Ukraine country profile
While Ukraine and Russia share common historical origins, the west of the country has closer ties with its European neighbours, particularly Poland, and nationalist sentiment has been strongest there.
Ukraine gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and then veered between seeking closer integration with Western Europe and being drawn into the orbit of Russia, which sees its interests as threatened by a Western-leaning Ukraine.
An uprising against pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 ushered in a series of Western-leaning governments.
That same year, Russia seized the Crimean peninsula and armed insurgent groups to occupy parts of the east. The Russian army eventually launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Some estimates suggest that up to a million Russian and Ukrainians have been killed or injured in the first two and half years of fighting.
Read more country profiles - Profiles by BBC Monitoring
Capital: Kyiv
Area: 603,550 sq km
Population: 33.4 million
Language: Ukrainian
Life expectancy: 68 years (men) 77 years (women)
President: Volodymyr Zelensky
Mr Zelensky's initial claim to fame was playing a fictional president in a television comedy programme, and his victorious election campaign echoed his character's anti-establishment stance.
His Servant of the People party went on to win early parliamentary elections in July 2019, giving him control of both the executive and the legislature.
President Zelensky went on to rally Ukraine's resistance to the Russian invasion in 2022. He declared martial law and a general mobilisation of the armed forces.
His leadership during the war has won him widespread international praise, and he has been widely seen as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance.
National media have adopted a united patriotic agenda following the Russian annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the east.
Ukraine has banned relays of leading Russian TVs; in turn, areas under Russian or separatist control have seen pro-Kyiv outlets silenced.
The authorities also block access to some popular Russian websites and social networks.
Ukrainians have changed their media consumption since the start of the full-scale war, with social media replacing TV as a top news source for Ukrainians, new TV channels continuing to launch despite the conflict, and the complete loss of popularity of Russian outlets.
Read full media profile
Some key dates in Ukraine's history:
1918 - Ukraine declares independence after Russian Revolution.
1921 - Soviet rule established as Russian Red Army conquers two-thirds of Ukraine.
1932 - At least seven million peasants perish in man-made famine during Stalin's collectivisation campaign.
1941-44 - Ukraine suffers terrible wartime devastation during Nazis occupation.
1945 - Allied victory in Second World War leads to conclusive Soviet annexation of west Ukrainian lands.
1986 - A reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power station explodes, sending a radioactive plume across Europe.
1991 - As the Soviet Union heads towards dissolution, Ukraine declares independence.
2004 - Orange Revolution mass protests force pro-European change of government.
2014 - Maidan Revolution ousts pro-Kremlin government over stalled European Union association deal. Russia then seizes Crimean peninsula and launches insurgency to occupy parts of eastern Ukraine.
2022 - Russia launches a full-scale invasion in February, initially taking large areas of the eastern but fails in a bid to take Kyiv. Ukraine counter attacks, recapturing Kherson in November and pushing Russian forces back across the Dnipro river.
2023 - Fighting largely reaches a stalemate. The Kakhovka dam on the Dnipro river in southern Ukraine is destroyed, leading to widespread flooding and disruption. The dam was under Russian control at the time.
2024 - Fighting in much of eastern Ukraine becomes a war of attrition. Ukraine launches a counter-offensive into Russia's Kursk region. North Korean troops are sent to fight on Russia's side.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Hamas says it will allow aid for hostages if Israel halts airstrikes, opens humanitarian corridors
CAIRO, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Hamas said on Sunday it was prepared to coordinate with the Red Cross to deliver aid to hostages it holds in Gaza, if Israel meets certain conditions, after a video it released showing an emaciated captive drew sharp criticism from Western powers. Hamas said any coordination with the Red Cross is contingent upon Israel permanently opening humanitarian corridors and halting airstrikes during the distribution of aid. According to Israeli officials, 50 hostages now remain in Gaza, only 20 of whom are believed to be alive. Hamas, thus far, has barred humanitarian organizations from having any kind of access to the hostages and families have little or no details of their conditions. On Saturday, Hamas released its second video in two days of Israeli hostage Evyatar David. In it, David, skeletally thin, is shown digging a hole that, he says in the video, is for his own grave. The arm of the individual holding the camera, which can be seen in the frame, is a regular width. More: US envoy tells Israeli hostage families he's working on plan to end Gaza War The video of David drew criticism from Western powers and horrified Israelis. France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. were among countries to express outrage and Israel's foreign ministry announced that the UN Security Council will hold a special session on Tuesday morning on the issue of the situation of the hostages in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday he had asked the Red Cross to give humanitarian assistance to the hostages during a conversation with the head of the Swiss-based ICRC's local delegation. A statement from The Hostages Families Forum, which represents relatives of those being held in Gaza, said Hamas' comments about the hostages cannot hide that it "has been holding innocent people in impossible conditions for over 660 days," and demanded their immediate release. "Until their release," said the statement, "Hamas has the obligation to provide them with everything they need. Hamas kidnapped them and they must care for them. Every hostage who dies will be on Hamas's hands." Six more people died of starvation or malnutrition in Gaza over the past 24 hours, its health ministry said on Sunday as Israel said it allowed a delivery of fuel to the enclave, in the throes of a humanitarian disaster after almost two years of war. The new deaths raised the toll of those dying from what international humanitarian agencies say may be an unfolding famine to 175, including 93 children, since the war began, the ministry said. Egypt's state-affiliated Al Qahera News TV said two trucks carrying 107 tons of diesel were set to enter Gaza, months after Israel severely restricted aid access to the enclave before easing it somewhat as starvation began to spread. More: Arab League backs call for Hamas to disarm for a two-state solution COGAT, the Israeli military agency that coordinates aid, said later in the day that four tankers of U.N. fuel had entered to help in operations of hospitals, bakeries, public kitchens and other essential services. There was no immediate confirmation whether the two diesel fuel trucks had entered Gaza from Egypt. Gaza's health ministry has said fuel shortages have severely impaired hospital services, forcing doctors to focus on treating only critically ill or injured patients. Fuel shipments have been rare since March, when Israel restricted the flow of aid into the enclave in what it said was pressure on Hamas militants to free the remaining hostages they took in their October 2023 attack on Israel. Israel blames Hamas for the suffering in Gaza but, in response to a rising international uproar, it announced steps last week to let more aid reach the population, including pausing fighting for part of the day in some areas, approving air drops and announcing protected routes for aid convoys. U.N. agencies say airdrops are insufficient and that Israel must let in far more aid by land and open up access to the territory to prevent starvation among its 2.2 million people, most of whom are displaced amidst vast swathes of rubble. COGAT said that during the past week over 23,000 tons of humanitarian aid in 1,200 trucks had entered Gaza but that hundreds of the trucks had yet to be driven to aid distribution hubs by U.N. and other international organisations. Meanwhile, Belgium's air force dropped the first in a series of its aid packages into Gaza on Sunday in a joint operation with Jordan, the Belgian defence ministry said. France on Friday started to air-drop 40 tons of humanitarian aid. LOOTED AID TRUCKS The Hamas-run Gaza government media office said on Sunday that nearly 1,600 aid trucks had arrived since Israel eased restrictions late in July. However, witnesses and Hamas sources said many of those trucks have been looted by desperate displaced people and armed gangs. More than 700 trucks of fuel entered the Gaza Strip in January and February during a ceasefire before Israel broke it in March in a dispute over terms for extending it and resumed its major offensive. Palestinian local health authorities said at least 80 people had been killed by Israeli gunfire and airstrikes across the coastal enclave on Sunday. Deaths included persons trying to make their way to aid distribution points in southern and central areas of Gaza, Palestinian medics said. Among those killed was a staff member of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, which said an Israeli strike at its headquarters in Khan Younis in southern Gaza ignited a fire on the first floor of the building. The Gaza war began when Hamas killed more than 1,200 people and took 251 hostage in a cross-border attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to Israeli figures. Israel's air and ground war in densely populated Gaza has since killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to enclave health officials. (Reporting by Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Jaida Taha; additional reporting by Menna Alaa El-Din and Maayan Lubell; editing by Mark Heinrich and Diane Craft)
Axios
41 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students
Republican-leaning states, once at the forefront of laws helping undocumented students pay in-state college tuition, are trying to roll back that access thanks to pressure from President Trump. Why it matters: Around 8% of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants are under 18, and the ending of in-state tuition would make college unaffordable if those laws are reversed. Without in-state tuition, undocumented immigrants who have gone through the state's public school system would still have to pay out-of-state or international rates to attend public colleges and universities. Catch up quick: The repeal efforts follow a Trump administration federal lawsuit filed in June to block the enforcement of Texas laws that grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. The complaint states that federal policy bars undocumented immigrants from receiving "tuition benefits denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens," citing Trump's executive orders that instructed agencies to block such practices. The Department of Justice and Texas then reached an agreement to end the two-decades-old law. The DOJ followed with similar lawsuits in Minnesota and Kentucky. Zoom out: According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 24 states and the District of Columbia offer in-state tuition to undocumented students — though Florida repealed its policy earlier this year. Republicans in many of those states are pushing for their legislatures to repeal their laws. State of play: The Trump administration's move against in-state tuition for undocumented students is one of many to make life difficult for immigrants amid a mass deportation plan. The IRS has agreed to share the personal information of undocumented taxpayers with immigration authorities, for example. What they're saying: "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. The Trump administration says federal law prohibits public institutions of higher education from providing benefits to undocumented immigrants that are not offered to U.S. citizens. Yes, but: Many of the laws are designed to aid undocumented students who've attended high school for several years to qualify for in-state tuition, just like other state residents. Any student who has not lived in the state for a specified number of years prior must pay out-of-state tuition, regardless of their status. However, some states participate in a consortium that allows in-state tuition to be applied across state lines at certain universities for all state residents who meet the qualifications. The other side: " Ending in-state tuition is a deliberate and wicked effort to keep predominantly Black and brown immigrant students in a permanent caste in society where they are underpaid and exploited," Juan Martinez-Guevara of the advocacy group United We Dream told reporters last week. Advocates argue that states will lose revenue and talent by forcing college-potential students into menial jobs. The rollbacks are "putting in jeopardy the dreams and aspirations of our students," said Gladys Fatima Marquez, an executive committee member at the National Education Association. Between the lines: The push to repeal is a shift from Republicans of the President George W. Bush era, who championed in-state tuition for undocumented students and pathways for citizenship through military service. Bush and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had long preached that such policy goals were economically beneficial to the country. Texas was the first state to pass a "tuition equity" law, or local Dream Act, when lawmakers approved legislation in 2001. Following Texas, other states like New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska began allowing immigrants access to in-state tuition. The intrigue: Some left-leaning states, such as California and Massachusetts, were slower to pass similar measures. What we're watching: Democratic attorneys general could put up a fight against the Trump administration's rollback.
