#Izvestiya

[olivia2010kroth]

HAVANA TIMES / TASS: Russia - Cuba / Russland - Kuba

HAVANA TIMES / TASS: Russia – Cuba / Russland – Kuba Russia’s UAZ Opens a Vehicle Assembly Plant in Cuba / Russlands UAZ eröffnet ein Fahrzeugmontagewerk in Kuba The company was founded in 1941 to provide the USSR with vehicles to face the advance of German troops. (TASS/Izvestiya) Das Unternehmen wurde 1941 gegründet, um die UdSSR mit Fahrzeugen auszustatten, mit denen sie dem Vormarsch…

[darkmaga-retard]

23 September 2024 by Larry C. Johnson

Russia, by contrast, is a piker when it comes to planting its flag overseas:

Today, Russia operates at least 21 significant military facilities overseas, according to the Izvestiya daily newspaper citing Moscow’s Ministry of Defense and U.N. data. These assets include motor-rifle divisions in Armenia and Tajikistan; radar bases in Belarus and Kazakhstan—where Russia also has a missile testing range—airfields in Kyrgyzstan, Syria and Armenia; and ports in Vietnam and Syria, to name a few. Although this number includes controversial facilities in Moldova and Georgia, where Russia is backing separatist, anti-government forces now integrated into its military, it does not include Crimea—Russia annexed the peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 and regards as its own territory.

Note, apart from Vietnam and Syria, all of Russia’s bases are in neighboring countries, most of whom were once part of the Soviet Union. Last I checked, Mexico, Central America and South America are not hosting any Russian brigades or air wings.

How about China? How goes their secret commie plot to subvert the world with military might? According to Newsweek, Havana, Cuba is the only place outside China hosting the People’s Liberation Army — Chinese apparently have a few ships berthed there.

A large number of the US military bases are located on the peripheries of the borders of Russia and China. And yet, most Washington politicians are perplexed as to why Russia and China see the United States as a growing menace. Just flip the script. If Russia or China commenced building bases and deploying troops to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, do you think this would raise hackles in the corridors of power in Washington, DC? Bet your ass it would!!

[mariacallous]

A dashcam video shows a green car pull up ahead of the driver, who has just come to a halt on a country road. Two soldiers, in what appear to be Ukrainian military uniforms, pull up. One of them walks up to the driver and berates her for overtaking military vehicles, “scum, do you know the traffic rules? Didn’t you see the convoy?”. Upon hearing that she is a Russian speaker and checking her documents, he demands that she switch to Ukrainian and calls her a “pig”. After she asks the soldier not to insult her, a loud crash is heard and the woman screams “what are you doing? I have a child!” The soldier then walks in front of the woman’s car and fires his weapon into the air, before rejoining the other soldier in the green vehicle and driving away past the terrified woman. These are scenes from a video widely circulated by prominent pro-Russian figures and their supporters on social media on March 27. A timestamp on the dashcam video gives the date of the footage as March 24, just after midday.

However, the facade presented by this footage began to crack when online communities attempted to verify its authenticity. While the video shows soldiers speaking Ukrainian and seemingly wearing Ukrainian uniforms, a geolocation shows that the video was actually filmed in areas deep behind the front lines in Russian-controlled territory — an area over which the Ukrainian military has no control.

This is not the first instance of Russian and pro-Russian actors producing and promoting fake videos. Just two days before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Bellingcat debunked two such videos. One purported to show an attack by saboteurs on chlorine tanks and another showed the aftermath of a staged IED explosion which supposedly killed civilians.

As the invasion grinds on, communities online have aggressively and quickly moved to fact-check such claims.

“Think 4 Yourself”

One of the earliest, and most prominent, posts about the video came from the Twitter account of the Russian Embassy to the UK, which stressed the additional claim that the soldier identified the woman as a Muslim and that shots can be heard in the video while the Ukrainian soldiers are off-screen. Soon after, the Twitter account of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shared the same video, with the hashtags #Think4Yourself and #See4Yourself, stating “Once a Nazi, always a Nazi”.

While other media outlets cited a tweet by a pro-Russian Twitter user called Yury Alekseich as the first source of the footage (13:38 CET), Bellingcat discovered an earlier appearance (12:31 CET) on Two Majors, a pro-Russian Telegram channel which regularly posts footage from the frontline in Ukraine. It was accompanied by several paragraphs describing the video and noting that the woman gives a Muslim first name and surname. The final paragraph draws further inferences from this fact, claiming that: “The ideology being introduced by the Nazi battalions into all Ukrainian military formations is extremely straightforward: one nation, one faith, one language. Just like the Third Reich, nothing new. It’s very appropriate for the small-minded enemy soldiers who have no idea that March 24 was the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan”. 

The video was then shared widely on pro-Russian social media channels, and by Ukraine’s detractors on social media, gathering millions of views across multiple platforms. 

Several prominent Russian media outlets reported on the video, including Izvestiya, RenTV and Tsargrad. Early reactions suggested that the footage, or the way it was presented by pro-Russian actors, was suspicious. Ukrainian social media users were quick to note that dashcams had been banned in the country for nearly a year, in attempts to stop the spread of information about Ukraine’s armed forces.

Online open source communities took note and attempted to geolocate the video. The key piece of information to verify the authenticity of videos and photographs is the exact location where it was recorded. In the context of open source investigations, geolocation refers to the process of identifying the location of an object, event, or individual using publicly available information. This technique allows researchers to gather vital spatial data, enhancing the overall accuracy of an investigation.

They discovered that the footage was not filmed “in the frontline zone” as the Two Majors channel claimed, but approximately 30 kilometres behind it in Russian-controlled territory.

East of Donetsk

On the evening of March 27, the Twitter account of GeoConfirmed, a volunteer community who has been geolocating videos from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, published a thread detailing the geolocation of the video to 47.977044, 37.953754. Tatarigami, a Twitter user who says they are a Ukrainian military officer in reserves, also published a thread that evening reaching the same conclusion.

This is a crossroads south-east of Donetsk, the capital of the Donetsk Region of Ukraine which is occupied by Russia as the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’.

This immediate area has been occupied by Russian forces without interruption since 2014.

Therefore, the ‘military convoy’ that the soldier mentioned would have had to cross one of the most contested and dangerous frontlines in Ukraine and advance 30 kilometres into Russian-occupied territory before accosting this woman for overtaking it.

Shortly after the thread went viral, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs removed their tweet without comment. The Russian Embassy to the UK left their tweet online.  The Moscow Calling Telegram channel also posted satellite imagery of the area. A subscriber whom the channel described as being based in nearby Donetsk then visited the site and provided the channel with a photograph of what he found there, which Moscow Calling shared.

“‘When you’re on reconnaissance, look at the branches’ – folk wisdom from the Finnish War” noted the channel.

Comparing the subscriber’s photograph to a still from the video, it is clear that the tree branches do indeed match.

Photo from the geolocated site of the video provided to Moscow Calling by a subscriber. Tree branches highlighted by Bellingcat

The same tree branches visible in the March 24 dashcam footage. Tree branches highlighted by Bellingcat

Later, a video was shared on Telegram by the Ukrainian blogger Anatoly Shariy showing dashcam footage of a car travelling from a location in Donetsk towards the site shown. The start of the video can be geolocated to 47.9712, 37.9288, on Komunistychka Street in the suburbs of the city’s southeast. It is not known how Shariy obtained this video, nor when it was recorded. However, this footage can be matched with street view imagery of the location from 2010 which is available on Yandex Maps.

Top: still from dashcam footage shared by Shariy. Bottom: the same street as seen in Yandex Maps’ streetview.Matching features highlighted by Bellingcat.

It is then possible to follow the path of the car on satellite imagery until it reaches the exact spot of the previously geolocated March 24 dashcam footage. It is clear from matching features, such as these tree branches, that this is the same location as seen in that staged video.

Top: tree branches seen in the dashcam footage shared by Shariy. Bottom: the same tree branches in the March 24 dashcam footage. The driver in the latter came to a halt a few metres further down this road

The Walkback

Once the video had been widely debunked, even pro-Russian commentators were quick to disavow it. On the evening of March 27, the prominent Russian military blogger Rybar added an update to an initial Telegram post, reading “the video turned out to be a fake”. Around two hours later, the pro-Russian Telegram channel Zapiski Veterana (which translates to ‘Notes of a Veteran’) posted that “the video is a fake. Our guys aren’t training well. In carrying out such information operations, they still need to learn and learn”. Two hours after the latter post, the pro-Russian Ukrainian politician Oleg Tsarev wrote on his Telegram channel: “As concerns that video which everybody published. It seemed suspicious to me from the very start. But to write that it is suspicious is to do the enemy’s work. And to share a video about which I have doubts is to mislead my subscribers. So I decided not to post it.” At the time of publication the Russian Embassy to the UK tweet with the fake video is still online. However, beneath it Twitter has added a Community Note for logged in users reading that “open-source intelligence reports have confirmed that this video was taken in territory in Donetsk that is currently occupied by Russian troops, making this certainly a hoax as there are no Ukrainian troops in the area”, linking to the aforementioned thread by GeoConfirmed. If anything, this video illustrates the value of geolocation when it comes to verifying the authenticity of a video and the role of online communities in debunking disinformation.

Occasionally, as happened here, some of those who spread false information may choose to walk back their misleading claims — although not all will do so. 

[istanbulhistorical]

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

The signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 brought hope to the nations of the Eastern bloc. This document reaffirmed human rights as a fundamental principle, inspiring people living under totalitarian regimes to seek freedom and justice. It became a powerful tool for those wanting to challenge their governments.

Rise of New Opposition

With the Final Act as a backdrop, a new type of opposition began to emerge across Eastern Europe. More citizens started to openly protest against the restrictions on their rights, demanding that these rights be respected by the communist authorities. The activities of the Solidarity Union in Poland became particularly influential, energizing human rights movements throughout the region.

In the autumn of 1980, inspired by the Polish workers’ struggle for their rights, workers in Romania, Georgia, and the Soviet Baltic Republics also began to strike. In Bulgaria, discontent started to surface as well. The government recognized the growing unrest, leading Directorate Six of the Secret Service, which monitored political enemies, to take action. Their task was to prevent any organized opposition that might be influenced by the anti-socialist forces in Poland Rose Festival Tour.

Government Response

By the end of 1980, the Directorate was conducting targeted operations aimed at the intelligentsia, youth, and perceived counter-revolutionaries. The authorities imposed strict censorship on books, newspapers, films, and any propaganda materials coming from Poland. This censorship aimed to control the narrative and prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas.

The influx of Polish tourists to Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast during the summer raised alarms for the State Security. The government worried that these visitors might share ideas of dissent with local citizens, further stirring unrest.

Propaganda and Misinformation

To combat the growing influence of Polish movements, the Bulgarian press became a tool for propaganda. The media published distorted accounts of the situation in Poland to mislead the public about the goals of Polish trade unions and the desire of Polish people for democracy. The official daily newspaper, Rabotnichesko Delo, frequently reprinted articles from Soviet publications like Pravda and Izvestiya. These articles claimed that Western powers were interfering in Poland’s internal affairs, painting a picture of external threats to justify the regime’s actions.

In conclusion, the signing of the Final Act in 1975 catalyzed a wave of hope and resistance in Eastern Europe. The emergence of new opposition movements, particularly inspired by Poland’s Solidarity Union, marked a significant shift in the struggle for human rights. However, the response from communist authorities was one of increased repression and propaganda. The government’s efforts to control information and maintain their power ultimately demonstrated the deep fear of change that existed within these totalitarian regimes. As people continued to push for their rights, the foundations for future movements were being laid.

[7ooo-ru]

«Известия»: производство духов в России выросло примерно в 2,5 раза

Центр развития перспективных технологий (ЦРПТ) — оператор государственной системы маркировки «Честный знак» — заявил о росте производства в России отечественных духов в 2,5 раза.

Читать далее

Подробнее https://7ooo.ru/group/2024/09/23/977-izvestiya-proizvodstvo-duhov-v-rossii-vyroslo-primerno-v-25-raza-grss-343609684.html

[usefullistanbul]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[istanbulboatours]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[newcityistanbul]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[goldenhornist]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[istanbulobelisk]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[turkishhamam]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[istanbulsurf]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[istanbulwinter]

Bulgaria's Attempt at Peace and the Soviet Declaration of War

Peace Negotiations Begin

On September 2, 1944, the BBC reported that the Bulgarian government had sent a delegation to Cairo to negotiate peace with the Allies. However, despite their efforts, the Bulgarian representatives remained in Cairo, awaiting the armistice terms, which had not yet been provided to them.

A New Government and Continued Efforts for Peace

On the same day, September 2, 1944, a new Bulgarian government was appointed, led by Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev. This new administration continued the efforts to pull Bulgaria out of the war with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Muraviev government accelerated the peace negotiations and took significant steps toward disengagement from the conflict. They issued an “Amnesty Ordinance,” which granted full amnesty to those who had been persecuted for their political activities. Additionally, the government dissolved the 25th National Assembly and declared Bulgaria’s absolute neutrality in the war Istanbul Tour Guides.

The Soviet Declaration of War

Despite Bulgaria’s attempts to exit the war and maintain neutrality, on September 5, 1944, at 7 p.m., the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. This declaration came without any provocation from Bulgaria, which had until that point maintained regular diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Importantly, not a single Bulgarian soldier had participated in any military action on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarian Army’s involvement in the war had been limited to strategic missions in Southeast Europe, anticipating the possibility of a new front. The only Bulgarian forces sent north of the Danube River had been a Red Cross mission, underlining Bulgaria’s limited engagement in the conflict.

International Reactions

The Soviet declaration of war on Bulgaria was met with mixed reactions internationally. On September 5, 1944, Reuters’ diplomatic correspondent Randall Neal commented that the British government had been informed in advance of the Soviet Union’s intentions. Neal suggested that this “realistic step” by the Soviets would help Bulgarians realize the gravity of their situation and possibly expedite the signing of an armistice. He also noted that this move would end Bulgaria’s attempts to avoid paying a significant price for its alliance with Germany. Neal predicted that a new Bulgarian government would need to be formed, likely including left-wing parties and communists, to align with the shifting political landscape.

Soviet Perspective

On September 7, 1944, the Moscow daily Izvestiya commented on the situation, criticizing the Bulgarian authorities for their attempt to maintain ties with Germany while playing with the concept of neutrality. The article warned that such actions could lead Bulgaria into an even deeper crisis.

Bulgaria’s Struggle in a Shifting War

In summary, Bulgaria’s efforts to extricate itself from World War II and establish neutrality were complicated by the broader geopolitical forces at play. Despite attempts to negotiate peace and withdraw from the conflict, Bulgaria found itself the target of a Soviet declaration of war, driven by the complex alliances and strategic interests of the time. The events of early September 1944 marked a critical turning point in Bulgaria’s wartime history, as the nation was forced to confront the harsh realities of its position in the conflict and the consequences of its past alliances.

[mariacallous]

A group of policemen in body armour and helmets burst into a mosque during prayer, released tear gas and shoved men, women and children to the ground. This event in the Moscow suburb of Kotelniki in July was widely reported in the Russian press. The disturbing footage was first shared on a popular xenophobic Telegram channel.

It was one of dozens of raids targeting migrant workers in Russia this year. A large-scale campaign against illegal migrants known as ‘Nelegal-2023’ was carried out by law enforcement in two stages in June and October. Russia’s Interior Ministry told the newspaper Izvestiya last month that over 15,000 migrants have been deported from the country in the course of the campaign.

With the help of our interns, Bellingcat collected and analysed imagery of these raids and detentions shared on social media channels. We found 60 videos and photos depicting 50 raids between May and August, the chief period of focus of our research. This was a particularly active period which included the first stage of Nelegal-2023. We found 29 videos filmed during this time, 27 of which we were able to geolocate.

We also discovered extensive footage of subsequent events during and after the second stage of Nelegal-2023 in autumn, though this period was not monitored as closely by our researchers. Overall we found 14 videos which depict law enforcement committing violence against migrants between May and November, 13 of which could be geolocated. This is far from an exhaustive survey of the available open source evidence.

A key source of footage of these raids was a series of xenophobic Telegram channels, such as Многонационал (‘Multinational’), Русская Община (‘Russian Community’). The same footage also surfaced on other xenophobic channels including Северный Человек (‘Northern Man’) and smaller far-right groups. Bellingcat has chosen not to link to these channels to avoid amplification.

As their names suggest, these channels have strongly nationalist positions and have shared videos of police detentions of migrants since at least 2019. Similar examples could occasionally be found on smaller local interest Telegram channels focused on particular districts of large cities.

We also found indications that members of these channels don’t just comment approvingly on police raids against labour migrants in Russia – they are actively involved in instigating these raids. They regularly publicise events or the addresses of places where migrants – or those they perceive to be migrants – gather with a view to alerting law enforcement. When police raids follow, members of these xenophobic groups are on the scene with their smartphones to record detentions of migrants, which they share with their hundreds of thousands of approving followers. Russia’s Ministry of the Interior did not respond to Bellingcat’s requests for comment.

Far-right anti-migration activism has risen drastically since the start of 2023, states Vera Alperovich, an expert with the Moscow-based SOVA Centre, an NGO which monitors nationalism and racism in Russia. “No longer limiting themselves to the role of the critical observer, nationalists have started to create newsworthy events themselves, joining a battle in the name of local residents”, she wrote in a monitoring report for SOVA Centre in June.

Gyms, Mosques and Cafes

Apart from the aforementioned case of the raid on the mosque in Kotelniki, several other videos of detentions of migrants have surfaced on social media since the first stage of Nelegal-2023 began. Most of the raids analysed by Bellingcat took place in Moscow or cities in the surrounding Moscow Region. Still, there were also a few cases in Krasnodar, Samara, St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and the Siberian cities of Chelyabinsk, Blagoveshchensk and Irkutsk. These raids have taken place at migrants’ places of work, such as construction sites and markets; their places of residence, such as apartments, hostels and dormitories; and , places for public gatherings, including a Central Asian cafe, gyms, and a football field. In several cases, the far-right Telegram channels appear to have played a role in inciting the raids. One such incident on May 28 was recorded extensively from the football field at School No.811 in Moscow’s Mozhaysky District (55.711889 37.400803). That morning, the ‘Russian Community’ Telegram channel shared a video compilation which began with schoolchildren complaining that a group of migrants had forced them off the playground and verbally abused them and their parents. In the same clip the men can later be seen playing football, as a woman can be heard complaining to the camera. 

The clip includes close-up footage of men being led away by police, who lay some of the men on the ground and beat them with truncheons. It ends with representatives of the movement on the same football field talking about the successful operation and urging Russians to contact them if they encounter similar problems.

According to the text of the Telegram post, the parents had complained directly to ‘Russian Community’, which filed a complaint with the police with legal assistance. “While our guys on the front are beating the enemy, on the home front, the Russian Community is defending our families” it declares. A few hours later, the channel posted again to claim that 49 migrants had been detained during the event.

These arrests were celebrated by other xenophobic Telegram channels such as ‘Multinational’, which shared two of the same clips of police violence against the migrants at the football field it said was now “free from foreign occupiers”.

A further video shared by the Tajik YouTube channel Bomdod TV on June 1 shows a group of men sitting beside outdoor exercise equipment near the football field as police beat and kick them. The impact of the kicks is audible even though the cameraperson is filming from behind a fence several metres away from the scene.

A survey of the Telegram channel shows that this wasn’t the first time the ‘Russian Community’ had confronted migrants on football fields in Moscow, usually by sending members to ‘have chats’. However, it appears to be the first in which they successfully called on the authorities to help. Two months later, the channel decried ‘persecution’ of the police officers involved after revealing that a complaint had been filed against them.

On July 31, the ‘Russian Community’ turned its attention to two ‘migrant boxing clubs’ in Moscow. In a video shared on its Telegram channel, migrants are made to lie on the floor of the gym with their hands behind their necks. Several of them wear only underwear. They are made to do squat jumps in a line on the tarmac outside. The cameraperson accompanied police on the raid. However, the cameraperson can’t be seen in the video and at no point do they appear in a reflection or move in view of the lens, making it impossible to determine whether they were a civilian or a member of law enforcement.

In contrast to the incident on the football field, ‘Russian Community’ did not claim that any locals had complained about the migrants, simply asserting without evidence that such martial arts clubs attracted ‘criminal elements’. However, this concern about martial arts is only apparent when migrants or those perceived to be migrants are involved. One of the two gyms, in Moscow’s Tagansky District (55.738105,37.666178), is located in the same building as a knife fighting club with a Russian Imperial military coat of arms and the name ‘Patriot’. It did not attract the same scrutiny from the Telegram community.

The same post claimed without evidence that a half and a third of those whose documents were checked by police at the two gyms had violated migration law.

Open source information indicates that riot police raided at least a dozen Central Asian restaurants over June, July and August – during and in the months immediately after the first phase of Nelegal-2023. Most of them were in Kotelniki, 22 kilometres from Moscow. On July 13 the ‘Russian Community’ Telegram channel wrote of raids on four restaurants leading to the detention of 30 people, “one in five of whom was illegal!” A video shows the police forcing the clientele and staff of the Didor Restaurant (55.66047160167306, 37.85544956623931) onto the ground, some of whom they then beat and kick. Didor is a Central Asian restaurant; traditional flat bread can be seen on the tables and the word ‘Didor’ derives from a greeting in Tajik.

Once again, as in the case of the prayer room in the same town and the football field in Moscow, the ‘Russian Community’ claims that the raid took place after complaints by locals. Once again, the cameraman accompanies the police during the raid though they cannot be identified. These clips and others showing the same events were also shared by ‘Multinational’.

Raids also took place at construction sites. On May 21 a post appeared in the ‘Right View’ Telegram channel containing two videos showing what it said were police detentions of migrants in Kotelniki – one showed men fleeing a cafe during a raid, the other an altercation between migrant construction workers and police. This channel is explicitly far-right and proclaims its support for a ‘White Europe’.

The second of these two videos appeared later that day in the Overheard in the Police and National Guard Telegram channel. Geolocation reveals that this second scene in fact took place outside the Lakhta Centre in St Petersburg’s Primorsky District (59.988985, 30.174993).

Two police officers are seen kicking and beating a man as his fellow workers in hard hats and high-visibility jackets stand and watch. They may be construction workers at the nearby Lakhta Centre 2, which will become the tallest skyscraper in Russia upon completion. Soon afterwards the policemen shove him onto a bus packed with other workers as they check passports. The migrant is heard saying that he did not have his documents with him as he had stepped out for lunch, to which a person in civilian clothes replies, “have your lunch at work, not here”.

Two weeks later, the cameraman in a video posted by ‘Multinational’ walks around the same area and complains about a street market where dozens of construction workers are seen buying food. The post garnered over 100,000 views. The very next day, the same channel posted that riot police had raided the area and detained several migrants – a claim backed up in two videos showing the same street. In July, the channel complained about the same area. Raids in September followed; a police officer kicked over boxes of bread, which construction workers scurried to pick up off the ground.

On October 30, Russian police raided an Azerbaijani wedding in the Kurakina Dacha restaurant in St Petersburg and, according to Azerbaijani media, detained five men. CCTV footage from the event uploaded to Telegram shows police beating two of the guests.

More recently, on November 15, police burst into a birthday party at the Fort restaurant in the city of Voronezh and detained a number of Azerbaijani men who were reportedly then requested to attend the military recruitment office. The ‘Multinational’ Telegram channel celebrated both incidents — the post below notes that ‘we need to pay more attention to weddings and birthday parties’. It is not clear whether the channel helped organise the raids. However, there is no evidence that ‘Multinational’ has shown the same scrutiny towards mass events or celebrations by ethnic Russians. 

Most of these incidents show some level of coordination between Russian law enforcement and several xenophobic, nationalist online communities that frequently claim to be addressing the concerns of local Russian residents. Bellingcat used reverse image searching of screenshots of these videos and specific keyword searches to establish the origin of these videos. In most cases, we were unable to find these particular pieces of footage shared online earlier than when the aforementioned Telegram channels first posted them. Bellingcat was also unable to find clear statements from police that they support or monitor these channels. However, the correlation between the xenophobic channels’ reports on ‘migrant activity’ followed by rapid police raids suggests that one exists. Detentions of migrant workers continue to take place at a large scale across Russia; these channels continue to post about them supportively.

‘Raids at the Request of the Russian Community’

In the first stage of Nelegal-2023 alone, Bellingcat found five instances where police raids immediately followed xenophobic channels posting the location of ‘migrants’. A large proportion of the videos showing Russian police detentions of migrants were taken from Russian nationalist Telegram channels. The two largest were ‘Russian Community’ and ‘Multinational’, which have 150,000 and 206,000 subscribers respectively. They also openly boast of their ‘coordination with law enforcement’, such as in a July 4 post by the former thanking the police for raids ‘at the request of the Russian community’.

Some closed nationalist Telegram channels also reportedly inform police about gatherings of labour migrants. According to Al Jazeera, the closed group ZOV is one of them and is run by a former staffer at Tsargrad TV, a nationalist media network funded by oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev. The group’s name translates as ‘call’ and refers to three Latin letters that have become symbols of the invasion of Ukraine.

A look at the posts on ‘Russian Community’ and ‘Multinational’ both before the start of Nelegal-2023 and at the time of writing shows that their members are staunch supporters of Russia’s war against Ukraine. For example, they collect donations for the military. ‘Russian Community’s main channel includes the phrase ZOV in its title; the group also runs a channel for occupied Mariupol in Ukraine.

Andrey Tkachuk, the coordinator of Russian Community, set out his vision for Russian migration policy in a video in July. He demanded the institution of a visa regime with Central Asian and South Caucasus states, an end to ‘easy’ acquisition of Russian citizenship after permanent residency and spoke against the existence of informal community organisations for migrants. Tkachuk, who stated that his was not a fascist or far-right movement, said in the same video that ‘there is no such thing as Ukraine’.

Bellingcat found several posts from these groups criticising even small attempts by Russian officials to improve relations with migrant communities.

These groups have also developed conspiracy theories to justify their xenophobia. In an April 23 post on ‘Russian Community’s Telegram account, the movement blamed ‘western security services’ for trying to create a ‘new proletariat’ in Russia to act in their interests: ‘millions of migrants, called by somebody to Russia’. This portrayal of migrants as a ‘fifth column’ can be found in older posts on these Telegram channels.

It is clear from these channels’ posts that they attempt to direct police towards areas where ‘migrants’ congregate – including, as shown above, areas which may be frequented by Russian citizens with origins in Central Asia or the Caucasus, such as mosques and certain restaurants.

For example, on June 21 the Russian Community Telegram channel stated that they were responsible for enforcement discovering two apartments full of ‘migrants’. When some migrants resisted arrest, ‘our guys’ fought them off, claims the channel. However, it is not clear whether ‘our guys’ refers to the police or members of the channel.

And the police appear to be watching. As mentioned earlier, the majority of videos of police raids against migrants occurred in the Moscow suburb of Kotelniki. Here, a Russian Community Telegram post from June 14 claims that ‘according to local activists, the chat is regularly monitored by representatives of the Kotelniki district police’.

The ‘Russian Community’ have also claimed to carry out their own ‘raids’. In some cases they have tried to incite police raids in person, not merely by posting addresses online. One such example can be seen outside the central market of Novosibirsk (55.042847, 82.923846), which was uploaded to the group’s Telegram channel on June 23.

A group of men surround a fruit seller on the street and demand that he show them his documents to prove that he is there legally on the grounds that they are customers. His requests to not be filmed are ignored. They ask him who gave him permission to be there, then accuse him of evading taxes and selling food without a licence.

The leader of the group then takes out his telephone and calls the police on the scene, telling them to come to the spot where he has registered a ‘case of illegal trading’. The accompanying post states that the police did not arrive on the scene at Russian Community’s request – which they cite as evidence that the ‘illegal traders’ have some kind of protection.

The same post containing the video ends with a statement that Russian Community continues to monitor the situation and to carry out ‘our own raids’:

These communities also appear to eager to see their members within the ranks of law enforcement. On September 3, ‘Multinational’ posted a link to two job vacancies in a Moscow police department, promoting it as an opportunity ‘to fight against criminality, including ethnic criminality, and to take part in raids’.

Bellingcat was also unable to find any statements from Russia’s police or Ministry of the Interior about these channels nor whether their employees monitor them. Russia’s Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for law enforcement, did not respond to Bellingcat’s requests for comment about whether police used information from the aforementioned Telegram channels or allowed their members to accompany police on raids. ‘Russian Community’ did not respond to Bellingcat’s request for comment. However, an administrator of the ‘Multinational’ Telegram channel called us ‘enemies of Russia’ and said that he refused answer our questions, only to then answer two of them. “We carry out our activities independently from any state structures and there are no employees of any law enforcement agencies among our leadership”, he answered in a Telegram message.

Old Trends, New Alliances

This wave of arrests is far from the first in Russia, which has a history of violent police arrests of labour migrants. However, speculation about the motivation for recent raids abounds, given that they occur against the backdrop of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov writes that ongoing arrests may be a further attempt by the Russian military to replenish its depleted ranks without resorting to a general mobilisation. New decrees in 2022 permit foreign citizens to sign contracts to serve in the Russian military.

In the case of some channels, the motivation to send ‘migrants’ to fight in Ukraine is more explicit. Below, a flyer circulated by the ‘Northern Man’ Telegram channel repurposes ‘The Motherland Calls’, a famous Soviet propaganda poster from 1941. The poster reads ‘If your neighbour is a migrant, call the military recruitment office!’ Although the text of the Telegram post announces an ‘initiative of the residents of the Moscow region to help the military enlistment office search for illegal migrants‘, the text on the scroll in the poster urges supporters to look for ‘newly-minted citizens of the Russian Federation… who have forgotten to sign up’.

However, Valentina Chupik, an activist and lawyer from Uzbekistan whose NGO defends the rights of labour migrants in Russia, told Bellingcat in an interview that she did not believe conscription was the primary goal for the latest wave of police raids on labour migrants — whatever may motivate such xenophobic channels.

Most labour migrants from Central Asia, she explained, are not Russian citizens. Those men detained during police raids who then receive military summons may be Russian citizens of Central Asian descent or domestic migrants from majority-Muslim areas of Russia, said Chupik. The xenophobic channels’ assumption that those present at Central Asian restaurants or mosques must be ‘illegal immigrants’ suggests that anti-migrant activists do not distinguish between these two groups, she continued.

“What makes this year different is the lower number of migrants in Russia, more violence, and more coordination with the Nazis”, she said. Based on the number of migrants who have appealed to her colleagues for assistance, Chupik says that she knows of around 18,000 detentions of migrants in Russia this year so far — a scale, she says, much lower than the average of 25,000 detentions in the early to mid-2010s. This she attributes in part to the lower number of labour migrants in Russia following the Covid-19 pandemic and the economic disruption following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Yes, there’s coordination”, Chupik remarked. “But the leading role here isn’t played by the Nazi organisations. The police use them to track those places where migrants can be found. The police are lazy; the Nazis are the dependent side here… They are prepared to work with these people for as long as it profits them”, she concluded.

The activities of groups like the ‘Russian Community’ are a good example of the Russian far-right’s adaptation to new political realities, wrote Alperovich, the SOVA Centre expert, in the same report from June. “They position themselves as social, not political movements and declare that they are not interested in fighting for power. They defend conservative morals and Orthodox values but most of their activity is directed at the fight against migrants”.

[istanbulhistorical]

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

The signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 brought hope to the nations of the Eastern bloc. This document reaffirmed human rights as a fundamental principle, inspiring people living under totalitarian regimes to seek freedom and justice. It became a powerful tool for those wanting to challenge their governments.

Rise of New Opposition

With the Final Act as a backdrop, a new type of opposition began to emerge across Eastern Europe. More citizens started to openly protest against the restrictions on their rights, demanding that these rights be respected by the communist authorities. The activities of the Solidarity Union in Poland became particularly influential, energizing human rights movements throughout the region.

In the autumn of 1980, inspired by the Polish workers’ struggle for their rights, workers in Romania, Georgia, and the Soviet Baltic Republics also began to strike. In Bulgaria, discontent started to surface as well. The government recognized the growing unrest, leading Directorate Six of the Secret Service, which monitored political enemies, to take action. Their task was to prevent any organized opposition that might be influenced by the anti-socialist forces in Poland Rose Festival Tour.

Government Response

By the end of 1980, the Directorate was conducting targeted operations aimed at the intelligentsia, youth, and perceived counter-revolutionaries. The authorities imposed strict censorship on books, newspapers, films, and any propaganda materials coming from Poland. This censorship aimed to control the narrative and prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas.

The influx of Polish tourists to Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast during the summer raised alarms for the State Security. The government worried that these visitors might share ideas of dissent with local citizens, further stirring unrest.

Propaganda and Misinformation

To combat the growing influence of Polish movements, the Bulgarian press became a tool for propaganda. The media published distorted accounts of the situation in Poland to mislead the public about the goals of Polish trade unions and the desire of Polish people for democracy. The official daily newspaper, Rabotnichesko Delo, frequently reprinted articles from Soviet publications like Pravda and Izvestiya. These articles claimed that Western powers were interfering in Poland’s internal affairs, painting a picture of external threats to justify the regime’s actions.

In conclusion, the signing of the Final Act in 1975 catalyzed a wave of hope and resistance in Eastern Europe. The emergence of new opposition movements, particularly inspired by Poland’s Solidarity Union, marked a significant shift in the struggle for human rights. However, the response from communist authorities was one of increased repression and propaganda. The government’s efforts to control information and maintain their power ultimately demonstrated the deep fear of change that existed within these totalitarian regimes. As people continued to push for their rights, the foundations for future movements were being laid.

[7ooo-ru]

«Известия»: банки Китая отменяют платежи из-за русских имен в документах

Основанием для отмены платежа может стать даже надпись на кириллице.

Подробнее https://7ooo.ru/group/2024/09/02/073-izvestiya-banki-kitaya-otmenyayut-platezhi-iz-za-russkih-imen-v-dokumentah-grss-337686067.html