On Monday President Donald Trump telephoned President Vladimir Putin and they talked for two hours before Trump put lunch in his mouth and Putin his dinner.

On the White House schedule, there was no advance notice of the call and no record afterwards. The White House log is blank for Trump’s entire morning while the press were told he was at lunch between 11:30 and 12:30.

Putin went public first, making a statement to the press which the Kremlin posted at 19:55 Moscow time; it was then 12:55 in Washington. Click to read.

Trump and his staff read the transcript and then composed Trump’s statement in a tweet posted at 13:33 Washington time, 20:33 Moscow time. Click to read.

If Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Keith Kellogg, the president’s negotiator with the Ukraine and FUGUP (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Ukraine, Poland), were consulted during Trump’s prepping, sat in on the call with the President,  or were informed immediately after the call, they have remained silent.

The day before, May 18, Rubio announced that the Istanbul-II meeting had produced agreement “to exchange paper on ideas to get to a ceasefire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we’ve made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we’ll have a different assessment.” Rubio was hinting that the Russian formula in Istanbul, negotiations-then-ceasefire, has been accepted by the US. What the US would do after its “assessment”, Rubio didn’t say – neither walk-away nor threat of new sanctions.

Vice President JD Vance wasn’t present at the call because he was flying home from Rome where he attended Pope Leo XIV’s inaugural mass. “We’re more than open to walking away,” Vance told reporters in his aeroplane. “The United States is not going to spin its wheels here. We want to see outcomes.” Vance prompted Trump to mention the Pope as a mediator for a new round of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, first to Putin and then in public.

Kellogg is refusing to go along. He tweeted on Sunday: “In Istanbul @SecRubio  made it clear that we have presented ‘a strong peace plan’. Coming out of the London meetings we (US) came up with a comprehensive 22 point plan that is a framework for peace. The first point is a comprehensive cease fire that stops the killing now.”

FUGUP issued their own statement after Trump’s call. “The US President and the European partners have agreed on the next steps. They agreed to closely coordinate the negotiation process and to seek another technical meeting. All sides reaffirmed their willingness to closely accompany Ukraine on the path to a ceasefire. The European participants announced that they would increase pressure on the Russian side through sanctions.”

This signalled acceptance with Trump of the Russian formula, negotiations-then-ceasefire, and time to continue negotiating at the “technical” level. The sanction threat was added. But this statement was no longer FUGUP. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was omitted; so too Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The Italian, the Finn and the European Commission President were substituted. They make FUGIFEC.

Late in the Paris evening of Sunday French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to keep Starmer in Trump’s good books and preserve the ceasefire-first formula. “I spoke tonight,” Macron tweeted, “with @POTUS @Keir_Starmer @Bundeskanzler  and @GiorgiaMeloni  after our talks in Kyiv and Tirana. Tomorrow, President Putin must show he wants peace by accepting the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposed by President Trump and backed by Ukraine and Europe.” By the time on Monday that Macron realized he had been trumped, the Elysée had nothing to say.

By contrast, Italian Prime Minister Meloni signalled she was happy to line up with Trump and accept Putin’s negotiations-then-ceasefire. “Efforts are being made,” Meloni’s office announced, “for an immediate start to negotiations between the parties that can lead as soon as possible to a ceasefire and create the conditions for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”  Meloni claimed she would assure that Pope Leo XIV would fall into line. “In this regard, the willingness of the Holy Father to host the talks in the Vatican was welcomed. Italy is ready to do its part to facilitate contacts and work for peace.”

For the time being, Putin’s and Trump’s statements have put Rubio, Kellogg and the Europeans offside. Decoding the two president’s statements shows how and why.

President Putin’s Statement

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76953 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.

Our colleagues asked me to briefly comment on the outcome of my telephone conversation with the President of the United States.This conversation has effectively taken place and lasted more than two hours. I would like to emphasise that it was both substantive and quite candid. Overall, [1] I believe it was a very productive exchange.

First and foremost [2], I expressed my gratitude to the President of the United States for the support provided by the United States in facilitating the resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine aimed at potentially reaching a peace agreement and resuming the talks which, as we know, were thwarted by the Ukrainian side in 2022 [3].

The President of the United States shared his position [4] on the cessation of hostilities and the prospects for a ceasefire. For my part, I noted that Russia also supports a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis as well. What we need now is to identify the most effective [5] ways towards achieving peace.

We agreed with the President of the United States that Russia would propose and is ready to engage with the Ukrainian side on drafting a memorandum [6] regarding a potential future peace agreement. This would include outlining a range of provisions, such as the principles for settlement, the timeframe for a possible peace deal, and other matters, including a potential temporary ceasefire, should the necessary agreements [7] be reached.

Contacts among participants of the Istanbul meeting and talks have resumed, which gives reason to believe that we are on the right track overall [8].

I would like to reiterate that the conversation was highly constructive, and I assess it positively. The key issue, of course, is now for the Russian side and the Ukrainian side to show their firm commitment to peace and to forge a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties.

Notably, Russia’s position is clear. Eliminating the root causes [9] of this crisis is what matters most to us.

Should any clarifications be necessary, Press Secretary [Dmitry] Peskov and my aide, Mr Ushakov [10], will provide further details on today’s telephone talks with President Trump.

Keys to Decode

1. This is a qualifier, meaning there are serious differences on the details — Putin asked Trump to pause, halt or cease all arms deliveries to the Ukraine, including US arms shipped through Israel, Germany, and Poland. This is a bullet Trump hasn’t bitten, yet.

2. Putin has made a firm decision to give Trump the “peace deal” he has asked for and wishes to announce at a summit meeting. In their call Putin was mollifying Trump’s disappointment at the failure of their plan to meet when Trump was in the Middle East. A Russian source comments: “Whatever concessions have to be made will be made only by Putin and only to Trump. The Europeans are trying to hog the headlines and turn their defeat into some sort of victory – Trump won’t let them have it and Putin won’t either.”

3. Putin does not publicly admit the mistakes he made with Roman Abramovich and Vladimir Medinsky in March 2022 at Istanbul-I. They have now been corrected at the  consensus decision-making session with the military and intelligence chiefs (May 14 Kremlin session) and then on May 16 in Istanbul with Admiral Igor Kostyukov of the GRU seated on Medinsky’s right with General Alexander Fomin, Deputy Minister of Defence. For more details, click to listen.

Source: https://ria.ru/20250516/peregovory-2017151081.html
At top left, 2nd from left, Fomin, then Kostyukov (obscured) and then Medinsky.

4. Soft qualifier. This means Putin did not agree with several of Trump’s points relating to intelligence sharing, arms deliveries, Ukrainian elections.

5. Future tense. Putin suggested to  Trump that he stop Kellogg and FUGUP encouraging Zelensky. Putin made an especially negative remark about the role played by Prime Minister Starmer.

6. This is a Russian lesson in escalation control. By putting the memorandum of understanding in Russian hands to initiate, Putin returns to the key parts of the December 17, 2021, draft treaty which President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken summarily dismissed. Placing agreement on these terms first, before a temporary ceasefire, and making that ceasefire conditional on ceaseforce (halt to battlefield intelligence sharing and arms re-supply), Putin has invited Trump to choose between the US and FUGUP; between Zelensky and an elected successor;  and between his personal negotiator advisors, Steven Witkoff and General Kellogg.

7. Reiteration of the formula, negotiations first, then ceasefire.

8. Qualifier repeated – see Key 1.

9. This phrase refers to the European security architecture and mutual security pact of December 2021, as well as to the two declared objectives of the Special Military Operation — demilitarization and denazification.

10. Following Putin’s statement, Ushakov added: “other details of the telephone conversation. Among other things, Putin and Trump touched upon the exchange of prisoners of citizens of the two countries: the format of ‘nine nine’ is being worked out. The leaders also discussed their possible meeting and agreed that it should be productive, so the teams of the presidents will work out the content of the summit between Russia and the United States.”

President Trump’s Statement

Tweet source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114535693441367601

Trump followed in a stumbling speech in the Rose Garden in which, referring to the morning telephone call, he said “they [Putin] like Melania better.”

Just completed my two hour call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. I believe it went very well. Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire [1] and, more importantly, an END to the War. The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. [2] The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent. If it wasn’t, I would say so now, rather than later. Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic “bloodbath” is over, and I agree [3]. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED. Likewise, Ukraine can be a great beneficiary on Trade, in the process of rebuilding its Country.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will begin immediately. I have so informed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, President Emmanuel Macron, of France, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, of Italy, Chancellor Friedrich Merz, of Germany, and President Alexander Stubb, of Finland, during a call with me,[4]  immediately after the call with President Putin. The Vatican, as represented by the Pope [5] has stated that it would be very interested in hosting the negotiations. Let the process begin! [6]

Keys to Decode

1. Trump accepts that negotiations should come before ceasefire.

2. This amounts to rejection of Kellogg’s 22-point term paper first decided with Zelensky and FUGUP in London on April 23 and repeated by Macron the night before Trump’s telephone call; as well as rejection of Witkoff’s term paper discussed at the Kremlin on April 25.

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76797
From left to right: Witkoff’s interpreter, Witkoff, Putin, Ushakov, Russian interpreter, Kirill Dmitriev. For analysis of the term sheets, read this.

3. Agreement with the business deal-making which Witkoff has been discussing with Kirill Dmitriev. For the deal beneficiaries on both sides, read this.

4. This list includes two Germans, both Russia haters — Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Ursula von der Leyen, former German defense minister and supporter of the German rearmament plan to continue the war with Russia into the future. The British Prime Minister has been dropped by Trump, and also Polish Prime Minister Tusk. Included for the first time in this context are the Italian and Finnish representatives with whom Trump has demonstrated personal rapport. Research by Manos Tzafalias indicates that there is a substantial money interest in Finland for Trump’s associate, Elon Musk.

5. Prompt from the Catholic convert, Vice President Vance.

Vance and Rubio meeting with Pope Leo XIV on May 18. They invited the Pope to make an official visit to Washington. The last papal visit to the White House was in September 2015 on the invitation of President Obama and Vice President Biden.

6. Trump has covered his disappointment at failing to hold a summit meeting with Putin in Istanbul on the afternoon of May 16 by dismissing the negotiations which occurred without him. For details of Trump’s abortive summit plan, read this.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Helmer.

A Moscow court convicted Kuznetsov, a reporter with the independent news website RusNews, on charges of inciting mass disturbances in group chats on Telegram, according to multiple media reports and RusNews. Kuznetsov was sentenced to six years in prison, though prosecutors requested nine years.

The court also banned Kuznetsov from managing websites for two years after he serves his term and sentenced 10 other defendants in the case to time prison, those sources said.

Kuznetsov’s charges stemmed from his involvement in the Chto-Delat! Telegram channel, according to human rights news website OVD-Info. Kuznetsov previously said that while he was a channel administrator, he acted “exclusively as a journalist” and did not organize any protests.

Authorities accused Kuznetsov and the other defendants of running a network of chat groups for “agitational work aimed at organizing mass unrest” during the country’s September 2021 legislative elections and publishing videos containing “incitements to violent actions.”

On March 20, Kuznetsov, who has been in detention since September 2021, received a three-year suspended sentence for allegedly participating in a group Russian authorities accused of being “extremist.”

CPJ was unable to immediately confirm whether Kuznetsov planned to appeal today’s sentence.

“The Russian court’s new verdict on Igor Kuznestov, sentenced to six years in prison today, comes before the court stamp has dried on the previous verdict in equally fabricated case,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Authorities should immediately release Kuznetsov, drop all the charges against him, and stop prosecuting RusNews reporters who are some of the last independent voices in Russia.”

Russia has jailed two more RusNews journalists in addition to Kuznetsov.

Maria Ponomarenko was given a six-year sentence in 2023 for spreading “fake” information about the Russian army and could face an additional five years in jail if convicted in a second criminal case alleging that she used violence against prison staff.

In March, Roman Ivanov was sentenced to seven years in jail on similar charges of spreading “fake news” about the Russian army.

Russia was the world’s fourth worst jailer of journalists—with 22 behind bars, including Kuznetsov, Ponomarenko, and Ivanov—on December 1, 2023, when CPJ conducted its latest annual prison census.

CPJ’s email to the Butyrsky District Court of Moscow requesting comment on Kuznetsov’s sentence did not immediately receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

On Wednesday, a court in the Russian capital, Moscow, gave Kuznetsov, a reporter with the independent news website RusNews who has been in detention since September 2021, a suspended sentence, rather than the four-and-a-half-year prison sentence that prosecutors had requested, according to media reports and his outlet.

But the journalist will remain behind bars because he is also being tried for allegedly inciting mass disturbances in group chats on Telegram, for which a prosecutor in December requested a nine-year jail sentence, those sources said.

“Russian authorities have held journalist Igor Kuznetsov for over two-and-a-half-years on a range of spurious charges aimed at silencing him and his outlet. Correspondents of RusNews are some of the last remaining independent reporters in President Vladimir Putin’s Russia,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Authorities should drop all the charges against Kuznetsov, release him immediately, and stop jailing independent voices.”

The court also banned Kuznetsov from managing websites, working in media, and organizing mass and public events for four years, and sentenced him to one year of restricted freedom, those sources said.

Restriction of freedom involves not being allowed to leave home at certain times of day, not visiting certain places, not participating in certain activities, not leaving the territory of a specific municipality, and not changing your place of residence.

Russian authorities accused Kuznetsov of being connected to the Left Resistance, an anti-war movement created in 2017, which authorities have labeled as extremist. RusNews chief editor Sergey Aynbinder told CPJ that Kuznetsov denied being an “extremist.”

In addition to Kuznetsov, Russia has jailed two other RusNews journalists.

Maria Ponomarenko was given a six-year sentence in 2023 for spreading “fake” information about the Russian army and could face an additional five years in jail in a second criminal case where she is being tried on allegations of using violence against prison staff.

In March, Roman Ivanov was sentenced to seven years in jail on the same charge of spreading fake information about the army.

Russia was the world’s fourth worst jailer of journalists—with 22 behind bars, including Kuznetsov, Ponomarenko, and Ivanov—on December 1, 2023, when CPJ conducted its latest annual prison census.

CPJ’s email to Moscow’s Meshansky District Court requesting comment on Kuznetsov’s sentence did not receive any response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On Wednesday, a court in the city of Korolyov, some 30 kilometers (19 miles) northeast of Moscow, convicted Ivanov, a reporter with the independent news website RusNews who also managed the Telegram channel Chestnoe Korolyovskoe, on charges of spreading false information about the Russian army, according to multiple media reports. Ivanov was sentenced to seven years in prison, although prosecutors had requested eight years.

RusNews chief editor Sergey Aynbinder told CPJ that the journalist, who has previously denied the charges and said he was simply doing his job, planned to appeal the verdict.

“By sentencing journalist Roman Ivanov to seven years in prison, Russian authorities are punishing him for publishing information about Russia’s war in Ukraine that differed from the official narrative,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “Authorities should not contest Ivanov’s appeal, drop all the charges against him, and stop jailing independent voices.”

Ivanov was arrested in April 2023 over a post he made on the Russian social media platform Vkontakte about a United Nations report about Russian war crimes in Ukraine and two posts on Telegram about the Bucha massacre of civilians and Russian missile attacks in Ukraine.

Ivanov is the second RusNews journalist to be jailed for spreading “fake news” about the Russian army. His colleague Maria Ponomarenko was given a six-year sentence on the same charges in February 2023. She is also being tried in a second criminal case on allegations of using violence against prison staff, for which she could face an addition five years in jail.

In March 2022, following the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian parliamentarians changed the law to impose prison terms and fines for discrediting the country’s military or spreading “fake” information about it.

A third RusNews reporter, Igor Kuznetsov, who has been in detention since September 2021, is on trial for participating in an extremist group, for which Russian prosecutors have requested a four-and-a-half year prison sentence. Separately, he has been charged with inciting mass disturbances in group chats on Telegram, for which he could be sentenced to 10 years in jail.  

Russia was the world’s fourth worst jailer of journalists—with 22 behind bars—on December 1, 2023, when CPJ conducted its latest annual prison census. Six of them, including Ivanov and Ponomarenkko, were held on charges of spreading so-called false information about the Russian army.

CPJ’s email to the Korolyov City Court requesting comment on Ivanov’s sentence did not receive any response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

CBS (5/26/22)

This week on CounterSpin: CBS News‘ website featured a story about the “grim task” of planning funerals for 19 children—shot dead, along with two teachers, in a Texas elementary school on May 24—right next to a story about Oklahoma’s governor signing the country’s strictest abortion ban, the prominent sign behind him declaring “life is a human right.” Welcome, as they say, to America—where these ideas are presented as somehow of a piece, where news media tell us day after day how exceptionally good and worthy we are, the world’s policeman and a global beacon for human rights and the good life.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on in horror. BBC‘s North America editor explained to its audience that there is no expectation of anything being done to prevent things like the latest (as far as we know, as we record on May 26) mass murder in the US, because “the  argument over guns has simply become too politically divisive and culturally entrenched to allow for meaningful change.”

Flashpoint (5/26/22)

Reporter Eoin Higgins interviewed teachers around the country, who reported the psychological toll of not only actual shootings, but constant drills and lockdowns, on children, who, they said, “have largely given up on a better future.”  Teachers feel expendable and unvalued; it’s hardly lost on them that the same forces accusing them of poisoning children with curricula are also demanding they step between those children and a bullet.

That powers that be in this country have responded to school shootings not by toughening gun laws, but by loosening them, and responded to the failure of law enforcement to prevent such shootings by calling for more police. It’s a particularly demoralizing combination of devastating and unsurprising—from a country that promotes and perpetrates violence around the globe. As a response to violence, we try violence time after time.

There doesn’t seem to be anything new to say right now about gun violence in the US. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep saying the things we know—more loudly, more unapologetically and in more places.

New Press (2019)

As we record, we hear that students at schools across the country are walking out, in an effort to say simply, “We refuse to go on like this.” We owe them our action and effort, no matter how tired or disgusted or defeated we feel.

We revisit some conversations about gun violence and gun culture this week on the show. In March of last year we spoke with Igor Volsky, executive director of Guns Down America, and author of the book Guns Down: How to Defeat the NRA and Build a Safer Future With Fewer Guns, about the possibility of passing common-sense legislation and misunderstandings about the power of the gun lobby.

And then: There are always multiple issues involved in a mass murder; elite media use the complexity as an excuse to simply trade accusatory explanations, and determine that in the interest of balance, nothing can be done. But if we’re concerned about young people getting high-grade weaponry and thinking it’d be cool to use it, maybe one thing to consider would be the government-sponsored program that gives young people high-grade weapons and tells them it’d be cool to use it? We spoke in 2018 about Junior ROTC—a feature at my high school, and maybe yours too—with Pat Elder, director of the National Coalition to Protect Student Privacy, which resists the militarization of schools, and author of Military Recruiting in the United States.

The post Igor Volsky on Ending Gun Violence, Pat Elder on Junior ROTC appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by CounterSpin.

“It’s like a rotating menu in a restaurant,” she told CPJ of the group’s donations to match the quickly evolving needs of Ukrainian journalists. Since Russia’s invasion of on February 24, the foundation has been part of efforts to send bullet-proof vests, first aid kits, technical gear, and more to Ukrainian journalists so they can continue to tell the story of the war. 

The Wyborcza Foundation is one of several Polish initiatives to help the Ukrainian press. In interviews with CPJ, Polish journalists said they feel a special responsibility to their Ukrainian counterparts, mirroring Polish generosity toward Ukrainians since the outset of the war. Poland, which has deep, if complicated ties with Ukraine and a historic mistrust of Russia, has taken in more than three million Ukrainian refugees, according to the United Nations. However, many Ukrainian journalists, CPJ has learned, have chosen to remain in the country out of a sense of professional and national duty.  

“Very quickly, the basic needs for journalists working in small towns and regions in southern and eastern Ukraine became apparent,” said Ostep Protsyk, co-founder of Lviv Media Forum, a regional media conference helping to facilitate aid, including from Poland, to Ukrainian journalists. Some journalists, he noted, have been displaced internally, “arriving to western Ukraine with no money or personal belongings.”

Ukrainian journalists who have fled to Poland often rely on informal networks, indicative of the close ties between the reporting communities in the countries. Journalist Halina Khalymonyk left her home in the southwestern city of Bilyaivka, located between Odesa and Moldova’s breakaway region of Trans-Dniester, in March. The editor-in-chief of local newspaper Bilyaivka.city, Khalymonyk said that it had become impossible to put out a print edition after her typesetter enlisted in the Ukrainian army. That, plus the fact that Bilyaivka was growing increasingly dangerous, prompted her decision to flee. 

“This is why I left,” said Khalymonyk in an email, referring to an attached photograph of her daughter hiding in their basement in Bilyaivka. “No child should experience what my [child] went through in a few weeks — sitting in a cold basement, fear of death, sleeping in a bomb shelter.”

Her friend Darek Kortko, a reporter at Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, helped her find an apartment in Katowice, in southern Poland. There, Khalymonyk has continued to publish news about how the war is affecting Bilyaivka on Bilyaivka.city, made possible with more reliable internet access, and has also began writing weekly articles for Gazeta Wyborcza about Ukrainian refugees’ experiences in Poland.  

In addition to the informal networks, organized efforts have sprung up to help those who have fled. Fundacja Reporterów (Reporters Foundation), a Polish investigative journalism organization, opened a hotline on February 26 to cater to Ukrainian colleagues in need of logistical help getting out of the country. The group also created a database of accommodations around Poland for journalists and other civil society members. 

Sitting in the sparsely decorated Warsaw offices of Fundacja Reporterów, the organization’s co-founder and president, Wojciech Ciesla, showed CPJ the Slack platform where colleagues from media outlets like Gazeta Wyborcza and media trade groups such as Press Club Polska share housing opportunities for Ukrainian refugee journalists. 

In the next room, the sofa bed was still made from the previous evening when the foundation hosted a Ukrainian journalist and her family. They had left a few hours prior, setting off to stay with an acquaintance, said Ciesla. A few bags of donated clothing and toys lined the floor, just in case the next family needed anything. 

Around the corner from Fundacja Reporterów is a registration center for newly arrived Ukrainian refugees. The war, Ciesla emphasized, is an inescapable reality in Poland. 

While Ciesla has been heartened to see the outpouring of help for Ukrainians — journalists and other civilians alike — he said that Polish humanitarian efforts are driven by a deeper existentialist concern about the Kremlin’s reach. There’s a Polish saying, Cielsa said, “If you live in Poland, you never smile at the circus” — meaning that the bear, Russia, could lunge toward you at any moment. 

Cognizant of the need to address the growing population of Ukrainians within Poland, some of the country’s radio and television outlets have begun running Ukrainian-language programs with brief news bulletins and information about resources available to refugees. 

And in at least one case, refugees started their own outlet. UA24.tv, a Ukrainian-language online television channel based in Warsaw, has provided information for Ukrainians adapting to life in Poland since its launch in mid-April. 

The channel’s origins predate the war; Sebastian Mikołajczak, a producer in Poland’s entertainment sector, had long been trying to convince his colleague, Ukrainian entertainment producer Igor Tarnopolski, to create a channel for the Ukrainian diaspora in Poland. 

On the eve of the Russian invasion, Mikołajczak floated the idea again to Tarnopolski, trying to persuade him to leave Ukraine for his safety. Several days later, Tarnopolski fled to Poland with his family and the project gained steam. (As a father of three, Tarnopolski was exempt from Ukraine’s rule prohibiting men ages 18 to 60 from leaving the country.)

UA24.tv is funded by Polish state-controlled businesses, but Tarnopolski said that he is keen to find a longer-term funding solution that will allow the channel to maintain editorial independence. In an interview with CPJ before the launch, he said the programming will be aimed at helping Ukrainians adapt to their new lives in Poland, but also provide a respite from the war with entertainment. 

“It’s essential that we don’t forget about the war,” he said. “But it’s also of the utmost importance that we don’t forget about our life before and imagine what it will be like after.” 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Katherine Jacobsen.

Founded after a 2016 attack on local and foreign journalists in Russia’s North Caucasus, the organization is filling a vacuum in Russia where officials “do not want or do not dare to touch upon unpleasant topics and protect injured journalists,” according to its website. (Another union, the Russian Union of Journalists, has often taken pro-Kremlin stances, recently asking Russia’s media regulator to take action against YouTube for what it called censorship of Russian media.)   

On the first day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, February 24, the JMWU published a bold statement calling the war a “perfidious step” that would risk journalists’ lives and “lead to the death of many citizens of our countries and huge destruction.”

CPJ spoke to co-chair of the union, Igor Yasin, about the group’s work to help Russian journalists in this precarious moment. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

What do Russian journalists need most right now? And how are you helping them?

Igor Yasin: We are in touch with many journalists, those who fled and are now abroad, in Istanbul, for example, and those who are still in Russia and are planning to go.

The main need [for journalists who have fled or want to] is visa support but many are also looking for financial assistance. One of the biggest requests we receive from journalists and newsrooms is about digital security, about what to do during the searches of newsrooms, journalists’ apartments, or searches of their devices when they cross the border. They need trainings and consultations.

But there are also journalists who don’t have plans to leave or cannot do so because they have elderly parents to take care of, or for other reasons. In Russia, there are many journalists who have become jobless, and are going to stay. It’ll be hard for them to find a new employment especially if they worked for media outlets labeled as “foreign agents” or “extremist.”

The new legislation punishing the dissemination of “fake” information on the war with up to 15 years in prison has forced many journalists to flee in fear. How do you see that law, plus the ban on the use of words “war” and “invasion” to describe Russia’s actions in Ukraine, impacting Russian journalists and foreign correspondents?

The problem with laws in Russia is that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to predict how they will be applied. If in the past, we tried, along with media lawyers, to analyze, look at precedents, the legal practice, to understand how new laws would be implemented, now, it is impossible to speak about the future with any clarity.

The laws have often been applied selectively and for the convenience of those in power. So, with these new laws we can’t really predict the scale of the impact of the new law [on “fake” information]. Will it target individual journalists and media outlets, or will there be a blanket use? I cannot tell.

But what is clear is that many journalists decided to flee as soon as they heard about the law or soon after the law was adopted. Just like that – packed up a few items in a suitcase and took off. Journalists with dual citizenship fled – journalists whom I know personally. Some who are Russian citizens but worked with reputable foreign news agencies also fled.

Are you planning to go too?

I wouldn’t like [to leave Russia]. I continue working as before, even more than before, with the new flood of requests for help. We haven’t faced pressure yet — maybe because we are not the most important organization that bothers [the authorities], maybe they think we are too insignificant, maybe it’s just not our turn yet. But we expect anything at any moment.

Your February 24 statement was very brave, but not unusual given your organization’s history of standing up for journalists. Are you going to be more careful from now on?

You are right, we have always had this kind of position. But if you recall, when [the war] started, there were many similar statements. We were not the only ones to condemn [the war]. But everything developed so fast. In a matter of days, the [new law on “fakes”] was initiated, adopted, signed into law, and went into force.

So, when the law on “fakes” [was adopted on March 4], we discussed internally whether we should take the statement down, but we decided against it. We just removed signatures under the statement to protect people who signed it.

What else changed in your work since the beginning of the war?

I now have to use a VPN [virtual private network] for everything and safe messaging apps for phone calls and messaging. I had to learn how to navigate to stay safe digitally.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Gulnoza Said/ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator.

At least five journalists are facing charges and dozens more were detained across Russia following their coverage of anti-war protests, which have sprung up across the country since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

Separately, on February 26, Russia’s state internet regulator Roskomnadzor said media organizations can only publish official government reports about the conflict in Ukraine. If outlets fail to comply, Roskomnadzor has threatened to block their websites. 

In the same statement, Roskomnadzor announced an administrative investigation into at least 10 independent media outlets for their alleged mischaracterization of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The investigations could result in fines up to 5 million rubles, currently the equivalent of US $48,000. (Russia’s currency in flux as international sanctions against the country take hold.)

“Russian authorities should stop employing draconian tactics against independent media as a way to control the narrative around the country’s invasion of Ukraine,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna, in New York. “It is essential that the few remaining independent voices in Russia do not become a casualty in this conflict.”

Roskomnadzor said it is investigating the radio station Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы); television station TV Rain (Дождь); independent news websites InoSMI (ИноСМИ), Medizona (Медиазона), New Times, Free Press (Свободная Пресса), Novaya Gazeta (Новая Газета), The Journalist (Журналист), Linizdat (Лениздат), and the U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website Crimea.Realities. CPJ emailed Roskomnadzor’s press office for comment but did not receive a reply.

The following journalists are facing charges after being arrested while covering anti-war protests across Russia: 

• Gleb Sokolov, a correspondent with independent news website Sota.Vision, was detained by law enforcement in Moscow on February 25. He was released and charged under Part 5, Article 20.2 of the federal Administrative Code for allegedly participating in the demonstration, according to Sokolov’s editor, Alexei Obukhov, who corresponded with CPJ by messaging app. The charge carries a penalty of between 10,000 rubles (US$93) and 20,000 rubles (US$186) or compulsory work for up to 40 hours.
• Nika Samusik, a photographer for Sota.Vision, was detained by law enforcement officials in St. Petersburg on February 24. She was held in police custody for two nights and was charged under Part 2, Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code for allegedly organizing the protest, according to Obukhov. The charge carries a fine of 20,000 (US$186) to 30,000 (US$280) rubles, 15 hours of labor, or up to 10 days of administrative arrest.
• Viktoria Avdeeva, a reporter with local news website Simirsk.City, was detained by law enforcement in the city of Ulyanovsk, approximately 500 miles east of Moscow, on Sunday, February 27. She was also charged under Part 5, Article 20.2 of the Administrative code, according to Radio Svoboda, the Russian Service of RFE/RL. CPJ was unable to independently confirm Avdeeva’s detention. 
• Igor Ulitin, a reporter for local newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta, was detained by law enforcement in Ulyanovsk on Sunday and charged under Part 5, Article 20.2, according to Radio Svoboda. CPJ was unable to independently confirm Ulitin’s detention.
• Maksim Kuznetsov, a reporter for the online news website 73 online, was detained by law enforcement in Ulyanovsk on Sunday. He was charged under Part 5, Article 20.2, according to Radio Svoboda. CPJ was unable to independently confirm Kuznetsov’s detention.

CPJ is working to confirm reports that 31 other reporters have been detained by law enforcement across Russia and determine who is facing charges. CPJ’s Facebook and WhatsApp messages to Narodnaya Gazeta and 73 online, and emails to Simirsk.City went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Over the past months, slanderous, and often conjectural stories of Chinese and Russian subversion have repeatedly been fed to a gullible western audience desperate for an enemy image to attach to their realization that an obvious long-term conspiracy has been unleashed to destroy their lives. While the left has been fed with propaganda designed to convince them that this enemy has taken the form of the Kremlin, the conservative consumers of media have been fed with the narrative that the enemy is China.

The reality is that both Russia and China together have a bond of principled survival upon which the entire multipolar order is based. It is this alliance which the actual controllers of today’s empire wish to both destroy and ensure no western nation joins… especially not the USA.

Every day we read that secret lists of millions of Chinese communist party members have infiltrated western national governments or that espionage honey pots have targeted politicians, or Russia is subverting western democracies, and preparing false flags to invade its neighbors.

In all cases, the stories pumped out by mainstream media rags reek of 1) Five Eyes propaganda psy-op techniques, and often unverified accusations, while 2) deflecting from the actually verifiable British Intelligence tentacles caught repeatedly shaping world events, regime change, infiltration, assassination and conspiracies for over a century including the push to overthrow Trump under a color revolution.

Among the most destructive of these conspiracies orchestrated by British Intelligence during the past century was the artificial creation of the Cold War which destroyed the hopes for a multipolar world of win-win collaboration guided by a U.S.-China-Russia alliance as envisioned by FDR and Henry Wallace.

1. Stephenson immediately flew two of his top SIS officials in from the BSC HQ in New York to manage the Gouzenko affair for the next 8 months: Peter Dwyer (head of counter-espionage for BSC) and Jean-Paul Evans. Evans is an interesting figure whose SIS successor was none other than triple agent Kim Philby who replaced him when he left his post as British liaison to the FBI and CIA in 1949. Evans himself went onto work with leading Round Table controller and soon Governor General Vincent Massey in the creation of a new system of promoting the arts in Canada pouring millions of dollars into modernist/abstract art, music and drama under the Canada Council which grew out of the Massey-Levesque Royal Commission for the Arts in Canada. This body founded in 1957 took over the reins of control from the CIA and Rockefeller Foundations who had formerly enjoyed a near monopoly sponsoring such things as part of the post-WWII cultural war against communism. Stafford notes that “the man who impressed Ottawa with his love of the arts had also played an important part in the history of Anglo-Canadian secret intelligence.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Matthew J.L. Ehret.