A Russian Missile Blew Apart These Kyiv Apartments, and a Decades-Old Community
Oleksandr Polishchuk knows suffering more than most.
He lost friends after joining the Ukrainian Army in 2015 when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine. He lost his first wife to the pandemic. In 2022, shortly after the Russians launched their full-scale invasion, he was captured and lost his freedom for 100 days. As a prisoner of war in the damp, dark basement of a makeshift prison in a former shoe factory, he lost part of his eyesight.
But Mr. Polishchuk also knows how to cope. He remarried and had a daughter. He went to work at a recycling center. When air-raid sirens woke the family early Thursday morning, Mr. Polishchuk threw on his robe, wrapped his 2-year-old in a blanket and ran for the basement. He had done this almost every night of her life, after every siren.
This time, he never made it.
The missile hit before Mr. Polishchuk could get there, leaving him clutching his toddler in a pile of rubble, both alive. The weapon, which Ukrainian authorities say was manufactured by North Korea, had slammed into the balcony where, just days before, the family was grilling marinated pork cutlets to celebrate the 44th birthday of Mr. Polishchuk's wife, Anna Polishchuk.
The explosion killed 13 people and injured almost 90, the deadliest attack in the capital, Kyiv, since last summer. For this article, The New York Times talked to more than a dozen family members, neighbors and friends of the victims, a tight-knit, decades-old community now blown apart.
The building was constructed during World War II, and the people who lived there were as much family as neighbors. Its residents were given their apartments during Soviet times. Most of them stayed for decades. Children grew up and left and came back. Elders died. Other relatives moved in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Poland's departing president asks Ukraine to be patient as successor settles in
Polish president-elect Karol Nawrocki has said he's committed to keep helping Ukraine against Russia's invasion but also signaled a possible shift on supporting Kyiv joining NATO. WARSAW, June 28 (Reuters) - Poland's departing President Andrzej Duda visited Ukraine on June 28 and urged Kyiv to be patient during the handover to his nationalist successor, Karol Nawrocki. Polish president-elect Nawrocki has said he is committed to keep helping Ukraine's defenses against Russia's invasion, but has signalled a possible shift in Warsaw's position by opposing Kyiv joining Western alliances such as NATO. "Please be patient," Duda told reporters at a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "The world looks different from behind the presidential desk, slightly different from what it looks like to a candidate in elections." More: Trump says Putin is 'difficult' on Ukraine war, calls Russian leader 'misguided' Zelenskyy said he would "of course" invite Nawrocki to Ukraine after he assumes office. Duda's visit was a final gesture of solidarity from one of Ukraine's most vocal wartime supporters as he prepares to hand over the presidency in August. He was welcomed warmly and awarded an Order of Liberty by Zelenskyy, who is trying to rally support among Kyiv's allies at a crucial juncture in the grinding war with Russia. Ukraine is struggling to fend off Russian advances on the battlefield and intensifying missile and drone attacks on its cities as diplomatic efforts to end the fighting, now in its fourth year, have faltered. Neighbouring Poland, where more than 1 million Ukrainians have sought refuge since Russia's February 2022 invasion, has provided key humanitarian, political and military support to Kyiv.
American Military News
7 hours ago
- American Military News
North Korea may send more troops to Russia by August, South Korea says
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. North Korea may deploy more troops to Russia as early as July or August to aid in its war against Ukraine, with recruitment efforts already underway for another wave of military support to Moscow, South Korean intelligence told lawmakers Thursday. Last week, Russia's Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has decided to send 5,000 military construction workers and 1,000 sappers, or combat engineers, to support demining and reconstruction efforts in the Kursk border region, according to Russian state media Tass and RIA Novosti. Since last fall, North Korea has already deployed more than 12,000 troops to Russia to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of the Kursk region in August, according to Ukraine, the United States, and South Korea. In April, Russia and North Korea confirmed their soldiers fought the Ukrainian forces together there but did not disclose how many. In a closed-door meeting on Thursday, South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) told a parliamentary committee that North Korea recently began recruiting additional troops and will likely send them to Russia in July or August. The NIS noted that North Korea's deployment of military troops to Russia last year also came just a month after Shoigu's visit to the country where he signed an agreement with officials in Pyongyang, said South Korean lawmaker Lee Seong Kweun who attended the briefing. The NIS also said North Korea has been continuing to contribute significantly to Russia's war effort, including providing weapons. Moscow, in turn, provided Pyongyang with economic cooperation, air defense missiles, and radio jamming equipment, it said. Russia has also been providing technical advice to North Korea on satellite launches, drones, and missile guidance capabilities, Lee said, citing the NIS. 'The National Intelligence Service reported that it is working to minimize the impact on the security of the Korean Peninsula as the close relationship between North Korea and Russia may expand due to the additional dispatch of North Korean combat troops,' Lee said. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited North Korea for talks with Kim Jong Un and signed a mutual defense treaty. Since then, the two countries have aligned closely through military cooperation, including the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia. Reports of North Korean troop deployment to Russia first surfaced last October. While evidence of their presence grew – including when North Korean soldiers were taken captive by Ukrainian forces in Kursk and were interviewed – neither North Korea nor Russia acknowledged their presence until this year in April.
