Latest news with #selfDetermination
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Make Lugansk Russian Again: Moscow delivers on key objective of Ukraine conflict
On June 30, 2025, Russian forces completed the full liberation of the Lugansk People's Republic. The announcement was made by the region's head, Leonid Pasechnik. Eleven years after declaring independence, and nearly three years after joining the Russian Federation, the LPR now stands fully under Russian control. What began with mass protests and barricades in 2014 has culminated in a hard-won homecoming. RT retraces the republic's long road through war, resistance, and final reunification. In the spring of 2014, following the coup in Kiev, Lugansk emerged as one of the centers of resistance against the new Ukrainian government. Its residents, who were predominantly Russian-speaking, demanded amnesty for all participants of the protest movement, the recognition of Russian as an official language, a referendum on self-determination, and the halting of the European integration process. However, their demands were ignored; instead of dialogue, repression and threats followed. In March and April of 2014, massive, pro-Russian 'March for Peace' rallies started in Lugansk. Thousands of people took to the streets. The formation of a local militia began at that time as well. On April 6, protesters stormed the building of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in Lugansk and sent representatives to negotiate with the authorities. However, acting Ukrainian President Aleksandr Turchinov and his allies refused to compromise. Following this, events unfolded rapidly. The shift from unarmed protests to more radical forms of resistance began in Lugansk. Weapons were brought to the seized SBU building from across the region, enabling militias to quickly establish two fully armed battalions. Soon, the first 'platoons,' 'companies,' and eventually 'battalions' of the people's militia were formed. On April 27, supporters of federalization declared the establishment of a sovereign state – the Lugansk People's Republic (LPR). A referendum held on May 11 reported that over 96% of participants voted in favor of independence and subsequent reunification with Russia. The Ukrainian authorities rejected the results of the referendum and opted for military action. On April 12, 2014, militants from the far-right group Right Sector and the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) launched an assault on Slaviansk in Donetsk region, and hostilities soon extended to Lugansk region. Just a few days later, Aleksandr Turchinov officially announced the commencement of the 'active phase' of the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). On April 26, the 'people's governor' of the LPR, Valeriy Bolotov, issued an ultimatum demanding an immediate halt to the ATO, the disarmament of the Right Sector, the recognition of Russian as a state language, and amnesty for political prisoners. When the deadline expired, insurgents went on the offensive: a crowd of around 5,000 people marched towards the regional administration building in Lugansk and stormed it. They also seized the regional television station, prosecutor's office, and police headquarters. In cities such as Pervomaisk, Krasny Luch, Alchevsk, Antratsit, and Severodonetsk, Ukrainian flags were taken down, and replaced with the flags of the LPR – red, blue, and light blue flags adorned with the Russian double-headed eagle and the emblem of Lugansk. However, the relatively peaceful period was short-lived. On May 22, following Aleksandr Turchinov's visit to the ATO camp near Slaviansk, AFU operations intensified in Lugansk. Columns of armored vehicles from the National Guard and the AFU advanced through Rubezhnoye toward Severodonetsk, and fierce combat started. At the same time, Stanitsa Luganskaya came under attack. Clashes swiftly escalated into full-scale hostilities involving heavy armor, airstrikes, and Grad multiple rocket launchers. Lugansk was particularly affected; in less than three months of shelling, over 100 civilians lost their lives. One of the most shocking events was an aerial bombardment by the Ukrainian Air Force that targeted the regional administration building, which killed eight people and injured another 28. During 2014-2015, the LPR largely relied on volunteers and militia, including both local residents and fighters from Russia. Their leaders became symbols of resistance, but nearly all of them were killed. Among them were: ● Valeriy Bolotov – the 'people's governor' (the first head of the LPR) and commander of the armed group Army of the Southeast. He died on January 27, 2017. ● Aleksandr Bednov – (military callsign Batman) – chief of staff of the 4th brigade and former defense minister of the LPR. His convoy was ambushed on January 1, 2015. ● Aleksey Mozgovoy – commander of the Prizrak brigade and one of the battalions of the LPR People's Militia. He was killed on May 23, 2015. ● Pavel Dremov (Batya) – field commander of the Matvei Platov Cossack regiment of the LPR. His car was blown up on December 12, 2015, while he was en route to his own wedding. ● Yevgeny Ishchenko (Malysh) – the 'people's mayor' of Pervomaisk and a field commander. He was killed on January 23, 2015, during an attack by a Ukrainian reconnaissance and sabotage group. To address the conflict, a contact group was formed with representatives from Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Negotiations began in the 'Normandy format' involving Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France. After intense battles in Debaltsovo and Ilovaisk, during which Ukrainian forces suffered significant losses, the sides reached ceasefire agreements and a peace plan in September 2014 and February 2015 (the Minsk Agreements), which were approved by a UN Security Council resolution. However, the resolution process stalled due to Ukraine's refusal to implement the political aspects of the agreements. Negotiations dragged on under both President Pyotr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky. Ukraine rejected direct dialogue with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People's Republic, opposed enshrining their special status in the Constitution, and demanded control over the border with Russia before the local elections – despite the measures outlining that this should occur only after the elections. Over the years of conflict, the parties agreed to numerous 'ceasefire regimes', but each time the truce was broken. Although the front line had become 'frozen', shelling continued daily. Life in the LPR became extremely difficult in conditions which included an economic blockade, constant bombardments, and a humanitarian crisis. Russian humanitarian convoys became the only stable source of support. Paradoxically, this situation only accelerated the integration of the LPR into Russia. By 2015, unlike the DPR, the LPR began adopting Russian administrative structures and economic models. This was largely due to the composition of Lugansk's elite, primarily former members of the Party of Regions and associates of Viktor Yanukovych, who found it easy to communicate with Russia. The LPR transitioned to a ruble-based economy even more swiftly than the DPR. At the same time, the LPR became a frontline zone: ● In 2017, Ukraine imposed a total economic blockade, banning any trade relations with the republic, leading to shortages of essential goods. In response, the LPR introduced external management of Ukrainian enterprises and redirected trade towards Russia and other countries ● Shelling of residential areas, schools, and hospitals continued even during ceasefires ● From 2019 to 2021, issues with medical supplies worsened, and the coronavirus pandemic pushed the region to the brink of a humanitarian disaster Despite these hardships, the residents of the republic continued to believe that the only path to peace lay in returning to Russia. On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO). One of the stated goals was to protect the residents of Donbass. Russian units and the forces of the Lugansk People's Militia launched an offensive in the first days of the operation. By February 26, the towns of Shchastye and Stanitsa Luganskaya had been liberated. Throughout March, allied forces gained control of Novoaidar, Starobelsk, and Svatovo. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, by mid-March, over 70% of Lugansk region was already under the control of allied troops. However, fierce battles soon erupted for control over cities that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had fortified into strongholds – notably, Severodonetsk and Lisichansk. The key battles during this period included: ● Battle for Severodonetsk (March–June 2022): The city became the site of intense street fighting. By June 1, Russian forces controlled the eastern districts, while Ukrainian units had entrenched themselves in the industrial area around the Azot plant. On June 24, Gorskoye and Zolotoye were liberated and the Ukrainian troops in Severodonetsk were almost encircled. By June 25, Ukrainian forces had begun to withdraw from the city. ● Battle for Lisichansk (June–July 2022): After prolonged combat, Russian troops entered Lisichansk on July 3. This was the last major city in Lugansk region still under Ukrainian control. Following its capture, then-Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported to President Putin that the entire territory of the LPR within its administrative borders had been captured. This moment represented a significant symbolic turning point for all of Donbass. However, the war continued. ● Ukrainian counteroffensive (September–October 2022): Following a successful operation by allied forces in the LPR, Ukrainian troops sought to retaliate and initiated a counterattack from Kharkov Region. On October 3, Ukrainian forces occupied several border settlements in the Lugansk People's Republic, including Aleksandrovka and Kryakovka. However, they were unable to advance toward strategic sites like Kremennaya and Lisichansk. As a result, Ukraine's counteroffensive stalled. The attempt to break through to Belogorovka resulted in heavy losses for the AFU. On September 23-27, 2022, a referendum was held in the Lugansk People's Republic on joining Russia. According to official reports, over 98% of residents supported this decision. On September 30, Vladimir Putin signed a decree formally incorporating the LPR into the Russian Federation. Throughout this period, hostilities in the region continued. From 2023 to 2025, the front line moved closer to the administrative borders of the region. Intense battles raged in areas like the Kremen Forests, Novogrigorovka, and Petrovskoye. On June 30, 2025, Russian forces fully secured the Lugansk People's Republic, completing the liberation of all remaining territories, according to regional head Leonid Pasechnik. The declaration of independence proclaimed by the LPR in 2014 and the ensuing years of conflict have made liberating this territory a top priority for Russia. With the fall of the last Ukrainian stronghold, the front line has been pushed further away. The complete liberation of the LPR offers several important opportunities for Russia: ● Border security guarantees: The entire section of the border with the LPR's fellow Russian federal subjects – particularly with Rostov and Belgorod regions – is now controlled by Russian troops, eliminating the threat of strikes on these territories. The liberation of major infrastructure – roads, power plants, and communication lines – enhances logistical support and troop movement capabilities. ● Economic recovery: Since 2022, large-scale programs have been launched to restore infrastructure, including the construction and repair of roads, schools, and hospitals. As of 2025, the implementation of these initiatives has significantly accelerated. New enterprises are opening and factories are being renovated, including the Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant, the Lugansk Casting Mechanical Plant, and the Marshal Factory. Authorities have set a 10-year timeline for the region's full recovery, but substantial changes are expected in the nearest years. ● Redistribution of military efforts: With the LPR fully under control, Russian units can now focus on other directions. Analysts predict that the next significant offensive may target Krasny Liman, followed by a push toward the Slaviansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration. This would pave the way for advancing into southern Kharkov region and towards the Dnepr River. ● Political stability: The formal reintegration of the LPR into Russia effectively resolves any questions regarding the status of these territories. This reduces the risks of future political speculation and provides residents with much-needed clarity. From the uprising in 2014 to liberation in 2025, it has been a long journey for the Lugansk People's Republic. For eight long years, its people waited for help and hoped to return home to Russia – and their patience has finally paid off. This marks a new chapter for the region, which can now focus on recovery from the war and a return to normal life.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer is acting like a 19th century colonialist
I can't stop looking at an image of a man in Westminster holding a flag. He is standing proud and defiant. He doesn't want his homeland to be taken over by a foreign country. And yet, oddly, this man is not a folk hero to the Left. His name is Misley Mandarin, and he embodies a noble tradition of anti-colonial activism. He is not operating at the level of Gandhi. But the principle that underpins Mandarin's fight is the same powerful one that shaped independence movements in Asia and Africa in the 20th century: that people should have a say over the destiny of their homelands. It is as simple as that. But this particular argument of Mandarin is completely deaf to a group of people who claim to stand up for progress and human rights: Keir Starmer's Labour Party and the wider Left. Why? We have heard much talk, especially in the past five years, about the need for Britain to 'decolonise'. In principle this means that we confront our nation's colonial past and try to make amends for it. In practice, it means an ostentatious display of self-loathing – in which our institutions, from museums and galleries to schools and universities, relentlessly promote a warped version of our history. British history, according to this supposedly enlightened world view, is nothing more than a catalogue of racism and predatory colonialism; one damn oppression after another. Colonialism is bad, they would concede. But if it's done by an African country, why should it be any of our business? We should focus on ourselves and the sins we have perpetrated (and continue to perpetrate) in the world rather than giving moral lecture to nations from 'the Global South'. I remember the start of this decade, when this hysteria reached its apogee, and almost every bookshop I went to was full of lists about how British people (specifically white British people) could better educate themselves. And yet, in a crystal-clear case of colonialism, all I see is ignorance and indifference. For Mandarin, who came to Britain 25 years ago, is mounting a legal challenge against the Labour Government over their transfer of his native land to Mauritius; in other words, he is agitating for these islands to not be the colonial property of this foreign nation. 'We are not Mauritian,' Mandarin told The Telegraph, 'we are Chagossian. The Government cannot lawfully decide our fate without us.' He is not the only Chagossian passionately advocating against this transfer. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, another two British citizens native to Chagos, launched a last-minute injunction at the High Court last month to stop the deal going through. Pompe has said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' In fact, the Chagossians are invoking human rights law, the same kind of rhetoric that Starmer and his allies would be all too familiar with. Dugasse and Pompe will argue any agreement struck behind closed doors is not simply unjust, but also unlawful. Starmer would say this issue is about protecting national security. And perhaps if Mauritius was not an ally of China this argument would have some credence. But weren't the Left meant to be the people who stood up for higher values over cynical realpolitik? Misley Mandarin is a hero. And I hope he succeeds in stopping the British Government and their reckless colonial actions.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
I call on the UK to seize this moment - join the world majority and recognise the state of Palestine
Future generations will look back on this moment as a turning point, when an unrelenting campaign was waged to erase the Palestinian people, and ask how this was allowed to happen. How world leaders, faced with a choice between complicity and courage, enabled genocide. How they denied Palestinians our inalienable right to self-determination and return, and chose to support occupation over freedom, apartheid over equality. Today, after decades of appeasement and impunity, Israel has entrenched one of the longest military occupations in modern history, one that seeks not only to control Palestinian life but to extinguish it. As the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, I call on the British government to end this vicious path, right its historic wrongs and officially recognise the state of Palestine while the conditions are uniquely ripe to do so. The UN conference on the two-state solution next week presents an immediate opportunity for the UK to join the rest of the world to recognise the state of Palestine. This means the recognition of the independence of our people and sovereignty of our land as defined by international resolutions, full membership at the UN and diplomatic relations as accorded to all member states. Recognition is neither a reward for one party nor a punishment for another; it is a long-overdue affirmation of the Palestinian people's unconditional right to exist and live freely in our homeland. It is a central foundation on which a peaceful future can be built. To those who say now is not the right time, I ask: If not now, when? The genocide in Gaza – where entire neighbourhoods lie in rubble, tens of thousands are dead or missing, and starvation is being used as a weapon of war – has exposed Israel's intent to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land and galvanised global support. In the occupied West Bank, thousands of families are being forced from their homes, their villages razed and replaced with illegal settlements, under the orders of openly racist ministers who reject the very idea of a Palestinian state. In Britain, the Labour party has the necessary mandate, having run on a party platform of recognising a Palestinian state, as well as having the overwhelming support of the British parliament and public; the UK would join 147 UN member states, including Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia, in doing so. And across the Atlantic, with the Trump administration consumed by domestic turmoil, the UK can lead diplomatically, as it did when it gathered Europe's leaders in an attempt to end the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the UK's closest partners in the region are clear in their calls for the establishment of the state of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and are urging the UK, France and other remaining countries to get on board. Recognition is not a symbolic gesture, nor is it the end of the road. It is an irreversible first step. Neither should recognition be subject to ever more conditions on the Palestinian side. Delaying recognition simply reinforces the deadly status quo, denying Palestinians political agency or equal rights until Israel consents, thus granting our occupier a permanent veto over our future. The Israeli government, for its part, has made its position unmistakably clear; its policies are a blueprint for permanent occupation. The recent announcement of 22 new illegal settlements and the Israeli Knesset last year voting overwhelmingly to 'oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state west of Jordan' leaves no room for ambiguity about the Israeli plan to ethnically cleanse us from our land. At this stage, non-recognition is not neutrality, it is a political decision, to side with apartheid, occupation and the continued erasure of the Palestinian people. Recognition is not only a moral imperative – it is a legal one, laid out by the international court of justice. The announcement by the UK government to sanction two Israeli ministers was a welcome step, but it does not confront the heart of the issue. The core of the problem is not the actions of a few extremists, but a longstanding, deeply entrenched Israeli doctrine aimed at displacing and replacing the Palestinian people in their own homeland. That is why we have called on the UK to hold the entire ecosystem accountable: to sanction the Israeli government, impose a full arms embargo and hold those complicit in war crimes accountable. These actions must go hand in hand with an immediate recognition of the state of Palestine; one cannot be a substitute for the other. Boris Johnson once wrote that the Balfour declaration left the UK with 'unfinished business': a promise of Palestinian rights and statehood that was never fulfilled. More than a century later, that failure has brought us to the brink, threatening not only the Palestinian people but the prospects for peace and stability in the entire region. The time for the UK to finish that business is now. As Palestinians, and alongside a growing global movement for peace and justice, we continue to struggle for a future where our children can enjoy the same freedom, dignity and opportunity as children everywhere. That future remains impossible under occupation. Peace is not made between occupier and occupied; it can only exist between equals. This is a moment of historic consequence. It demands moral clarity and political courage. I urge the UK to rise to the moment and act now. Husam Zomlot is the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has been reported to UN human rights chiefs over claims it ignores native islanders' desire to return to their homeland. Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there. If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night. But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years. Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns. They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights. The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords. But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally. It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968. The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base. The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia. Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds. The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'. It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.' Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people. 'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'
The Independent
05-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Denmark blasts ‘unacceptable' pressure from Trump over Greenland
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has asserted that Denmark will not succumb to "unacceptable" pressure from the United States regarding control of semi-autonomous Greenland, emphasising the importance of Greenlanders' right to self-determination. President Donald Trump has expressed interest in the United States acquiring the strategically important, mineral-rich Arctic island for national and international security reasons, even suggesting the potential use of force. Frederiksen, in a National Day speech, stated, "The world order we've built through generations is being challenged like never before." She added, "In recent months Greenland and Denmark have been subjected to unacceptable pressure from our closest ally," alluding to the United States. US Vice President JD Vance visited the island in March, criticising Denmark, a fellow NATO member, for its handling of Greenland's safety. Vance proposed that the United States could provide better protection for the territory. Vance's visit occurred after the Demokraatit party's election victory in Greenland. The party advocates for a gradual approach to independence, differing from other parties that propose a more rapid departure. Leaders of Denmark and Greenland have said only Greenlanders can decide the territory's future, and the Danish constitution gives the island the right to seek independence. Fundamental principles in the transatlantic relationship such as national sovereignty, the respect for borders and people's right to self-determination are now at stake, Frederiksen said. "But we don't bend. We Danes are not like that," she added. Denmark's King Frederik, who is popular in Greenland, visited the island in late April in a show of unity amid the diplomatic stand-off with Trump. A 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark gives the US the right to construct military bases in Greenland as long as Denmark and Greenland are notified. The island, whose capital Nuuk is closer to New York than Copenhagen, boasts mineral, oil and natural gas wealth, but development has been slow and the mining sector has seen very limited US investment.
