logo
Returning Ukraine's dead

Returning Ukraine's dead

In the back room of a morgue on the outskirts of Kyiv, the stench of rotten flesh hangs heavy in the air, its source a large white bag lying on a metal table. The mortician opens it, and inside is a smaller black bag containing a pair of mud-covered military boots, a mummified body, and a skull. This is all that is left of a Ukrainian soldier returned from captivity in Russia. Now begins the grueling work of finding out who he was.
Since Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine began three and a half years ago, at least 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have been reported missing. Soldiers often vanish after coming face-to-face with Russians in combat. Some are taken alive as prisoners of war; others who die on the battlefield are captured as collateral for future body repatriation exchanges between Kyiv and Moscow — a corpse for a corpse. For the missing's wives, parents, siblings, and children back home, there is most often no way of knowing where they are, what condition they are being kept in, and whether they are alive.
At the center of the search for missing soldiers are some 1,300 investigators within the war crimes unit of Ukraine's National Police. Each investigator, some in their early 20s and fresh out of the police academy, manages hundreds of cases at a time, working early mornings, late nights, and weekends to locate, return, and identify the missing. They interview witnesses, scour social media and cellphone records, collect DNA samples, and coordinate with the Ukrainian government. Perhaps more than anything, they serve as a crucial lifeline to the families living through a nauseating uncertainty that can extend for months or even years. This summer, the National Police gave Business Insider exclusive access to interview and witness the investigators at work at three locations in the Kyiv region — the first time a publication has been allowed to report on their work in detail. (This story contains graphic descriptions and photos.)
At the Brovary police station east of Kyiv, Maksym Kot's phone rings, one of 50 calls he will get throughout the day, the majority from the families of some of the 400 missing soldier cases he is working on. Baby-faced and soft-spoken, Kot is 23 and graduated from Ukraine's police academy two years ago. He is the sole investigator of soldier disappearances in Brovary, a city of more than 100,000.
As we sit in his small, cluttered office, Kot explains how each case begins: A family member files a missing persons report with the police, which includes the name and circumstances of a soldier's disappearance, if there are any known witnesses, or any suspected perpetrators — in this case, Russian service members. Then Kot starts calling the vanished's fellow soldiers, other relatives, and friends into the station for questioning.
Soldiers serving alongside the missing service member provide a timeline leading up to their last known moments. They can tell Kot where a troop was fighting, what their last orders were, and the exact last location of the missing soldier.
The families, whom Kot refers to as "the victims," share intimate details of the missing soldiers' lives. They provide pictures and descriptions of the soldiers' faces, tattoos, birth marks, and other identifying features, the last text messages soldiers wrote to them, and DNA samples — to test for matches with bodies returned from Russia in prisoner exchanges.
When Kot talks to the families, they often "can't stop crying, and it's hard to engage them in conversation," he says. "I always tell them that hope dies last." The emotional toll they face is deep and excruciating. Russian soldiers have also been known to torture Ukrainian POWs, starving them, and at times sexually assaulting them. (The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has gathered claims from Russian prisoners of war of being tortured, severely beaten, and subjected to sexual violence.) Mental images of what could be happening to their loved ones in captivity often sends family members into hysterics.
At Kot's office, a 21-year-old woman named Nadiia arrives for a scheduled visit. Her father, Pavlo, 46, went missing off the front lines in the eastern Bakhmut region on October 1, 2022. She has come to provide her first DNA sample; an uncle had previously provided one. (The families who work with Kot whom I spoke with asked that their last name be withheld for security reasons; if their soldier is alive and in captivity, they fear speaking out could worsen the soldier's treatment.)
"The last time I spoke to him was during the day," Nadiia tells me of her father. "He didn't say anything special, he just said he would call me again in the evening, but he never did." One week later, her family received a call from a military office informing them that Pavlo had gone missing. Several weeks after that, a soldier serving alongside Pavlo told his brother that their unit had been sent to positions in two groups of four — one group returned and the other did not. Nearly three years later, his case remains open, and his whereabouts and whether he's alive remain unknown.
After a few minutes, a forensic specialist walked into Kot's room with a large black suitcase containing personal protective equipment and a buccal swab kit to take a DNA sample from inside Nadiia's cheek. While the swab takes a few seconds, it can take months to a year to create a DNA profile. Nadiia tells me she is hopeful that her sample will not match with the remains of any of the soldiers recently returned from captivity to Kyiv — which would mean her father could still be alive.
After Nadiia leaves, Kot reaches over to the left side of his desk and grabs a large stack of paper held together by a binder clip — this is the paperwork of a single case.
Once he collects witness statements and DNA samples, Kot goes through various bureaucratic channels of Ukraine's government to receive permission to create the official case of a missing soldier. With that, he can gain access to cellphone records — which can show who the soldier last spoke with and where — as well as letters from the military confirming the soldier is missing.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is another resource investigators rely on. As a neutral body, the ICRC has designated teams in both Moscow and Kyiv that maintain lists of current POWs from both sides of the war. "There are delays. It's not a perfect system. But by and large, this system functions," says Pat Griffiths, a spokesperson for the ICRC Ukraine. It can be months before a POW is entered into the system, and if they have not been accounted for after a prolonged period, the likelihood that the person has been killed increases significantly, Griffiths says. As of June, the ICRC has received requests to account for 134,000 missing people from both Russia and Ukraine since the start of the war. Of those, 14,200 have been told the fate of their loved ones.
Families come to Kot regularly with any fragments of information from their own research. He trawls Telegram and other Russian social media and messaging channels for information about a soldier's whereabouts. In one instance, he found video and photos of one of the missing soldiers who was in Russian captivity. "I quickly informed his mother about this. She was very happy," Kot recalls.
Beyond collecting evidence, all Kot can do as the investigator is wait and comfort the families through their maddening purgatory.
"I never show them that I have reached a dead end," says Kot. "I have not shown and will not show weakness." When he started his job, Kot took every new case "to heart," he says — each family's anguish tormented him. After thousands of meetings with missing soldiers' wives, siblings, parents, and children, he's managed to "stay psychologically resilient," he says, though he still feels each case deeply.
One case that Kot worked on was a 38-year-old soldier named Oleksandr, who went missing from the eastern Pokrovsk region, one of the war's hotspots, on November 22, 2024. Eleven days before his disappearance, Oleksandr married his wife, Nataliia, 37. A few hours into my visit to Kot's office, Nataliia arrives to meet with him.
"No one knew I was getting married because I wasn't sure if his brigade would allow him to attend the ceremony," she tells me with a smile. "After we got married, my mother asked me, 'Why him?' I said, 'Because he can listen to me and understand me." She talks about the hobbies she took on to pass the time: web design, adopting a poodle, learning Turkish for no particular reason. She is 99 percent certain her "soulmate" is alive, she says with conviction.
Nataliia has come to show a Facebook post about some soldiers who went missing with her husband and recently returned from captivity — could Kot locate and interview them? Kot nods as he types notes into Oleksandr's case file on his desktop computer.
Eight days after my visit, Nataliia sends me a text message. She had just heard from Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which interviews POWs upon their return, that two witnesses saw Oleksandr die. She did not specify whether it was on the battlefield or in captivity. "It feels like I'm falling into an abyss," she says on the phone. Months of certainty that her husband was alive were stripped away in a moment.
Kot says that he and other investigators are identifying witnesses and will conduct interviews to confirm that Oleksandr is dead. After that comes the interminable process of returning and identifying his body.
Since 2022, Ukraine has secured the release of 5,700 prisoners of war and civilians from Russia. The Ukrainian police believe there are many thousands more still in Russian captivity, as well as tens of thousands of bodies of Ukrainian soldiers. Most of them have been killed on the front lines; at least 206 have died in captivity, according to the Ukrainian government. Ukraine receives the bodies of around 100 deceased soldiers every two to six weeks, investigators told BI. They are unloaded from vans by Russian government workers in an undisclosed location and collected by their Ukrainian counterparts, who in turn return the bodies of Russian soldiers.
In June, Ukraine received a sudden influx of 6,057 bodies (while Russia received 78, according to Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky) as part of a round of failed ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow in Istanbul. The mass of corpses strained an already delicate system, with hundreds of bodies being brought to morgues throughout the country simultaneously. "As the nature of this conflict changed and rapidly escalated, suddenly you're dealing with a lot more human remains. The forensic infrastructure here risks being overwhelmed," says Griffiths. More than 90 percent of bodies return unlabeled and unidentified, and connecting each to a missing persons report is a lengthy, painstaking endeavor.
On June 26, I visit a morgue on the edge of Kyiv that just received the bodies of 50 servicemen, and meet with Victoriia Konopatska, a 24-year-old senior police investigator. Where Kot focuses primarily on locating missing soldiers who are thought to be alive, Konopatska focuses on identifying the dead upon their return. When the full-scale war began in February 2022, she was in her final year at Ukraine's police academy. She had four months of training left when, in March, she and her classmates graduated early to join the police force.
The smell of decaying corpses in the morgue seeps into the skin, makes your eyes water, and lingers long after you leave the building. Konopatska has been exposed to this smell nearly every day on the job for three and a half years, and has not grown used to it.
In the front room of the morgue, three dead civilians who just died at a local hospital — an elderly man and woman, and a man in his 40s — lie on separate tables. The mortician, a middle-aged woman, carefully dresses them in their funeral clothes: the men in black suits, the woman in a deep blue dress and a headscarf that the mortician delicately wraps around her head and tied just below her chin.
The bodies of the civilians were intact and their eyes and mouths peacefully closed — a stark contrast from the room Konopatska leads me to a few steps away. She is wearing a large white PPE suit, a blue hair net, and a face mask. Underneath all of the dressing, her eyebrows are perfectly shaped, her long lashes painted with mascara, and she has a fresh French manicure. As she stands holding an iPad, Simon Nikolaichuk, a forensic scientist, and his assistant assess the body of an unidentified soldier lying on the metal table. Though the soldier was dressed in the military uniform he had been killed in, the body was partly skeletal and mummified. It has "significant putrefactive changes and is generally reduced to bones and grease," Konopatska says flatly. Identifying it will be challenging.
As Nikolaichuk conducts the autopsy over the next hour, characteristics of the soldier begin to emerge. A rosary is pulled from his jacket, followed by a destroyed cellphone charger, and a pair of reading glasses, which suggests he may have been older. (The average Ukrainian soldier fighting today is 40.) These mementos will be given to the family of the soldier if he is identified and they are notified.
Konopatska types on her iPad each assessment called out to her. "Head injury. Gunshot wound to the head. Damage to the skull bones," says Nikolaichuk. "Broken shoulder blade. Fracture of the right and left shoulder blades. Fracture of the upper third of both humerus bones." He examines the soldier's scalp. "There are remnants of hair up to 0.7 inches long."
Konopatska estimates that she has assessed well over a thousand bodies throughout the war, both civilian and military. She spends the majority of her workdays collecting DNA samples from the bodies of the soldiers returned to Kyiv, up to five per day. "We finish working with some bodies, and others are immediately brought in," she says.
Their assessment of the soldier's body complete, Nikolaichuk and his assistant return the remains to a white bag and carry it to a nearby cargo-sized refrigerator that is filled with dozens of other bodies stacked neatly on shelves. Nikolaichuk walks back to the morgue and quickly looks through the corpses in the three other bags — one dead a few months and partially intact, the man's white beard flowing from his chin; one putrefied; and the other torn to shreds, the skull split in two, likely from an explosion.
Bones and mummified corpses are all that remain of 80 percent of the soldiers' bodies that Russia returns to Ukraine, according to Ihor Kalantai, head of the police unit investigating war crimes. Some return decapitated, have their hands tied, or have stab wounds — all "signs of extrajudicial executions," says Kalantai. Undetonated explosive devices have been found tucked inside the clothes of bodies of Ukrainian soldiers, Kalantai says. A de-miner is now present during every repatriation. Some soldiers, Kalantai says, return as nothing more than a leg, arm, or a mere finger.
Other bodies have been dissected and have pieces of medical waste sewn into them. Bodies have also returned with missing organs. Last spring, when the body of Victoria Roshchyna, a prominent Ukrainian journalist who died in Russian custody at age 27, was returned to Ukraine, her eyes, brain, and parts of her windpipe were reportedly missing.
" It's hard to single out which bodies are difficult to look at," says Konopatska, "because every body is difficult to look at because you understand that someone was waiting for this person at home."
There is a common folklore belief in Ukraine that when a loved one dies, they will visit the dreams of their family members to say goodbye. When families have lost all contact with their relatives on the battlefield, many hold onto that legend, believing that if they have not dreamed of their son, their husband, or their father, then he must still be alive somewhere.
Once Konopatska has taken the DNA samples of the bodies, she brings them to Olha Sydorenko, 33, an investigator at the station's Department of Particularly Serious Crimes. She sends the samples to forensic scientists to create a DNA profile and begins the process of matching the remains to possible relatives.
When there is a match, Sydorenko is tasked with informing families. She has had this conversation with more than 2,000 families. It always begins with a phone call where she introduces herself and asks them to come to her office in Kyiv to discuss their case, a courtesy to deliver life-altering news in-person. Often, though, they're already expecting the worst, and she breaks the news on the call.
"No one wants to believe that their loved one has died," Sydorenko says in her office. Some families require many repeated explanations to fully comprehend that their son or husband has returned home in a body bag. Then she details the condition the body has returned in, so the family can decide whether to view the bodies and begin to make funeral arrangements. Many often choose cremation.
One of Sydorenko's first and most haunting cases, she tells me, was of Vladyslav Lytvynenko, a 27-year-old who went missing on April 7, 2022. Vira Lytvynenko, Vladyslav's mother, received a call from the patronage service of the 12th Special Forces Brigade of the National Guard — a unit known in Ukraine as Azov — informing her that he was killed fighting in Mariupol.
"I felt hysterical, like any mother would," Vira tells me. "We had been waiting for a message from him while he was already gone," she says as her voice breaks. She was then told that the fighting in Mariupol — the site of the heaviest shelling in the war's early months — was too fierce to collect the dead. Azov was forced to surrender in Mariupol to encircling Russian soldiers in May 2022, and more than 2,500 soldiers of the brigade were believed to have been taken as prisoners of war. Russian forces also took the bodies of hundreds of soldiers, including Vladyslav.
Sydorenko first connected with Lytvynenko that summer, and they worked together for months to find a way to bring her son's body home. For hours at a time, the pair looked through the National Police's online catalogs of corpses, which are filled with pictures of remains in morgues throughout Ukraine. Lytvyenko and her husband provided two rounds of DNA samples and pictures of their son's tattoos, one of which is a Viking warrior standing tall in front of skyscrapers, an orange sunset visible in the distance. In mid-October 2022, Sydorenko called Lytvynenko to inform her that they'd found a match: Vladyslav's body was at a morgue in Kyiv.
It was a cold spring when Valdyslav died, Lytvynenko says, and she hoped Russian soldiers would "at least return his body in a proper condition so that I could see him one last time." But the decaying body that Russia had returned bore no resemblance to her son, Sydorenko told her. "Nothing was sacred to them," she says of Russian soldiers who kept Valdyslav's body for months. Lytvynenko chose not to see his remains, in part because Sydorenko advised her against it, and in part because she did not believe her son would want her to see him as the "pieces of rotten flesh" he returned as.
"It's horrible to see any animal or person dead," she says. "And if you see it and they tell you it's your son, I guess humanity hasn't come up with a word to describe that feeling yet."
Anna Conkling is a journalist currently based in Kyiv. Her writing has been featured in Rolling Stone, Elle, The Daily Beast, and elsewhere.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gabbard declassifies new docs in latest push to cast doubt on Russia assessment
Gabbard declassifies new docs in latest push to cast doubt on Russia assessment

Politico

time22 minutes ago

  • Politico

Gabbard declassifies new docs in latest push to cast doubt on Russia assessment

It also took no issue with the determination that Putin sought to undermine both American democracy generally and Clinton, who the Russian leader assumed would be the country's next president. 'Most ICA judgments on Russian activities in the U.S. election employed proper tradecraft and were consistent with observed Russian behavior,' the review stated. It found fault mainly with how the intelligence community arrived at its third high-confidence assessment about that year's election: that Putin and others in the Russian government wanted to see Trump in the White House. Obama-era intelligence officials based their conclusion largely on a 'scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment' from a single spy source, the report said. It also argued that the agency did not adhere to spy community standards in sufficiently considering alternative explanations for Putin's actions or informing policymakers of intelligence that called his alleged preference for Trump into question. For example, the report said Russian intelligence services had explosive information on Clinton that they never leaked to the press. That included information allegedly indicating Clinton had significant health issues, the report said. The report heaps significant criticism on then-CIA Director John Brennan. It finds Brennan pushed for inclusion of the assessment on Putin's preference for Trump in the aftermath of the 2016 vote and against the recommendation of some analysts beneath him. Brennan could not be reached for comment. But a spokesperson for Obama offered a rare public rebuke of the allegations after Trump accused the former president and other former senior officials of treason on Tuesday night. The House panel's report in some places echoed the CIA's recent review. Both raise questions about how few intelligence officials were involved in conducting the assessment, and whether Obama administration officials were transparent about the extent to which they relied on the now-debunked Steele dossier, for example. In their statements Wednesday, Warner and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) both pointed out that a multivolume review produced by the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find the same issues as the 44-page House review.

Targeting Obama, Trump's retribution campaign takes another turn
Targeting Obama, Trump's retribution campaign takes another turn

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Targeting Obama, Trump's retribution campaign takes another turn

Displaying a willingness to weaponize the federal government in ways that were as novel as they were audacious, he took on a wide variety of individuals and institutions — from law firms and universities to journalists and federal bureaucrats — that he felt had crossed him, failed to fall in line or embodied ideological values that he rejected. Advertisement But on Tuesday, Trump reverted to earlier form, resurfacing — in a remarkably unfiltered and aggressive rant — his grievances against Obama, prominent figures in past administrations and others he associated with what he considers a long campaign of persecution dating back to the 2016 election. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Seeking to change the topic at a time when he is under bipartisan political pressure over his unwillingness to do more to release investigative files into Jeffrey Epstein, he said the time had come for his opponents to face criminal charges. President Trump on DNI report on 2016 Russian interference claims: "The leader of the gang was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, have you heard of him?...He's guilty. It's not a question. You know, I like to say let's give it time. It's there. He's guilty. This was treason." — CSPAN (@cspan) 'I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did, but it's time to start after what they did to me,' Trump said of Hillary Clinton, adding: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Advertisement 'He's guilty,' he added. 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' But if his enemies list was familiar, his capacity to pursue retribution appears to be expanding. Repeatedly in his first term, Trump accused his perceived enemies of treason and tried to push the FBI and Justice Department to indict them. He told his chief of staff that he wanted to 'get the IRS' on those who crossed him. Many of them were investigated, and two of them were the subjects of highly unusual and invasive audits, but none of them were ever charged. The difference now is that Trump, much more so than during his first term, is surrounded by aides and Cabinet members who often appear willing to follow through on his angriest and most authoritarian impulses. The Justice Department, whose top ranks are populated by loyalists, including two of his own lawyers, has shown a willingness to carry out Trump's personal agenda. The department has dismissed prosecutors involved not just in the criminal cases brought against him two years ago by a special counsel but also those who pursued Jan. 6 rioters. The department also dropped a prosecution against New York City's mayor after he agreed to help Trump on immigration issues. And the administration also targeted first-term officials who became public critics of Trump, like Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. But now the efforts to target top officials from previous administrations appears to be gaining momentum. The intelligence community under Trump is engaged in a campaign seeking to show that Obama and his aides wrongly sought to tie Trump to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor -- and that some of Obama's officials and perhaps Obama himself should be held criminally liable. Advertisement John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, conducted a review that was deeply critical of the Obama administration and former CIA director John Brennan. Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the review had shown that the process was corrupt and then he made a criminal referral to the FBI. Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, issued another report last week including documents that she asserted showed that there was a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016 by the Obama administration to harm Trump. On Wednesday, Gabbard released more material: a 2017 House Intelligence Committee report that took issue with elements of the Obama administration's assessment. Those House findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports that later affirmed the work of the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. The Trump administration reports have so far provided little or no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama or his aides, but Sunday, Trump posted a fake video of Obama being apprehended by FBI agents in the Oval Office. It is not yet clear whether even a compliant Justice Department will be willing to open criminal investigations into Obama or other prominent Democrats and Trump critics, or be able to find grounds to do so. Even if prosecutors lodged charges, prosecutions could be difficult. Obama, like Trump, presumably enjoys immunity from prosecution for any official acts while in office, based on the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity ruling last year. But Trump often seems intent on using the federal government to subject his foes to the same kinds of scrutiny he has undergone. Advertisement Infuriated by what he has sought to characterize as 'witch hunt' investigations and legal proceedings against him that started with the investigation into the 2016 election and morphed into the obstruction-of-justice investigation into him, he has levied crippling executive orders against law firms that had even fleeting connections to those episodes. That process has pressured many of the firms into committing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work to causes he favors. Casting universities as breeding grounds for antisemitism and a brand of woke liberalism that he feels has opposed and denigrated him at every turn, his administration made an example of Harvard, using a whole-of-government approach to demand major changes. He pelted Harvard with major cuts to its research funding, tried to take visas away from its international students and launched a series of invasive and onerous investigations into the school. Harvard is now negotiating a settlement with the White House, but the administration kept up the pressure by informing the school of a new investigation Wednesday. He took an ax to what he saw as pockets of 'deep state' resistance inside his own government. He has sought to cow news organizations, barring The Associated Press from the White House press pool, extracting big financial settlements from the owners of ABC and CBS in disputes over their coverage, and filing suit against The Wall Street Journal for its reporting on his ties to Epstein. But, as his own supporters acknowledge, none of that is as important as putting one of his perceived enemies behind bars. 'If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People,' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted Sunday. 'If not. The base will turn and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .

Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida
Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not only flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against President Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released a document on Wednesday that she said undermined the conclusion of intelligence agencies during the Obama administration that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. The document was a report that the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, when Republicans led the panel. The report took issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Mr. Trump. The new material provides some interesting insights into the development of the review of Russian activity by American spy agencies, and the debate over their assessment. But none of the new information changes the fundamental view that Russia meddled in the election and that Mr. Putin hoped to damage Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. On Sunday, Ms. Gabbard promised to refer the details of her findings to the Justice Department. And on Wednesday, she said in a social media post that Mr. Trump had ordered the declassification of the report and that the information showed the 'most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' The Obama administration, Ms. Gabbard wrote, was 'promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' Ms. Gabbard has won praise from Mr. Trump for her investigation into the intelligence findings and spoke at length about how the 2016 assessment was part of a witch hunt against him. The president has been under sharp criticism for his handling of documents related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, and his attacks on the Obama administration appear to be part of a distract-and-deflect strategy. Ms. Gabbard reiterated her assertion that the intelligence assessment was intended to undermine Mr. Trump's presidency. 'In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she wrote, 'working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.' The report was released with relatively few redactions, prompting criticism from Democrats. 'Given the rushed and unusual 'declassification' process the D.N.I. has implemented, I fear that the public release of this report could compromise sensitive sources and methods and endanger our national security,' said Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, referring to the director of national intelligence. Officials familiar with the matter said that another, more heavily redacted version took care to hide more information about U.S. sources and had been considered for release. Ms. Gabbard said on social media that Mr. Trump had declassified the report. Kash Patel, now Mr. Trump's F.B.I. director, was a key author of the report released on Wednesday, according to officials. Only Republicans on the committee participated in the drafting of the 2017 report and revisions in 2020. The House report found that most of the judgments made by the intelligence community in 2016 were sound. But it argued that the work was rushed, as a recent tradecraft analysis by the C.I.A. also found. The assessment that Mr. Putin had favored Mr. Trump did not follow the 'professional criteria' of the other findings, the House report said. The findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports from a committee that included Marco Rubio, then a Republican senator from Florida and now Mr. Trump's secretary of state. The Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the work of the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies on the 2016 assessment. The judgment about Mr. Putin's preference, the House report said, was based on a single source who was biased against the Russian government. The raw intelligence was fragmentary and lacked context, the report added. The detailed discussion of the source has not been made public before, although the U.S. decision to extract and relocate him, first to Virginia, has become public. Russia officials made the source's identity public and said he was an aide to a senior Russian official. The 2017 report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from the man that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee because Mrs. Clinton had better odds of the election and Mr. Trump, 'whose victory Putin was counting, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.' But current and former American officials pushed back on the characterization of the source's intelligence, saying he was well placed and had provided sound information to the United States on Mr. Putin's intentions. While details about the debate over the source are new, the overall view of the House Intelligence Committee was well known, and members frequently took issue with the finding. But the full report with details of the C.I.A.'s work on the 2016 intelligence assessment has not been released. Attacking the conclusions of the 2016 assessment that Russia sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump has been a hobby horse of some of the president's supporters. Republicans have long taken particular aim at the idea that the Kremlin favored Mr. Trump, arguing instead that Russia was simply trying to sow chaos or undermine democratic institutions. The attacks on the documents have intensified in recent weeks as first the C.I.A. and then Ms. Gabbard's office have raised questions about the effort. Bipartisan Senate reviews have validated the C.I.A.'s work in 2016, and John H. Durham, a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr during Mr. Trump's first term, also failed to find any evidence undermining the intelligence agencies' conclusions. While Mr. Trump's Republican supporters criticized the assessment during his first term, the president focused much of his ire on Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director appointed to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The newly released House document also takes a close look at the role that a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, played in the 2016 assessment. Trump administration officials have maintained that the 2016 intelligence review was tainted by unverified information in the so-called Steele dossier. A classified annex to the report mentioned the dossier, but former officials said the C.I.A. did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment. Few if any of the claims in Mr. Steele's work about Mr. Trump have been verified in the ensuing years. In interviews this week, former officials insisted the Steele dossier did not influence the findings of the 2016 assessment. But the House report took issue with that, noting that in one of the bullet points in the original, classified version, the assessment referred readers to the annex discussing the dossier. The House report said the two-page annex summarizing the dossier 'misrepresented the significance and credibility' of Mr. Steele's work. The dossier 'was written in an amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda tone that invited skepticism, if not ridicule, over its content,' the report continued. The House review also said one C.I.A. officer said he confronted John O. Brennan, the agency's director at the time, with the flaws of the dossier. Mr. Brennan, according to the House report, acknowledged the flaws but added, 'doesn't it ring true.' Mr. Brennan, who emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Mr. Trump, has long denied that the dossier colored the assessment and said that he backed C.I.A. officers who wanted it kept out of the main body. He has said he placed the dossier in the annex at the insistence of the F.B.I. Former Obama administration officials acknowledged in hindsight that including the unverified dossier in the annex was a mistake, given the justifiable criticisms Republicans had of Mr. Steele's assertions. But the officials said the F.B.I. felt it had no choice but to include it in the annex to avoid appearing as if they were hiding something from Mr. Trump. C.I.A. officials wanted to be sure the F.B.I. signed on to the overall assessments, and they felt that the bureau would do that only if the annex was included, former officials said. The existence of the dossier was initially exposed by CNN, and then Buzzfeed published its contents. Since Mr. Trump's return to office, the C.I.A. and Ms. Gabbard have tried to sow doubts about the assessment. Ms. Gabbard has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not just flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against Mr. Trump. On Friday, Ms. Gabbard issued a report that she said exposed a 'treasonous conspiracy,' claiming senior Obama administration officials had pressured the intelligence committee to change its views on Russian meddling. The documents presented showed that the Obama administration was eager to quickly complete its work but not that the intelligence agencies were altering their conclusions. Mr. Trump has praised Ms. Gabbard, after criticizing her work just weeks earlier. Referring to Ms. Gabbard's report, Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that while in office, President Barack Obama 'was trying to lead a coup.' Ms. Gabbard has said she wants to end the weaponization of intelligence. She has condemned politicians for what she sees as the use of selective bits of intelligence against their opponents. While she has portrayed the release of the documents as a corrective to the errors and missteps of the Obama administration, former officials and even some allies of Ms. Gabbard have said her effort to throw a lifeline to Mr. Trump is an example of the very politicization she has vowed to stamp out.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store