Russian-Georgian sculptor Tsereteli, known for monumental projects, dies at 91
Rising to prominence in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s, Tsereteli became known for his monumental projects, and later for his closeness to parts of the Russian political elite.
In 2004, he told Reuters that Vladimir Putin's "healthy soul" had inspired him to do a bronze study of the Russian president.
A friendship with former Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov saw him commissioned to produce an enormous monument to Tsar Peter the Great that stands in central Moscow. He also took a key role in the reconstruction of the city's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, which had been destroyed under Stalin in 1931.
In a post on the Telegram messenger app, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Tsereteli "an artist of world renown, a public figure who knew no boundaries or obstacles in strengthening peace and supporting creativity".
Other Tsereteli works include monuments to the discovery of the Americas in Seville, Spain, and in Puerto Rico, and the enormous Chronicle of Georgia monument in his hometown of Tbilisi.
One of his sculptures, the ten-storey Tear of Grief, was presented to the U.S. by the Russian government as a memorial to the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It stands in New Jersey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
25 minutes ago
- The National
‘No breach' by UK Government of human rights on Russia probe
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger. The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith (below), after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts. In a judgment published yesterday, the court ruled that the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free elections. The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.' There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest. 'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said. 'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.' The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee. The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023. Following the judgment, Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate. And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested. 'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.' READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations. 'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.' A UK Government spokesman said: 'We note today's judgment, which found no violation. 'We are committed to safeguarding our electoral processes, which is why we recently announced tougher new rules on political donations to protect our elections from the growing danger of foreign interference. 'These changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing loopholes that would allow foreign donors to influence elections. 'More broadly, national security is our first responsibility, and we have taken action to harden and sharpen our approach to threats – whether standing with Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion, placing Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and working with allies to monitor and counter Russian submarines and ships in UK waters.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Zelensky's war on Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies is a disaster
Cries of 'Shame!' rang out in the Rada, Ukraine's parliament, today as lawmakers from Volodymyr Zelensky's Servant of the People Party, backed by most opposition parties, voted to bring key independent anti-corruption agencies under government control. The new law, which was backed by 263 lawmakers with just 26 opposing or abstaining, has sparked widespread condemnation from many politicians and civil society activists who had previously been loyal champions of Zelensky's. The dismemberment of the national anti-corruption bureau (NABU) and the special anti-corruption prosecutor's office (SAPO) has also caused deep disquiet among Ukraine's leading international backers. Zelensky's government seems to have seriously miscalculated the mood of ordinary Ukrainian people. 'Seriously concerned over today's vote in the Rada,' tweeted European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos. 'The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU's independence is a serious step back. Independent bodies like NABU and SAPO, are essential for Ukraine's EU path. Rule of law remains in the very centre of EU accession negotiations.' Toomas Hendrik Ilves, president of Estonia from 2006-12, described the move as 'a complete disaster' that will 'fuel all those in Europe who think helping Ukraine is pointless, not to mention the whole Russian narrative of Ukrainians just stealing the West's assistance for private enrichment, a narrative we have fought for years.' The Rada vote came days after Ukraine's security service carried out 70 simultaneous raids on senior investigators from the NABU and SAPO agencies, reportedly without court warrants. They also searched the home of Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the anti-corruption action centre (AntAC) independent NGO, as well as those of his family and friends. 'Taking advantage of the war, Volodymyr Zelensky is taking the first but confident steps towards corrupt authoritarianism,' Shabunin wrote on Telegram. Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of AntAC and once a leading defender of Zelensky's, called accusations of fraud and misuse of state resources 'absurd' and described the case as a 'vendetta for what…our organisation is doing and will keep doing about corruption and wrongdoing of authorities.' A government spokesperson explained the raids and arrests as a campaign to weed out Russian agents, who the government claims are using corruption charges to undermine Ukraine's war effort. Indeed, several senior Zelensky allies have fallen because of both civil society and NABU-driven anticorruption probes, though there is no evidence that these charges have any links to Moscow-funded troublemakers. Defence minister Reznikov resigned in 2023 after evidence of massive overcharging by army suppliers was published by the Nashi Groshy watchdog website; and last month, deputy prime minister Chernyshov has also faced corruption charges. NABU and SAPO were working on 268 cases of corruption against Zelensky allies when they were taken over, says Kyrylo Shevchenko, former head of Ukraine's Central Bank. 'The next to go will be anti-corruption activists and independent journalists,' says Shevchenko. 'Zelensky is copying Putin.' What concerns disillusioned former Zelensky allies and his opponents alike is that the takedown of NABU and SAPO are part of a long pattern of rollback of anti-corruption checks and balances by Zelensky's presidential administration. The agencies were established at the behest of the European Union, which required them to be independent from the government, with leadership chosen through transparent, fair competitions, not political appointments. But earlier this year, Ukraine's presidential administration blocked the appointment of a new independent head of the bureau of economic security or BEB – another powerful law enforcement agency – insisting on a regime loyalist instead. The law will make all the formerly independent economic crime institutions of Ukraine subordinate to the government-appointed prosecutor general Ruslan Kravchenko – who himself failed to qualify to be a regular prosecutor due to previous corruption allegations, but was promoted by Zelensky anyway. 'By liquidating NABU, Zelensky is liquidating the last investigative body that could investigate his corruption,' wrote Anatoly Shariy, one of Ukraine's most popular YouTubers and head of a pro-Russian Eurosceptic party. 'He will receive billions from the West. And steal, steal, steal.' Zelensky's government seems to have seriously miscalculated the mood of ordinary Ukrainian people. 'This isn't what our people have been fighting and dying for,' wrote Olga Rudenko, editor-in-chief of the Kyiv Independent. 'It's devastatingly unfair to them.' Wall Street Journal chief foreign correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov, himself a native of Kyiv, reports that 'it's no exaggeration that Ukrainian public opinion is in an absolute firestorm.' For the first time since the Russian invasion in February 2022, prominent public figures have called for demonstrations against the government. Perhaps more seriously, Zelensky seems to have badly misread the room in terms of the impact on his backers in the West. International anti-corruption bodies, Ukrainian civil society groups, the independent Ukrainian press and Western diplomats have all been warning Zelensky that passing this law could jeopardise Ukraine's EU accession process, cancel its visa-free regime, and even trigger EU sanctions against Ukraine. But he went ahead and did it anyway. In the wake of the Rada vote, Ukraine's anti-corruption action centre published a mock up of a Time Magazine cover featuring Zelensky – but with half his face covered by that of Viktor Yanukovych, his corrupt predecessor. Yanukovych's wholesale plundering of the state was one of the main triggers of the 2014 Maidan revolution. Just a year ago, any equivalence between Zelensky and Yanukovych would have seemed absurd. Today, many of those making exactly that grim comparison were once Zelensky's most passionate supporters.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Boredom is Rachel Reeves's secret weapon
When French General Bosquet watched the 600 men of the Light Brigade charge helplessly into the Russian heavy artillery at Balaclava he muttered 'c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre'. Well, history repeats first as tragedy then as farce. And so today, those words came to mind as I watched Rachel Reeves prepare to charge into the grapeshot offered by the House of Lord's economic affairs committee. Only without the 'c'est magnifique' bit. Perhaps Reeves' plan is to bore the markets into submission: after all, the stock exchange can't crash if everyone's asleep Behind the Chancellor sat a boy in a lanyard bearing the legend 'work experience'. One got the sense that it almost would have been kinder to let him have a crack. Reeves began by answering a simple question about the nature of her growth plan by committing a variety of crimes against the good use of the English language. It was all 'sorta', 'kinda', 'um' and 'er'. There were endless managerial platitudes; she spoke of 'embedding stability,' and hailed the 'three pillars of our growth strategy'. It was as if, rather than marshalling the Bedouin, Lawrence of Arabia had instead done a lengthy stint at Deloitte. 'Different eras require different growth strategies,' she sagely informed their lordships when quizzed about her infamous fiscal rules. 'We've sort of got these three pillars that we think about', which was reassuring. Imagine a builder saying, 'You've sort of got these walls keeping your roof on'. As Reeves prevaricated and blustered away for the next couple of hours, relying on being as boring as possible in her answers which were simultaneously exceptionally long while relaying almost no useful information. Perhaps her plan is to bore the markets into submission: after all, the stock exchange can't crash if everyone's asleep. One thing that did draw attention was the higher quality of questions compared to any Commons Committee. Lord Agnew asked about stablecoin and tokenised deposits. Lord Petitgas brought in the nuances between the Bank of England's and the Office for Budget Responsibility's GDP predictions. The 9th Baron Londesborough asked an apposite question about the productivity lag. Lord Londesborough, an entrepreneur and foreign affairs expert, is soon to be booted out of the upper chamber by the government's spiteful and philistinic ejection of the hereditary peers. Apparently he is less legitimate than the cadre of lobby chimps who normally sit behind Reeves in the lower house. On the subject of which, back in the bug tank, Local Government Minister Jim McMahon was standing in for Big Ange on the question of Birmingham's bins. McMahon has the delivery and rhetorical skill of a primary school child reading a book with chapters for the first time. Plodding away through his notes, he kept on asking if questioners would 'let him be clear' before providing absolutely no clarity whatsoever. 'C'était moronique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre,' as General Bosquet might have said. Sometimes doing this job makes you question whether representative democracy was such a good idea after all.
