UN Warns Of Record Civilian Casualties In Ukraine
Russian forces launched an attack overnight focused on Kyiv, deploying 397 Shahed unmanned attack and decoy drones, along with 18 high-powered missiles, killing two and injuring at least 16, according to the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).
UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric noted during his daily briefing in New York that four Kyiv districts were hit, damaging residential buildings, a clinic and a TV station, while an outpatient clinic was destroyed during the bombardment.
Mr. Dujarric also relayed reports from local authorities of recent attacks in other regions which left more than nine dead and at least ten civilians injured.
Grim June record
These attacks come after June saw the highest monthly civilian casualty count in Ukraine since the Russian invastion began in February 2022, with 232 people killed and 1,343 injured.
This data reflects a worsening trend: 6,754 civilians were killed or injured in the first half of 2025 – a sharp 54 per cent rise compared to the same period in 2024, when 4,381 civilian casualties were documented.
This breaks down to a 17 per cent increase in civilian deaths and a 64 per cent increase in injuries.
Russia's increased use of long-range missiles and drones in urban areas – and their enhanced destructive power – were key drivers behind the spike in casualties.
The growing number of attacks also played a crucial role, as Russia launched ten times more missile and unmanned drone strikes in June 2025 than in June 2024.
' Civilians across Ukraine are facing levels of suffering we have not seen in over three years,' said Danielle Bell, Head of HRMMU. 'The surge in long-range missile and drone strikes across the country has brought even more death and destruction to civilians far from the frontline.'
Child suffering intensifies
Also on Thursday, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported that an estimated 70 per cent of children in Ukraine (3.5 million) are experiencing 'material deprivation' – up from 18 per cent in 2021.
Material deprivation refers to a lack of essential goods and services, including nutritious food, appropriate clothing, heating at home and access to education.
According to UNICEF's report, one in three children in Ukraine lives in a home without a functioning water supply or sewage system, and nearly half lack access to a space to play.
This deprivation is driven by continued attacks on infrastructure – including water, sanitation, and energy systems – as well as on homes, schools, and healthcare facilities, along with rising poverty across the country.
Looking towards recovery
These warnings come as the fourth Ukraine Recovery Conference opened in Rome on Thursday. It aims to build global awareness and maintain momentum for international support and investment in Ukraine's recovery, rebuilding, reform, and modernisation.
The Director General of the UN migration agency (IOM), Amy Pope, is among those attending. The agency plays a major role in Ukraine, where nearly four million people remain internally displaced, and another five million refugees reside across Europe.
'Displacement on this scale imposes numerous challenges for Ukraine and its people,' she said.
'Recovery must begin with a focus on the people in need – connecting them to services and restoring their livelihoods, so it becomes more than just returning home, but about regaining their place in society.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Russia warns against threats after Trump repositions nuclear submarines
'There can be no winner in a nuclear war,' Peskov added. 'This is probably the key premise we rely on. We do not think there is talk of any escalation.' Since ordering the 2022 invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Putin has often intimated that Moscow could deploy nuclear weapons, while other officials, including Medvedev, and commentators close to the Kremlin have issued hyperbolic threats referencing Russia's nuclear arsenal, which is the world's largest. Peskov's effort to play down the confrontation comes before a likely visit to Russia this week by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, who has met Putin four times in a so-far-unsuccessful bid to halt Russia's war. Trump told reporters on Sunday that the submarines are 'in the region'. Last week, responding to Medvedev on social media, Trump denounced the Russian's 'highly provocative statements', which he said led him to dispatch the submarines 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences,' Trump continued, capping an intensifying exchange. 'I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev, whose relevance in Russia has waned since he left the Prime Minister's office in 2020, now often plays the role of social media provocateur. Russia's nuclear arsenal is central to Putin's effort to posture the country as a global power, and to reinforce his conviction, shared by many Russian citizens, that Russia can never be defeated in war. On Sunday, Trump said he may send Witkoff to Russia on Wednesday or Thursday at Moscow's request, before imposing new sanctions. Trump has cautioned that the new sanctions would probably not deter Russia's war effort. After Trump last week shortened the deadline for agreement on a ceasefire to August 8, Medvedev warned on social media that every Trump ultimatum was a step closer to war between the United States and Russia. Trump admonished Medvedev to 'watch his words', then Medvedev responded on Thursday with an emoji of laughter through tears and the nuclear threat – warning Trump of the dangers of the 'Dead Hand'. On Friday afternoon, Trump announced he would reposition two nuclear submarines. 'A threat was made… so we just have to be very careful,' he said, referring to Medvedev, adding: 'We're going to protect our people.' Peskov distanced himself on Monday from Medvedev's rhetoric, saying that people should look to Putin instead. 'In our country, foreign policy is formulated by the head of state, President Putin,' Peskov said. He declined to comment on whether the Kremlin would tell Medvedev to tone down his rhetoric. Russia has sharpened its tone toward Trump in recent weeks after US officials indicated he is running out of patience with Putin's reluctance to compromise on his maximalist conditions to end the war, despite key concessions suggested by the United States, including keeping Ukraine out of Nato and allowing Moscow to keep the territory it has annexed illegally in Ukraine. In his meetings with Putin and other Russians, Witkoff has at times appeared to misread the Kremlin's demands, commenting that he saw Russia's retention of the territories it occupies as key to the war's resolution. Putin, however, consistently insists on a broader subjugation of Ukraine, including slashing the size of its military, effectively undercutting Ukrainian sovereignty. On Friday, Putin said in a comment that appeared directed at Trump that Russia's conditions to end the war had not changed and declared that any disappointment about the peace process was due to 'excessive expectations'. Putin said Russia's massive losses in Ukraine – likely, by this summer, to exceed 1 million soldiers killed and wounded, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies – were not in vain. 'We do not have a single loss in vain,' he told journalists on Valaam Island in northwestern Russia after visiting a monastery. Since the 2022 invasion, Moscow has calibrated its nuclear threat to deter Western support for Ukraine, in particular deliveries of Western missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. Denied those, Ukraine has used drone strikes on distant targets. These threats have, at times, been delivered directly by Putin, but also, at other times, by senior Russian officials who offer a level of deniability, including Medvedev. Pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov on Sunday wrote that Witkoff's likely visit was the 'last chance' to reach an agreement between Moscow and Washington before Trump's deadline on a ceasefire expires August 8. He wrote on Telegram that Putin may offer a partial ceasefire, ending missile and drone attacks. Robyn Dixon is a foreign correspondent on her third stint in Russia, after almost a decade reporting there beginning in the early 1990s.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
The tactic is to block tech giants and provide a controlled and monitored alternative
The idea, experts say, is to migrate more Russians from an open internet dominated by the products of Western tech giants to a censored online ecosystem, where Russians primarily use software under the gaze and influence of the state. The effort has advanced significantly amid wartime repression, but it is unclear how far it will go. 'The goal here is absolute control,' said Anastasiia Kruope, a researcher at Human Rights Watch who wrote a recent report on declining Russian internet freedoms. Kruope said the Kremlin wants to control not only the information available online but also where and how internet traffic flows, so the Russian internet can function in isolation and be switched on and off at will. Russia's technical capabilities for clamping down are improving, she added. 'They are not perfect,' Kruope said. 'They are not nearly at the level they would like them to be. But they are getting better, and this is the reason to start paying attention.' The Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow on August 2, 2013. The Kremlin began to see internet freedom as a threat, particularly after the rise of Navalny. Photo / Sergey Ponomarev, The New York Times Vanishing freedoms Unlike China, where users have been restricted since the dawn of the internet, Russia long boasted one of the most open and freewheeling environments anywhere online. Operating with virtually no barriers, millions of Russians flocked to Western tech platforms, posted critical news and freely expressed their thoughts on the web. The Kremlin began to see that freedom as a threat, particularly after the rise of opposition activist Alexei Navalny, who died in prison last year. His exposes of the Putin elite, initially publicised in Live Journal blog posts and later in popular YouTube videos, gave him millions of followers online and the power to mobilise mass protests on the street. Since the first decade of Putin's rule, Moscow had been articulating a vision for what it called a 'sovereign' internet that would sever Russia as much as possible from the rest of the online world and strip power from foreign tech companies, which didn't always give in to the Kremlin's demands. But Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 gave the Government the opportunity to accelerate the plan. On the eve of the invasion, the state indirectly took over VK, the country's biggest social network, harnessing a platform with millions of existing users to popularise Russian alternatives to Western tech products. The son of Putin's powerful first deputy chief of staff, Sergei Kiriyenko, was tapped to run the company. Moscow banned Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter outright and took steps that caused TikTok to disable functions in Russia. Lawmakers passed draconian laws stifling free expression in the streets and online. Last year, after creating a video-streaming service on VK, Russia began throttling YouTube, pushing users towards the domestic alternative, though with mixed success. Meta's headquarters in Menlo Park, California. WhatsApp, owned by Meta, has nearly 100 million monthly users in Russia. Photo / Jason Henry, The New York Times Now, with the introduction of MAX, authorities have signalled they may take aim at foreign messaging apps, in particular WhatsApp, which is owned by Meta and counts nearly 100 million monthly users in Russia. Telegram could be a target as well. Anton Gorelkin, deputy head of the information technology committee in Russia's lower house of parliament, said last month that WhatsApp should 'prepare to leave the Russian market'. He said Russians would replace the app with MAX. At an economic forum in June, Gorelkin also called Telegram, based in the United Arab Emirates and owned by Russian-born internet entrepreneur Pavel Durov, 'an entity that worries the state'. But he said previously that the app would not be banned. 'I am very afraid that other methods of communication are going to be blocked,' said Mikhail Klimarev, head of the Internet Protection Society, an exiled Russian digital-rights group. Beyond messaging, Telegram allows Russians access to content from exiled journalists, activists and artists, who post in channels. At the same time, the Kremlin uses Telegram to distribute its propaganda, giving the app a chance of survival. Klimarev said a Telegram blockage would devastate the Russian internet. 'Russia will turn into Mordor,' he said, referring to the dark realm ruled by evil in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. Firefighters and other first responders at the scene of a Russian bomb attack on an apartment building in Kharkiv, Ukraine, last month. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 gave it the opportunity to accelerate a crackdown on internet freedom. Photo / David Guttenfelder, The New York Times The Russian WeChat Through MAX, Russian officials are hoping to create their own version of China's WeChat, an app that remains indispensable for millions of Chinese despite being both censored and monitored. Apart from messaging and uploading posts, WeChat users can pay utility bills, book train tickets, make payments for goods and services, apply for marriage licenses and in some places even file for divorce. Moscow is following that model. A new law says government services must be offered through MAX. Officials across all levels of Russian government are being told to install the app. Already, local authorities have been testing the use of MAX by schools and signalling that teachers will be required to use it to communicate with students and parents. 'You need to bring it into the daily life of people to the extent that you cannot avoid this app anymore,' said Philipp Dietrich, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations. 'The whole point of doing this is the same reason China is doing WeChat: the more information you can gather against your citizens, the better,' Dietrich added. MAX's future in part will boil down to how well it functions. Already, Russian internet users have parodied its rollout with memes. A well-known Russian singer and influencer was ridiculed for touting the app to her 5.3 million followers on Instagram — which is itself banned — and boasting about its ability to get service 'even in the parking garage'. Klimarev noted that Russia had tried to push its own messaging apps before and failed. He also expressed scepticism that Russians, who are aware of government surveillance, will start speaking, messaging, or posting freely on MAX. If WhatsApp and Telegram are blocked, Klimarev said, Russians may still gain access to them using virtual private networks, or VPNs, services that reroute internet traffic to circumvent restrictions. Many Russians still use YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook through VPNs, though the blockage has significantly dented Russian traffic to the services. Although VPNs are not explicitly illegal, Moscow is expanding an effort to block them and prevent their usage by everyday Russians. As of late last year, Russian authorities had blocked nearly 200 VPNs, Human Rights Watch said, in what has become a regular cat-and-mouse game between authorities and nimble providers. Authorities have also pressured foreign companies like Apple to remove VPN software from app stores. And they have begun exploring new ways to identify and block VPN traffic deeper in the internet's infrastructure, according to Human Rights Watch. Putin signed a new law last week that bans the advertisement of VPN services, making it harder for Russians to find out about new ones as old ones are blocked. New rules also make using a VPN to commit a crime an 'aggravating circumstance' that will increase fines and prison sentences. The Russian leader signed another broad law that criminalises the act of searching for 'extremist' content. Videos from Navalny's anti-corruption group, for example, are labelled 'extremist' in Russia. Even without banning Telegram, Russia has found ways to limit critical content on the platform. Igor Girkin, an ultranationalist who developed a following on Telegram and criticised the Russian military, was sentenced to four years in prison on extremism charges, chilling other criticism from extreme pro-war military bloggers. In recent days, authorities arrested the head of the tabloid-style Telegram channel Baza, known for publishing videos of Russian law-enforcement raids, and accused him of paying off Russian officials for exclusive information. He denied the charges. Russian authorities once sought to pressure foreign tech giants into obeying Kremlin demands with threats, fines and other penalties, said Andrey Zakharov, the author of a new book about the Russian internet. But the approach has changed with the war. 'Now the tactic is to block them, kill them and provide an alternative,' Zakharov said, noting also that corruption and incompetence often undermined the follow-through. 'MAX is a continuation of that story.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Paul Sonne Photographs by: Nanna Heitmann, Sergey Ponomarev, Jason Henry, David Guttenfelder ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
