 100 countries, Discover-Tech was the leading bidder for advertising space targeting Starlink users, according to researchers at TrendAI, a unit of Japanese cybersecurity firm Trend Micro. The company was also the largest advertising bidder in Syria, Libya, Yemen and South Sudan, and the second-largest in Afghanistan.

TrendAI published its findings on October 15, identifying the suspicious advertiser only by the codename Shadow-Earth-79. Six people familiar with the research subsequently told Reuters that the codename referred to Discover-Tech.

Noting that “the demand for legitimate Western advertising in sanctioned or active-conflict states is effectively zero,” the researchers concluded that the company was running “targeting and tracking infrastructure rather than a commercial advertising operation.”

The findings suggest that Discover-Tech may have been attempting to identify, geolocate or monitor Starlink users. However, they do not establish that the company successfully infected Starlink users’ devices with spyware.

Who runs Discover-Tech?

Founded in 2020 by Israeli entrepreneur Dekel Boni, Discover-Tech appointed Eric Banoun as its director. Banoun co-founded Circles, a surveillance company affiliated with Pegasus spyware developer NSO Group, and Senpai Technologies, a company known for developing and selling surveillance software to governments, including those of Angola, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Banoun also founded Intelos, which uses advertisements similar to those placed by Discover-Tech to surveil and geolocate individuals. He attempted to sell the technology to Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency, according to Haaretz.

Haaretz also identified Sara Hamou, through her holding company, as a shareholder in Discover-Tech. Hamou is a former manager at Intellexa, the company that marketed Predator spyware in Greece. Earlier this year, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for her role in the Predator scandal.

Is Discover-Tech linked to the Israeli government?

It remains unclear who purchased the services of Candiru, Intelos and Dark Cartographer after the companies obtained user data through Discover-Tech. However, as RT previously reported in its ‘Wired for War’ series, Israel treats domestically developed spyware as a controlled defense export and retains authority over where such technology may be sold.

According to a 2021 investigation by Haaretz, export licenses for Pegasus were often granted when sales were considered beneficial to Israeli foreign policy interests, including in connection with trade agreements or diplomatic support for Israel at the UN.

Other Israeli spy-tech companies covered in the series, including Black Cube, BlackCore and Paragon Solutions, have also been linked to activities aligned with Israeli interests, even when they were not directly contracted by the Israeli government.

Discover-Tech’s advertising infrastructure was used to target at least 45 devices at Al Jazeera with Candiru spyware in 2024 and 2025, according to Citizen Lab. Researchers confirmed that some devices were infected through malicious advertisements that required no interaction from users.

The attacks occurred during a period of heightened tensions between Israel and the Qatar-based broadcaster, which Israeli authorities have accused of threatening national security. Candiru was founded by two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence veterans and operates under Israeli defense export controls.

While the Israeli government has not been accused of ordering Candiru to surveil Al Jazeera journalists, the targeting raises questions about whether the company’s clients shared interests with the Israeli authorities. The investigations have not identified the government or client responsible for commissioning the attacks.

Is Discover-Tech still operating?

Following the investigations by Citizen Lab and Confiant, several major advertising companies took action against Discover-Tech. Google, Comcast-owned Beeswax and Eskimi blocked the firm from their platforms, while Vungle suspended its access pending a review. Industry association IAB Europe also suspended Discover-Tech from its list of approved vendors.

Discover-Tech’s website, which markets the company as a “tailored digital advertising agency,” remains active. The firm has not publicly responded to the findings reported by Citizen Lab, Confiant or TrendAI.

Warnings of escalating clampdown on press freedom come after Cairo court convicts Attalah of managing an unlicensed website

Lina Attalah, a prominent Egyptian journalist and the editor-in-chief of the news outlet Mada Masr, has been released from detention by Egypt’s authorities and had her website ordered to be shut down by a court amid an intensifying crackdown on independent media in the country.

Attalah was taken briefly into custody after a Cairo court convicted her of managing an unlicensed website, prompting fresh international concerns over press freedom in Egypt.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Roger Anis/AP

© Photograph: Roger Anis/AP

© Photograph: Roger Anis/AP

Al Mayadeen | October 28, 2026

The US military killed five people in a strike targeting a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Thursday, marking the latest operation in Washington’s expanding military campaign against alleged drug trafficking networks across Latin America.

US Southern Command said the vessel was targeted along what it described as “established narco-trafficking routes.” However, despite citing “confirmed intelligence”, the military did not publicly provide evidence that the boat was transporting narcotics at the time of the attack.

Footage released on social media showed a vessel in the crosshairs before being struck and engulfed in flames.

By media counts, the operation is one of over 70 such attacks carried out since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term, with the combined death toll now topping 240.

The operation comes amid a broader escalation ordered by the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has increasingly framed anti-drug operations as part of an armed conflict against what it calls “narcoterrorist” organizations.

Critics, however, have questioned both the evidentiary basis for many of the strikes and the classification of those targeted as “narcoterrorists”.

The US administration has yet to offer conclusive proof that the targeted vessels were carrying drugs, and the strikes have fueled a dispute over whether they are lawful.

Extrajudicial executions
The growing campaign has attracted increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, military legal experts, and human rights organizations.

Human rights organizations contend that the killings may qualify as extrajudicial executions, since the people hit appear to have been civilians who posed no imminent danger to the United States.

US senators have repeatedly called on the Pentagon to release unedited footage of the strikes, citing concerns regarding transparency and accountability.

Legal scholars have also challenged the administration’s justification for the operations, arguing that Washington has yet to clearly establish the legal framework underpinning the repeated use of lethal military force outside conventional battlefields.

It’s the elephant in the international living room

By Kevin Barrett | October 28, 2026

On February 28, the US and Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, killing its Supreme Leader alongside many other officials—and around 160 civilians, mostly schoolgirls, at Minab. The attack was an extreme case of the supreme war crime: aggression. Attacks on civilian targets are, of course, also highly illegal. The US and Israel routinely target civilians and civilian infrastructure, and Trump even brags about it.

Western media, dominated by co-ethnics of the genocidal pariah state of Israel, paints black as white, up as down, freedom as slavery, ignorance as strength, and victims as perpetrators. Though the media won’t say it plainly, Israel is the world’s worst outlaw nation in every possible way, including its de facto national mission of the genocide of Palestine and invasion of neighboring states, its outrageous terrorism and torture, its hundreds of ongoing violations of UN resolutions and international law, notably its flaunting of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its threatening the whole world, including ostensible allies, with the nuclear “Samson option”—while whining about Iran’s NPT-compliant civilian program.

The US, too, is a serial international outlaw, kidnapping and murdering leaders of sovereign nations, shredding the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, refusing to recognize ICC jurisdiction, repeatedly threatening dozens of nations with aggression, refusing to allow delegations access to the UN, and on and on.

By contrast, Iran is one of the most law-abiding states in the world. It hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries. It signed and complies with the NPT, despite being repeatedly attacked, and threatened with nuclear weapons, by the US and Israel.

But Iran insists on the equal application of international law. If Saddam’s attack on Kuwait (and before that Iran) was aggression, so are US attacks on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere. If Iran must abide by the NPT, so too must Israel. If Turkey can charge service fees at the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Iran and Oman can charge similar fees at the Strait of Hormuz. If apartheid was unacceptable in South Africa, its vastly worse equivalent is unacceptable in Occupied Palestine. And if “Responsibility to Protect” law enforcement interventions are necessary, obviously the first group on Earth that needs one is the Palestinians.

In a recent seminar I argued that Iran should do its best to highlight the fact that it supports and abides by international law, while the US and Israel do not. It’s a true, powerful message, and it isn’t getting through the deaf ears of Western mainstream media. But if Iran repeats this talking point often enough and loudly enough, some of it will penetrate the world’s consciousness through social media and other alternative channels.

What follows is an extract from a seminar I recently joined on this topic.

-KB

ODVV Online Webinar With Prof. Alfred De Zayas & Dr. Kevin Barrett; War, US Sanctions, And Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact On Iran

ODVV.org

On Monday, 19 October 2026, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) held an online webinar titled “War, U.S. Sanctions, and Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact on Iran.” The discussion examined the humanitarian consequences of U.S. sanctions and military attacks against Iran, the question of international accountability, possible avenues for legal action, and the role of media narratives in shaping public understanding of war.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American writer, journalist, and political commentator, holds a Ph.D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His work has addressed the Middle East, international politics, media narratives, and the political and humanitarian consequences of war.

Professor Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is an international lawyer and Professor of International Law and History at the Geneva School of Diplomacy. From 2012 to 2018, he served as the United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order. He previously held senior positions at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and served as Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee and Chief of its Petitions Department. His contribution to the webinar focused on the legal status of unilateral coercive measures, their humanitarian consequences, and possible avenues for accountability.

The views expressed by the speakers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.

Kevin Barrett: Sanctions, Civilian Harm, and the Definition of Terrorism

Barrett began by discussing the definition of terrorism. He described it as violence against civilians intended to create fear and achieve political or ideological objectives. Applying this definition to the issues under discussion, he argued that U.S. sanctions and military attacks on civilian targets should be examined in terms of the harm they inflict on ordinary people. He maintained that restrictions affecting access to medicine, medical equipment, and food place pressure directly on the civilian population. Barrett said he viewed these measures as an effort to make life increasingly difficult for Iranians and to pressure them into accepting political change.

Addressing the 40-day war against Iran, Barrett referred to the attack on the Minab school and the deaths of schoolchildren, as well as reported attacks on residential buildings, bridges, railway stations, communications towers, desalination and water facilities, wheat storage facilities, healthcare sites, and energy infrastructure. He characterized these as attacks on civilian infrastructure. He also described public threats by Donald Trump against Iran’s bridges, electricity grid, water facilities, and energy infrastructure as threats to commit war crimes.

During the question-and-answer session, Barrett was asked whether international courts could provide a meaningful path to justice when powerful states refuse to comply with international law. He criticized the practical limitations of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in compelling the United States to accept adverse decisions. However, he clarified that this did not mean the courts should be abandoned. In his view, submitting evidence and pursuing legal cases remain important because they document alleged violations and bring them to the attention of global public opinion.

Barrett also emphasized the importance of presenting Iran consistently as a party seeking the equal application of international law. He argued that documented accounts of civilian harm, supported by independent reporting and public advocacy, could help challenge selective media narratives and strengthen demands for accountability…

Read the whole post at ODVV.org

Israel's refusal to welcome int'l observers raises red flag. What is going on?

Peru’s human rights prosecutors closed the criminal case over the forced sterilizations of thousands of women during Alberto Fujimori’s government, extinguishing charges against 52 former officials despite acknowledging that the mass surgeries amounted to crimes against humanity.

---

The Fourth Supra-National Criminal Prosecutor’s Office specialized in Human Rights issued Fiscal Provision No. 25 on October 22. The ruling, which runs more than six thousand pages, formally declared the case time-barred and ordered the file closed.

In its decision, the Public Ministry recognized evidence of crimes against humanity and harm suffered by more than 4,000 victims of forced sterilization. Even so, criminal liability was declared extinguished for 52 people, a decision that protects the former officials who designed and implemented the program.

RELATED: Inter-American Court Condemns Peru Over Forced Sterilization

The case was closed under Law 32107, approved in 2024 with the backing of lawmakers allied to former President Alberto Fujimori. The statute imposes strict time limits on the prosecution of crimes against humanity, setting aside the protection those abuses have long held under international treaties.

Under international law, crimes against humanity are not subject to statutes of limitation. Law 32107 introduced a domestic exception to that principle, and its application extinguished the proceedings for all 52 defendants at once.

🚨 La Fiscalía archivó la investigación contra 52 personas por las #EsterilizacionesForzadas durante el gobierno de Alberto Fujimori, entre ellas Alejandro Aguinaga, exministro de Salud y actual senador. Lo más grave: reconoce indicios de crímenes de lesa humanidad, pero declara… pic.twitter.com/dSaeConv1P

— saludconlupa.com (@saludconlupa) October 26, 2026

Text reads: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office closed the investigation against 52 people for the forced esterilizations during the government of Alberto Fujimori, including Alejandro Aguinaga, former Minister of Health and current senator. Most serious: it recognizes indications of crimes against humanity, but prescribes the crimes by applying a law driven by fujimorismo. Thousands of women are still waiting for justice.”

The law’s application halted the criminal proceedings overnight and favored senior officials who held ministerial posts during the 1990s. Among them is Alejandro Aguinaga Recuenco, who served as Health Minister under Alberto Fujimori’s administration and now holds a Senate seat for the Fuerza Popular party.

The resolution shielding Aguinaga does not conceal the gravity of what occurred. Prosecutors acknowledged that the mass surgical interventions were performed without the free, prior and informed consent of the women affected.

Former Ministers Eduardo Yong Motta and Marino Costa Bauer were also released from the process. According to the document, the operations constituted a widespread and organized practice directed by the State against poor women in rural areas.

The investigation officially covered 4,172 people harmed by serious injuries. Five women lost their lives. Celia Edith Ramos Durand, María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez, Alejandra Aguirre Auccapiña, Reynalda Betalleluz Aguilar and María Genoveva Espínola Otiniano are named in the case file.

Victims Denied Justice

Between 1996 and 2000, more than 272,000 women and 22,000 men were subjected to family planning programs. Pressure, deception and quotas reported by the State to the presidency marked those campaigns, and forced sterilization became official reproductive health policy.

The case ranks among the most emblematic human rights violations of Peru’s 1990s. Its closure shuts down a judicial avenue that had remained open since the first complaints against the state-run birth control program emerged.

In December 2025, the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declined to apply Law 32107 in parallel proceedings to guarantee that investigations could continue. That ruling prompted disciplinary inquiries by the National Board of Justice against the magistrates involved.

The legal wrangling is not over. Parallel investigations have stayed alive under the high court’s stance, but the main case over the program’s architects and executors has now been closed for good.

Nearly three decades after the first allegations, the criminal path has been extinguished. The closure leaves no one criminally accountable for the officials who designed and executed the forced sterilizations. The file now ends under a norm that Peru’s own judiciary had questioned, while the fight over its reach continues.

Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff will receive a monthly compensation of R$ 17,562.80—equivalent to approximately 3,200 US dollars—as financial reparation for the political persecution, illegal detentions, and physical and psychological torture she endured during Brazil’s military dictatorship, which lasted from 1964 to 1985.

RELATED:

Dilma Rousseff Calls for Keeping Memory on 1964 Military Coup

The measure was published this Tuesday, October 27, in the Official Gazette of the Federal Government (in Portuguese Diario Oficial da União) and follows a final ruling by the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1).

The resolution was issued by Brazil’s Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship. In addition to the permanent monthly payment, the ministry calculated retroactive payments totaling R$ 6,616,492.19 for the period recognized by the judiciary, with financial effects dating back to October 21, 1997. Any amounts previously received by Rousseff as reparation must be deducted from this total.

The monthly payment was calculated based on the salary scales for professionals at the former Foundation for Economics and Statistics of Rio Grande do Sul (FEE)—a state-linked institution where Rousseff worked as an economist prior to her arrest. The reparation acknowledges the loss of her employment with that foundation as a consequence of political persecution during the military regime.

This month marks 60 years since Brazil's military coup ushered in 21 years of US-backed, authoritarian dictatorship. This weekend people came out to protest the amnesty law which protects military torturers & murderers from prosecution. My story @telesurenglish #23MSemAnistia pic.twitter.com/cxISd0tpQi

— BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) March 24, 2024

The judicial decision, issued in December 2025, mandated that the former president receive a permanent, ongoing monthly allowance, based on the remuneration for the position she held before her arrest. This new resolution replaces a previous measure from August 2025, which had established a one-time compensation payment of R$ 100,000.

Dilma Rousseff was detained in 1970, at the age of 22, for her involvement in a resistance organization against the Brazilian military dictatorship. During her captivity, she was subjected to physical and psychological torture and spent nearly three years in prison. The judicial system acknowledged that she had been persecuted and prevented from working from the day of her arrest until October 21, 1997.

The former president was a member of the Armed Revolutionary Vanguard Palmares (Vanguardia Armada Revolucionaria Palmares), a group that opposed the military regime. Financial reparation is a measure provided for under Brazilian law for individuals recognized as victims of political persecution during that period.

Rousseff joined the Workers’ Party (PT) in 1999, and four years later, she was appointed as a minister by then-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. In January 2011, Lula handed the presidential sash to her following her electoral victory with 56.01% of the vote, making her the first female president in the history of Brazil.

🇧🇷 Lula wins a fourth presidential term in Brazil!

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has secured a fourth term with 51.77% of the valid vote, marking a decisive moment in Brazil’s political landscape.

What does Lula’s victory mean for Brazil’s future and the region? Share your thoughts… pic.twitter.com/eLDPfkeg12

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 26, 2026