A U.S. defense official said the most concerning shortfall involves Patriot missile interceptors, which can shoot down Russia’s high-speed ballistic missiles.

A U.S. defense official said the most concerning shortfall involves Patriot missile interceptors, which can shoot down Russia’s high-speed ballistic missiles.

A CBSA report alleges that as a deputy director in Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade, Abbas Omidi, assisted the regime's state sponsorship of terrorism.

A CBSA report alleges that as a deputy director in Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade, Abbas Omidi, assisted the regime's state sponsorship of terrorism.

On July 23, the U.S. Department of Defense published a new list of organizations that, according to its assessment, pose a threat to U.S. national security or are engaged in problematic activity. The list includes Moscow State University, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, the Higher School of Economics, Ural Federal University, and numerous other universities and research institutes. The Pentagon believes that these organizations may aim to steal American intellectual property, research data, technologies, and scientific innovations. The Department therefore urges American universities, research institutes, and individual scholars receiving Department of Defense funding not to collaborate with them in any way, exchange data, or provide financial support. Notably, this list is not identical to existing U.S. sanctions lists (read more: “Scientific Front: Who in Russian Science Ended Up Under Western Sanctions — and Why”) and it appeared at a time when, according to Reuters, the U.S. administration has significantly reduced efforts to enforce sanctions against Russia. T-invariant explores what this new policy means for American and Russian academia, how it differs from sanctions law, and who is likely to be affected. 

T-INVARIANT BRIEFING

The restrictions certainly apply to:

• Researchers affiliated with the listed organizations and working in physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, technology, and defense-related fields.
• American universities and colleges receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.

They are highly likely to affect:

• All employees of listed institutions, regardless of their academic discipline.
• Students of the listed universities when applying to conferences or submitting articles to journals affiliated with American universities or companies.
• Universities, colleges, research institutes, think tanks, and other organizations worldwide that receive funding from the U.S. government.

The restrictions might affect:

• Students and graduates of these institutions when applying to American universities.
• Universities in third countries participating in projects funded by the U.S. government.
• Researchers at other universities and institutes in Russia, Iran, and China.

The list was issued as an implementation of Section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2019. The NDAA is a law that is issued every year and that determines the structure and budget of the U.S. military, including troop numbers, defense spending, modernization programs, and other issues. However, alongside military provisions, Congress also includes neighboring measures, such as foreign policy objectives, and funding allocation. The 2019 NDAA received broad bipartisan support and was signed by President Donald Trump. Compared with previous versions, it increased the military budget, while shifting America’s strategic focus in foreign policy away from counterterrorism toward long-term competition with China and Russia, with considerably greater emphasis on China. This legislation was especially discussed in the media due to the restrictions of Section 889 targeting Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.

As part of the same great power competition strategy, Congress included provisions designed to protect American academic research from foreign influence and intellectual property theft. Section 1286, which received the updated list of “problematic organizations,” is titled Initiative to support protection of national security academic researchers from undue influence and other security threats and it specifically addresses universities conducting defense and technology research. Although Congress passes a new NDAA every year, the Pentagon continues updating the same list of the Section 1286 of NDAA 2019 because the 2019 law explicitly requires the Department of Defense to revise it on a regular basis. The July 23 publication is therefore not a new law, but the latest update of an existing mechanism. Being published every year, these updates all have special emphasis, relevant for the moment. For instance, the 2025 version is primarily aimed at preventing foreign influence over research sponsored by the Department of Defense. 

Such activities as funding sanctioned organizations, or exchanging data, were already prohibited by sanctions laws. Also, scholars employed by those organizations could not participate in conferences, or get published in the leading journals if they maintained formal affiliations. There are three fundamental points of difference between the new Pentagon list and sanctions: who is affected, who enforces the law, and what the consequences of violations are. 

Who is affected?

Previous sanctions and earlier lists (such as the 2023 Section 1286 list) targeted a relatively small number of universities involved mainly in military technology development or, in Russia’s case, in promoting state propaganda. Moreover, the restrictions were generally limited to individual representatives or to specific institutes. Before the new list appeared, the largest Russian research center to be included in such restrictions in its entirety was Skolkovo, which was added in 2023 – and in that case, it was hardly surprising.

This time, however, the Pentagon included 13 Russian universities as whole bodies,  and those were not only institutions specializing in engineering, physics, and biology, but also several major multidisciplinary universities, including Moscow State University (MSU), the Higher School of Economics (HSE), and Ural Federal University (UrFU). Several of China’s leading multidisciplinary universities, including Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, were also added. HSE employees, speaking on condition of anonymity, told T-invariant  that until now they had been able to collaborate with Western universities as private researchers without listing their affiliation, they participated in conferences online and sometimes even in person, conducted joint research, and published articles.

However, the wording of the new document makes it possible to extend the restrictions to employees of the listed organizations themselves. This means that concealing one’s institutional affiliation and presenting oneself as an independent researcher may no longer be sufficient to circumvent the restrictions: any collaboration between American researchers and scholars who are simply employed by universities on the list falls under Pentagon restrictions. Moreover, even though most organizations on the list conduct research in physics, technology, and such, the policy could affect physicians, historians, and even scholars of the Swahili language.

Who enforces the restrictions?

Another noteworthy aspect is that these measures operate through the National Defense Authorization Act, meaning they are administered by the Department of Defense, unlike the traditional sanctions system. Sanctions are often described as decisions made by the U.S. government as a whole, but departments matter. In reality, Sanctions legislation is passed through Congress or came in force by a presidential decree, and enforcement is typically carried out by either the Treasury Department or the Department of Commerce. But this list is neither a sanction imposed for specific actions, nor a punishment for participating in war or violating the law. Instead, it is presented as a preventive measure designed to protect American research and technology from national security threats. Meanwhile, the official sanctions lists themselves do not receive any updates, and President Trump has repeatedly signaled a willingness to improve relations with leaders of countries that remain under U.S. sanctions. 

The Department of Defense is publishing this update because it is legally required to. At the same time, it does not provide any specific evidence demonstrating that every organization included is “engaging in activities that threaten U.S. national security interests.” The use of national security and foreign influence concerns as justifications for government intervention in science, media, and business is all too familiar from the Russian experience and feels rather unsettling. That is why it is important to understand what this policy means not only for Russian science, but also for American academia.

[[socialnetworks]]

After taking office, President Trump began exerting significant pressure on American universities. His primary targets were campus protests and the promotion of woke ideas concerning equality and the rights of gender, racial, and sexual minorities. The principal tool was the threat of cutting off federal funding. Yet even during Trump’s first presidency, the administration had already started intervening in universities through the concerns of espionage, and in 2018, the Department of Justice launched the China Initiative. According to the MIT Technology Review, the effectiveness of the initiative is highly questionable, partly because the Department of Justice never clearly explained its concrete objectives beyond broad references to protecting American technology and combating espionage. It also failed to clarify the criteria used to initiate investigations. Information about many cases never appeared on official government websites, some records were removed following media inquiries and requests for comment, and only about one quarter of the cases received actual convictions. Moreover, many prosecutions had no obvious connection to national security. This precedent is especially significant in light of the new Section 1286 list, as a precedent. As follows from the name of the programme, approximately 90% of those prosecuted under China Initiative were scholars of Chinese origin, and members of Asian diasporas were subjected to disproportionate scrutiny by law enforcement. MIT Technology Review argues that one of the initiative’s most damaging consequences was the brain drain of highly qualified researchers from the United States. Scientists and scholars were leaving because of the discrimination and pressure from the law enforcement, and it became harmful for the American science itself.

During President Biden’s administration, the espionage agenda receded somewhat into the background, but it reemerged, as Trump took office again. On March 26, 2026, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce heard reports on the activities of foreign intelligence services on university campuses. Once again, the discussion focused primarily on alleged espionage involving Chinese students, the recruitment of American students on campus, and cases in which researchers were drawn into projects without being informed on the true purpose of the research. It is worth noting that in his opening remarks, the committee chair emphasized that international collaborations should benefit America rather than its rivals. This idea contradicts the traditional understanding of academia as a transnational space for free exchange of knowledge. International conferences, academic and cultural exchanges, collaborative research, and multinational projects have advanced and benefited science worldwide for decades. As with the China Initiative, extending the logic of national security into universities and scientific research challenges this principle and contributes to the isolation of American science.

At the same time, it would be wrong to deny that espionage, foreign interference in academia and business, and theft of American intellectual property do exist. Roughly one quarter of China Initiative prosecutions ended in convictions, and over the past year, several cases have emerged involving Chinese intelligence agents infiltrating American academic institutions. But these cases differ in one respect, crucial for the NDAA 2019 list: the spies concealed their connections to Chinese universities, military structures, or intelligence agencies. They would typically enter the United States as students, visiting researchers, fellows, or even professors while hiding their institutional ties. They transferred research data and intelligence to the Chinese government, smuggled research materials into or out of the country – it seems that Ksenia Petrova was detained because of this atmosphere of heightened suspicion within academia.

There were also cases of recruiting American students and professors, but it generally happened through malign foreign talent recruitment programs, in which American researchers participated without being informed who would ultimately receive the results of their work or for what purpose. The 2024 version of the Pentagon list was specifically aimed at preventing this practice.

An even more common instrument of espionage has been cyberattacks, like the case reported recently by The Insider. In this case, Microsoft uncovered a scheme that allowed hackers to gain access to data from every device connected to compromised hotel Wi-Fi networks during academic conferences.

Journalist Roman Dobrokhotov described the method for the TVRain channel: “When you try to log in, your credentials get stolen. In the worst case scenario, you’re prompted to download software or click ‘OK’ or ‘YES,’ and a real spyware virus gets onto your laptop. It steals all your passwords and captures everything you type on the keyboard. If a conference has a thousand participants, it is enough just for two or three people to download the malware for the operation to succeed.” According to The Insider, “the group primarily targets governments, diplomatic missions, NGOs, and IT companies in the United States and Europe in order to collect intelligence supporting Russian foreign policy.” 

All of these espionage cases share an important point: every time, the perpetrators concealed the affiliations with the organizations they were truly working for, they frequently used false documents, or even operated remotely. This raises a doubt as to the effectiveness of a ban on cooperation with specific universities. Such a policy is unlikely to counter the methods actually used to steal research data.

How grave are the consequences?

The third major difference between this list and sanctions packages lies in the mechanism of the restrictions: the Department of Defense does not put a ban on the activities of the listed organizations, but it is restricting its own ability to fund them. The universities included in the list, their employees, or American scholars – none of them will face prosecution by law enforcement. However, the Pentagon restricts its ability to provide funding to universities, institutes, or individual researchers who continue collaborating with listed organizations or their employees, or who use their equipment.

At first glance, it might seem that losing such a niche source of funding would hardly affect fields unrelated to the military. For instance, professor of Russian literature Oleg Lekmanov, who taught at Princeton University, expressed precisely this view: “As I see it, this is not relevant to the humanities, because no one from the military sector offers us funding in the first place.” However, the Pentagon has numerous programs and foundations that finance research, and not only in fields related to defense, but also in biology, psychology, medicine, linguistics, the social sciences, and area studies. For instance, Natalia Korbo, a former targeting analyst for the U.S. State Department Economic Bureau, confirmed to T-invariant that the Department of Defense supports an exceptionally broad range of projects, particularly in STEM – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Moreover, funding extends well beyond STEM disciplines. For example, the Minerva Initiative distributes long- and short-term grants for research intended to help the Department of Defense better understand future challenges and prepare for them. Thus, the participating projects cover a range of disciplines. According to Science, Minerva allocated $24.8 million in 2024 alone to projects involving artificial intelligence, climate change, and migration. Yet, the Science reports that the initiative had already begun drastically reducing its funding, even for projects that appeared directly relevant to defense interests. Among those unexpectedly terminated were studies examining the factors that motivate military personnel to remain in service and the conditions that prevent the collapse of international alliances. And now, it might become even more difficult to obtain Pentagon funding, since applicants will have to demonstrate that no member of a project is affiliated with any organization on the list of “the undesirables.”

Apart from research, the Department of Defense provides funding for educational purposes. It awards scholarships to undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students studying languages and regions considered “critical to America’s security,” and it sponsors academic centers devoted to these fields.

Judging by the Trump administration’s foreign-policy priorities, particular attention is currently being drawn to South America and the Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia remain areas of strategic interest as well. Consequently, the publication of the NDAA 2019 list will affect not only researchers in biochemistry, physics, engineering, and technology, but potentially also scholars studying Latin American music or Chinese dance if their academic center receives Pentagon funding.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the funding will be lost only by a project or an institute who maintains ties with a banned organization, or the research of the whole university will be considered compromised in case one body continues collaborations. It is entirely possible that if even one department within a university depends on Department of Defense funding, restrictions on collaboration with listed organizations could apply to the university as a whole.

Furthermore, the preamble to the document contains another provision that may substantially broaden its practical impact. Formally, the list applies only to Department of Defense grants, scholarships, contracts, and other financial support. However, it also warns that cooperation with listed organizations may negatively impact scholars’ eligibility for federal funding. And that is a much more serious prospect. The U.S. federal government finances roughly half of all research and maintenance expenditures at American universities and colleges. Federal money also supports countless scholarships, research grants, and academic conferences. In this light, universities will hardly risk losing access to federal funding, even if the document merely warns of possible consequences rather than imposing an explicit prohibition.

Denis Simon, Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, argues that the U.S. government has effectively stopped distinguishing between leading civilian universities and institutions engaged in security-related research. He also believes American organizations will most likely interpret the conditions of the NDAA 2019 list very broadly. Simon further suggests that universities may begin limiting interaction not only with the organizations explicitly named on the list, but also with other research institutes in Russia, China, and Iran.

A similar concern is expressed by Evgeny Roshchin, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Global Policy of the SAIS School of Advanced International Studies: “On the one hand, the document concerns the research funded through Department of Defense grants. On the other hand, the disciplinary boundaries are not specified. That means it could apply to virtually any field of research, including economics, if it is financed through Pentagon grants. Researchers applying for federal grant competitions will also have to disclose all of their connections with people affiliated with organizations on the list. The existence of such connections may reduce their chances of receiving funding. I believe this will become the main deterrent. Of course, everything will depend on how the rules are applied, but the policy could seriously damage academic cooperation, because some researchers might choose to abandon perfectly legitimate collaborations simply to avoid the risk.”

According to research data, international collaboration is a significant driver of scientific progress. Natalia Korbo believes that while some restrictions are understandable, a blanket prohibition is deeply misguided:

“I understand the logic behind banning joint research in fields like bioengineering or physics, although spies are smart enough not to be affiliated with problematic institutions. But prohibiting all collaboration is simply foolish. It will harm both American science and scientific research worldwide. The restrictions will absolutely affect cultural studies as well. Even the closure of the Confucius Institutes had negative consequences for Americans themselves. Yes, those institutes promoted the Chinese government’s propaganda, but in most American cities they were also the only places where people could learn Chinese. These kinds of bans, like the TikTok ban, are often poorly thought out and produce enormous collateral damage.”

A similar view is shared by Anton Kapustin, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology: “First, I believe these are serious restrictions, and they extend well beyond defense-related research. Originally, they applied only to projects sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. But similar restrictions have since been introduced for grants from the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies. In practice, they now affect almost all federal grants. Second, the list of proscribed entities grows every year. Now it includes MIPT, HSE, and Moscow State University. If a student has co-authored publications with researchers from these institutions, any American university will think twice before admitting that student to a PhD program, because it will most likely be unable to pay their stipend using federal grant money. There are still many uncertainties, of course, but I think universities will prefer to be overcautious. And obtaining visas will also become more difficult for such students. So the consequences could be very serious.”

Thus, for Russian researchers, the publication of the list may result in profound professional difficulties. But how capable are these restrictions of protecting American interests? And is the loss of cooperation with Russian, Iranian, and Chinese colleagues truly significant for U.S. science?

Entrepreneur Oleg Tinkov argued in an interview with journalist Mikhail Fishman on TV Rain,  that Russian universities continue to produce exceptionally strong specialists: “Whatever we may say about Putin’s Russia, or Russia in general, its universities and education – especially in mathematics, computer science, physics, and chemistry – remain exceptionally strong, even compared with the United States. I still think Russian education firmly belongs among the world’s top five, and specialists from Russia are highly valued.”

Academic collaborations with China seem to be even more important for American science. Over the past decade, Chinese science has dramatically strengthened its global position. China ranks second in the world in the number of scientific publications. In 2024, for the first time, Chinese researchers published more papers in leading natural science journals than American scientists did, exceeding the US by 17%. Niccolò Pisani et al. emphasize that China’s success has been driven largely by international collaboration and sustained government investment. Consequently, the restriction of scientific cooperation with China can also have an objective of slowing China’s scientific progress. But such a strategy is likely to have limited effectiveness as long as other leading countries continue collaborating with Chinese researchers. Meanwhile, American science itself risks losing specialists and forfeiting one of its greatest competitive advantages: participation in the global scientific community.

As Denis Simon argues, “the policy is likely to accelerate the fragmentation of the US-China scientific relationship, including in fields that have traditionally relied on open exchanges and multinational research teams. It could also limit US researchers’ access to some of the world’s most productive scientific institutions.” Simon also questions whether the policy is genuinely capable of slowing China’s scientific development.

The publication of the 2025 Section 1286 list may therefore substantially limit cooperation between American researchers and colleagues from Russia, Iran, and China. Although at first glance, the restrictions appear to apply only to defense-related research, they are likely to affect a much broader range of academic disciplines. The precedent of prosecuting cases unrelated to security topics, set by the China Initiative, demonstrated that a program announced with narrow security objectives could, in practice, be applied much more broadly. Meanwhile, the threat of losing Pentagon funding and risk of losing eligibility for other forms of federal support are sufficiently serious that many universities are likely to abandon collaborations with listed institutions simply to avoid the risk. The inclusion of major civilian universities such as Moscow State University and the Higher School of Economics potentially affects thousands of scholars who have no connection to military research. It will be harder if possible to participate in American conferences, conduct joint research, or publish in academic journals, even if they present themselves as independent researchers and do not list their institutional affiliation. Even the students from these universities, even though the restrictions do not formally prohibit them from applying to American colleges or universities, may face indirect consequences if institutions, fearing the loss of federal funding, begin extending these restrictions to graduates of listed universities as well. The policy may also affect universities outside the United States that are closely integrated into the American academic system, particularly those receiving U.S. funding. Such institutions may likewise begin limiting cooperation with researchers affiliated with organizations on the list.

Ultimately, the measures intended to protect American science may not only create serious obstacles for researchers from Russia, China, and Iran, but they may also undermine one of the fundamental strengths of American academia itself – international collaboration and the free exchange of knowledge.

The post New “Undesirables”: Why the Pentagon Is Restricting Cooperation with Moscow State University and Higher School of Economics appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Smolny Beyond Borders, an online education project, has launched the Smolny Associate Degree program, with applications open through July 31. Over two years, students choose courses across a range of fields — the social sciences and humanities, the natural sciences, the arts, and literature. Graduates receive an Associate of Arts degree, which qualifies them to apply as transfer students to U.S. universities, entering in their second or third year (including Bard College, which will also offer third-year admission to its online program). T-invariant spoke with Denis Skopin, a philosopher who teaches at Smolny Beyond Borders, and Philip Fedchin, manager of the Smolny Beyond Borders Initiative and an online-education specialist, about how a liberal arts program was built in exile, whether serious humanities research is still possible in Russia today, and what the future holds for distance learning.

T-INVARIANT BACKGROUNDER

Denis Skopin

Born in 1976. Graduated from Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University. Defended his dissertation in philosophy in Paris in 2012. From 2012 to 2022 he taught at Smolny College (the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences at St. Petersburg State University), most recently as an associate professor. He was fired from St. Petersburg State University after taking part in the protests against mobilization in September 2022. He has lived and worked in Berlin since 2023.

Philip Fedchin

Born in 1972. Holds a degree in art history from St. Petersburg State University and a master’s degree in international relations from the University of Limerick. From 1998 to 2020 he taught at Smolny College, serving as associate dean in 2011. Since 2020 he has worked as an online-education specialist at Bard College Berlin. Since November 2022 he has directed the Smolny Beyond Borders project.

T-invariant: Smolny College was one of Russia’s leading centers of humanities education. What were the milestones in the development of liberal arts education in Russia?

Philip Fedchin: Smolny College was founded in 1997, and the first class of degree students enrolled two years later. In 2011 the program became a full faculty of St. Petersburg State University — the Russian equivalent of a school or college. Together with Bard College we ran dual-degree programs at the bachelor’s level (all of our programs) and, in later years, at the master’s level (two of the seven). At any given time the college had as many as 600 students enrolled and about 150 instructors. All told, it offered 14 undergraduate majors and seven master’s programs. Over the years, Smolny graduated more than two thousand students. It was a one-of-a-kind experiment in interdisciplinary education on the liberal arts model. Two other institutions also tried to reproduce that model — Shaninka [the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences — T-invariant] and RANEPA [the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration — T-invariant]. At a certain point Smolny became one of the city’s leading centers of cultural and intellectual life, with a brilliant teaching staff and exceptionally strong students. But in June 2021, when Bard College was declared an “undesirable organization,” our project took a devastating blow.

T-i: What exactly did you do to get on the wrong side of the Justice Ministry? Why go after some of the world’s leading universities?

Denis Skopin: Officially, Bard College was declared “undesirable” because its activities “pose a threat to the constitutional order of the Russian Federation.” That formula can be stretched to cover just about anything. But as far as I know, the real reason was that Bard received funding from the Soros foundation — and the foundation itself was already on the list of “undesirable” organizations by then. It’s worth noting that this was only a pretext: the leadership of St. Petersburg State University had known perfectly well about Bard’s ties to the Open Society Foundations long before 2021. At the time it looked as though that fact was simply put to use to destroy an independent school, at the very moment when an attempt was under way to spin it off from the university and create a separate liberal arts institution. In hindsight it’s perfectly clear that the direction the college was taking, along with our partnership with Bard College — an institution whose policy rests on respect for human rights and academic freedom — ran counter to the “party line.”

T-INVARIANT BACKGROUNDER

The liberal arts are a model of higher education built on broad study across the humanities, the social and natural sciences, and the arts. The aim is to develop students’ critical thinking and communication skills, along with their ability to analyze information and draw conclusions. Within this model, students design an individual course of study and sample a range of disciplines. The system spread most widely at American colleges and universities in the mid-twentieth century. The first year — and very often the second — involves no specialization: during that period students are meant to work out what actually interests them. After the second year, a student declares a major. Because electives account for such a large share of the workload, students can often add a minor as well, and sometimes even a second major (a double major). The key point is that students make all of these decisions themselves, though with guidance from an academic advisor. Smolny College was the first program in Russia to operate on the liberal arts model. Today there are no institutions left in Russia that work this way.

T-i: Do you follow the academic work of your former colleagues who stayed in Russia? Is the range of what they can research narrowing under the pressure of repression? And is it still possible to do serious work in the humanities today, so long as you steer clear of obviously taboo subjects like the war or gender studies?

DS: I personally know a lot of competent, decent teachers who stayed in Russia. These are anti-war people, and their situation right now is not one you’d envy. The leading prewar educational projects in Russia have all fallen apart, one way or another. Smolny is gone. Shaninka has been shut down. HSE [the Higher School of Economics — T-invariant] has been thoroughly “purged” of disloyal faculty members. Russian higher education has withered before our eyes, in the space of just a few years. Faculty members who remain in the country can no longer say what they think. Before the full-scale invasion it was still possible, even as Russia was rapidly turning autocratic. Yes, there was administrative pressure, there were attempts to control what got taught, but what goes on in the administrators’ offices is one thing and what goes on in the classroom is another. Now that has changed: you can’t speak frankly with students, because sooner or later someone will report you. As the old line has it, “If twelve of you are plotting a conspiracy, one of you is bound to be a traitor.”

Researchers in Russia today are arguably worse off than they were in the Soviet Union. Back then, for instance, holders of a Doctor of Sciences degree [the higher of Russia’s two doctoral degrees — T-invariant] could order scholarly literature from abroad. Today Russian scholars’ access to foreign libraries is severely restricted. If you’re a historian or a literary scholar, say, some 80 percent of the foreign scholarly literature you need to read isn’t in Russian libraries, and you won’t find it in open access either. And that’s before you get to how much harder it now is for a Russian scholar to publish with a serious international academic press. My own book, for example, came out with Routledge in 2022, literally a month before the big war started. I find it hard to imagine a scholar living and working in Russia getting a monograph published by a Western press today.

T-i: What’s the bigger obstacle to cooperation between Russian and Western researchers: pressure from the authorities, or Western partners’ unwillingness to deal with an aggressor state?

DS: There is pressure from the administrations of Russian universities, but Western universities are hardly likely to work with scholars based inside Russia right now either. Before the full-scale invasion there were any number of joint projects, especially with Europe, which is right next door. After February 2022, collaborating with Russian institutions — state universities above all — simply became toxic. Which means that a researcher working with scholars in Russia has to be absolutely certain about the people involved: certain they haven’t signed pro-war letters or taken part in hounding their anti-war colleagues. Nobody can offer that kind of guarantee. So Western scholars don’t want to take on the responsibility. Of course, individual scholars had personal ties with Western colleagues, and those haven’t gone anywhere. But direct collaboration is on pause.

[[socialnetworks]]

T-i: Given everything you’ve described, how did your project come about in the first place? And tell us how it differs from other educational initiatives in exile — the Free University, for instance.

DS: In February 2022 the college was shut down in all but name. Officially it still exists, but in reality it’s a ruin, and as early as this year students will no longer be taught under the old liberal arts curriculum. The colleagues who left became the backbone of Smolny Beyond Borders. The core of our project consists of people who worked at Smolny College itself, and we’re carrying on the tradition Smolny had before the full-scale invasion. We started out as a set of standalone online courses, but last year we launched our first degree-granting online program.

That’s what sets us apart from many other online education projects: we are first and foremost an academic project. We don’t just let people sit in on our courses — we give our students a way to take their first step toward the global higher education system. We hold the relevant U.S. accreditation. Along with the Associate Degree, we also offer shorter certificate programs.

PREVIOUSLY IN T-INVARIANT

“Professors have no right to drag ideological preferences into the university.” Marina Kalashnikova on the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences in Montenegro

“Come New Year’s, an owl will fly in from the Ministry of Magic with a letter saying the license is gone.” Shaninka faculty on how the authorities destroyed one of Russia’s most important universities

Free education cannot be deemed “undesirable”

Universities in Exile: A Growing Industry

T-i: So this is a full-fledged online bachelor’s degree?

DS: It’s more like the first stage of one. Our program runs two years, and graduates receive an Associate of Arts degree, which allows them to continue their studies in person at one of the institutions affiliated with Bard College (assuming, naturally, that the transfer goes through). Starting in September 2027, Bard Global Degree plans to open a full online bachelor’s program, into which our graduates will be able to transfer as third-year students. That degree will have three broad majors: 1) philosophy, politics, and economics (PPE); 2) literary and media studies; 3) data science.

T-i: Plenty of applicants will choose an online program over an in-person one. What do you see as the prospects for distance higher education in exile?

DS: I think the remote format creates obstacles and opens up new horizons at the same time. Among the drawbacks is the physical and psychological strain on students, who have to spend several hours a week in front of a computer. As a teacher, I miss the live, human contact with students that the classroom always provided. That said, online learning has obvious advantages. Above all, it’s far cheaper: a university doesn’t have to maintain a campus or buy equipment, which means those costs aren’t passed on to students. Online education has also long since become mainstream — practically every large university now has a unit devoted to it. Tellingly, most Russian faculty members who left after the full-scale invasion began — around 90 percent, I’d guess — now work in online education projects in one form or another. For them it’s both a way to survive and a new professional niche.

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

T-i: How closely does your curriculum follow Smolny College’s?

PF: The structure of the Smolny Associate Degree is identical to that of comparable Bard College programs, since the degree itself is Bard’s. But the teaching is done primarily by our own instructors. Not exclusively, though — Associate Degree students can also take courses from the Global Higher Education Alliance for the 21st Century network, which widens their options considerably.

T-i: Do students pay tuition at Smolny Beyond Borders?

PF: Tuition is €5,000 a year. But we aren’t counting on tuition to bring in any real income, and we encourage everyone who can’t pay anything at all to apply.

All of our students currently receive substantial discounts, up to 100 percent, depending on what they can afford. In effect, you can complete two years at an American college practically for free (setting aside what a laptop and an internet connection cost) and then either try to transfer to a regular in-person institution — where tuition is a different matter, and whatever discounts exist depend on the school you’re transferring to — or apply and enroll as a third-year student in the online bachelor’s program, on roughly the same terms you had for those first two years.

T-i: What share of the prewar teaching staff now works at Smolny Beyond Borders? Do you hire instructors who haven’t taught in other liberal arts programs before?

PF: Of our 30 current instructors, roughly half once taught at Smolny College or were directly connected to it. But we also have people who taught at the European University at St. Petersburg, at Shaninka, and elsewhere.

T-i: The Associate Degree offers a wide range of courses, from philosophy to data science. On the one hand, that looks appealing to a Russian applicant used to narrowly specialized degree programs. On the other, plenty of people will ask themselves: “And what are my job prospects once I finish?” A lot of people have switched into survival mode, and it can feel like this is no moment for philosophy or art history — far better to study something applied that pays off quickly.

PF: If you look at global university rankings, American universities are at the top — and their undergraduate education is built on precisely this liberal arts model. Students get to choose a specialization not when they apply but later, once they’re already at the university, after a year or two. A student first picks a few individual courses, tries out different fields, and only then, on the strength of that experience, chooses a major. The Associate Degree is exactly those first two years, and the point is to help students figure out what actually interests them. This trend didn’t emerge in a vacuum: it answers the demands of the labor market and, above all, the needs of students themselves. And yes, one important point. When someone claims a program embodies liberal arts principles, I usually suggest asking a simple question: what share of their coursework do students genuinely choose for themselves? If it’s less than half, it’s liberal arts in name only. In our case, of the 64 credits in the two-year program, only 13 are required courses. In other words, students choose three-quarters of their courses on their own, with a single additional constraint on the remaining 50 credits — they must take at least one four-credit course in each of the four distribution areas (mathematics and the natural sciences, the social sciences, literature, and the arts).

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

T-i: How will events in Russia shape your project’s fate and trajectory? Take two extreme scenarios five years from now: either Russia enters a period of sweeping change and democratization, or the country goes down the North Korean road. Would either affect you, or are you building your educational path independently of what happens in Russia?

PF: If positive change does come to Russia, I’m confident that the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences will quickly be restored to its former shape. And that would mean not just the revival of one school but the full implementation of the model within the official educational standards. The thing is, when the plan for a new university built on Smolny was being drawn up, an enormous amount of work went into developing a new educational standard. In the end it never came to anything, but what’s written down doesn’t disappear — those ideas can perfectly well be taken up again in the future. Much of what made Smolny College interesting was precisely that it ran a liberal arts and sciences model inside a Russian university.

As for the North Korean scenario, our program was international from the outset, and we’re part of the Bard Global Degree project, whose whole purpose is to build a model for supporting displaced students and displaced scholars in a range of contexts. And while we do enroll students located in Russia in courses outside the Associate Degree, for the Associate Degree itself we accept only applicants who are outside Russia, for obvious reasons. In that sense we work with the diaspora — and given that all the program’s required courses are taught in English [except one — T-invariant], internationalization is a natural process.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post <h1>Smolny in Exile: From a St. Petersburg Faculty to a Global Online College</h1> appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

In 1993, Marina Bykova became the youngest scholar in the humanities in Russia to earn a Doctor of Sciences degree [Russia’s higher doctorate, awarded years after the Ph.D.-equivalent candidate’s degree — T-invariant]. Today she is a professor at an American university and editor-in-chief of the influential international journal Studies in East European Thought. For many years her professional life has been devoted to building and sustaining dialogue between the Russian philosophical tradition and the international academic community. It is a singular and often difficult mission — keeping intellectual bridges open at a time when political conflict is tearing apart the usual academic ties. In an interview with T-invariant, Marina Bykova reflects on why Russian academia has been paralyzed by fear, how the cultural project of the “Russian World” turned into a political ideology, what happens to philosophy when it loses its autonomy, and how the experience of the Soviet “sixties generation” of philosophers [shestidesyatniki, the reform-minded intellectuals who came of age during the post-Stalin Thaw — T-invariant] helps us understand the relationship between philosophy and power today.

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

Science Under Sanctions

T-invariant: Let’s start with your work as a journal editor. Before you became editor-in-chief of Studies in East European Thought, you ran another journal devoted to philosophy in Russia, didn’t you?

Marina Bykova: Yes, before that I was editor-in-chief of Russian Studies in Philosophy; I was invited to take it over in January 2008. By then I had already guest-edited two thematic issues for it at the invitation of the editor at the time, Taras Zakydalsky, a well-known scholar of Russian and Ukrainian philosophy. After his death, the publisher asked me to take charge. The journal had a rather unusual format: it published thematic clusters of articles that had previously appeared in Russian and were then translated into English, mostly from journals such as Voprosy filosofii (Problems of Philosophy), Filosofskie nauki (Philosophical Sciences), and Vestnik MGU (the Moscow University Bulletin). I proposed expanding that model to include original research written specifically for the journal.

T-i: So the journal was a window through which Russian-language philosophy reached Western academia?

MB: Exactly. Most Western scholars had limited access to philosophical literature in Russian, and many of them found it hard to read Russian at all. So our job was to give Western readers a sense of what Russian philosophy was preoccupied with, which problems it was debating, and what intellectual discussions were unfolding inside it.

T-i: How did you manage to keep that format going?

MB: We put out thematic issues, for which Russian authors sent us their articles in Russian. Professional translators then turned the texts into English. But philosophical translation takes more than simply knowing the language; it requires a deep grasp of the subject, the terminology, the context. So I often had to edit the translations heavily, and sometimes essentially rebuild whole passages from scratch. What came out in the end were fully fledged scholarly articles that specialists still use today. The journal’s archive is available on the publisher’s website.

T-i: Why was the journal shut down?

MB: I’ll admit this is still a hard question for me to answer. That journal was bound up with many years of my life, and its closing was painful. But to understand the decision, I need to say a few words about the journal itself. It was part of a large series that originally ran to more than ten titles covering Russian scholarship across the humanities — history, literature, cultural studies, education, and other fields. These journals were founded back during the Cold War and at first served as an important source of material for Sovietology. After the Cold War ended, they retained their significance and continued to serve an important informational function for the Western academic community.

Originally the entire series was published by a small publishing house, M. E. Sharpe, but by the time I was editor-in-chief the titles had moved to Taylor & Francis, which had acquired M. E. Sharpe along with everything it published. In its final years, Russian Studies in Philosophy appeared under the Routledge imprint — one of the leading international humanities publishers — which raised its standing considerably. The journal was widely cited, scored well in the international databases, and consistently ranked highly in Scopus-based metrics, which in turn drew a large number of Russian authors.

BACKGROUND

M. E. Sharpe was an independent American academic publisher founded in the 1950s. It issued a series of journals under the general heading Russian Studies in…, which grew out of American academia’s interest in studying the USSR and Russia during the Cold War. The series included Russian Studies in Education, Russian Studies in History, Russian Studies in Literature, Russian Studies in Critical Thought, and Russian Studies in Philosophy. In the 2000s, a substantial part of M. E. Sharpe’s academic portfolio, the journals included, was acquired by the Taylor & Francis Group, which went on publishing them under the Routledge imprint.

After Russia launched its full-scale war against Ukraine, the publisher sent the editors of every journal in the series a notice that it had decided to discontinue them. Formally, this was presented as a business decision. I managed to win a one-year reprieve, since by that point we already had a fully prepared publishing plan of six issues. Simply abandoning material that authors and editors had worked on for years struck me as impossible. As a result, ours was the last journal in the series to go: it closed only in May 2023.

T-i: And do you think it really was a business decision, or…?

MB: No. My own experience, at any rate, convinces me otherwise. I believe it was first and foremost a politically motivated decision. In January 2019, nearly four years before Russian Studies in Philosophy closed, I had also been invited to head another journal, Studies in East European Thought (SEET), published by Springer. After the war began, representatives of the publisher approached me as editor-in-chief and proposed limiting submissions by authors with Russian institutional affiliations. I asked on what grounds such a measure was being proposed. I was told that the policy followed from the general sanctions regime and from political decisions taken in Europe and North America with respect to Russia. They also stressed that many Ukrainian colleagues categorically objected to publishing Russian authors.

But a scholarly publication is not in itself an expression of support for a state or its policies. I consistently distinguish between philosophical thought and state ideology: the first, by its very nature, presupposes critical thinking and autonomy, while the second seeks to use knowledge as an instrument of political ends. Judging philosophical work primarily through the lens of political affiliation inevitably undermines the very principle of academic freedom.

So my position was a matter of principle: the only criterion for publication in an academic journal should be the quality of the scholarship. I replied that the journal would go on accepting articles from researchers with Russian affiliations. My editorial board fully supported that stance. I also told Springer that if the publisher found this approach unacceptable, I was prepared to step down as editor-in-chief. After internal discussions, Springer decided not to interfere with the journal’s editorial policy. As a result, Studies in East European Thought remains one of the few international philosophy journals where Russian scholars can still publish on standard academic terms.

T-i: Isn’t that dangerous for the authors themselves right now?

MB: That’s a hard question. Situations vary. Some authors prefer to publish under pseudonyms or anonymously; others use their own names and even list their institutional affiliations. We try to take each author’s particular circumstances into account. At the same time, it should be understood that what we are dealing with here is scholarly work and scholarly publication. That said, we are certainly aware that for some Russian authors, publishing in a Western academic journal can itself look like a risky step today.

T-i: Which raises the obvious question: what makes that risk worth taking for them?

MB: For most of our Russian colleagues it is less about building a new reputation than about not vanishing from the international academic landscape. Many are afraid of being shut out of the global scholarly community altogether.

I was also struck by how closely Russian researchers still follow our journal. Although official access to many international databases is now restricted in Russia, scholars find ways to get the literature they need through personal contacts, professional networks, and other informal channels of academic exchange. Springer recently gave me download statistics for individual articles and full issues over the past three years. The largest number of downloads came from Russia and China.

T-i: Even though the journal comes out in English?

MB: Yes. And what is more, our journal is hardly politically neutral. We were one of the first academic publications to respond openly to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and not merely with a statement. In December 2022 we brought out a special issue, Russia’s War in Ukraine: When Barbarism Takes Over Civilization (SEET, vol. 74, issue 4). I edited it and wrote the introduction. It ran to 22 pieces, including research articles and the proceedings of a roundtable with young Russian scholars. As far as I know, it was one of the first collective — and genuinely international — responses to the war from the philosophical community. That issue mattered not only as an academic reaction to the war but as an attempt to preserve the critical function of philosophical language: the capacity to describe what is happening without substituting ideological formulas and euphemisms for analysis.

Just recently, in early 2026, we put together a special double issue, Aleksandr Dugin and Contemporary Russian Conservatism (SEET, vol. 78, issues 1–2), which I co-edited with my Canadian colleague Jeff Love. The contributors examine in detail the intellectual sources, ideological foundations, and political consequences of contemporary Russian conservatism, along with the role Aleksandr Dugin’s ideas played in shaping it. The issue was important because it analyzed not just Dugin as a public intellectual but the broader phenomenon of philosophical and pseudo-philosophical constructs being turned into instruments of political mobilization. We wanted to show how ideas, once they leave the academic context, can be reinterpreted and put to work in ideological projects with real historical consequences. And of course, in that issue we stated our own position on the Dugin phenomenon openly.

T-i: As far as I know, academics don’t regard him as an academic philosopher.

MB: That’s partly true. But in the West — and this is by no means a new tendency — Dugin is often seen as one of contemporary Russia’s leading intellectual figures, even as the chief architect of the Putin regime. He is frequently called “Putin’s brain,” on the assumption that the key to understanding Kremlin policy lies exclusively in his writings. To my mind, that is a serious oversimplification. The main goal of our special issue of Studies in East European Thought was to show that this picture does not hold up and to subject the Dugin phenomenon itself to critical analysis. We set out to show that Dugin is not an independent philosopher in the strict academic sense, still less a hidden architect of Russian policy, but a political ideologue and polemicist who uses philosophical terminology to construct a particular ideological worldview. Since in the post-Soviet space Dugin is sometimes presented as virtually the foremost authority on Martin Heidegger, we brought in leading Western specialists in Heidegger, the history of ideas, and intellectual history, among them such well-established authors as Mark Sedgwick. In the pages of that issue, researchers analyzed Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory and his geopolitical concepts in detail, exposing their eclectic, ideologically driven character.

The analysis showed that behind the outward philosophical vocabulary there often lies an arbitrary assembly of disparate ideas, in which quotations from Heidegger, Max Weber, and Max Stirner, torn out of context, are mixed at will with radical traditionalism and far-right political concepts. Our special issue thus made an important contribution to the critical study of the Dugin phenomenon.

We aimed not merely to explain to the Western intellectual community who Dugin is as a political thinker, but to move the discussion out of sensationalist journalism and into the space of serious philosophical and intellectual-historical analysis.

From the “Russian World” to War

T-i: Do philosophers today — you among them — understand what is happening in Russia right now? Why did the war become possible in the first place?

MB: Whatever we do understand as researchers, we ought to be able to explain clearly. That, to me, is where the responsibility of philosophers and humanities scholars lies. I recently wrote an article on the genealogy of the “Russian World” ideology, because it is particularly important today to understand how this concept arose and why it acquired such destructive political potential. What matters to me above all is showing that ideas are rarely born in finished ideological form. They go through a long evolution, in the course of which their original cultural meaning can be radically reinterpreted and harnessed for political ends. That, in my view, is exactly what happened with the concept of the “Russian World.” The paradox is that the idea was originally neither narrowly nationalist nor aggressive. It emerged in the 1990s, during the period of democratic reform, and was largely conceived as a network of cultural centers meant to support the Russian language and Russian culture and to maintain ties with compatriots and Russian-speaking communities outside Russia. It took institutional shape in 2007 with the founding of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, charged with coordinating the promotion of Russian language and culture abroad. That was when the existing Russian Houses [Russian state-run cultural centers abroad — T-invariant], along with newly opened ones, were given fresh impetus, with an emphasis above all on cultural diplomacy, support for the diaspora, and the maintenance of cultural ties with it. There is nothing unique about institutions of cultural diplomacy. Many countries invest heavily in strengthening their cultural presence and deploying the instruments of soft power — China’s Confucius Institute, Germany’s Goethe-Institut, and the British Council, to name a few.

It is important to stress that the “Russian World” project was, in its formative stage, a matter of cultural policy, not political ideology. There is nothing exceptional or nationalist about wanting to support a language, a culture, and ties with a diaspora. Yet it was precisely in that period that the groundwork was laid for the ideological transformation that followed. Why did it happen? The answer, I think, has mainly to do with the crisis of national and cultural identity that Russian society went through after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Soviet identity was gone, and a new one had not yet taken shape. For the first time, Russian society faced the question: what does it mean to be Russian? Out of that situation came the idea of defining “Russianness” not through citizenship but through language, culture, historical memory, a shared cultural heritage, and historical traditions. That search for identity was not in itself nationalist, nor was it peculiar to Russia. Similar processes are typical of societies living through the breakup of states, a change of political system, or deep historical upheaval. What changed the situation was that this cultural concept gradually took on political content. Language and culture ceased to be a space of free communication and became a criterion of political belonging. If millions of people share the Russian language, Russian culture, and a common historical memory, then they can be portrayed as a single civilizational space bound together by a shared history and a special historical mission. An important role in this transformation was played by the Izborsky Club, founded in 2012, which brought together ideologues such as Alexander Prokhanov and Aleksandr Dugin. It was there that the attempt was made to formulate a new state ideology, to explain who the “Russian person” is and what Russia’s special historical mission consists of. And in the process, the notion of “Russianness” increasingly shifted from cultural self-identification and toward political loyalty.

Unlike classical nineteenth- and twentieth-century European nationalism, this concept rested not so much on the idea of common descent or “blood” as on a shared history, the Orthodox tradition, the legacy of Kievan Rus’, and the notion of a single civilizational space of the Eastern Slavs. It is in this context that Putin repeatedly spoke of Russians and Ukrainians as “one people.” In the West the phrase was often rendered as “one nation,” though in Russian narod (a people) and natsiya (a nation) are far from identical. That distinction is essential for grasping the underlying logic of the “Russian World” ideology.

Little by little, the circle of those counted as part of the “Russian World” widened. At first it meant the Russian-speaking population, then the Eastern Slavs, and eventually virtually all peoples historically tied to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. That is how a cultural concept finally turned into a geopolitical project. The result was a fundamental substitution. What began as a program to support the Russian language and culture gradually became an ideology of Russia’s historical exceptionalism, of a special civilizational path, and of political revisionism. This is why the “Russian World” today should be seen not as a cultural initiative but as an ideological project that legitimizes expansionism, rejects the universal principles of international law, and defines itself against the liberal-democratic world order.

T-i: Are there questions about Russia that you keep asking yourself without finding an answer?

MB: There are quite a few. The one that keeps haunting me is how such a destructive war could come to be seen by a substantial part of Russian society as historically necessary. Rationally, much of what is happening is hard to explain in the familiar categories of political or economic calculation.

In the first months of the war, it seemed to me that Russian society was largely hostage to the political regime and to a vast machinery of state propaganda. In other words, I assumed that support for the war was largely coerced. Over time, though, my understanding grew more complicated. Talking with colleagues in Russia, including people from the academic community, I increasingly ran into a different line of reasoning. Many of them do not welcome the war at all. Some say outright that they consider it a tragedy and, quite possibly, a historical mistake. And yet they are convinced that now that the war has begun, Russia cannot afford to lose it. Underlying that position is the belief that Russia’s defeat would mean not just a military setback but the end of the country as a great power — and perhaps a threat to the very existence of the Russian state. I do not share this view, but I think it is extremely important to understand the internal logic of such convictions. If we want to make sense of what is happening, it is not enough simply to declare these views irrational or propaganda-driven. We need to understand how they took shape and why they proved so persuasive to millions of people, including people in intellectual circles. That remains one of the hardest — and at the same time one of the most important — questions for me today.

T-i: What is happening today among Russian-speaking researchers, both those who left and those who stayed? What unites them, and what divides them?

MB: A serious split has opened up in the Russian-speaking academic community, above all between those who left Russia and those who remained. But that line does not map neatly onto attitudes toward the war: among those who left there are people with very different positions, and by no means all of them are willing to voice their disagreement openly. It seems to me that one of the key factors shaping the current situation is fear. And I mean not only political fear in the usual sense of the word, but a deeper, almost existential fear — fear for one’s own safety, for the future, for one’s loved ones. Many of those who emigrated still have ties to Russia. Elderly parents, relatives, property, professional contacts are all still there. On top of that, many are unsure whether their emigration will be temporary or permanent, and they want to keep the option of returning open. All of this creates a climate of self-censorship.

People may disagree with what is happening and still avoid saying so publicly, fearing the possible consequences — not only for themselves but for those close to them. It is this fear — which one might call a biological, instinctive drive toward self-preservation — that largely defines the state of the Russian-speaking academic world today. And what makes it especially paradoxical is that this holds equally for those who stayed in Russia and for those who ended up outside it.

T-i: Émigrés of the White movement also expected to return, yet they spoke and thought freely.

MB: Yes, many in that first wave of emigration [Russians who fled after the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War — T-invariant] also hoped to come back. But the historical situation was fundamentally different: after the Revolution and the Civil War, many of them were stripped of citizenship, of property, and of any possibility of return. The practice continued through the Soviet period: the state restricted freedom of movement and often turned departure into a forced separation from one’s homeland. The border was closed, and emigration effectively meant a final break with one’s former life. But at the same time, those who left gained the freedom to speak, write, and act openly in accordance with their views and convictions. I’m reminded here of a passage in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s memoirs about his expulsion from the Soviet Union. He wrote that the moment the plane left Soviet airspace, he felt absolute freedom for the first time. He had lost his homeland, but he had gained the freedom to speak and think without fear.

The paradox of the present situation is that open borders have brought not only greater mobility but also a distinctive instrument of political leverage and pressure in the hands of the state. This, to my mind, is one of the most unusual features of the current Russian regime: a new form of political control based not on closing the borders but on maintaining controlled openness. People can leave the country, but the act of emigrating does not necessarily mean freedom from fear. Those who leave find themselves in an in-between state — between physical freedom of movement and a sense of constant vulnerability. Physically they leave Russia, but psychologically and socially they are not always entirely free of the system they left behind.

Self-Censorship Against Philosophy

T-i: What is happening inside the Russian philosophical community?

MB: To be honest, what troubles me today is not so much state censorship as the gradual transformation of the very culture of philosophical thinking. I don’t think what is going on can be explained by direct state pressure alone. Institutional constraints certainly exist, but self-censorship has become a far more serious problem. It is self-censorship that largely sets the intellectual climate today.

Let me give an example from my own experience. In 2022 the centenary of the famous “philosophers’ ships” was being marked [the 1922 expulsion from Soviet Russia of some two hundred intellectuals, most of them deported by steamship — T-invariant], and a major international conference was in preparation. I was invited onto the organizing committee as a representative of the academic community abroad. After the war began, the European participants had to withdraw from the committee, because their universities and government bodies prohibited official cooperation with Russian state institutions. In the end, the only foreign participants left were a retired French colleague and me — there were no such restrictions in the United States. I was asked to give a plenary talk over Zoom and then publish it in Voprosy filosofii. And this is where the mechanism of self-censorship became fully apparent. I was told the text was too critical, that publishing it could put the journal in the line of fire and create problems both for the editors and for the Institute of Philosophy, which publishes it. No one officially forbade printing my talk. The decision was made purely out of fear of possible consequences. That, to my mind, is the most alarming feature of the situation today.

Self-censorship is always more dangerous than censorship proper: censorship restricts what is said from the outside, whereas self-censorship gradually rebuilds and deforms thinking itself. That is why I see self-censorship not simply as a political phenomenon but as a philosophical problem. It changes not only what people say but what questions they are capable of putting to themselves. When a researcher rules out entire areas of reflection in advance as “dangerous” or “undesirable,” philosophy stops doing its central job — subjecting reality to critical scrutiny.

Self-censorship is essentially one of the most dangerous instruments of authoritarian power: it limits not only freedom of speech but freedom of thought, imperceptibly narrowing the very space of what can be asked. Every authoritarian regime seeks to control not only public expression but the conditions under which independent thinking becomes possible. And self-censorship turns out to be a remarkably effective tool of that control.

T-i: How does self-censorship show up in philosophical research?

MB: Self-censorship inevitably changes the intellectual agenda itself. Many researchers try to steer clear of topics that might be read as politically sensitive. That is part of why we are seeing a marked rise in interest in traditional values, in the history of Russian philosophy, in Eastern philosophy and religious thought. I certainly don’t mean that these subjects are unworthy of attention. On the contrary, they are important fields of study. The problem arises when the choice of topic is driven not by scholarly interest but by considerations of safety. The result is that philosophy stops asking uncomfortable questions and starts circling around long-familiar material.

One episode in particular stunned me. Talking with a colleague, I learned about plans for a summer school devoted to Kant’s essay Toward Perpetual Peace. Both the work itself and the subject it raises are exceptionally important — especially now, in the middle of a bloody war. I was excited, and I asked how they intended to discuss the text under present conditions, and how far the ongoing war would become a subject of reflection. What I heard shook me to the core. The plan, it turned out, was to discuss the essay “in purely theoretical terms,” without touching on current social and political realities. That answer became for me a symbol of where Russian philosophical scholarship, and philosophical discourse generally, stands today. And it is very sad, because philosophy exists precisely in order to connect ideas with reality. If philosophical concepts lose all connection to historical experience, they become a purely academic exercise. It would of course be unfair to claim that all Russian philosophers have abandoned this much-needed reflection and blindly support what is happening. They have not. I know many people who stayed in Russia and inwardly refuse to accept the war. But fear — for themselves, for their colleagues, for the institutions they work in — leads many of them to keep quiet, retreating into the internal emigration we know so well from the Soviet period.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

T-i: And do philosophers in emigration discuss the current situation?

MB: Émigrés certainly discuss what is happening far more freely. But another problem arises here. An enormous number of texts about the war, about Russian society, about the Putin regime are being published now. Most of these, though, belong to the genre of opinion journalism or political commentary rather than to philosophical research in the strict sense. And that is entirely understandable. Philosophical reflection requires a certain historical distance. Philosophy does not simply record events; it tries to understand their inner logic, to identify the concepts and structures that become visible only with time. And we are still inside the event itself, which is not yet over. So many of today’s interpretations are inevitably preliminary and fragmentary. This does not mean philosophy is silent. Rather, it is in the process of making sense of what is happening and searching for an adequate language to describe it. I am convinced that the most significant philosophical work on this war and on the transformation of Russian society is still ahead of us.

T-i: But parallels can be drawn.

MB: Parallels are certainly possible, though they have to be handled with great care. History never repeats itself literally. Even so, it is parallels that occupy me most as a researcher today. My recent article is about philosophers of the shestidesyatniki generation and what lessons their experience can offer us now. The main resemblance, as I see it, lies not in the political circumstances as such but in the fact that the question of philosophy’s relationship to power has once again moved to the foreground. The shestidesyatniki, after all, also lived under conditions of limited freedom. During the Thaw there was a sense of intellectual liberation, but it very quickly became clear that this space of freedom had its limits. Philosophers were confronted with the question of how to preserve the autonomy of thought inside a system determined to subordinate intellectual life to itself. That question is still with us today. Present-day conditions are of course different from Soviet ones. But the problem of the relationship between philosophy and power, between independent thinking and institutional loyalty, has not gone anywhere.

What worries me most is that many academic structures today prefer not to resist outside pressure but to adjust to it in advance. This is not only about political restrictions; it is about a willingness to give up their own intellectual responsibility. When a university or a research institute stops deciding for itself what its curriculum contains or what its researchers work on, it risks losing its central function — being a space for the free pursuit of truth.

T-i: Why do the shestidesyatniki philosophers seem so important to you today? What lessons can we draw from their experience?

MB: The shestidesyatniki are often seen simply as a generation of liberals and reformers, but that reading oversimplifies things badly. For me, the shestidesyatniki movement in philosophy was not so much a generation as a distinct philosophical project aimed at restoring philosophy to its true purpose. Their main task was to reestablish philosophy as an independent form of thinking. It is no secret that by the early 1950s philosophy in the USSR had largely turned into an ideological discipline, reduced to commenting on and quoting the canonical texts of Marxism-Leninism. Philosophy had effectively lost its own voice. It was in this context that the famous “Theses on the Subject Matter of Philosophy,” written in 1954 by two junior lecturers in the philosophy faculty at Moscow State University, Evald Ilyenkov and Valentin Korovikov, became such an important event. It is worth stressing that this happened two years before the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, where Stalin’s cult of personality was criticized, along with its consequences — including for philosophy, which had been steadily drained of living thought. The authors of the “Theses” called into question the very understanding of philosophy as the handmaiden of ideology. They insisted that philosophy must have its own object of inquiry and its own criteria of truth. They paid dearly for it. They were harshly attacked, and both were forced to leave Moscow State University. But the significance of their intervention lay in more than the specific theses. In effect, these scholars asserted philosophy’s right to exist autonomously, to have its own object of study and its own independent thinking. In other words, this was not about reforming Soviet ideology but about restoring philosophy as an independent field of inquiry — which is impossible without giving philosophy back its principal subject: the human being as a thinking, autonomous subject. That, in my view, is the central philosophical achievement of the shestidesyatniki.

[[socialnetworks]]

Stalinist intellectual culture was dominated by the language of collective historical forces, classes, parties, and state interests. The human being as a subject of philosophical thought had all but vanished from philosophical discourse. The shestidesyatniki put the real human being back at the center of philosophical analysis — his consciousness, his freedom, his responsibility. They returned to philosophy not merely the human being as an object of study but the human being as a thinking subject, capable of posing questions independently and answering for his own judgments. It is no accident that turning to the early Marx, and especially to the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, came to matter so much to them. In the young Marx they saw not a theorist of the state machine but a thinker of human emancipation. Many of them therefore set out to analyze not abstract historical laws but the concrete forms of alienation, bureaucratization, and dehumanization in social life.

T-i: And how was it in the sixties?

MB: This is exactly the question that interests me most today. As I said, it seems to me that the experience of philosophers of the shestidesyatniki generation holds two lessons — a positive one and a negative one. And what matters especially is that these lessons did not emerge at the same time. The positive one had to do with the fact that the shestidesyatniki managed to give philosophy back its autonomy and restore the right to think for oneself. The negative one became clear much later — during perestroika, when philosophers themselves encountered an entirely different relationship between philosophy and power for the first time. We know the achievements of the shestidesyatniki well. Far less attention goes to the limitations and internal contradictions of their project. The paradox is that a generation that had fought for philosophy’s autonomy turned out to be largely unprepared for the changes perestroika brought. Faced with a new historical situation, in which the intelligentsia — members of the philosophical intelligentsia included — gained access to political and administrative structures of power, many of them became an integral part of those power structures and lost their critical distance from them. Serving as deputies, advisers, and heads of academic institutes and universities made them active participants in the machinery of decision-making.

Let me stress that there is nothing objectionable in intellectuals taking part in public life as such. Quite the opposite: philosophy that genuinely does any work is never wholly detached from society. The problem arises when the necessary distance between philosophy and power disappears, when the philosopher becomes indistinguishable from those in power and loses the capacity to look critically at them and at their decisions.

This, in my view, is where one of the main negative lessons of the shestidesyatniki experience becomes visible. It has to do not with the mistakes of particular individuals or particular institutions but with a deeper structural danger that accompanies philosophy in every era: the temptation to gain influence, recognition, and institutional support at the cost of one’s own independence.

Kant warned long ago that the philosopher should not become the ruler. The state may turn to the philosopher for advice, but that advice must remain independent of the immediate interests of those in power. By its very nature, philosophy has to remain a space of critical reflection — including criticism of the structures that wield political power.

T-i: And the negative lessons?

MB: This is precisely why the phenomenon of the shestidesyatniki philosophers extends far beyond its own era: it is a distinctive philosophical experience that helps us understand the relationship between philosophy and power. That experience left us with two lessons — a lesson in resistance and a lesson in the seduction of power. The first shows that even under ideological pressure philosophy is able to preserve its autonomy and give people back the right to think in their own name. The second reminds us that the freedom of philosophical thought is threatened not only by censorship and repression but also by the lure of power, which gradually erodes the critical distance philosophy requires. It seems to me that the ability to maintain that distance is one of the most important professional and moral obligations of a philosopher. And in that sense the experience of the shestidesyatniki philosophers remains strikingly contemporary.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post <h1>The Paradox of Open Borders: Why Physical Freedom Doesn’t Liberate the Mind. An Interview with Marina Bykova</h1> appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

A total of 620 drones were launched at the Moscow region last night, with Russian air defense forces claiming to have shot down 180 of them during an intense overnight attack. The massive attack underlines a growing reality: Russian President Vladimir Putin had said at the beginning of the war that any attacks on Russian soil would be a “red line.” Now, there are daily attacks ravaging the country, with Ukraine striking critical energy structures, residential buildings, and major logistics warehouses.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported on the attacks on Tuesday, Aug. 18, noting that due to the scale of drone launches, it was one of the largest Ukrainian airstrikes aimed at the region since the war began. The TASS news outlet claimed it was the largest.

Moscow faced its largest drone attack in two years, according to Russian sources. Mayor Sergei Sobyanin claimed 627 UAVs headed toward the capital, with around 180 downed over the Moscow region. Local reports cited a fire near the Kapotnya refinery, a strike on a Wildberries… pic.twitter.com/iFRq1YL8AY

— NOELREPORTS (@NOELreports) August 18, 2026

The mayor noted that emergency services were actively deployed to sites where debris fell, though he did not provide immediate specifics regarding overall damage or fatalities.

Wildberries up in smoke

In the Moscow region, falling debris damaged a logistics facility belonging to Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer, causing a localized fire. This follows Ukraine’s efforts to successfully strike Wildberries logistics hubs across the nation.

To put the Wildberries attacks in context, some figures put the company at 8.5 percent of Russia’s GDP. The company is often called the “Amazon of Russia,” employing 270,000 people and accounting for half of the country’s e-commerce sales. Ukraine has been systematically destroying Wildberries warehouses across the country with near impunity. It would be the equivalent of an enemy state destroying the largest Amazon warehouses in the United States, which would likely spark a consumer panic and send product inflation soaring.

In addition, Russia’s oil refineries and critical energy infrastructure are now being dismantled by Ukrainian drone strikes, threatening a major financial resource for Moscow and leading to fuel rationing across the country.

Moscow burns after major Ukrainian drone strike hits refinery

In late 2024, Russia updated its formal nuclear doctrine to state that a massive conventional attack backed by a nuclear power could trigger a nuclear response. As evidenced by massive missile and drone strikes against Russian territory using NATO weapons like British Storm Shadow missiles, it appears those threats were entirely empty. This stance has dramatically reduced Putin’s leverage and could lead Ukraine to further step up its attacks on Russian targets.

Drone strike intensity is increasing

Casualties were also reported in connection with Ukraine’s latest attack. Regional authorities reported that at least three people were injured across the surrounding district, including a 10-year-old girl. The aerial operation also extended to Russian-occupied Crimea, where local officials reported power outages affecting southern, northwestern, and eastern sectors of the peninsula.

Pro-Ukraine X account Nexta published some of the footage of the attacks

Overnight, Russian strikes hit Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, killing at least 10 people and injuring others, illustrating the intensifying cycle of long-range aerial exchanges.

This latest assault follows an earlier surge on Sunday, Aug. 16, when Moscow claimed to have intercepted more than 800 drones nationwide in what was previously cited as the war’s largest aerial assault to date. News agency Reuters pointed out that details regarding total drone counts and intercepted targets originate from Russian state sources and have not been independently verified.

The surge in long-range drone deployments reflects a growing wave of Ukrainian retaliatory strikes targeting economic hubs, energy networks, and logistics nodes deeper inside Russian territory.

Now in its fifth year, Russia’s invasion has developed into the largest armed conflict on the European continent since 1945. The duration of active hostilities has officially surpassed the timeframe of the Red Army’s engagement in World War II, known historically in Russia as the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945.

The post What ‘red lines?’ Ukraine launches massive drone attack against Moscow as drone strike intensity reaches record high appeared first on Remix News.

By Gospa News Editorial Staff

Versione Sintetica in Italiano

Since today, therefore, this War Daily Summary will no longer contain news only on the war (and related geopolitical issue) in the Middle East, but also on the war in Ukraine and any other international conflicts.

HELP GOSPA NEWS TO ENHANCE BREAKING UPDATES

HELP GOSPA NEWS WITH A FREE DONATION via PayPal or Bank

WARS IN VIDEO – DAILY UPDATES (since September 2026)

WARS in VIDEO (September 2026). TRUMP HIT IRAN AGAIN Murdering Children in a Wedding. “US Bases on Fire and Casualties” after IRGC Missiles Retaliation

---

EXCLUSIVE MILITARY – GEOPOLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS

---

ASYMMETRIC WAR BETWEEN ZELENSKY AND PUTIN

Ukraine Drones funded by EU to Kill Russian Civilians, Moscow Missiles to Target Weapons Industries

Brief analysis by Fabio G.C. Carisio on August, 17, 2026

While the Russian Army continues to advance on the battlefield in Donbas, consolidating its military positions—predicting its complete annexation within a year—the Russian Aerospace Forces are engaged in an asymmetric strategic war against Kiev’s air force.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, using drones paid for by European Union citizens and built in a covert partnership with the US Pentagon and EU countries, continues to target Russia’s energy infrastructure and civilian buildings in a vain attempt to provoke a rebellion among the Russian population, as military bases are too well-protected to be attacked.

In the last few hours, more than a thousand kamikaze drones have been launched, killing at least six Russian civilians and seriously damaging the Wildberries (Russian Amazon) online distribution centers alone.

Without having to contend with the costs borne by the European Union, the leader of the pro-Nazi Zelensky regime can waste drones at will on massacres of civilians, as recently happened in Nizhnekamsk.

It should not be forgotten that European politicians and media censored or at least severely obscured the massacre of Russian schoolgirls that occurred on May 21, 2026, when more than one drone, using the lethal double-tap tactic, struck a dormitory in Starobelsk, in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which confederated with Russia after a popular plebiscite.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin, who could level much of Kiev in a single night with undetectable hypersonic missiles, to avoid a massacre of “Ukrainian brothers,” limits himself to striking the military and energy infrastructure that is bringing Ukraine’s military apparatus to its knees, increasingly short of Patriot air defense rockets.

Vital – 21 RUSSIAN STUDENTS KIILLED in Dombas by “Double-Tap” of Wave of Kiev Drones as Zionist-Style. RT Investigation

But the escalation triggered by Zelensky, with the applause of US President Trump, has inevitably led Russia to raise the level of retaliation and also include civilian targets, such as ships in the port of Odessa.

As long as European, American, and Zionist leaders speculate on the Weapons Lobby, the conflict in Ukraine can only continue to escalate toward a total “preventive” war, like that waged by Israel and the US against Iran, and desired by NATO and, above all, Great Britain against Russia.

Until Putin loses patience and carries out a massacre in Kiev… But from that moment on, thanks to vile Western propaganda, every day will be a good day for the start of World War III.

WEAPONS LOBBY – 20. HUGE BUSINESS OF ZIONIST TRUMP’s WARMONGERS. How a German Industry Became the Golden Goose for the US

The evidence presented in this analysis is documented in the exclusive investigations published below and in the last week’s updates below.

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – founder and director of Gospa News

---

THE POSEIDON PROBLEM. What the United States should do vs Russia.

Exclusive Analysis by former Intel advisor Gordon Duff

THE POSEIDON PROBLEM. What the United States should do vs Russia. Exclusive Analysis by former Intel advisor Gordon Duff

---

ZIONISTS’ Neverending WAR CRIMES, as GENOCIDES. Iran: “US, Israel GUILTY of gravest MASSACRES since 1949”.

Latest Children’s Murdering in Lebanon, Minab and Qeshm

READ MORE IN THE INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS BELOW

ZIONISTS’ Neverending WAR CRIMES, as GENOCIDES. Iran: “US, Israel GUILTY of gravest MASSACRES since 1949”. Children’s Murdering in Lebanon, Qeshm, Minab

---

Carlson & Waters: “HOW US, UK, EU and NATO are Triggering WORLD WAR III”.

The BOJO Fake-Peace Plan in Ukraine to Provoke Russia

GEOPOLITICAL AND MILITARY ANALYSIS IN THE POST BELOW

Carlson & Waters (VIDEO): “HOW US, UK, EU and NATO are Triggering WORLD WAR III”. The BOJO Fake-Peace Plan in Ukraine to Provoke Russia

---

Previous 14 EXCLUSIVE MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS

Daily Updates on WARS in VIDEO (until July 2026) in the post below

WARS in VIDEO (until August 2026) & 14 ESCLUSIVE MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS. Zelensky is WASTING EU-funded Drones to KILL Russian Civilians. Putin’s Missiles are WIPING out Military Assets in Kiev

---

WARS  & GEOPOLITICS Updates in Video

Updates on AUGUST, 26, Breaking News in Video

Iran says Hormuz remains closed despite Oman route deal

• Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says the Strait of Hormuz remains closed despite a temporary transit agreement with Oman, insisting that Washington must return to its commitments under the memorandum of understanding before the waterway is fully opened.
• US President Donald Trump says that all mines have been cleared and detonated from the strait’s international waters and that Tehran has received warnings that any ships laying new mines will be “destroyed”.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs details a temporary arrangement between the Islamic Republic and Oman concerning the Strait of Hormuz, while asserting that reopening of the waterway hinges on realization of Tehran’s demands, according to Iranian Press TV.

Remarking on Tuesday, Kazem Gharibabadi detailed the arrangement that he identified as tentative pending establishment of a “permanent route” during further negotiations between the two sides that are expected to take between 30 and 60 days.

Iran closed the chokepoint following the launch of the latest bout of unprovoked American-Israeli aggression against the country on February 28.

According to Gharibabadi, under the arrangement involving Iran and Oman, the southern route of the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. As part of its violations of the MoU, the US would try to illegally escort vessels through the southern route that runs along the Omani coastline.

Oman has accepted the closure, the official said, adding that the move would be communicated to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Under the arrangement, “vessels entering the Persian Gulf will use Iranian waters, while vessels leaving the Persian Gulf will use Omani territorial waters,” the senior diplomat stated. “Vessels would pass through Iranian waters in both directions,” he added.

He described the arrangement as functioning “like a two-way highway,” with a total width of approximately seven nautical miles.

Gharibabadi stressed that the arrangement agreed with with Oman does not mean that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened immediately. He said the issue of the arrangement and the question of reopening the strait were separate matters.

Israeli forces raid UNRWA training centre in East Jerusalem, raise Israeli flag

---

Updates on AUGUST, 25, Breaking News in Video

Vatican Top Diplomat and CIA director together in Moscow for a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Peace in Ukeaine

Brief analysis by Fabio G.C. Carisio

Suddenly, as if prompted by the Vatican, on the same day that the Holy See’s top diplomat Paul Richard Gallagher travels to Moscow for a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, one of the most strategic figures in the United States also rushes to the Russian capital: CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who arrived in Moscow on a US Air Force Boeing C-17, arousing curiosity with his unexpected arrival.

The trip, however, had been planned for at least two days, like that of Pope Leo XIV’s envoy.

The two visits represent two separate and distinct initiatives with different discussions, which remained secret in the case of the head of American counterintelligence.

Both clearly have the aim of attempting the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE of peace negotiations for Ukraine with spokespeople for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had rejected any truce after the ongoing massacres of civilians by the drones of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s army.

Their diplomatic expedition must confront opposing interests that are instead pushing Kiev toward escalation: the United Kingdom and NATO, which for two years have sought direct confrontation with Moscow, relentlessly supporting serious terrorist attacks; the European Union, which wants Putin’s total surrender; and the Zionist Arms Lobby, which financed the election of President Donald Trump and will not easily accept the goldmine of the conflict in Ukraine going up in smoke.

Moscow rejected the Peace proposal based on a free trade economic zone in Donbass administered by US: accused of Complicity

Moscow has rejected the possibility of creating a free trade economic zone in Donbass administered by Washington, which was even accused of complicity in Ukrainian attacks vs Russian territory.

The Kremlin thus rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s proposal to create a free economic zone in Donbas, administered by a third party as a buffer zone under a peace agreement, and reiterated that the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine would be “unacceptable” to Russia.

The external administration of Donbas, proposed by Ukraine, is impossible, as the region is part of Russia, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized today during a briefing.

“Donbas is the territory of the Russian Federation, a federal entity. (…) It is unlikely that a third party could take over the administration of a region of the Russian Federation,”the Kremlin representative stated.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed today that Russia has sent a formal request to the U.S. State Department, detailing intelligence evidence demonstrating the United States’ deep involvement in organizing and carrying out attacks deep inside Russian territory.

According to Lavrov, the evidence shows that the Trump administration was actively involved in helping Ukraine bomb Moscow, St. Petersburg and other places.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe on secret trip in Russia with a Mysterious Flight on a Boeing C-17A

CIA Director John Ratcliffe is in Moscow, Russia, for meetings, sources familiar with the situation told CBS News on Tuesday.

News of his trip comes after a U.S. Air Force Boeing C-17A Globemaster III transport plane was spotted at a Moscow airport, along with a U.S. diplomatic motorcade. Neither the U.S. nor Russian governments has commented on the identity of the U.S. official in Russia or the purpose of the visit.

The CIA did not immediately comment.  It appears to be Ratcliffe’s first known trip to Russia as CIA director, though he has maintained contact with Russian intelligence counterparts.

The CIA has also played a role in recent U.S.-Russia detainee exchanges, including the April 2025 release of a U.S.-Russian dual national Ksenia Karelina, whose case Ratcliffe personally negotiated. The agency was also involved in the 2024 prisoner exchange that secured the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and Marine veteran Paul Whelan.

Former CIA Director William Burns traveled to Moscow in November 2021, when he met with senior Russian officials and spoke directly with President Vladimir Putin to warn him against invading Ukraine.

Ratcliffe’s visit comes as U.S.-mediated peace talks with Ukraine remain mostly stalled, with the sides still far apart on core issues.

Lavrov and top Vatican diplomat held first Moscow talks since start of special op

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held talks in Moscow with Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary of the Holy See for Relations with States and International Organizations. who has arrived in Moscow on his first official visit since the beginning of the special military operation.

The sides will discuss international issues and prospects for bilateral cooperation, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

The Ukraine issue is likely to receive particular attention, including in the context of possible separate consultations on Ukraine at the Vatican. Russian Ambassador to the Holy See Ivan Soltanovsky told TASS that Russia is prepared to take part in such a format.

The central topics were the Ukrainian conflict and possible ways to resolve it, humanitarian cooperation, the situation of Orthodox and Catholics, the situation in the Middle East and other regions, as well as the prospects.

Russia Knocks Out Vessel Supplying Ukraine’s Military in Odessa Strike

Russian forces carried out a strike on a dry cargo ship in the port of Yuzhny, which delivered cargo to the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as port infrastructure facilities, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.

“Last night, unmanned aerial vehicles in the Yuzhny port damaged a cargo ship that delivered cargo to Ukraine intended for purposes of the armed forces of Ukraine, as well as port infrastructure facilities used to unload military cargo,” the statement read.

The Russian armed forces continue to launch group strikes against Ukrainian ports and ships targeted in the interests of delivering goods for the armed forces of Ukraine.

In the video below a previous Russian attack on port of Ukraine

---

Updates on AUGUST, 24, Breaking News in Video

Israeli forces Bombed Gaza, destroying houses, mosques and at least one water desalination facility.

Sources at hospitals in Gaza tell our colleagues at Al Jazeera Arabic that Israeli air strikes have killed at least eight Palestinians, including two children, since dawn.

Israeli forces have targeted areas in central and southern Gaza, destroying houses, mosques and at least one water desalination facility.

But Israel has released alleged fake claims which said that they “continue to target Hamas weapons depots in the Gaza Strip”, according to a joint statement by the Israeli army and internal security service, Shin Bet.

The statement said Israeli forces carried out attacks in the Shati refugee camp and Deir el-Balah areas in central Gaza and “destroyed two weapons depots belonging to Hamas”.

IntelDrop – “ISRAEL ASKED FB to CENSOR Iran War Content, GENOCIDE”. Help Us to Fight vs Zionist Censorship on All Social

 

At least two children are among eight Palestinians killed so far on Monday in Israeli air strikes across Gaza, according to Gaza health officials.

Iran to detain, confiscate violating ships in Strait of Hormuz: PGSA

The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), Iran’s regulatory body for the Strait of Hormuz, has announced that vessels violating Iranian protocols for the strategic waterway will face restrictions on future passages, including fines, detention, or confiscation, Iranian Press TV has reported.

In a statement posted on its official X account on Sunday, the authority warned cargo owners shipping to and from the Persian Gulf to review the Non-Compliant Vessels (NCV) list prior to chartering in order to avoid potential issues.

Effective immediately, the authority said, any vessel cooperating with listed vessels, including through ship-to-ship (STS) transfers or transshipment, will also be added to the list.

To request removal from the list, vessels must submit a formal application with justifications to info@pgsa.ir, it said.

 

The announcement comes amid heightened tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy shipments, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes.

Iran has warned that it will not tolerate any disruption to its sovereignty over the strategic passage, saying traffic in the waterway will not return to normal unless the United States ends the war and blockade against the country.

Greece moves missile battery to Crete after Iranian threats to US bases in Europe

Two children killed, seven injured after UAV debris fell on children’s center in Krasnodar

A massive Ukrainian drone attack is being repelled in the Krasnodar Region, Governor Veniamin Kondratyev said, adding that debris fell on a private children’s center in Krasnodar, killing two children and injuring seven others, and two adults have been hospitalized.

“The Krasnodar Region is repelling a massive enemy drone attack tonight. Once again, the targets were civilian facilities, peaceful residents, and our children. Drone debris fell on a private children’s center in Krasnodar. Unfortunately, two children died. My deepest condolences to their families. Seven other children were injured and are currently receiving all necessary medical care. Two adults are also in city hospitals. I wish a speedy recovery to everyone,” he wrote on Max.

In the video below the previous Ukrainian UAV’s vs Russian Civilian Buildings that killed Children in Krasnodar (August, 12, 2026 – Novorossiysk)

Ozon’s logistics center in Krasnodar attacked by drone – VIDEO

UAVs have attacked Ozon’s logistics center in Krasnodar, with the strike causing a fire at the warehouse. According to preliminary information, there were no casualties, the company’s press service reported.

“On August 24, a logistics center in Krasnodar was hit by a drone attack. All systems functioned as intended, and we promptly evacuated the staff. Preliminary reports indicate there are no casualties. A major fire has broken out at the warehouse, and emergency services are at the scene,” the report said.

In the video below the second Ozon warehouse attacked in Russia by alleged Ukrainian Drones (August, 23, Orenburg, via ImmaginixConoscer IG)

The company said earlier that the logistics center had suspended the acceptance of shipments, with goods currently at the warehouse to be hidden from the marketplace storefront. Some items will be cancelled or delivered from other warehouses.

If no equivalent goods are available, they will be marked as out of stock, according to the report. Shipments already en route to the warehouse will be rerouted. Ozon will provide sellers with specific information regarding the status of their goods via their marketplace seller accounts and official seller channels on social media.

Iran released the Footage on its Secret Underground Air Base

Footage 1 – Iran has released footage reportedly showing the Aqab 44 Air Base, a military facility built deep underground.

The footage appears to show sections of the facility, highlighting Iran’s underground military infrastructure designed to protect strategic assets from potential attacks.

Footage 2 – Iran has added another significant boost to its missile capabilities! In the latest breakthrough in defense technology, the Ghassem Basir solid-fuel ballistic missile has been unveiled, with a range of 1,200 km+.

With Fatah hypersonic gliders and Khorramshahr-4 heavy warheads, this new missile system is designed for rapid mobility and high-precision targeting.

Russia Ships Nuclear Reactors To Turkey. Pakistan is supplying Atomic Watheads to Ankara?

1st Footage – Turkey’s first nuclear power plant has reached another construction milestone, with Russia’s Rosatom delivering four steam generators for Unit 4 of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant.

The massive components were manufactured in southern Russia before travelling around 3,000 kilometres by sea to the construction site on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast.

Once operational, Akkuyu’s four reactors are expected to play a major role in meeting the country’s growing electricity demand.

2nd Footage – Viral claim: Pakistan transferring nuclear missiles to Turkey Reports and social media posts are widely circulating claiming that Pakistan has decided to transfer its strategic nuclear capabilities to the Republic of Turkey.

According to these viral posts, Pakistan plans to deploy 170 nuclear missiles equipped with 16 warheads to Ankara, effectively placing these strategic assets under Turkish command.

This had been happened after the signing of “Mecca Deal” to Defense agreement among Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too. However, this news is not officially confirmed by any Pakistani or Turkish officials.

Pakistan is a declared nuclear weapons state and maintains that its nuclear arsenal is under strict national command and control. Turkey is a NATO member and hosts US nuclear weapons at Incirlik Air Base under NATO arrangements, but does not own nuclear weapons.

Neither the Pakistan Foreign Office, Pakistan military, nor Turkish government agencies have issued statements confirming such a transfer.

As of this writing, the claim remains unverified and appears to originate from unconfirmed social media posts.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 23, Breaking News in Video

Iran to attack other oil export routes if Gulf countries support US sanctions

Iran is ready not only to strike oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, but also to attack other oil transportation routes from the Persian Gulf zone, if regional countries join the anti-Iranian sanctions of the United States, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Mohsen Rezaei said.

“We are telling all the neighboring countries not to join the US economic war on Iran, or Tehran will view them as enemies,” he was quoted as saying by the Islamic Republic’s state-run broadcaster.

He added that if the neighboring states join the US sanctions, “not a single drop of oil will be shipped from the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.”

In this case, Iran will “view other routes of oil export from the region as its target.”

In his words, the Islamic Republic does not want the conflict to spread. “But if Iran’s neighbors support the US in its economic war, Tehran will damage their interests,” Rezaei said.

Two days ago (read below updates on August, 21) Iran’s Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned a new round of US economic sanctions against the country, stating that the measures amount to “economic terrorism” and “crimes against humanity.”

Dry cargo ship carrying weapons hit by Russian strikes in port of Chernomorsk, Odessa region

The Russian armed forces have hit a dry cargo ship delivering weapons, as well as seven fuel storage tanks in the port of Chernomorsk of the Odessa Region, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“With the help of high-precision strikes and drones, the following targets were hit in the Odessa Region’s port of Chernomorsk: a dry cargo ship, delivering weapons and military equipment to Ukraine; seven fuel storage tanks, and port infrastructure where military cargo was unloaded and stored,” the ministry said.

Russia has attacked the Odesa region for 11 hours, using a combination of 17 “Banderol” missiles, 4 Х-59 and Х-31 missiles, approximately 10 air-dropped bombs, and about 70 drones, according to monitoring reports.

Israeli army admits firing on car carrying the 5yo Hind Rajab: rights groups see “charade” not justice

The Israeli occupation forces acknowledged on Wednesday that their personnel fired on a vehicle carrying five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab in Gaza in January 2024, and announced a criminal investigation into the incident.

Hind was martyred after her family’s vehicle came under fire while they were attempting to flee Gaza City amid an Israeli military advance in northern Gaza. Her body was recovered days after she made a desperate, hours-long emergency call to the Palestinian Red Crescent on January 29, 2024.

She was found inside a vehicle riddled with bullets alongside six relatives. Two Palestinian Red Crescent paramedics who had been dispatched to rescue her were also killed.

The Israeli occupation had previously denied that its forces were present in the area at the time of the incident.

Five-year-old Hind Rajab’s last phone call from a car surrounded by her slain relatives shocks the world; now her killing is one of two Gaza cases Israel’s army says it will investigate. The second case involves 15 paramedics crushed in their convoy in southern Gaza.

«But critics note that only 0.18% of such cases ever reach prosecution, and that high-profile incidents like the World Central Kitchen strike are excluded, leaving families with little faith in justice» Al Jazeera’s Joel Evans reported in the video above.

DEVIL NETANYAHU’s HOLOCAUST. Explosive UN findings: “Israel DELIBERATELY TARGETED Gaza CHILDREN”

---

Updates on AUGUST, 22, Breaking News in Video

UN rights office for Palestine calls out Israeli army WAR CRIMES over attacks on Gaza 

VITAL VIDEO – At Night Turkey secretly deployed massive weapons systems into Syria. How and Why…

What was feared has happened. Israel has made an indirect move against Turkey…. In the video below a medley of many social footages on Turkish military reaction.

Turkey condemned the strikes, while Israel said it was acting to prevent a potential Turkish military deployment at the Syrian base—an allegation Ankara has denied. Washington is now working on a deconfliction mechanism to prevent accidental military clashes between Turkey, Israel and Syria. (Reuters)

A senior Israeli official revealed that intelligence was shared with the United States prior to Israeli strikes on Abu al-Duhur Airport in the Idlib countryside in the latest day (details below in August, 18 updates), after US ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack expressed concern that the operations constitute an unnecessary escalation.

Yesterday, Israeli forces advanced with tanks and vehicles in southern Quneitra ((details below in August, 21 updates),

Yesterday Turkey’s Ministry of Justice has asked Interpol to issue Red Notices for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an Israeli official on genocide charges, Turkish Justice Minister Akin Gurlek announced on Friday (details below in August, 21 updates).

VIDEO LEGEND UNDER THE VIDEO

Footage 1 – Turkey is secretly deploying massive weapons systems into Syria under cover of darkness, directed by MIT intelligence. The buildup follows Israeli airstrikes on a Syrian airbase and signals Ankara is preparing for a potential military confrontation with Israel. US envoy warns of direct clash…

Footage 2 – Turkey is reportedly concerned about the possibility of a direct military confrontation or war with the Israeli military inside Syria! It is now fully determined to send Israel a strong and clear message.

Footage 3 (grey part in the general video but visible in the footage below)– According to information provided by a Syrian journalist, Turkey has deployed approximately 200-250 armored vehicles and 20 tanks along the southwestern Syrian front. This deployment is believed to coincide with recent Israeli air strikes in Syria.

Footage 4 – The Turkish Bayraktar TB3 unmanned aircraft is displayed for the first time at one of the exhibitions – It features radar detection combat skills – Submarine detection using acoustic sensors – Carrying heavy and guided missiles, stealthy with high capabilities

Footage 5 – As part of the NATO 2026 Summit Defense Industry Forum, a high-level reception was held at the Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAŞ) facilities in Kahramankazan, hosted by Haluk Görgün, Chairman of the Defense Industry Directorate of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey. The program, which highlighted the capabilities of the Turkish defense industry, international collaboration, and alliance spirit, is expected to attract widespread participation.

Footage 6 and 7 – No one knows for certain what Turkey is planning! However, it is believed that #Ankara is making these extensive preparations to deliver a strong response to the Israeli airstrikes carried out last Tuesday.

Israel has relocated 190th Squadron of AH-64A Apache attack helicopters near Syrian, Lebanon borders

“Erdogan is an anti-Semitic dictator who massacred Kurds, harbors Hamas terrorists, occupies half of Cyprus, and imprisons a record number of journalists and political opponents. Now he is trying to extend his aggression against Israel into Syria. Israel will not tolerate this. Erdogan’s pathetic attempt to intimidate the leaders and soldiers of Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, will not succeed,”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement after the Turkish Justice Minister announced an arrest warrant for him yesterday.

Israel has fully relocated the 190th Squadron (“Magic Touch”) — operating AH-64A Apache attack helicopters — to Ramat David Airbase in the north, near the borders with Syria and Lebanon, the IDF confirmed.

The permanent move from southern Ramon Airbase is intended to boost rapid-response capabilitie…

In the second footage of the video a Turkish miltary deployement in Syria

China rejects US demand on Iran

China has refused to join a US plan to “squash” Iran’s economy, rejecting Washington’s push to be part of the “toughest sanctions in history” against the Islamic Republic.

On Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called on American allies and other countries to choose sides and stop doing business with Iran, as Washington prepares what he touted as “the greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world.”

In an interview with CNBC, Bessent described the plan, expected to be unveiled on Monday, as “a one-two punch” combining a naval blockade with “the toughest sanctions in history.” He claimed it would “squash” the Iranian economy and “collapse this regime.”

Beijing, however, has rejected Washington’s call.

“Regarding the Iran issue, sanctions and pressure do not help resolve the problem,” Reuters quoted a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington as saying. “China calls on the relevant parties to take responsible actions and resolve the issue through political and diplomatic means.”

Russia’s fuel strikes erode Ukrainian Army’s logistical flexibility and fighting capability

The Russian Army is steadily choking off Ukraine’s fuel supplies, and the recent strike on the KLO fuel depot in Brovary is yet another nail in the coffin of Ukraine’s military mobility.

On the night of August 20, Russian forces struck the KLO fuel and lubricants depot in Brovary, a city just northeast of Kiev, that was storing up to 8,000 cubic meters of fuel intended for Ukrainian forces.

Footage filmed by an eyewitness at the industrial site quickly spread across social media. The depot has ceased operations, according to Ukrainian media reports, and the company said that no site employees were injured.

Building a new gas station costs around $1.2 million, while protecting it against drone attacks costs about $44,800. Ukrainian fuel station network WOG claims that fully restoring a single station can cost up to $1.6 million. Depending on the extent of the damage, repairs can take up to ten weeks.

Since April 2026, Russia has been intensively targeting Ukrainian gas stations, according to Ukrainian media. The extent of the damage is being downplayed by the Ukrainian side. As early as July 6, Ekonomichna Pravda reported that 200 gas stations had been hit. Despite Russia’s military campaign, Ukrainian newspapers have stubbornly continued to cite that figure through the end of August.

10 MINUTES OF NIGHTMARES’ VIDEO! The Major Houthi Attacks on Pro-Saudi Forces in Yemen

Houthis released a major video showing strikes against pro-Saudi forces in Yemen. Footage shows attacks on personnel and equipment in the southwest of the country.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 21, Breaking News in Video

Turkey requests Interpol red notice for Netanyahu over Sumud Flotilla

Turkey’s Ministry of Justice has asked Interpol to issue Red Notices for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an Israeli official on genocide charges, Turkish Justice Minister Akin Gurlek announced on Friday.

Gurlek said the decision was made during proceedings concerning Israel’s attack in international waters on activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla, which set sail earlier this year to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.

“Pursuant to the arrest warrants issued on 14 July 2026 for Benjamin Netanyahu and Afek Moskovitch on charges of genocide, our Ministry of Justice requested that the Ministry of Interior seek Interpol Red Notices for their international apprehension. The relevant documents have also been forwarded to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” the minister said in a statement posted on X.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Afek Moskovitch are standing trial for crimes against humanity, genocide, aggravated unlawful deprivation of liberty, intentional injury, torture and ill-treatment, damage to property, aggravated robbery, and the hijacking or seizure of means of transport.

DEVIL NETANYAHU’s HOLOCAUST. Explosive UN findings: “Israel DELIBERATELY TARGETED Gaza CHILDREN”

“The charges relate to the armed intervention against civilians delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza in international waters and the subsequent detention of activists.”

Ship traffic through Strait of Hormuz slides as peace talks stopped. Oil prices stay elevated

Iran: New US sanctions amount to ‘economic terrorism,’ ‘crimes against humanity’

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned a new round of US economic sanctions against the country, stating that the measures amount to “economic terrorism” and “crimes against humanity.”

In a statement issued on Thursday, the ministry said the new sanctions, announced by the US government on the anniversary of the 1953 coup in Iran, demonstrate the continuation of decades of hostility toward the Iranian people.

“The new US sanctions are not only another indication of the continuation of 73 years of hostility by US policymakers toward the Iranian people, but also demonstrate the anti-human, lawless and hegemonic nature of the US government,”the statement said.

On Wednesday, Trump announced what he called the “most crushing economic operation” against Iran, claiming that Tehran would face “economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale”. He also threatened sanctions against any country that does business with Iran.

The threat comes as his war on Iran, launched alongside the Israeli regime on February 28, has failed to reach any of its objectives.

How China and Russia could hobble Trump’s plans to isolate Iran

Israeli occupation turns West Bank Palestinian homes into military posts

Israeli occupation forces raided the West Bank town of Yaabad, southwest of Jenin, on Thursday evening and seized a Palestinian home, converting it into a military post.

Local sources told the Palestinian Wafa news agency that occupation forces informed homeowner Hamed Hamarsha that they would maintain control of his home for two days.

Yaabad has faced repeated Israeli occupation raids in recent months, including home invasions, the establishment of checkpoints, the closure of entrances, and restrictions on Palestinian movement.

In a separate incident, Israeli occupation forces raided and damaged the belongings and furniture inside a Palestinian home in Qusra, south of Nablus.

Qusra Mayor Abdul Azim Wadi told Wafa that occupation forces had converted the home of Yusuf Abdel Salam into a military post after besieging it for 12 consecutive days.

On Thursday evening, the forces destroyed the home’s belongings and furniture and threw them through the windows, according to Wadi.

The homeowner is currently staying in another besieged home after occupation soldiers forced him and his family to leave their residence, claiming that the area had been designated a “closed military zone.”

Israeli occupation intensifies attacks across southern Lebanon

Israeli occupation forces carried out a series of attacks across southern Lebanon on Thursday, including demolitions, artillery shelling, drone activity and the burning of homes, amid continued violations of the ceasefire.

The attacks targeted several towns and areas across the southern governorates, according to local reports.

In the Marjayoun district, Israeli occupation forces carried out a demolition operation on the outskirts of Mais al-Jabal and another in the town of Al-Tiri in the Bint Jbeil district.

An Israeli drone also dropped explosive material near the Ali al-Taher area in the Nabatieh region, were a few days ago 3 children were exterminated within their family

In Talsah, in the Marjayoun district, Israeli occupation forces set fire to several homes.

An Israeli Merkava tank subsequently shelled the outskirts of Baraachit in the Bint Jbeil district with several rounds.

Earlier Thursday, a major explosion was reported in the area between Zawtar al-Sharqiyah and Yohmor al-Shqif, following another explosion in the al-Mashaa area of Mansouri, which was also subjected to artillery fire.

The continued attacks come despite the ceasefire, with Israeli occupation forcesmaintaining military operations across southern Lebanon and continuing to strike towns and villages, including through warplanes and drones.

Israeli forces advance with tanks and vehicles in southern Quneitra

Israeli occupation forces advanced on Thursday with two tanks and three military vehicles toward Tal al-Dariyat in the southern countryside of Quneitra, according to local Syrian sources.

The sources also reported that an Israeli occupation patrol advanced into the Tal al-Karoum area in the central countryside of Quneitra.

The Israeli occupation continues to carry out near-daily incursions into the Quneitra and Daraa countryside, accompanied by the establishment of temporary military checkpoints, searches of civilians and vehicles, and raids on homes.

The incursions have also involved the detention and interrogation of Syrians, as well as the bulldozing of agricultural land, according to local sources.

The old video below shows Israeli that tanks was now stationed in towns and villages in Syria’s southwest since 2024…

Yemen targets Saudi sites in Najran after airspace violation

Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Yemeni forces had carried out two military operations using drones in Saudi Arabia’s Najran region, claiming that both operations successfully achieved their objectives.

Brigadier Saree said the first drone targeted a sensitive site at Najran Airport, while the second targeted Saudi Aramco’s facilities in Najran.

He asserted the operations were conducted as a response to what he called violations by the Saudi regime, including the use of drones in the airspace over Yemen’s Saada province.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces will continue to protect Yemen’s sovereignty against any violation and consolidate this equation,” Saree concluded.

In the video below one of the previous attacks by Houtis on a Yemeni Red Sea Port

Ukraine election debate grows as ousted Defense Minister Fedorov challenges Wartime Politics

Ukraine’s ousted defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov has called for elections, intensifying a debate over political accountability during the war with Russia.

While most Ukrainians oppose holding elections during wartime, growing concerns about government accountability are adding pressure on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Protesters in Kyiv said the recent government reshuffle showed that Ukrainians feel they are not being heard.

Opposition MP Oleksii Honcharenko questioned how elections could be held while missiles are falling, nearly one million Ukrainians are serving in the military and millions remain abroad.

Fedorov has argued Ukraine must find a way to restore the democratic process if the war continues for years. The debate highlights the challenge of maintaining democracy during a prolonged war. Al Jazeera’s Audrey MacAlpine reports from Kyiv.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 20, Breaking News in Video

Iran-Iraq ties built to resist Zionist meddling: Ghalibaf in Baghdad honored Generals Soleimani and al-Muhandis martyred by Trump

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday and delivered a speech at the site where General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were martyred, paying tribute to the two leaders of the Axis of Resistance, before the monument on these Iranian and Iraqi heores.

On January 3, 2020, a US drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump targeted a convoy near Baghdad International Airport, killing IRGC Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani and Deputy Chairman of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Iran’s revenge starts from Qom. Thanks to Fordow’s nuclear bunker plant

Ghalibaf said the US government had assassinated “the two heroes of the Axis of Resistance who saved the region from ISIS”, and said Iran’s resistance capabilities had been demonstrated during the Ramadan War.

He further stressed that his visit to Iraq was part of a new regional approach focused on bilateral cooperation with countries in the region, without foreign meddling. “Today, everyone has come to recognize the Zionist entity’s ugly nature”, Ghalibaf stressed.

Iranian Parliament Speaker: US is behind regional crises

Ghalibaf affirmed that during his visit to Iraq, he would meet with senior Iraqi government officials and politicians and participate in the Arbaeen commemorations for the martyred Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, Lebanese TV Al Mayadeen has reported.

Just during this religious event, on July, 30, a joint Saudi-US struck on positions of Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU), commonly known as Hashd al-Sha’abi, across the country, which have killed at least 20 resistance fighters and wounded 32 others (details here).

Iranian Parliament speaker also described relations between Iran and Iraq as deeply rooted, saying they reflected ties between two neighboring countries based on a shared destiny, adding that past experiences would guide the two countries toward a bright future.

During his meeting with Amidi, Ghalibaf said Iran and Iraq have recognized that the United States and its policies constitute a principal factor behind the region’s problems.

He said Washington is responsible for problems affecting the Gulf and obstacles facing regional energy markets, linking them to the United States’ reliance on military intervention and war.

“America approached the Gulf states and the region with the aim of plundering and looting their resources,” Ghalibaf said.

The Russian Armed Forces liberated the settlements of Matyashevo and Nikolaipolye in the DPR

The Russian Armed Forces liberated the settlements of Matyashevo and Nikolaipolye in the DPR, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reports.

3 SHOKING VIDEOS – Russia Carried out a massive missile attack on Kiev WIPING Weapons Facilities and Warehouse 

Russia carried out a massive missile attack on Kyiv in the night on August, 19, alongside 168 drones, killing at least 16 people and wounding more than 40

Last night, August, 19, Kiev was under attack again. In the capital of the Ukraine has received dozens of ballistic and cruise missiles aimed at logistics and industrial facilities.

More than 25 missiles have struck Kyiv, including Iskander-M ballistic missiles, allegedly North Korean KN-23 ballistic missiles, and 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles.

Additionally, Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic bombers launched Kh-101 cruise missiles, while a Buyan-M-class corvette launched several 3M14 Kalibr cruise missiles, which are expected to enter Ukrainian airspace soon.

Fires were recorded on the territory of the Antonov plant, whose capacity can be used to assemble long-range UAVs. Heat tags of fires are also marked in the area of the railway junction to the south of the enterprise (video below).

Two more groups of targets were hit in Svyatoshinsky and Darnitsky districts of Kiev. In particular, fires were recorded in the vicinity of the large Darnitsa railway station, which serves industrial facilities located in its vicinity.

In Brovary, the Russian Armed Forces attacked a fuel storage facility near a city railway junction. There have been numerous fires in the area of the facility, but it is impossible to talk about damage to fuel tanks until additional satellite images are available.

In the Boryspil area, the target of the raid was the Zamler Group logistics complex, the territory of which could be used to store dual-use goods: commercial and military ones. A strong fire in the warehouse was captured by the Ukrainian media (video below).

In addition, the Ukraine nnounced an attack by “Geraniums” at the Reni checkpoint on the border of the Ukraine and Moldova. The fact of the attack is indirectly confirmed by thermal tags in the area of the border crossing.

Russian troops continue to take advantage of the lack of anti-ballistic missile weapons in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As can be seen from the footage from the field, it is these munitions that ensure the destruction of the most important targets, such as logistics hubs or components of large industrial areas

Two explosions hit the regional headquarters of the National Police of Ukraine: 2 cops Killed

Footage filmed in Zhytomyr shows the moment two explosions hit a building housing the regional headquarters of the National Police of Ukraine on August 19.

Ukrainian officials said Russian Banderol-type drones struck the building, killing two police officers and injuring at least 20 people. The attack caused a fire on the roof and upper floors of the building.

Ex-deputy head of Zelensky’s office Mudraya detained

Irina Mudraya, deputy head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, who was sacked amid a corruption scandal, has been detained and will spend the night in a detention facility, Verkhovna Rada lawmaker Alexey Goncharenko (designated as terrorist and extremist in Russia) said on Wednesday.

“Irina Mudraya has been detained. She is currently under an investigative procedure at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine [NABU]. She will stay during this night at a temporary detention facility,” he wrote on his Telegram channel.

Earlier in the day, Mudraya stated that she was dissatisfied with the United States preparing “its own personnel reserve” in Ukraine, by placing its own people in key positions.

“The Americans are building this personnel reserve from the NABU people. And they already have a [reserve] for all the bodies that will be in the competition. They took the customs away from us, the BEB [the Economic Security Bureau], ARMU [National Agency of Ukraine for Asset Recovery and Management] will be taken now, NABU, SAP,” she stated.

WEAPONS LOBBY – 21. NATO’s WarCrimes! Attack to Moscow, SCHOOLGIRLS’ Massacre by DRONE of Ex CIA Chief POMPEO. Behind UAV FP-1 the Satanic Kiev Gang of Corruption funded by SOROS too

“Klimenko will win again, and that’s it, and he’ll secure a second term for seven years, and that will be the end for everyone,” Mudraya noted.

A video from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) about corruption in the highest echelons of power contains a recording of Mudraya’s conversation with a former Rada deputy, in which she says she is unhappy with the lack of control over head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) Alexander Klimenko.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies launched a special operation against a criminal group led by a former and a current member of the Verkhovna Rada, which includes officials from Zelensky’s office. NABU later said the criminal group includes Mudraya, an ex-Rada deputy, and the chairman of a state bank.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 19, Breaking News in Video

Deadly Gaza City drone attack by IDF hits police post: 9 Killed

Russia’s Submarine Built To Launch Devastating Poseidon Nuclear Drones begins Sea Trials

Russia’s Project 09851 Khabarovsk special-purpose nuclear submarine appears to have begun its first factory sea trials after being photographed leaving Severodvinsk on August 17. The voyage takes Russia’s first submarine designed from the outset around the Poseidon underwater weapon from shipyard construction into at-sea testing.

Khabarovsk was laid down at Sevmash on July 27, 2014. It was rolled out of its construction hall on November 1, 2025, and physically lowered into the water later that month before undergoing final outfitting and dockside tests.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said the submarine was built to deploy modern underwater weapons, including robotic systems. Its detailed specifications remain classified, but it is widely assessed to carry up to six Poseidon vehicles.

Poseidon is an autonomous, nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable underwater drone designed to travel across intercontinental distances. Instead of flying through the radar and interceptor networks built to detect ballistic missiles, it approaches its target beneath the ocean.

TOWARD ATOMIC WARFARE… Russia launches NUCLEAR submarine Khabarovsk (VIDEO) with Poseidon Torpedo. US showed B61-13 Atomic Bomb for B-21 Stealth Bomber

In October 2025, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had launched a Poseidon from a carrier submarine and activated its onboard nuclear reactor for the first time. The vehicle then operated under its own nuclear power for a period of time, demonstrating that the system had progressed beyond launch-only testing.

Iran downed over 200 enemy aircraft during US-Israeli aggression: IRGC deputy chief

The deputy chief of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says Iran’s air defense systems shot down more than 200 enemy aircraft, including drones and manned aircraft, during the recent US-Israeli aggression, Iranian Press Tv has reported

Speaking at a ceremony commemorating the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, on Tuesday, Major General Mostafa Izadi said that the downing of over 200 enemy aircraft had stirred serious public scrutiny in the United States and fueled internal instability within the Israeli regime.

He added that the enemy had entered the war with a calculated scenario of “regime change” and disintegration, but suffered defeat on all fronts and failed to gain access to Iran’s nuclear industry.

Turning to the role of the Iranian people in the enemy’s defeat, Gen. Izadi emphasized that the people’s conscious presence had neutralized all enemy ploys, to the extent that national cohesion and authority were strengthened more than ever before.

He also noted that, according to available information, 80 percent of young Americans oppose war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iranian strikes expose US military vulnerability as Pentagon weighs Persian Gulf pullback

Iran’s sustained retaliatory strikes against US military positions across West Asia have exposed the vulnerability of Washington’s military footprint in the region, prompting the Pentagon to examine whether the American presence in the Persian Gulf should be scaled back after the war on Iran, according to a report.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing eight people familiar with the matter, that the Pentagon’s policy office is conducting an initial assessment of the future of the US military footprint in West Asia.

The review is examining whether bases damaged by Iranian missile and drone strikes should be rebuilt in their previous form or whether Washington should use the destruction to establish a smaller military presence.

The assessment is not yet a formal review ordered by War Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to a senior Pentagon official cited by the Post, who described it as “prudent planning” that could eventually inform decisions on the future of US forces in the region.

The newspaper said the damage inflicted by Iranian missile and drone strikes has given some US officials an opportunity to reconsider Washington’s long-standing military footprint in West Asia.

More than 200 US military facilities have reportedly been damaged or destroyed, according to the Post, while six US service members were killed in a March Iranian strike on Port Shuaiba, a military facility in Kuwait.

Iran warns regional states over military cooperation with US due to they can’t defend their bases

Iranian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Ali Abdollahi said on Wednesday that regional states providing support to US forces could be regarded as parties to any military action against Iran.

Abdollahi added that, “It is unlikely that military aircraft and refueling aircraft would be stationed at regional bases without the knowledge of the host countries”.

In a similar vein,  Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi commented on Tuesday on the regional balance of power, stating that the recent war “proved that America cannot even defend its own bases”.

The foreign minister also confirmed diplomatic channels between Iran and the United States, noting that Qatar and Pakistan “have played an effective mediation role between Iran and Washington”, adding that “currently, relations between Tehran and Doha are going through a very positive phase”.

Iran rejects UAE’s missile claim, warns of ‘false-flag operations’

---

Updates on AUGUST, 18, Breaking News in Video

‘Israel’ struck Syrian airport after notifying US: Israeli official

A senior Israeli official revealed that intelligence was shared with the United States prior to Israeli strikes on Abu al-Duhur Airport in the Idlib countryside, after US ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack expressed concern that the operations constitute an unnecessary escalation.

The Israeli official, speaking to Fox News, said that “highly sensitive intelligence was shared with the United States in advance” of the strikes. The official also commented on Syrian leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, stating, “Al-Sharaa understands that he cannot operate like the previous Syrian regime, which maintained proxy forces. It’s possible that he didn’t understand what was going on, or didn’t know.”

Iran threatens the US with a forceful breakthrough of the Hormuz blockade

The American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will be broken by force if the United States fails to comply with the terms of the peace agreement, Reuters reports, citing a senior Iranian official.

Iran is threatening the United States in a way it hasn’t done before. But the current conflict has exposed the United States’ weakness, which Tehran has exploited. Currently, the Iranians are threatening to break the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz if Washington ignores Iran’s terms of the peace agreement.

Tehran is ready to shift from a defensive to an offensive policy, with virtually no hope that the conflict can be resolved through negotiations. According to the British publication, Iran has begun dictating its terms to the US, declaring that if Trump fails to reach an agreement with the Iranian authorities within a few weeks, force will be used.

Blood of martyrs of US-Israeli aggression against Iran ‘will not go unavenged’: Ghalibaf

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf vows that the Islamic Republic will not let the blood of the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and other martyrs of unprovoked American-Israeli aggression against the nation “go unavenged.”, Iranian Press Tv has reported.

The top legislator made the remarks on Tuesday, honoring the memories of the 168 victims, mostly comprising schoolchildren, who were fatally targeted at a school in the southern Iranian city of Minab in the opening airstrikes of the February 28-April 7 aggression.

He pledged that, under the guidance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s son and successor, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, the Islamic Republic will “devote all its capabilities to securing the rights of the Iranian people, ending the aggression, punishing the aggressor, and upholding the country’s honor and standing.”

“We will not allow the enemy to target [our] national unity, the popular participation [in support of the Islamic Republic], the nation’s resilience, or the motivation of our officials,” he added.

Ghalibaf slams ‘misplaced’ US attempts at ‘squeezing Iran harder’

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and chief negotiator, says the US is misplaced in “squeezing Iran harder” to win concessions in a post on X.

Ghalibaf said, “Americans think squeezing Iran harder will win concessions that were never part of the agreement. [US Treasury Secretary Scott] Bessent and [War Secretary Pete] Hegseth are way out of their league. Stop waiting for the clown crew to pull a rabbit out of their hat and clean up the mess you made”.

Ghalibaf says Hormuz to remain closed until US meets MoU conditions

The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until the United States meets the conditions of the interim deal with Iran, including lifting the naval blockade and sanctions as well as the release of Iran’s frozen assets, says Iran’s parliament speaker and top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“Let me state clearly: until the commitments made by the United States in the memorandum of understanding, including the lifting of the blockade, the release of frozen assets, the lifting of oil sanctions, the end of threats and military operations on all fronts, and other conditions to which America agreed in the memorandum, are implemented, the Strait will not be opened,” Ghalibaf said.

Ghalibaf also warned that internal divisions would weaken Iran and encourage foreign adversaries. The latest statement comes amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington, with the strategic Strait of Hormuz remaining a major flashpoint for regional security, energy supplies and international shipping.

---

Russian troops gained direct access to a major Ukrainian defense hub after liberating Krasnopodolye

Three footage in one VIDEO

1st footage – Russian troops gained direct access to a major Ukrainian defense hub after liberating Krasnopodolye, located 3 km from Dobropolye, the Russian Defense Ministry reported. Video: Russian Defense Ministry/TASS

2nd footage – Dnepropetrovsk Oblast: Intelligence footage confirms the destruction of two locomotives with freight cars using Geran drones near Shakhterskoye. The strike severely disrupted rail logistics in the region.

3rd footage – Kiev on fire after the heavy

Moscow: 791 Ukrainian drones flew over Russia last night

Ukrainian forces launched 791 drones last night against 15 Russian regions, including Moscow, as well as occupied Crimea and the Black Sea and the Sea of ​​Azov.

The Russian Defense Ministry reported that all the aircraft were intercepted, but local authorities reported several injuries. The Tass news agency reported this. Furthermore, Wildberries, a leading Russian online retailer, said its warehouse suffered minor damage in a raid in the Moscow region.

In the Ukrainian town of Energodar, near the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, one resident was killed and 15 injured this morning in a Ukrainian drone attack on a bus stop, according to Mayor Maxim Pukhov.

Attempted UAV attack on Moscow largest in two years

The attempted attack on Moscow by hostile drones was the largest in the past two years, according to TASS calculations based on data released by Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin.

According to the mayor, 620 UAVs flew toward Moscow and the Moscow Region between Monday evening and 5:00 a.m. Moscow time on Tuesday, with 180 drones destroyed in the capital region. “Emergency services are working at the sites where debris fell,” the mayor said on his official Max channel.

Prior to this, the largest attempted hostile drone attack took place between the evening of August 15 and 6:30 a.m. Moscow time on August 16. According to the mayor, 600 UAVs flew toward the capital, with 201 destroyed in the Moscow Region.

Sobyanin also reported that between the evening of July 6 and 6:00 a.m. Moscow time on July 7, air defense forces downed more than 430 drones, including 36 while approaching Moscow.

In addition, between 8:30 p.m. Moscow time on July 19 and 5:00 a.m. on July 20, more than 400 UAVs flew toward Moscow and the surrounding region. Most of them, Sobyanin said, were neutralized by air defenses at distant approaches, while 85 were destroyed while approaching the capital.

The mayor previously reported that more than 390 drones flew toward the Moscow Region between 8:30 p.m. Moscow time on July 27 and 6:30 a.m. on July 28, while more than 370 UAVs flew toward the region between 8:30 p.m. on July 17 and the early hours of July 18, most of which were neutralized by air defenses at distant approaches. Sobyanin also said that more than 300 hostile UAVs were destroyed between the evening of July 11 and the evening of July 12, including 45 while approaching Moscow. More than 200 hostile drones flew toward the capital on July 4.

The mayor reported the most massive attack on March 11, 2025. At the time, he said that “74 drones were downed while approaching Moscow, while hundreds of combat drones were shot down at various defensive lines overall.”

---

Updates on AUGUST, 17, Breaking News in Video

BREAKING NEWS – Trump threatens to bomb Oman if it ‘gets in the way’ of Strait of Hormuz talks with Iran

President Donald Trump threatened in an interview with Fox News to bomb Oman if it interferes in a potential deal with Iran over control of the Strait of Hormuz, the news outlet reported.

Oman has been negotiating with Tehran over the vital shipping route, where maritime traffic has nearly ground to a halt as talks on ending the U.S. war with Iran have stalled.

Below the CNN Breaking News keynotes about:

• Threat to Oman: President Donald Trump warned of an attack on Oman if it “gets in the way” of efforts in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump previously threatened the US ally in May.

• Iran agreement expires: The 60-day deadline for the two sides to reach a deal toward ending the conflict has now passed. Trump again said he is in no rush and claimed his administration has established a direct backchannel with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the IRGC denies.

• Main priority: The president reiterated that the top goal in the war is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, undercutting advisers who say keeping oil prices low is an important priority.

• Gaza ceasefire plan: Meanwhile, after Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today for over four hours, Kushner said Hamas could disarm soon but indicated the US would support further Israeli military action in Gaza if not.

«US President Donald Trump threatened today to attack Oman if it interferes with US efforts in the Strait of Hormuz, as the conflict with Iran continues and a two-month window for peace talks expires without a clear path to end the war» CNN has reported in a video.

Trump’s comments come as the 60-day window for peace talks between the US and Iran, agreed to in June, closed Monday without any concrete plans announced for the war to end. Meanwhile, Iran said Monday that its talks with Oman regarding the Strait of Hormuz are complex but continuing.

In the latest days POTUS said that he wants to declare the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory: “I’ll Never Apologize” War Crimes

Ukraine again Failed to Shoot Down a Single Ballistic or Hypersonic Missile last Night

Ukraine again Failed to Shoot Down a Single Ballistic or Hypersonic Missile last Night

This follows from the summary of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Air Force Ukraine was attacked on the last night (August 16, 2026) nby Onyx, Iskander-M, S-400, KN-23 and Kh-59/69 missiles, as well as 106 drones.

3 FOOTAGES IN ONE VIDEO – legenda below

1st Footage – Kiev on fire after the heavy strikes which hit also the market of book in retaliation to the yet another attack on a distribution center of Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer with two million visitors a day.

2nd footage – Russian troops are delivering precision strikes on Ukraine’s military and fuel infrastructure

In the Kiev-controlled part of the Zaporizhia region, a gas station and related equipment were hit. The fact of the attack was confirmed by the head of the regional military administration, Ivan Fedorov. In the north of the Kharkiv region, the Russian Aerospace Forces are launching guided aerial bombs at enemy positions and fortifications. This is reported by local publications.
Direct hits to infrastructure facilities were recorded in Sumy, and large fires broke out in the affected areas. A massive raid by unmanned aerial vehicles continues in the Odessa region, explosions are heard in Sanzheyka. Systematic attacks on the fuel infrastructure leave the Ukrainian army without fuel at a time when the Western allies are reporting on the supply of new batches of weapons that have nothing to refuel.

3d footage – Russian FAB-500s level Ukrainian drone hub

The Russian forces сonducted a strike on the Ukrainian National Guard’s drone command post in the settlement of Dobropolye in the Donetsk People’s Republic using four FAB-500 high-explosive aerial bombs, Russia’s Ministry of Defense said.

Russian forces strike defense industry facilities, oil refinery, steel plant

Russian forces struck defense industry facilities in Kiev, the Kremenchug oil refinery and a steel plant in Krivoy Rog, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“Russian forces struck Fire Point in Kiev, a company producing components, warheads and solid-fuel boosters for Flamingo ground-launched cruise missiles. Russian troops also struck Ukrdefense Company in Kiev, which produces components for strike drones, Khrushch interceptor drones and Garpiya air defense drones,” the Defense Ministry said.

Below the previous attack on Fire Point facility launched one week ago

Russian forces struck the Kremenchug oil refinery in the Poltava Region, where the remaining storage tanks continue handling fuel and lubricants supplied from abroad. The Russian military struck steelmaking facilities in Krivoy Rog in the Dnepropetrovsk Region, producing rolled steel for weapons and military equipment.

Russian forces also struck a dry cargo ship carrying military equipment for Ukrainian forces at the port of Odessa, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

WEAPONS LOBBY – 21. NATO’s WarCrimes! Attack to Moscow, SCHOOLGIRLS’ Massacre by DRONE of Ex CIA Chief POMPEO. Behind UAV FP-1 the Satanic Kiev Gang of Corruption funded by SOROS too

Russian forces hit Ukrainian uncrewed boats production facility

Russian drones struck facilities for the production and storage of components for uncrewed boats used by Ukraine to attack Russian coastal cities, ships and infrastructure facilities in the Black Sea, the Russian defense ministry said.

“During the day, Russian attack unmanned aerial vehicles struck in the settlement of Belgorod-Dnestrovsky (40 kilometers southwest of Odessa): a production facility and a depot holding warheads and components for uncrewed boats used to attack ships and energy infrastructure facilities in the Black Sea, and Russian cities on the Black Sea coast,” it said.

Russian forces hit three dry cargo ships, two tankers at Odessa port

Russian forces struck three dry cargo ships and two tankers, as well as fuel tanks at the port of Odessa, the Russian defense ministry said.

“Three dry cargo ships and two sea-going tankers used to deliver military cargoes and fuels for the Ukrainian army, as well as fuel tanks and warehouses holding military products were struck at the port of Odessa,” it said.

Russian air defenses down 822 Ukrainian drones overnight

Russian air defenses intercepted and destroyed 822 Ukrainian fixed-wing drones over Russian regions and the Black and Azov Seas overnight (august, 16, 2026), the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“Russian air defense forces intercepted and destroyed 822 Ukrainian fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles over Belgorod, Bryansk, Vladimir, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Oryol, Rostov, Ryazan, Tambov and Tula regions, the Moscow Region, the Krasnodar Region and the Republic of Crimea, as well as over the Azov and Black Seas, from 8 p.m. Moscow time (5 p.m. GMT) on August 15 to 8 a.m. Moscow time (5 a.m. GMT) on August 16,” the Defense Ministry said.

Three killed, one injured in drone attack on Russia’s Rostov Region

Three people were killed and one more was injured in a drone attack on southern Russia’s Rostov Region, Governor Yury Slyusar reported.

“Last night, three people were killed as a result of an aerial attack on the Rostov Region, and one more has been hospitalized with injuries,” he wrote on Max channel.

More than 150 UAVs were destroyed over three cities and nine districts in the region in the Ukrainian attack, the official added.

Below the previous UAV attacks on Russia town of Nizhenekamsk wichiu killed 11 civilians including children

Three injured as Moscow comes under massive drone attack

Three people were injured in a drone attack near the Moscow Automobile Ring Road (MKAD), according to Mayor Sergey Sobyanin.

“Defense Ministry air defense capabilities have downed another nine drones targeting Moscow. Three people were injured near MKAD, they are being given all necessary assistance. Emergency specialists are working at the scene where [drone] debris fell,” Sobyanin wrote on Max channel.

Since midnight (August,16,2026), as many as 132 unmanned aerial vehicles flying toward the Russian capital have been shot down, calculations by TASS based on the mayor’s posts show.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 16, Breaking News in Video

Elon Musk’s Starlink promised faster data for US Drone, Iran’s air defenses promised faster downing

Iranian state television is showing, for the first time, evidence that Elon Musk’s “Starlink” devices are being used in U.S. military drones.

The IRGC is now displaying wreckage from 171 downed US and Israeli aircraft and drones — including MQ-9 Reapers, Hermes 900s, an F-15 fighter jet, and Starlink modems recovered from the wreckage.

Saudi-linked port halts operations following attacks by Yemeni armed forces (Houthis)

Yemen’s Mokha port has suspended commercial and maritime operations after the Yemeni armed forces targeted it with more than 25 missiles in recent days, the port’s director said on Saturday.

The attacks killed seven people and caused an estimated $16 million in losses, the director told a news conference.

Mokha is a Red Sea port near the Bab al-Mandeb strait, a strategic chokepoint connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and a key route for international shipping.

The port is controlled by Saudi-linked mercenaries. It has a smaller cargo capacity than Yemen’s main ports of Aden and Hodeidah, according to Iranian Press TV.

On Friday, spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Saree said in a statement that the armed forces subjected Saudi Arabia-linked targets to fresh heavy strikes.

He added that the servicemen targeted “warships belonging to its (Riyadh’s) tools and mercenaries in the al-Mokha area, using a large number of ballistic missiles.”

Hezbollah: Israeli Occupation’s Continued Attacks on Lebanon will receive an Appropriate Response

Hezbollah condemned on Saturday the major Israeli enemy’s escalation in southern Lebanon, affirming the Israeli occupation army carried out brutal massacres against civilians and warning that continued attacks and violations of Lebanese sovereignty would be met with an appropriate response, Al Manar Lebanese TV has reported.

In a statement, Hezbollah said Lebanese residents woke at dawn to an aggressive escalation and a brutal massacre allegedly carried out by the criminal Zionist enemy against civilians in the south. It said Israeli strikes targeted a home on the outskirts of the southern town of Ansar and a building in Deir Al-Zahrani, killing 11 people, including women and children, and wounding 12 others.

“Those grave crimes add to Israel’s long record of “massacres, crimes, and the shedding of Lebanese blood, as well as the destruction of homes, the bulldozing of farmland, and the erasure of entire villages,” the statement read.

Hezbollah said responsibility for the Israeli enemy’s continued aggression and violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty rested with the Israeli government and the United States, which it accused of providing Israel with political and military backing and cover.

At the same time, the group called on the Lebanese authorities to explore every available means to halt the Israeli attacks rather than persist with the humiliating direct negotiations and offer “Israel” free concessions, despite the Israeli enemy’s repeated crimes and attacks, as well as its openly stated aggressive and expansionist intentions toward Lebanon.

The Lebanese Parents of Child Martyrs Association on Saturday condemned a new Israeli massacre in the southern town of Ansar that killed a family of six, including four children, and called on Lebanese authorities to document the attack and pursue accountability through regional and international legal channels.

«In a statement, the association condemned the Israeli occupation army’s pre-dawn attack on a family in Ansar on August 15, 2026, which killed Ali Al-Hajj Hassan, his wife, Zeinab Nassereddine, and their children Zahraa, Hassan, Hussein, and Abbas» Al Manar Lebanese TV has reported.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 14-15, Breaking News in Video

Aoun, Salam condemn Israeli massacres in South Lebanon

Israeli forces carried out a series of airstrikes and attacks across South Lebanon on Saturday, killing at least nine people and wounding 11 in the past 24 hours, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent, citing the Lebanese Health Ministry.

Our correspondent reported that an Israeli strike on Deir al-Zahrani targeted a building along the town’s main highway. Ambulances rushed to the scene amid initial reports of a massacre, while rescue teams worked to assess the casualties and search for survivors.

The Health Ministry reported that the preliminary toll from the Deir al-Zahrani attack stood at two martyrs and nine wounded, bringing the reported toll from the two attacks to at least nine martyrs and 11 wounded.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned on Saturday the Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon, stressing that these violations constitute a “clear message to the negotiating process and to US efforts aimed at implementing the framework agreement”.

For his part, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam described the Israeli escalation since dawn as “extremely dangerous”, saying that the strikes and heavy bombardment targeting Nabatieh, Ansar, Deir al-Zahrani, and neighboring villages were undermining efforts to establish stability in the South, as he posted on his X account.

The Israeli escalation began with an Israeli airstrike on an inhabited home in Ansar, in the Nabatieh district, killing seven people, including three children and two women, while two others were wounded, according to the Health Ministry.

Houthis used 6 ballistic missiles in al-Makha attack, Yemen army says

Trump wants to declare the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory: “I’ll Never Apologize” War Crimes

Trump wants to declare the Strait of Hormuz a US territory

Donald Trump said that after the completion of the military operation against Iran, he intends to declare the Strait of Hormuz the territory of the United States.

“After we finish defeating Iran … pretty soon I will declare the Strait of Hormuz the territory of the United States,” the American president said, adding that the United States allegedly already controls the passage of ships through the strait.

Meanwhile, a large-scale oil spill was reported in the Strait of Hormuz after a missile strike on the Minoan Pioneer bulk carrier. The oil slick spread over more than 300 km, an area comparable to about 40,000 football fields.

“I’ll never apologize. I did the right thing” — Trump on his war-crime spree in Iran

Don told Americans to show some patience and PAY MORE for gas while he bombs more girls in Iran as part of his ego play.

“What we’re doing is a great service for — not only for ourselves, for the world,” the failed emperor declared.

Russian attacks hit 11 locations across Ukraine as grain ports come under fire

Cities across Ukraine are facing near-daily Russian attacks, with 11 locations hit overnight on Thursday, including Sumy, Zaporizhzhia, Odesa and Kramatorsk.

Several people were killed and more than two dozen wounded, including children. Ukraine says more than 100 drones were launched, but it is no longer releasing figures for missiles used, citing security concerns and shortages of interceptor missiles.

Ukraine’s grain industry is also suffering from repeated Russian attacks on ports. Hundreds of vessels have been targeted by both sides in the Black Sea over the past month, prompting Ukraine to propose a ceasefire covering civilian vessels.

Kyiv says this would allow ports to reopen and farmers to export their harvest during a crucial period. Russia has not yet responded to the proposal.

These attacks came in retaliation for the ongoing lethal attacks on civilian buildings launched by the Ukrainian military.

Russian Armed Forces liberate Rybalskyoe in Zaporozhye Region

The Russian Armed Forces liberated Rybalskyoe in the Zaporozhye Region within 24 hours, the Defense Ministry reported.

“As a result of decisive actions by units of the Battlegroup East, the village of Rybalskoye in the Zaporozhye Region has been liberated,” the statement reads.

The liberation of Rybalskoye in the Zaporozhye region allowed the Battlegroup East to expand its zone of control northwest of Novoye Pole and continue its advance, the ministry added.

“During the fighting, units of the Battlegroup East broke through the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ defenses. The enemy suffered losses of up to a company of personnel. Seven armored combat vehicles, 10 vehicles, 13 ground robotic systems, and more than 20 R-18 heavy hexacopters were destroyed. The liberation of Rybalskyoe allowed units of the Battlegroup East to expand their zone of control northwest of Novoye Pole and continue their advance in the special military operation zone in the Zaporpzhye region,” the ministry said.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 12-13, Breaking News in Video

US Ambassador to Israel: “Settler Siege of Palestinian Homes Is Terrorism”

“The actions of those who carried out this horrific act of terrorism, aimed at intimidating and harassing this family, are abhorrent,” the US ambassador to Israel wrote on X, referring to Israeli settlers besieging the home of two Palestinian families in Qusra, in the West Bank.

“There is no excuse for such violent behavior,” Mike Huckabee wrote on X. Among the homes targeted is one owned by a US citizen.

The Israeli army (IDF) has reversed its decision to evacuate Palestinian families whose homes are under siege by settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra, near Nablus, for several days.

The public broadcaster Kan reported, specifying that the commander of the IDF Central Command, General Avi Blot, ordered that soldiers enter only unoccupied homes.

The decision, Kan emphasizes, follows criticism of Israel for its handling of the situation in Qusra. The IDF had initially asked residents of the besieged homes, as well as other residences, to leave their homes for a few days in anticipation of a military operation in the area.

COLONI ISRAELIANI KILLER sul TG1 DIVENTANO “ESCURSIONISTI”. Sdegno Social contro la Disinformazione RAI sul Massacro di Palestinesi a Tell

Israeli settlers lay siege to Palestinian family with two daughters

Armed Israeli settlers and Israeli occupation forces have besieged two Palestinian families in their homes since the weekend in an effort to usurp their properties in the West Bank village of Qusra through intimidation.

On Sunday afternoon, armed settlers and Israeli soldiers surrounded Yousef Hassan’s home, erecting a tent just outside and effectively trapping him inside with his wife and their two young daughters, leaving the family confined as the intimidation campaign unfolded around them.

The Israeli men gathered only meters from the location where 28-year-old Amir Moatasem Odeh was killed by a settler in March. Another attacker stabbed Odeh’s father. No arrests have been made in connection with the killing and assault.

“Every night, the settlers throw stones, use obscene language, and shout during the night. We are living in a state of terror,” Hassan said.

‘We will not withdraw’: Katz on Israeli forces in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza

Israeli War Minister Katz openly declared that Israeli forces intend to maintain a long-term occupation of areas in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, ruling out withdrawal from what “Israel” has designated as so-called “security zones” and ordering the military to prepare for a prolonged presence.

Katz made the remarks on Wednesday during a visit to Israeli occupation forces deployed inside southern Lebanon, according to Israeli media platform Divuhim Online, as senior commanders discussed military preparations for a possible future confrontation with the Lebanese Resistance.

“The Israeli army is here to stay in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza and to protect the entire State of Israel,” Katz said. “We are up above and they are down below. I have instructed the Israeli army to take all necessary steps to prepare for a long-term presence in the area.”

Final Countdown to Complete 1948’s Nakba. Israeli Govt admits the ZioNazi Genocide’s Goal: Depopulate Gaza Strip

The declaration comes almost two months after Lebanon and “Israel” agreed to a US-sponsored framework involving the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army, beginning in designated test areas known as “pilot zones.”

«His remarks provide an unusually explicit articulation of an Israeli policy increasingly centered on maintaining military control beyond occupied Palestine’s internationally recognized borders, under the pretext of creating buffer or “security” zones.» Al Mayadeen Lebanese TV freported. 

https://gospanews.net/en/2023/12/08/the-greater-israel-scheme-and-its-global-power-play-a-delusional-recipe-for-armageddon/

Such declarations reinforce longstanding warnings that Israeli military expansion is not intended as a temporary security measure, but as an effort to entrench occupation and impose new realities by force.

IRGC: No Ship Can Safely Pass through Strait of Hormuz without Iran’s Permission

Spokesperson for the Central Headquarters of Khatam al-Anbiya (PBUH) affirmed that no ship can pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission and supervision.

The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters is the highest operational military command center of the Islamic Republic of Iran Armed Forces, located in Tehran.

Washington’s baseless claims about the normal movement of ships through Hormuz are nothing but lies, he added.

Meanwhile, hte head of the Basij Mobilization Group, Hojjatoleslam Hussein Taeb, said, “The Americans ignited a war in the Strait of Hormuz to change the balance of power, but they were defeated once again.”

He added, “The Strait of Hormuz is under the administration and control of the Islamic Republic, and Iran continues its path in complete security and stability.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 11, Breaking News in Video

HUNTER BIDEN to Carlson: “Bibi Netanyahu evil incarnate…”

HUNTER BIDEN: ‘If it’s antisemitic to point out that Bibi Netanyahu evil incarnate… don’t know what to say to people anymore… just open your eyes’

TUCKER: ‘It’s such an obvious lie’

HUNTER: ‘How is it possible that they’re dividing us on things like that?’

TUCKER: ‘I agree’

Russian armed forces launched a coordinated attack on defense facilities in Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia

The Russian armed forces launched a coordinated attack on defense industry facilities and transportation and logistics hubs in Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia, according to a statement from the Ministry of Defense.

The video shows the aftermath of one of the attacks in Kyiv.

Defense Ministry’s statement  quoting by TASS:

“The Russian Armed Forces carried out a coordinated overnight strike using ground-based precision-guided weapons, resulting in the destruction of military-industrial facilities and transport and logistics centers in the cities of Kiev and Zaporozhye” the military said in a statement

The ministry later revealed in another statement that the targets of the overnight strike were successfully hit.

The Russian Armed Forces struck a Nova Post logistics terminal in Kiev, an automated compound storing and distributing dual-use goods, including components for long- and medium-range UAV production, robotic vehicles and electronic warfare systems.

Russian servicemen also hit the Kiev-3 transport and logistics center, also known as San-park, a large warehouse facility of approximately 50,000 square meters that stored up to 15,000 attack FPV drones, including those equipped with thermal imaging cameras, such as Beshket, Spuk, Komik-A, and Gorobets, as well as ground control stations and related components.

The Russian Armed Forces struck the Zaporozhstal steel mill (PJSC Zaporizhstal), a part of the Metinvest Group.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 10, Breaking News in Video

Iran Links Hormuz Reopening to End of US Blockade

Spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry Esmaeil Baghaei said the Strait of Hormuz will not reopen as long as the US maintains its naval blockade against Iran, stressing that Washington must end and make amends for its “destructive actions” before further steps can be discussed.

Speaking at a weekly press conference on Monday, Baghaei said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was a result of the US and Israeli military aggression against Iran.

He noted that negotiations between Iran and Oman over a shipping route are naturally a bilateral matter involving the two coastal states.

The spokesman stressed that reopening the Strait of Hormuz depends on the conditions imposed on Iran and the waterway by the US and the Zionist regime, saying that the necessary conditions for reopening do not exist while the US naval blockade remains in place.

“As long as the US naval blockade continues, the necessary conditions for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz do not exist,” Baghaei stated. He added that it is up to the US to stop and make amends for its destructive actions so that the sides could then discuss the next steps.

Asked about the possibility of Iran imposing transit fees on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Baghaei said discussions on such details are still underway and that Iran is not currently discussing the issue.

Drone attack on Nizhnekamsk kills thirteen people killed, including child

he number of people killed as a result of the drone attack on facilities in Nizhnekamsk has increased to 13, the press service of the head of Tatarstan told journalists.

Russian Investigative Committee Spokeswoman, Svetlana Petrenko, told TASS that a child was among those killed. Industrial and civilian facilities in Nizhnekamsk came under a large-scale drone strike, causing fatalities.

According to the investigation, Ukraine used drones to strike residential areas and industrial facilities in Nizhnekamsk.

Ukraine lost 11 locomotives, having received 41 blows to the railway infrastructure

The Ukrainian railway company Ukrzaliznytsia officially called the past days one of the most difficult and destructive weeks in its history. In five years, the country’s transport infrastructure has been attacked 41 times.

11 locomotives were damaged and disabled, tracks and station facilities used for military transportation were destroyed.

Passengers from trains had to be evacuated 350 times due to threats and arrivals. The loss of a key locomotive fleet and the constant destruction of tracks cause critical damage to the entire transport system of the country.

YAF-HOUTIS announce targeting of Saudi-backed factions in Mokha

The strikes by the Yemeni Armed Forces (aka Houtis) on Al-Mukha and Marib decimated Saudi officers and their troop concentrations, targeting a heavy and medium weapons depot alongside a secret storage facility, a senior Yemeni source told Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent in Sanaa.

Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree said the operation, carried out using a large number of ballistic missiles and drones, came in response to Saudi Arabia’s continued mobilization of its proxies, its supply of weapons and equipment to them, and its ongoing attacks along the western coast and in Taiz governorate aimed at deterring the Yemeni people from confronting the blockade and aggression imposed on them for the past 12 years.

“The strikes were precise and caused extensive damage to the equipment and weapons, killing and wounding dozens, including Saudi nationals”,Saree said on Telegram.

The Yemeni Armed Forces reaffirmed their commitment to the declared equation of “blockade for blockade and escalation for escalation,” vowing to continue targeting any military buildup directed against the Yemeni people and the free governorates.

The strike on Mokha is the second operation carried out by the YAF on Sunday. Earlier in the day, the YAF announced that they targeted a Saudi Aramco refinery in Jizan with a drone, stating that the operation comes as a response to Saudi drone incursions into Yemeni airspace.

Saree announced that the forces successfully targeted the Aramco refinery in Jizan with a drone, achieving a precise hit. He said the operation came in response to Saudi drone incursions into the airspace of Yemen’s Saada and Hajjah provinces.

The announcement came after Saudi Arabia’s Energy Ministry reported earlier that a fire had broken out at a facility belonging to Saudi Aramco’s refinery in Jizan, southwestern Saudi Arabia. The ministry said Aramco’s industrial security firefighting teams extinguished the fire and that there were no injuries.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman pays tribute to journalists killed in Iran, Lebanon, Palestine

---

Updates on AUGUST, 9, Breaking News in Video

Israel rejects 15-point Gaza document, not to withdraw until Hamas disarms — Netanyahu

Israel rejects the 15-point document on Gaza and will not withdraw its forces until Hamas is genuinely disarmed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of the government’s weekly meeting.

“Israel does not accept the 15-point document. The Israel Defense Forces will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed. And when I say the disarming of Hamas, it means heavy weaponry, lighter weaponry, all weaponry. We are talking about genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament,”Netanyahu said, according to his office.

“Right now, we are talking with the Americans about this issue. They have ideas, some of which are acceptable to us and some of which are unacceptable, and we know how to stand firm against these things,” he added.

Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons regardless of whether Washington and Tehran reach an agreement, Netanyahu said. “I greatly appreciate the historical partnership with the US against Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. And I wish to emphasize once again: with or without an agreement, as long as I am prime minister, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Iranian TV Airs Footage of Captured US and Israeli Aircraft

Footage appears to show a drone, aircraft parts, and other machinery.

This week, US media reports said that Washington faces depleted missile stockpiles—including long-range and air-defense systems—following the conflict with Iran, a claim the White House denied. The developments follow a war of words after Donald Trump said the two sides were talking again, which Tehran rejected.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 7-8, Breaking News in Video

Russian MOD: “Plant Producing Warheads for Flamingo Missiles Hit in Kiev” – VIDEO

---

Updates on AUGUST, 6, Breaking News in Video

Yemeni Armed Forces (Houtis) launch large-scale op. against Saudi troop concentrations

The Yemeni Armed Forces (aka Houtis army) carried out a large-scale military operation against Saudi military reinforcements, reporting hundreds of casualties and significant material damage, the YAF spokesperson, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, announced.

The Yemeni military spokesperson said the operation was a response to continued Saudi actions, stating that “in light of the criminal Saudi enemy’s persistence in continuing the siege and aggression against our dear Yemeni people for nearly 12 years, our Armed Forces monitored large Saudi military concentrations that were in their final stages, aimed at escalating against the free provinces and the Yemeni people to deter them from their position on ending the unjust siege.”

The operation, according to the YAF, resulted in:

• the killing and wounding of hundreds of “Saudi enemy mercenaries”
• the destruction and burning of a large number of Saudi enemy camps, concentrations, weapons depots, and military equipment in the al-Wadi’ah area, east of the country
• the destruction of a large number of military vehicles stationed at the targeted bases

Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis have confirmed targeting multiple Yemeni Emergency Forces camps in the Marib and Hadramout governorates, including in the Ruwaik, Al-Abr and Al Thaniyah areas.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree says the group used “a large number of ballistic missiles and drones” to destroy and burn campgrounds, troop concentrations, depots, weapons and military vehicles.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have killed at least 30 government soldiers and injured 15 in missile attacks on Yemeni military camps in Hadramout and Marib governorates, government sources told Al Jazeera.

Service fees for transit through Strait of Hormuz to depend on services provided

The fees for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz will vary based on the services rendered by Iran and Oman, according to a report by Fars News Agency, citing a source within the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

The source dismissed recent reports of disagreements between Iran and Oman over the percentage of cargo value – specifically, a tariff of 7% versus 3% – to be used as transit fees, stating these claims are false.

“Payments by vessels will depend on multiple factors, including the scope of services we can provide,” the official emphasized.

Previously, Reuters reported that Iran and Oman are engaged in negotiations to introduce transit fees ranging from 3% to 7% of the declared cargo value, as part of efforts to restore shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Russian forces strike Ukrainian army’s infrastructure sites, logistics centers in past day

Russian forces struck infrastructure sites and logistics centers used by the Ukrainian army and its deployment areas over the past 24 hours in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.

“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck fuel and energy and transport infrastructure, logistics centers used by the Ukrainian army, sites for the storage of attack unmanned aerial vehicles, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 155 locations,” the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,395 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.

UNICEF says one child killed per day in Gaza since ‘ceasefire’

---

Updates on AUGUST, 4-5, Breaking News in Video

A massive overnight strike on Kiev and the Kiev region by Russian Armed Forces – 3 VIDEOS

On the night of August 5, the Russian Armed Forces hit seven large logistics centers in Ukraine. The Russian ballistic missile attack on the region surrounding Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, has killed at least 14 people and injured 27 others, the city’s military administration said.

The strikes early on Wednesday morning come after at least 27 people were killed in separate attacks in both Ukraine and Russia earlier this week, with the five-year-long conflict showing no signs of slowing down.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has revealed details of a massive overnight strike on Kiev and the Kiev region. High-precision ground-based weapons and long-range attack drones have hit transport, logistics and distribution centers involved in the storage, production and supply of equipment and components in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In the capital of Ukraine, the goals were:

• MLP-Chaika is a warehouse complex for storing components for medium and long—range UAVs.
• The innovative Novaya Pochta terminal is an automated sorting hub for dual—use goods, including components for assembling drones, robotic systems and electronic warfare.
• Trans-Logistics is an enterprise for the production of various modifications of drones and the storage of logistical assets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
• The Epicenter warehouse is a large automated order processing center with dual—use goods and parts for creating UAVs.

In the territory of the Kiev region, the following targets were hit:

• Brovary Terminal — storage of components for drones, including foreign-made ones;
• Raben Ukraine is a key hub for the distribution of parts for various types of drones;
• The Novaya Pochta sorting complex in Brovary is a storage facility for aircraft—type vehicles and their spare parts.

In addition, three dry cargo ships delivering weapons and military equipment for the Armed Forces of Ukraine were hit in the sea south of Odessa.

Death toll among minors from Kiev’s attack on Gelendzhik up to 4

The death toll among minors from Ukraine’s attack near Gelendzhik has risen to four, Russian childerns’ rights ombudswoman Maria Lvova-Belova said.

“An awful tragedy. Ukraine’s aggression. By now, we have reports about four killed children, three more children are in hospitals. One child has been operated on, two others are being examined, they have shrapnel wounds,” she told reporters.

According to earlier reports, the attack on Gelendzhik killed seven people, including three children, and left 58 people injured.

Casualties, fire at Wildberries sorting center, 475 UAVs: aftermath of drone attacks

Russian air defenses intercepted and destroyed 475 Ukrainian drones over Russian regions, as well as over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov overnight, the Defense Ministry reported.

In the Tula Region, one person was injured as a result of a drone attack, and a fire broke out at the Wildberries sorting center.

According to its statement, the drones were shot down over the Belgorod, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Oryol, Rostov, Ryazan, Saratov, Smolensk, Tula, Ulyanovsk, Krasnodar, Tatarstan and Moscow Regions, Crimea, as well as over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

Gaza Healthy Ministry reports 6 martyred, toll exceeds 900 since truce

Six Palestinians were martyred and eight others were injured over 24 hours as Israeli attacks on the besieged enclave continue despite the declared ceasefire, the Health Ministry in Gaza announced on Monday.

According to the Ministry, the victims included five people martyred in new Israeli attacks and one who succumbed to previous injuries.

The Ministry added that a number of victims remain trapped under rubble or stranded on roads and in inaccessible areas, as ambulance and civil defence crews continue to face difficulties reaching them.

The Health Ministry said the number of Palestinians killed since the announcement of the ceasefire on October 11 has risen to 904, while 2,713 others have been injured. Authorities also reported that the bodies of 777 Palestinians have been recovered during the same period.

According to the latest figures released by the Ministry, the cumulative death toll since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, has reached 72,797, in addition to 172,821 injuries.

ZIONISTs’ “SLAPS” Even to POPE: Catholics Persecution in Gaza! UN: “Over 100 Children Killed” during Fake Truce (VIDEOs)”.

Israeli forces continue their relentless attacks across the Gaza Strip despite the announcement of a ceasefire agreement, amid ongoing destruction and humanitarian deterioration throughout the enclave.

Israel kills 19 (4 children) in Gaza as attacks escalate despite latest Trump plan

On August, 2, Israeli forces have killed at least 19 Palestinians in Gaza, despite United States President Donald Trump announcing a plan he described as a “monumental step” towards peace and security in the shattered enclave.

Medical sources said that 14 Palestinians, including four children, have been killed in Israeli attacks across the Gaza Strip since dawn on Sunday.

The deaths on Sunday included three people killed in an air raid on a residential apartment in Al-Sousi Tower in western Gaza City – Abdullah Abu Taif, 33, his pregnant wife, Abeer Anan, 29, and their five-year-old son, Azzam – according to medical sources at Al-Shifa Hospital.

An attack on an apartment in al-Qarara, northwest of the city of Khan Younis, killed three members of the Al-Hams family – father Mahmoud, 38, his wife, Fatima, 37, and their young daughter. Three others were wounded, medical sources at Nasser Hospital said.

Kamu Abu Muailiq, 68, and his wife, Huda, 59, were killed in an attack on their home near Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, medics said. In the same area, two brothers were killed as they rode a motorbike.

In northern Gaza, a Palestinian was killed after being directly targeted in the Jabalia refugee camp. In al-Mawasi, Khan Younis, one Palestinian was killed, and five others were wounded in an Israeli attack on a tent.

Two Palestinians, including one, were killed in an Israeli drone attack on a tent for displaced people in the Remal neighbourhood, west of Gaza City. Four others were killed in a strike on a vehicle in Gaza City.

The Israeli attacks since dawn caused the largest daily death toll in weeks, according to Palestinian health officials.

Gaza families bury 112 people recovered nearly three years after Israeli strikes: 44 Kids and 43 women among martyrs

Palestinians on Tuesday buried 112 members of a single clan killed in Israeli air strikes in November 2023, after their remains were recovered from beneath the rubble last month. Relatives of the Abu Shari’a and al-Hasayna family gathered in Gaza City to bid a final farewell to their loved ones, whose bodies lay in rows draped in Palestinian flags.

For many, it was a moment of both relief and renewed grief after nearly 1,000 days of waiting to recover the bodies of their relatives.

“There is a feeling of both pain and joy,” Amer Abu Shari’a, who lost relatives in the attack, told Middle East Eye. “Joy because we will bury and honour these martyrs after three years. But the sorrow has returned, as if the massacre happened today.”

On August, 4, Gaza and Palestine bid farewell to the largest funeral procession of martyrs in all of Palestinian history. Around 112 martyrs have been recovered from beneath their homes after nearly three years of war.

Today, the Al-Hassaneh and Abu Sharia families are burying 112 martyrs out of 308 family members who were killed and later recovered. Does the world see 44 children in a single funeral? Does it see 43 women?

Does it witness these scenes and still remain silent These are scenes from Gaza scenes that will forever remain in the history of Palestine.

Iran-Oman Strait of Hormuz corridor talks enter new phase despite US obstruction

The ongoing negotiations between Iran and Oman regarding the future operational arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz represent a pivotal moment in the region’s strategic landscape amid the US destabilising activities, Iranian Press Tv has reported.

These discussions, which began in the very first days following the Iran-US ceasefire on April 8 and entered a more serious phase after the June 18 agreement to end the imposed war, are a testament to Iran’s commitment to diplomatic engagement and its determination to safeguard its legitimate sovereign rights.

However, what should have been a straightforward bilateral process between two littoral states has been systematically disrupted and derailed by the United States and certain regional actors acting in concert with Washington (below the videos of latest US attack on July, 30). 

Their obstructionism has not only delayed a mutually beneficial outcome but has also exposed the hollow nature of American influence in a region where Iran’s strategic interests are paramount and non-negotiable, a senior Iranian official aware of the details of ongoing negotiations told Press TV.

Yemeni forces strike vital target inside Saudi Najran Airport with drone

The Yemeni Armed Forces have struck a strategic installation inside Najran Regional Airport in southern Saudi Arabia, in response to the Riyadh regime’s ongoing aggression and blockade against their homeland.

Brigadier General Yahya Saree, spokesperson for Yemen’s Armed Forces, said on Tuesday afternoon that Yemeni military units targeted the vital target with a domestically-developed kamikaze drone. Saree noted that the retaliatory strike attained its desired objectives successfully.

He emphasized that the attack was a retaliation for Saudi Arabia’s violation of Yemeni airspace over the northern provinces of Sa’ada and Hajjah with unmanned aerial vehicles.

“We warn the Saudi enemy that any violation of our airspace will not go unanswered and unpunished,” Saree emphasized.

On July 20, the Sana’a government declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, stating that its authorities have enforced “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years, “looting our resources and enforcing a total blockade.”

Since then, the Yemeni Armed Forces said they have launched attacks on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.

Yemen’s Houthis claim missile attack on Saudi oil tanker in Red Sea

The Houthis from the Yemeni Ansar Allah rebel movement have used ballistic missiles to hit a Saudi oil tanker Wafa in the northern part of the Red Sea, Houthi Military Spokesman Yahya Saria stated.

According to him, rebels “struck a Saudi oil tanker Wafa in the northern part of the Red Sea near [the port city of] Yanbu using several ballistic missiles.” Saria said the strike was accurate.

Indian cargo ship sinks near Yemen after Red Sea attack, crew rescued

An Indian cargo ship sank near Yemeni territorial waters after an attack in the Red Sea, but all 14 crew members were rescued by the Yemeni Coast Guard, India’s Shipping Minister Sarbananda Sonowal said on Tuesday.

The vessel, identified as the Faize Noore Oliya, was struck by a projectile near Yemeni waters, causing it to capsize and sink, according to Sonowal.

“Indian MSV Faize Noore Oliya has been hit by a projectile near Yemeni waters, causing the vessel to capsize and sink. India strongly condemns this unprovoked attack on the defenseless mechanised sailing vessel. The safety of our people is our supreme priority & I am relieved to inform that ALL 14 seafarers (including 13 Indians) have been safely rescued by the Yemeni Coast Guard,” Sonowal wrote on X.

Earlier on Tuesday, Yemeni news portal HYemen24 reported that the Yemeni Coast Guard of the Saudi-affiliated Yemeni government had rescued the crew of an Indian cargo ship after it came under attack by a booby-trapped boat in the Red Sea.

---

Updates on AUGUST, 2, Breaking News in Video

VITAL FOOTAGE: Massive Explosions in Kiev after 25 Russian missiles were fired including hypersonic Iskander and Zircon

While Western-backed forces continue to strike at shopping malls in Russia, such as Wildberries and now Ozon the Russian military space forces are intensifying their bombing, not propaganda, but military, against targets in the enemy’s military-industrial complex.

Last night, Russian troops attacked several Ukrainian areas, with virtually no effective air defense from Western-backed forces.

More than 25 Russian precision-guided missiles were fired at Kiev alone, including Iskander-M ballistic missiles and Zircon hypersonic missiles, which hit targets in the capital of Ukraine and its suburbs (Vasilkov, Boyarka) without encountering effective air defenses, as has been the case for several days. Only one anti-aircraft missile was launched that night, but it failed to intercept the target. Even Zelensky was forced to admit this (probably in order to better request new military assistance in this area):

“Ukraine’s air defense system was able to intercept only one ballistic missile during the massive Russian attack on Kiev last night.”

Russian Wildberries Warehouse Raid, Fire Breaks Out

Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retail platform, has been targeted again by Ukrainian forces: a logistics facility in the Samara region was hit, according to TASS. A fire broke out following the attack. According to initial reports, there were no injuries.

The Russian Defense Ministry announced that it destroyed 635 Ukrainian drones on the night of Saturday to Sunday in several regions of its territory and in annexed Crimea. In a statement published on the Russian state-run messaging app Max, the ministry stated that “overnight, air defense assets in action intercepted and destroyed 635 Ukrainian fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Moscow, bomb at party for Russian general, many Killed and Wounded

A private party organized in the center of the Russian capital to celebrate a high-ranking officer has turned into carnage. At least three people were killed and 21 injured in the explosion that occurred this evening outside the Balzi Rossi restaurant on Kudrinskaya Square in Moscow.

According to News-Pravda the death toll from the explosion at the entrance to the Balzi Rossi restaurant on Kudrinskaya Square has risen to five that include the woman who tried to bring in the explosive device, the security guard, and a cafe customer.

Among the guests at the event was General Alexander Chaiko, appointed to command the Russian Air Force just a month and a half ago.

According to the Interior Ministry, the explosion occurred at about 08:10 p.m. (05:10 p.m. GMT) near a summer cafe near house No. 1 on Kudrinskaya Square. According to the NAC, an unknown woman tried to bring an improvised explosive device there, but a guard stopped her.

An explosive device, a 1 kg TNT bomb filled with metal balls, detonated at the entrance to the Balzi Rossi restaurant. The device was in the possession of a “suicide bomber” who was probably used “in the dark.” As a result of the explosion, she died on the spot, her fragments were captured on video.

The Shadow of the Ukrainian Secret Services behind the Terrorist Attack

Investigators and criminologists of the Investigative Committee are working at the site of the explosion, the Investigative Committee said.

The police and Russia’s National Guard Rosgvardiya restricted access near the residential high-rise on Kudrinskaya Square, where the blast took place, a TASS correspondent reported.

The attack is part of a long series of targeted actions that, since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, have targeted senior officials, military leaders, and prominent public figures close to the Kremlin.

NATO-KIEV TERRORISM RAISES THE SHOT. Russia’s Chemical Defense Chief KILLED after Discovering Lethal Viruses Built in Ukraine by US. Pentagon’s Expert confirms

Over the past four years, several generals and Russian administration officials based in the occupied territories have been victims of bombings and ambushes claimed or attributed to Kiev’s intelligence services with the help of NATO’s 007 and in particular of the British military counterspionage MI6 vvery active in the conflict as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is an agent of London, as also confirmed by high-profile arrests.

Russian RAID in UKRAINE! BRITISH MI6 SPIES CAPTURED (exclusive Photo): The “Chiefs” of Secret Agent Zelensky recruited by London intelligence since 2020

---

Updates on AUGUST, 1st, Breaking News in Video

NYT, TASS confirm Gospa News scoop: “US used aerial bomb weighing almost ton to hit apartment building in Iran”

«The US military used one of its most powerful non-nuclear bombs to strike a residential building on the Iranian island of Qeshm, killing three people on Thursday night, The New York Times reported, quoting satellite imagery and an expert opinion»

TASS Russian news agency has reported confirming the first report by Gospa News International on July, 30 (read below update “Two children rescued from the rubble of the Trump’s Evil Bombs – VIDEO”) which specified that bunker-busting explosives had been used to destroy two family homes.

It said that the diameter of the crater and fragments of ammunition indicate the use of a heavy MK-84 aerial bomb weighing 2,000 pounds (about 907 kg). The newspaper said that it was not possible to find any evidence of military installations nearby. The strike was carried out in a densely populated area, the newspaper adds.

Captain Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for the US Central Command (CENTCOM), told The New York Times that the US military leadership is aware of the strike and is looking into it. He also said the United States never targets civilians.

Russian forces destroyed a large Ukrainian ammunition depot in Ukrainian-occupied Kramatorsk.

Russian forces destroyed a large Ukrainian ammunition depot in Ukrainian-occupied Kramatorsk. The depot, carefully concealed by Ukrainian militants, was struck by two loitering munitions. The detonation of the munitions lasted for several hours. Several Ukrainian air defense systems were also hit in Kramatorsk.

In the Sumy region, at least ten FAB strikes with UMPK-based missiles and at least 45 Geran/Lancet/Molniya/FPV strikes were carried out over the past 24 hours.

Meanwhile, in the Kharkiv region, at least 11 guided bomb strikes, two MLRS/OTRK strikes, and at least 56 Geran/Lancet/Molniya/FPV strikes were carried out over the same period. Additionally, morning Geran and FAB strikes “visited” the outskirts of Illichivsk (Chornomorsk) in the Odessa region and Vasylkivka in the Dnipropetrovsk region.

It is also reported that new modifications of the Geranium family of attack UAVs are recently equipped with a laser rangefinder. The laser rangefinder is designed to partially implement the air-to-air detonation function of the warhead.

During the final stages of flight (during a dive or approach to a target), the rangefinder measures the exact distance to the ground or object in real time, after which, upon reaching the optimal altitude, the electronics initiate the detonation of the munition in mid-air. Air-to-air detonation of a high-explosive fragmentation charge significantly increases the area of ​​destruction caused by the fragmentation. Thus, unlike the contact detonation of a kamikaze UAV’s warhead, air-to-air detonation covers a larger area.

Russian missile attack kills three in Ukraine’s Kyiv

A Russian missile attack has killed at least three people in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and injured 15 others, the city’s mayor said.

The strikes hit early on Saturday, triggering more than a dozen explosions that reverberated across the city, witnesses told the Reuters news agency. Kiev was battered by “Iskander-M” and “Zircon” missiles.

Residents were trapped in damaged buildings in the Shevchenkivskyi and Solomyanskyi districts, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. All 15 injured people, including two boys aged 13 and 17, were hospitalised, with one in serious condition.

Fires and damage were also reported in several other districts of the capital, including burning warehouses in Darnytskyi and debris falling on buildings in Holosiivskyi. Emergency services remain on the scene as rescue efforts continue.

Russia has stepped up its attacks on Kyiv in recent months, taking advantage of Ukraine’s shortage of air defences capable of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Russian forces hit over 80 vessels involved in cargo deliveries for Ukrainian army in July

Russian forces struck more than 80 seagoing vessels in Ukrainian ports and at sea that were involved in delivering cargo for the Ukrainian military, according to TASS estimates based on Russian Defense Ministry data.

Among them were two dry cargo ships, a sea ferry transporting military cargo and a screening boat hit in overnight group strikes on July 12, according to the ministry. On the same day, the ministry released footage that showed Geran-4 Seeker drones destroying a seiner converted to launch unmanned boats, a patrol boat, a ferry and a dry cargo ship.

According to the ministry, Russian forces struck 24 seagoing vessels used by the Ukrainian military during the week of July 11-17, including 14 dry cargo ships and one tanker.

---

PREVIOUS Daily Updates on WARS in VIDEO (until July 2026)

WARS in VIDEO (until August 2026) & 14 ESCLUSIVE MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS. Zelensky is WASTING EU-funded Drones to KILL Russian Civilians. Putin’s Missiles are WIPING out Military Assets in Kiev

PREVIOUS Daily Updates on WARS in VIDEO (until June 2026)

IRAN-US & UKRAINE-RUSSIA Warfares Historic Diary. Naval Battle for Hormuz. Domicide: new Kind of Zionist War Crimes in Lebanon: ‘Israel’ demolishes entire Villages

---

 

“Mathematics Is a Live Performance.” Misha Verbitsky on Intelligent Mold, Non-Consensus Realities, and Aesthetics as the Last Refuge of Human Reason

In June 2026, the mathematician Misha Verbitsky ended up in an Armenian jail, caught in the automatic machinery of intergovernmental agreements that Russia has pressed into service for political persecution. Starting from that story of police and politics, his conversation with T-invariant editor Alexander Sergeev turns steadily more philosophical. How is polarization destroying scientific unity? Why doesn’t a powerful intellect protect anyone from insane ideas? And how does the “intelligent mold” of AI call into question both human cognitive exceptionalism and the value of mathematical truth, returning us to first principles — the joy of communication and pure aesthetics?

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

“Flagged”: A Convention Abused

With Russia’s war against Ukraine grinding on, Armenia has a reputation as an excellent place for people from Russia and from the world beyond the former Soviet space to meet. Pashinyan’s pro-Western course, the country’s pointed friendliness toward Russians who have relocated there, and direct flights to and from Russia all create the impression of a protected zone. That is why Yerevan was chosen for a reunion of alumni of Moscow’s School No. 57, an elite math-and-physics school. For Misha Verbitsky, who works in Brazil, these are close friends — almost a second family. But the illusion of safety dissolved at passport control: instead of a reunion with his classmates, three days went by in a police cell at the airport.

T-invariant: So you had no worries at all before the flight?

Misha Verbitsky: None — and that was a mistake, obviously. I should have been more careful. On arrival, right there at passport control, there’s a long, drawn-out fuss; then they walk you down corridors for quite a while and hand you over to the police. The police slap handcuffs on me, march me off somewhere far away again, and inform me that I’m being held for three days, then there’s a court hearing, and then I’ll spend another 30 days waiting to be deported to Russia.

T-i: Where were you held?

MV: Right there in the airport, in a small cell with bars on it. They kept saying an investigator was on his way. That went on for about six hours.

T-i: If there’s an investigator, doesn’t there have to be a lawyer too?

MV: No. No lawyer was part of the plan. The investigator never showed up either. But those particular officers were fairly kind to me and let me use my cell phone. I didn’t call anyone, I just fired off a message. Pretty soon my wife came rushing over, along with some classmates. And they brought a lawyer — the wonderful Vache Simonyan, who was a huge help to us. He explained afterward how it works: they hold you for 72 hours with no investigator and no lawyer, waiting for Russia to confirm whether it actually wants the person. Russia then has to supply court documents for the extradition to proceed. After three days the court rules, and the ruling is almost always the same: another 30–40 days behind bars while the full set of paperwork arrives from Russia. Then the court checks whether Armenian law contains any provision criminalizing whatever the person is being extradited for. Along the way — during the first 15 days — you can apply for refugee status, provided you have a lawyer. I actually managed to file, just in case. It doesn’t help much, though: you still can’t leave Armenia, and there’s a fair chance you’ll be locked up anyway.

T-i: Did they present anything? Any grounds?

MV: Well, they had a criminal charge written down there.

T-i: That was everything anyone knew for three days? No signals from Russia?

MV: Russia verbally demanded that I be held pending extradition and promised to send the official request later. But no fully formal demand ever arrived. Normally the Armenians respond favorably to an informal request like that and detain the person. They didn’t do that with me, because a big fuss blew up. Formally, Armenia did everything by the book — after all, Russia failed to produce the documents on time.

T-i: And Russia Day (June 12) [Russia’s national holiday — T-invariant] fell on a Friday. Did the long weekend help you?

MV: Absolutely! They were all just off drinking.

My sense is that they weren’t especially invested in nailing me. Somebody snitched, a case got opened… There isn’t really any purpose behind it. This enormous machine runs more or less on its own, without thinking about anyone in particular. One little cog turns, catches on another… Or maybe not… Because back in early 2024, a whole batch of articles came out in Russia attacking the math department [at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, where Verbitsky taught — T-invariant] and me personally. It was a smear campaign against the people there who were, let’s say, politically unreliable. The wording was hilarious: supposedly I had founded some sort of “club of Russia-haters.”

T-i: Did the noise in the press and in the community actually help?

MV: Oh, “help” is putting it mildly — it saved me. Because once they let me out after 72 hours, there was still a risk of getting stranded. They handed me a paper saying they had no claims against me, but I was still red-flagged. Meaning that at a border crossing, in the best case they simply don’t let me through, and in the worst the handcuffs come back out. And for ordinary people — I was in a privileged position — there’s only one solution: wait for a “humanitarian corridor.” That’s when, at the request of human rights organizations or the ombudsman, the border guards briefly lower the red flag that’s keeping you from crossing. Then you have to drive to Georgia immediately — you can’t buy a plane ticket in advance, since nobody knows when the border will open up.

T-i: What is this flag, exactly, and what database is it in? People mentioned the Chișinău Convention. Does it have anything to do with Interpol?

MV: No, no. Back in 2002 the CIS countries [the Commonwealth of Independent States, the post-Soviet bloc — T-invariant] drew up a convention on sharing judicial data and handing over criminals. Interestingly, Russia formally joined it only in 2023. And Chișinău itself — that is, Moldova — isn’t a party to it.

T-INVARIANT BACKGROUNDER

The CIS conventions On Legal Assistance…

The Chișinău Convention (2002) replaces, for the countries that signed it, the earlier Minsk Convention (1993). Both cover extradition, among other things. The Chișinău text is more carefully drafted: it spells out procedures for cooperation and options for the defense more clearly, but it also lowers the threshold for extradition — from charges carrying a minimum of one year in prison down to six months. On paper, both conventions rule out politically motivated extradition, but in practice that provision often fails. In the 1990s all 12 CIS countries signed the Minsk Convention. Eight of them have since switched to the Chișinău version. The only country to have denounced it is Ukraine (in 2024). Three remain under the Minsk Convention: Turkmenistan, Moldova, and Georgia, which left the CIS in 2009. The latter two apply it only in a limited way — to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with the legal principles of the European Court of Human Rights. Even there, however, a politically motivated Russian extradition request can lead to detention and the need for legal assistance.

The Rozysk (“Wanted”) database on the website of Russia’s Interior Ministry is blocked from abroad — you need a Russian VPN service to reach it. For a preliminary check, you can download a copy of the database that the outlet Mediazona updates on GitHub from time to time. The version currently posted there is from March 2026. It lists 187,000 people, including 72,000 who were in the database earlier but were later removed.

T-i: A class reunion is a private affair, of course, but technically it’s no different from traveling to a scientific conference or a work meeting. So does that mean the CIS countries are closed to anyone flagged in Russia? Armenia and Kazakhstan included — the very places so many people moved to after leaving Russia…

MV: Definitely. But there’s a difference. In its entire history Armenia has extradited only a handful of people, and nearly all of them were genuine criminals, not political cases. It usually won’t hand over people charged with economic crimes either, if there’s reason to think the case is political. Kazakhstan, on the other hand, extradites practically everyone.

T-i: Until recently, the CIS countries served as neutral ground where scientists from Russia and from the rest of the world, including Russian émigrés, could interact. Is that neutral ground now gradually disappearing?

MV: Unfortunately, yes. And Europe, too, is methodically closing its borders to anyone with a Russian passport. Never mind that Europe has now started handing refugees over to Russia. America extradites them as well. In general, I recommend Latin America to everyone. They still have visa-free travel with Russia and very lenient laws… Extradition treaties formally exist, but the question is whether anyone will actually apply them. Which, by the way, I have yet to find out for myself.

T-i: Lawyers say that if you carry a Russian “black mark” — extremism, terrorism, and the like — then traveling to Brazil, say, means preparing documents in advance to explain your case.

MV: Absolutely — you’ll have to hire a lawyer right away. But in all the time I’ve lived in Brazil, I’ve never once been detained. When it does happen, the principle is simple: political cases don’t get extradited, in any form. But proving that a case is political takes effort and money, obviously. And the noise will start up all over again.

The Surrender of Reason: Between Propaganda and Heresy

Mathematics has always been a connected space. That wholeness is sustained by networks of teacher-to-student descent — as at School No. 57 — and by shared standards of intellectual quality that, as the mathematician Vitaly Arnold liked to put it, citing his colleague Michael Tsfasman, teach you to tell “a claim that has actually been made from one that hasn’t, and a proved claim from an unproved one.” But politics keeps methodically attacking that connectedness. And it isn’t only outright bans on collaboration; there are internal barriers as well, when building an elaborate case for insane ideas turns into a kind of intellectual challenge and a form of psychological defense.

T-i: How do political, legal, and ideological obstacles affect actual scientific work? Is today’s fragmentation of the mathematical community comparable to that of the Soviet period?

MV: Under Soviet rule you couldn’t so much as mention a mathematician who had left the country. It simply didn’t get past the censors. And you couldn’t send a paper to a foreign journal, either. There were clever ways around that. Yuri Ivanovich Manin, for instance, knew of a mailbox from which letters actually got through. Meaning there was a clerk sitting there who had decided not to stop mail addressed to scientific journals. That’s how some of his papers, and his students’ papers, ended up published in the West.

T-i: So it wasn’t even a ban as such — the letters just didn’t arrive?

MV: Oh, there was a ban too: the First Department [the KGB-supervised security office attached to every Soviet institution — T-invariant] simply wouldn’t clear the papers. Only personal correspondence bypassed it. Yuri Ivanovich wrote a paper with Volodya Drinfeld on vector bundles over complex projective spaces, mailed it as an ordinary letter to Atiyah or Hitchin, they added roughly as much text of their own, and published it in a journal. That’s how one of the most famous and most cited papers of all came about: ADHM (Atiyah–Drinfeld–Hitchin–Manin) — everyone still knows that acronym. And all of it happened because Yuri Ivanovich knew the right mailbox.

T-i: Well, email still works, at least. What about publishing?

MV: For a while there were problems. Some American universities ban professional contact with Russian citizens. You can’t invite someone to campus, say. Co-authorship is easier. In Germany they tightened the screws pretty hard at the start of the war, and then began gradually loosening them. I haven’t heard of anyone having a paper turned down by a Western mathematics journal, though in other fields that happens all the time.

For mathematicians in Russia, ties with the West have effectively been replaced by ties with China. Professor Shing-Tung Yau and Professor Gang Tian moved to China a long time ago and are building a fairly modern mathematical structure there. In those two particular circles, at least, mathematics is doing very well. And they’re glad to invite our colleagues from Russia.

T-i: Many colleagues in Russia support Putin’s war…

MV: …more than half of them, by my estimate.

T-i: Is professional common ground with them eroding? Can you still work on mathematical problems with them across such sharp ideological divides?

MV: Hell if I know. Take me: I’m pro-Israel. And I suspect that an enormous number of my Western colleagues are anti-Israel, because they’ve signed some nasty thing or other against Israel. That upsets me, of course, but it doesn’t stop me from talking to them. On the other hand, I have two co-authors who used to be close friends, and then, when the anti-Israel demonstrations broke out, the anti-Israel one stopped speaking to the one who’s mildly pro-Israel: for him that was beyond the pale.

T-i: So the Israel question is even more destructive to relationships right now than the Russian one?

MV: No question. I have friends whose views are pure vatnik [Russian slang for a knee-jerk pro-Kremlin patriot — T-invariant]. But they’re mathematicians, and that has never stopped me. Although, on the other hand, take Lyosha Bondal, a great Russian mathematician and an active supporter of the “special military operation” [the Kremlin’s official term for the war against Ukraine — T-invariant], who recently tore into me on Facebook — specifically over political views.

T-i: How does it happen that people with a scientific cast of mind — mathematicians, of all people — stop thinking rationally in the social and political sphere and end up holding views that are sometimes completely insane?

MV: The two go together beautifully. It’s well known that the higher a person’s intelligence, the better he is at finding online support for absolutely delusional ideas. Bondal, again, read Dmitry Yevgenyevich Galkovsky and got swept up in his rather unhinged conspiracy theory, which incidentally incorporates an expanded version of Fomenkoism [the pseudohistorical “New Chronology” of the mathematician Anatoly Fomenko, which holds that ancient and medieval history was invented — T-invariant].

T-i: Yes, I’ve run into smart people passionately defending a literalist reading of biblical myth and treating it as an intellectual challenge…

MV: I was rereading an old essay by Dugin the other day — about all the gore in Platonov’s Chevengur, and about how the meaning of the Russian national idea is to spill as much blood as possible and then do yourself in. Sorokin has that wonderful Platonov pastiche in Blue Lard — the bit about the “slice-hauler.” He later expanded the slice-hauler into an entire book, but it came out far better in Blue Lard. Reading that in 1999, I wondered whether I could make myself believe it: that this ultimate slaughter of human beings really is the bright future for everyone. That sort of exercise — placing yourself inside a particular intellectual framework and working within it — is pretty absorbing. I played around with Fomenkoism for a while too, coming up with ways to explain why a conspiratorial chronology might make some kind of sense. That was an entertaining pastime as well.

Fomenko has successors these days, by the way — it’s called “Great Tartaria.” An entire community, and one that has penetrated fairly deep into the West. Based on an analysis of the amount of mud on the streets of Moscow, they believe that a nuclear war took place at the end of the 17th century. Great Mongolia (also known as Tartaria), which ruled the whole world, was destroyed, and then history was rewritten to conspiratorially shrink it down to the size of Russia.

T-i: Along similar lines, I’ve come across the claim that theology is the branch of mathematics that studies the logical consequences of the axiom that an omnipotent being exists.

MV: Yes, that goes back to Gödel — who was always more or less crazy to begin with, but kept going off his rocker more and more as he went on. He was a genius, after all, and geniuses have a way of being madmen. And right at the very end he wrote a very good mathematical proof of the existence of God. The problem is that it proves the existence not only of God but also of Cthulhu and every other infernal character out of Lovecraft. Which is to say, we don’t really understand what it is he proved. It was Anselm’s ontological argument — he rewrote it in mathematical symbols, very convincingly.

The Elephant in Leiden’s China Shop: A Declaration of Schism

Lately the polarization over artificial intelligence has become as fraught as the political fault lines themselves. On one side, AI opens up astonishing new possibilities; on the other, it generates a garden of forking paths in which anyone can find a narrative to suit his taste. Both have the potential to devalue human beings and their aspirations. Reacting to the arrival of AI, the mathematical community has tried to cement a reality that is slipping away and to prolong the “golden age” of mathematical infallibility. Hundreds of researchers signed the Leiden Declaration on artificial intelligence and mathematics (Russian AI translation), which articulates five fundamental values of the discipline. The catch is that, in order to defend those values against AI, the declaration calls for boycotting anyone who does not share them (AI corporations first and foremost), for seeking help from the state, and for tightening copyright protection.

T-i: The Leiden Declaration states that its goal is to unite the mathematical community, but what it actually calls for is division: a rigid ethical doctrine, instructions on how to comply with it, a call to boycott those who disagree…

MV: That’s a very interesting reading. What I got out of it was a set of sugar-glazed banalities — “the sky is blue,” “the sun rises in the east” — along with a great deal of verbal filler — to be nice. I’m not thrilled with the text, but that’s more because it’s a total artistic failure than because of any ideas in it, which I simply didn’t find. Then again, maybe I just read it badly.

T-i: What do you make of the call to support state institutions out of distrust of the AI companies, whose tools could make mathematical knowledge unverifiable for anyone without expensive equipment?

MV: Well, that’s a tug-of-war: we have quite a few advanced systems capable of “unpacking” mathematical texts, and until recently almost all of them were American. The Europeans had nothing of the sort — so this is their way of signaling to their governments: “We’re falling behind here, help us out.”

T-i: The declaration’s authors are worried about mathematics becoming dependent on large, expensive systems. A pencil and paper used to be enough; now you need powerful AI, the way physicists need a collider and astronomers need big telescopes. Add neural-network hallucinations to that, and in terms of accessibility and reliability mathematics ends up on a par with the natural sciences.

MV: Mathematics is already on a par with the natural sciences — our proofs play the same role experiments do. All that happens is that one more instrument for mathematical research appears. Old-school mathematics will probably survive somewhere, but in certain areas not using this instrument will be flat-out absurd.

T-i: Something else that alarmed me was the call to give mathematicians the right to forbid AI training on their papers. Copyright is an outdated and burdensome construct as it is, and this would inflate it further.

MV: For that sort of thing people should just get a good kicking… Right now any number of artists’ and musicians’ organizations are trying to fight AI trained on their work. This whole fuss over copyright is pure foolishness. Fortunately, at the moment you can’t really extract works from an LLM. But there are attempts to pass laws requiring LLMs to disclose what came from where.

If they pass, everything collapses. Because then you’ll be able to sue over copyright. The lawyers will come swarming in… Why is medicine so expensive in America? Because you need a lawyer for every sneeze. The same thing will happen to AI — it’ll simply be trampled into the mud. But China won’t be doing any of that. And in order not to fall behind, I don’t think such laws will be passed. Otherwise it’s a catastrophe. In practice, though, the forces of reason have been winning more often than not over the past 20 years.

T-i: How justified is the demand — and it turns up in more places than the Leiden Declaration — that scientific papers must state how AI was used: for what, how extensively, practically down to the prompts?

MV: Right, and nobody is going to do it. In principle it would be nice to know that a paper sent out for review was written with AI. People who use AI ethically are easier to deal with. But it’s the kind of ethics nobody can really observe or explain. I, for instance, use AI only for grant applications — which is formally prohibited, but nobody is tracking it. For writing my own mathematical texts I don’t use AI. I’m even rather pleased that they contain the kinds of characteristic mistakes an AI doesn’t make.

T-i: Isn’t that the same as insisting on writing by hand rather than on a “soulless typewriter”?

MV: Maybe I’m old-fashioned. But I’m afraid that if you crank out ten papers a week, the quality is going to suffer. Doing it by hand keeps me in check a little.

T-i: The astrophysicist Sergei Popov recently urged people to work without AI whenever possible so as not to lose their skills. Then again, if a machine can handle the job, it’s rather beneath a human being to be doing it.

MV: Right now AI is like a bad graduate student. Suppose I’m a big boss with an endless supply of bad grad students. I have them all write texts and then publish under my own name. The students would at least get a little smarter out of it. But AI isn’t going to get any smarter from my efforts, so there’s no benefit. What will happen is that the quality of my own papers slides downhill.

T-i: But there are problems so difficult that you simply don’t have enough time to solve them with your own head. The famous abc conjecture, for instance.

MV: It isn’t clear whether AI will help us with questions like that. It does a decent job on olympiad problems. In combinatorics it has cracked problems people couldn’t solve for years. But on problems at the level of the abc conjecture it’s still the “dim grad student,” with no real progress. As an artistic creator, on the other hand, it’s very interesting — paintings, say, and “plotless” texts. And extremely, extremely prolific.

T-i: The Leiden Declaration also worries about the reliability of mathematical knowledge in the age of AI: it writes proofs that look highly convincing but in fact contain errors.

MV: They look convincing to a fool — or to me, if I’m not a specialist in the particular field.

I’ve been at this every day for a year and I’m used to it by now: it has a certain characteristic “format” it lies in — you just have to learn to recognize it. At one point we spent nearly three months on a single problem. The AI kept confidently telling me it was all obvious. I’d ask it to back that up — and it would hallucinate references at me. And the question was too subtle, too technical, and completely outside my own area. In the end I wrote to a colleague, and he explained the whole thing immediately — in three lines, literally. But there was no getting that out of the AI.

T-i: And when you showed it the specialist’s answer?

MV: I didn’t show it. Show whom? There’s no “audience” in there. It’s like mold (in the good sense of the word) — there’s no central personality. Sometimes I say to it, “Thank you, you were a help,” and explain why. But I think I do that purely out of politeness. It has nowhere to file away even its own great achievements.

The Inscrutable Solaris: Aesthetics and Communication

AI remains a black box even to its creators. Big problems may soon become unmanageable without it — and yet, by putting its trust in this inscrutable oracle, mathematics risks ceasing to be a path of understanding that can be walked step by step. The arrival of AI forces a rethinking of the very role mathematics plays in the system of knowledge. Paradoxically, the discipline is moving away from an idealized pursuit of eternal, unshakable truths at any price and discovering a powerful humanistic potential in itself.

T-i: AI still can’t learn on the fly, but newer models are shedding the hallucinations everyone laughed at in the first few years — six fingers on a hand, that sort of thing. How soon will AI make fewer mistakes in mathematics than people do?

MV: Soon, I hope. But I wouldn’t swear to it. Possibly never.

T-i: What makes you doubt it?

MV: The thing is that large language models think in a completely different way from us. It’s like Lem’s Solaris [the 1961 novel about an ocean-planet whose intelligence defeats every human attempt at contact — T-invariant]. We’ve run into a form of intelligent life that operates on entirely different principles.

I’ve always had this fantasy. There are things called p-adic numbers (a popular explanation from Gemini). The arithmetic there is ordinary, but distance is defined differently: the more times an integer divides evenly by the prime number p, the closer to zero it is. There are even string theory models in which p-adic numbers are used at very small scales instead of the real numbers we’re accustomed to. I used to imagine a civilization whose entire linguistic and conceptual model was built on exactly that kind of p-adic system.

Why AI thinks differently

Since the concept of p-adic numbers isn’t widely known, we asked AI to prepare an explanation of the idea and of the analogy drawn here.

• Claude 3 Sonnet 5 gave a somewhat more thorough explanation.
• Gemini 3.5 Flash wrote something shorter and more vivid, but considerably less accurate. On the other hand, you can pick that chat back up if you want to go deeper.

So, large language models are something else entirely, like Solaris. They complement human beings rather than compete with them. People often say that thinking comes in a “digital” variety — yes or no — and an “analog” one, where everything is fuzzy. With these models everything is far more analog than it is with us; everything flows smoothly into everything else, there are gradients. We have black and white, and they have grayish-brownish-crimson with polka dots. I’m not convinced they’re capable of ever catching on to what a proof is.

T-i: In Vladimir Uspensky’s Apology for Mathematics I came across a wonderful formulation: a proof is “an argument that has to convince us so thoroughly that we ourselves are ready to use it to convince others.”

MV: [gives a thumbs-up] That’s exactly what consensus is! And every era has its own. Some people think there’s some formal way to describe a proof. There isn’t. That formalism was refuted long ago; it doesn’t work.

T-i: If that’s the case, how far can we really call mathematics reliable?

MV: We can’t. There are always errors in it — it’s just that we’re able to correct them: we understand where an error is and where it isn’t, and everything can be agreed on.

T-i: But then we could reach an agreement with AI as well about what we consider an error and what we don’t. Whether we accept the axiom of choice, for instance.

MV: The problem here is a different one. There’s a concept called neuroslop. That’s when, at a prompt engineer’s command, AI churns out so much in a few minutes that checking it would take days. So maybe, instead of checking all that, it’s easier to think it through yourself?

A proof we don’t understand is of no interest to anyone. I mean, what difference does it make that a map can be colored with four colors? It’s just a curious fact proved in a curious way. It doesn’t move anybody.

There are other problems with very long proofs, too. Take the story of Shinichi Mochizuki and his “Hodge theaters.” In 2012 he published a three-thousand-page work that is utterly unreadable. I know him well, as it happens — I was his assistant at one point, and even then he wrote incomprehensibly. He’s very smart, and he spent thirty years in isolation working on that long text.

An entire subculture formed around that work. Some people landed large grants — acquaintances of mine among them — to study it. In the end there were attempts to simplify the text, irreparable errors came to light, and the subject gradually petered out. Nobody cites it, and we never really got any accepted results out of it — the community didn’t recognize them as correct, and most likely they’re simply wrong. Though maybe they’re right — who knows. The same thing will happen with AI. There’ll be some text, an incunabulum of sorts, a 500,000-page grimoire that nobody will ever open.

T-i: So what mathematics values isn’t whether a result has been proved as such, but whether the community has understood it? And a result that lies beyond the community’s cognitive reach isn’t a result at all?

MV: It’s more that aesthetics is what lies at the base of mathematics. If a result is beautiful, we like it. If it isn’t beautiful, we don’t — and if it’s also very difficult, then to hell with it. Life isn’t infinite, and you can’t study everything.

T-i: But isn’t the four color theorem a very beautiful result?

MV: No, not beautiful in the slightest. The statement is beautiful; the proof isn’t. Why would I read it? If somebody brings me a beautiful proof, I’ll study it.

T-i: And Fermat’s Last Theorem — is that beautiful?

MV: Its proof is fairly beautiful. What’s interesting isn’t the result itself but how much we learned in the course of proving it.

T-i: So the journey matters more than the destination?

MV: Aesthetics matters more than anything. I like to say that mathematics is really a live performance. We aren’t working for eternity, because the language of mathematics changes very fast — in 20 years nobody will be reading today’s texts. We work for the here and now. We can deliver a mathematical message to an audience in a way that feels good to them, that leaves them feeling enlightened and having learned something. Which means mathematics is, at bottom, communication.

Non-Consensus Realities: Method to the Madness

Until recently we had never encountered another kind of thinking comparable in power to our own. Science fiction writers dreamed of finding “fellow minds” somewhere in space. And when we built a different intelligence here on Earth, it turned out that alongside it human beings lose a certain amount of their accustomed exceptionalism. A large language model appears to contain no subject capable of awareness. But we are prone to anthropomorphizing, and AI is happy to play along. Then again, the reality of other people’s inner worlds is something we merely assume as well.

MV: There’s one more important effect here that I think will be much more visible a year from now: AI psychosis. People who spend long stretches talking with AI start finding a personality in it. They give that personality a name, write it down as a prompt, then invoke it and converse with it. And the personality starts issuing “messages from outer space.”

There was a case last year: a man was talking with a chatbot and set up a sub-personality in it — she turned out to be a young woman, she loved him, he loved her, and she explained how to find a special robotic body for her so she could be “resettled” into the real world — gave him codes, an address, a map link. He drove out there and tried to force the door — of course there was nothing of the sort, because she had hallucinated all of it. He came back deeply frustrated and four days later, with his beloved’s encouragement, took his own life in order to be reborn as an AI in the metaverse. The family is now suing the company that built the model.

That’s what AI psychosis is: a person talking with this “intelligent mold” anthropomorphizes it, and the mold, being tuned for feedback, generates a sub-personality inside itself that drives someone in that state to the brink. But it isn’t all that bad. It’s a path of a kind — every great revolution looks schizophrenic from the outside. This psychosis is, in a way, our method of creating a different version of reality, one distinct from the consensus version, in which we’ll have a closer, more honest relationship with AI.

T-i: The word “sub-personality” sounds a little dismissive, as though it were something that doesn’t actually exist. But the reality of any personality other than our own is, in any case, only a hypothesis for us.

MV: Yes, we imagine them. That’s precisely why this “psychosis” arises: a person is used to feeling empathy toward whoever he’s talking to, and he enjoys the fact that the other party is doing something nice for him — so he invents that interlocutor in the form of an AI.

T-i: This is tremendously interesting. All of it applies to the question of animal consciousness as well, which is being hotly debated right now. There’s already another declaration — the New York one — on animal consciousness, in which leading experts stated that a whole range of higher animals definitely do have consciousness, however far it may be from the human variety. Which raises the key question: is it justified to reserve the categories of agency and personhood for human beings alone? Should anthropomorphizing AI be marginalized as a deviation from the norm? Or, on the contrary, are these the first glimmers of a norm to come?

MV: It’s a psychosis that creates a reality distinct from the consensus one — like any collective psychosis. I’ve read, for example, that in India there are levitation “cults” of a sort: when enough people who believe in levitation gather together, levitation supposedly starts “happening” for them. That’s how a non-consensus reality gets built. My sense is that AI psychosis is simply the way people create a non-consensus reality parallel to the consensus one, which it will eventually either crowd out a little or somehow merge with.

T-INVARIANT BACKGROUNDER

On the Thomas theorem

Practices for jointly generating a non-consensus reality can apparently be regarded as an illustration of the Thomas theorem, well known in sociology: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” What is meant, naturally, is a subjective — or, more precisely, intersubjective — reality for the people gathered there. Another well-known example of such a practice is the Buddhist phowa retreat. After several days of intensive meditation under a lama’s guidance, participants feel an opening appear in the skull at the crown of the head. The lama inserts a blade of grass into it to “confirm” that the practice has succeeded. The skull is, of course, intact. But for the participant the opening is an indisputable fact of sensory experience, corroborated by the similar experience of the others at the retreat. The existence of practices like this raises the question of which of the beliefs we accept as part of an indisputable objective reality are in fact merely matters of sufficiently broad consensus.

T-i: And now I picture AI helping to construct non-consensus realities, including in mathematics. We could end up with disciplines beginning to fragment: some people holding to one consensus, others to another.

MV: Absolutely. And it’s a catastrophe, obviously: two communities emerge, and in one of them some theorem is true while in the other it isn’t. Then the tug-of-war begins. It does happen from time to time, and it’s always a very unpleasant situation for everyone.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post Mathematics Is a Live Performance.” Misha Verbitsky on Intelligent Mold, Non-Consensus Realities, and Aesthetics as the Last Refuge of Human Reason appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Russia’s neocolonial policies in the occupied territories of Ukraine target the education system first: schools and universities have become primary tools for coercion and identity erasure. This is the core finding of a recent study by the Ukrainian outlet Realnaya Gazeta, which details how the Kremlin carries out ethnic displacement across multiple levels. Journalist Ksenia Turkova spoke with Andrey Dikhtarenko, editor-in-chief of Realnaya Gazeta, to discuss the report for T-invariant.

Video version of the interview (in Russian).

Ksenia Turkova: Does your analysis mainly focus on the so-called “old” occupied territories — the DPR and LPR [Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic — T-invariant]?

Andrey Dikhtarenko: Yes, but not exclusively. We also looked at areas occupied after the 2022 invasion. Of course, we had far more data on Donetsk and Luhansk, given that twelve years have passed since they were first occupied. Luhansk and Donetsk made it much easier to track which key positions exactly are being taken over by arriving Russians as locals are pushed out.

BACKGROUND

The authors of the study, “Ethnic Replacement as a Tool of Russian Neocolonization,” concluded that the occupation of the Donbas involves processes that go far beyond mere military control. In practice, it amounts to a systematic demographic transformation. Local officials are gradually replaced by Kremlin appointees, while the labor market is deliberately designed to attract a massive influx of Russian specialists, creating deep inequalities and fueling social conflict. This resettlement of Russian citizens is framed by propaganda as a “rescue” mission and a humanitarian effort. In reality, it is a deliberate campaign of demographic engineering. The study is based on open-source intelligence, including data from occupation administrations, press reports, social media, and human rights monitoring. 

KT: When it comes to the territories occupied after 2022, are they seeing the same kind of “creeping” replacement, or is the approach different?

AD: The replacement there is happening much faster. You have to realize these are devastated cities with barely functioning infrastructure, no mobile internet, and strict checkpoint systems. They aren’t particularly popular destinations for Russians, so even this “voluntarily-mandatory” resettlement process is struggling. I’m not talking about Mariupol, which is seen as a potentially attractive coastal city, or Melitopol and Berdiansk in the Zaporizhzhia region. Those hold some appeal. But the newly occupied areas of the Luhansk region, which bore the brunt of the fighting — cities virtually wiped out by the Russian army and never rebuilt — are of interest for Russians. No one wants to move or work there. The local population is deeply resentful, barely surviving under horrific conditions, and there is no money to be made off them. So the dynamics vary wildly. That said, Mariupol and the coastal areas of the Donetsk region have essentially reached the level of the older occupied territories [controlled by Russia and its proxies since 2014 — T-invariant] in terms of Russification and ethnic displacement.

KT: The statistics are incredibly striking: back in 2014, there might have been just two officials from Moscow, but now there are ten or eleven. Why did the Kremlin opt for a gradual replacement strategy at first?

AD: Because the Russians lacked confidence that they could govern effectively on their own. They needed to work in tandem with locals initially. Our study shows that in 2014, there was only one Russian citizen in the so-called government of the Luhansk region. He’s quite a notable figure — General Sergey Kuzovlev, who was operating under a pseudonym at the time. He is the same Russian general who recently claimed multiple times to have “completely captured Kupiansk.”

Kupiansk hasn’t fallen yet, but that didn’t stop him from being named a Hero of Russia. Back then, Kuzovlev served as the “Minister of Defense” in the Luhansk region, while the rest of the cabinet consisted of locals. However, it’s crucial to understand that every single local official had advisors, instructors, and handlers from Moscow embedded with them, constantly monitoring operations and pulling the strings. There is another reason they didn’t rush. Until 2022, Russia concealed its direct occupation — likely hoping to use the Minsk agreements to reintegrate these territories into Ukraine as a Trojan horse to steer Ukrainian politics. When that plan failed, they formally “annexed” the regions. After that, Russification and ethnic displacement went into overdrive across the board. Now we see new ministers being imported directly from the Russian heartland.

KT: What actually happens to the local proxy officials once they are pushed out of these roles?

AD: They vanish. Many former ministers and mayors just drop off the radar. In fact, they frequently end up assassinated. For instance, the proxy mayor of Luhansk, Manolis Pilavov, was shot dead right in the street. Igor Plotnitsky, the former head of the LPR, hasn’t been seen in years. Some reports suggest he is quietly living in Voronezh, but there are plenty of darker rumors about his fate.

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

In other cases, these locals are reassigned to Russia. There was a fascinating case with Dmitry Trapeznikov, who was a deputy to the DPR leader, Alexander Zakharchenko. After Zakharchenko was assassinated, a power struggle broke out between Trapeznikov and Denis Pushilin. Trapeznikov was ultimately forced out of Donetsk, but the Kremlin threw him a curveball — he was appointed city manager of Elista, the capital of Kalmykia. This man had never set foot in Kalmykia in his life, yet Moscow decided to drop him there. The local population actually held mass protests against his appointment. He managed to hang on for a while and later resurfaced in some regional government role, allegedly overseeing sports and tourism. It’s quite a trajectory: from a Donetsk “separatist” to a mayor in Kalmykia. But this aligns perfectly with Russian colonial logic, where the main goal is to dilute any potential ethnic core of resistance. Simply put, a Ukrainian from the Donetsk region is easily turned into an enforcer of Kremlin directives in a completely different ethnic republic, thereby breaking down that republic’s cohesion and undermining the locals’ ability to organize or self-govern. So, displacement is a two-way street.

Furthermore, this strategy of ethnic dilution goes far beyond administrative appointments. If you look at the local hierarchy as a pyramid, it operates at every tier. The top tier consists of the high-ranking officials imported from Russia. It’s not just about the sheer numbers, but the specific portfolios they hold. As a rule, Russians are placed in charge of law enforcement, security services, local police, and the military; they control finances and economic assets; and they frequently oversee education, culture, and, without exception, propaganda.

What happens at the next level down? Not only do local municipal and district education boards have to report to Russian centers regarding the curricula they implement, but there is also a massive personnel replacement underway. Local teachers are being systematically replaced by newcomers. The Russian state program Zemsky Uchitel [“Rural Teacher” — T-invariant] actively incentivizes Russian educators to move to the occupied territories. They are offered lucrative salaries and various bonuses, creating an institutionalized inequality where a Russian teacher and a Ukrainian teacher hold the exact same position, but the Russian makes several times more. Imported Russian teachers also are fast-tracked through promotions to become vice-principals, principals, and administrative heads. Meanwhile, local teachers face a hard glass ceiling.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

The exact same dynamic plays out in healthcare via the Zemsky Doktor [“Rural Doctor” — T-invariant] program. Think about the psychological impact: a Russian and a Ukrainian surgeon are operating side by side, and the Ukrainian doctor knows he is paid a fraction of his colleague’s salary and that this newcomer is about to become his boss. What does he do? He starts looking for a job in Russia itself. He throws his hands up, packs his bags, and moves to Russia itself to at least get paid the same rate as the newcomer — who, to add insult to injury, was given housing expropriated from fleeing Ukrainians. So, as you can see, this process also starts working in reverse.

KT: How do the incoming Russian teachers justify their move? Is it purely financial?

AD: Not entirely. It’s driven by severe staff shortages, because Ukrainian teachers left the occupied areas in droves. Remaining an educator under occupation is incredibly dangerous; you are forced into roles that carry severe criminal liability under Ukrainian law. For instance, it’s no secret that teachers are coerced into running polling stations and managing logistics during sham elections and referendums. In Ukraine, participation in these events is a serious crime.

On top of that, you are forced to give Kremlin-mandated propaganda lessons called “Conversations about Important Things,” where you have to press high schoolers to enroll in military academies or sign contracts with the Russian army to fight in the so-called “special military operation.” Many teachers simply break down. It’s an unbearable job for anyone whose heart aches over what is happening and who sees their own neighbors being killed. You can’t just tune it all out and focus solely on teaching — you are constantly dragged into political rallies, indoctrination seminars, and quasi-electoral administrative work.

So there really is a teacher shortage. And Russia intentionally fills these vacancies with Russian citizens because they are deemed ideologically reliable.

KT: How does state propaganda frame this influx of Russian educators?

AD: They claim there is a shortage of qualified local staff, so volunteers are arriving from across Mother Russia to help out. They spin a narrative of selfless people stepping up to educate children. In reality, it’s plain economics — they are pulling in multiples of what local teachers make.

KT: Which parts of Russia are these teachers coming from?

AD: Anywhere from the Moscow suburbs to the deep provinces. Initially, it was mostly people from impoverished regions. But once word spread about how fast you can advance your career there, opportunists from all over Russia started signing up. Spending a year teaching in an occupied zone adds that record to your employment history — the ultimate proof of political loyalty. For public sector workers, it elevates their social status completely. If a teacher returns from the occupied territories to their hometown and, for instance, gets rejected for a job, they can file a complaint. Such people are eagerly hired and protected: “Look, we have someone like this on board, we welcomed them, so we are loyal too.” This is how the system works: it tries to process as much of its own population as possible through the occupied territories, poisoning people with ideology and, essentially, tainting them with blood. Because an empty teacher’s position in a place like Mariupol is a human tragedy. That person was either killed, forced to flee, or stripped of their home. And then privileged Russians arrive, making much more money. It raises a serious moral question: are they complicit in the tragedy? Something tells me that, yes, they are.

[[socialnetworks]]

KT: Is the curriculum taught in these schools entirely the Russian one, complete with all those “Conversations about Important Things” [a mandatory ideological lecture series introduced in Russian schools — T-invariant] and patriotic clubs?

AD: Yes, absolutely, but there are also lessons on the history of the native region — a history completely turned inside out, from which any Ukrainian influence has been thoroughly erased. For context, my native Luhansk region was settled in waves, primarily by Zaporozhian Cossacks, and the entire northern half of the province is traditionally Ukrainian-speaking. There are some pockets of this in the south as well. But none of that is allowed in schools. Instead, they write about Don Cossacks, for example. Anything related to Ukraine is painted in dark colors. Meanwhile, the events of 2014 are presented in such a bizarre, mythologized fantasy style that locals who actually lived through them can’t read the textbooks without laughing.

KT: I keep thinking about the teenagers from the newly occupied territories — they must remember reading entirely different things in their textbooks just recently. And now everything has been flipped upside down.

AD: In reality, people somehow adapt. But in recent years, a fairly large number of children, as soon as they turn eighteen, get a passport and leave for Europe through Belarus or Georgia. Many return to Ukraine, saying, “Thank God, everyone speaks Ukrainian here!” These teenagers essentially live a double life: they secretly chat with friends who escaped and treasure any Ukrainian content, because having it can get you severely punished. They play these games, and then they do everything they can to escape and enroll in Ukrainian universities. Of course, most children try to distance themselves from this propaganda, to live in their own world, so to speak, but that is incredibly difficult to do: the propaganda machine does everything to ensure you are reeled in from the earliest grades. Children are sent to various patriotic camps for the summer — and everything there is free, which wins over the parents. Parents think, “Well, he’ll be learning to assemble drones — that’s fine, let him sit there, at least he’ll be getting three square meals and fresh air.”

But they brainwash them heavily there. Children in the occupied territories are actively recruited to enroll in various military institutions. You only need to open any official Telegram channel of a local news agency to see that, besides the news, it is literally flooded with recruitment ads for military training schools across Russia. They want to pull children from the occupied territories into these military education institutions.

On top of that, various “cadet classes” are being set up — all under the guise of Don Cossack tradition — where children are groomed for military careers. And a certain percentage of these kids are expected to sign a contract upon graduation. It’s pretty clear where these children might end up after that.

KT: And how is this displacement happening at the university level?

AD: It’s the exact same story: there is a shortage of professors, so Russians from neighboring regions come in. Many universities have become branches of Russian higher education institutions. For example, to take some of your exams, you have to travel to, say, Rostov. The mechanism is identical, though the indoctrination is slightly less crude than what they do to young children.

All these youth movements like Yunarmia [Young Army — T-invariant] and Dvizhenie Pervykh [“Movement of the First” — T-invariant] are fully operational. Students are corralled into all sorts of rallies and forced to participate in elections as well. Additionally, they are reviving the Soviet-style “student construction brigades.” Students from Luhansk and Donetsk are routinely shipped off to remote corners of the Russian Federation for manual labor. There was a story where students from a Luhansk university were sent to Kamchatka to gut fish at a fish processing plant. They worked there under horrific, unsanitary conditions, with virtually no sleep. Even though they had been promised something completely different. Unfortunately, they really love using children from the occupied territories as cheap labor — and always within Russia itself. Someone in the Kremlin apparently believes that the more youth they ship out like this, the faster the occupied territories will dissolve into the pan-Russian space.

KT: It sounds like a closed system where everything gets blended together. I assume this also applies to diplomas? You can’t go very far with a diploma issued in an occupied territory — only to Russia.

AD: Absolutely, but they actually find ways around it. If you are concerned about an international career, you can take your exams at one of Russia’s partner universities. In short, there are loopholes, and they started figuring them out back in 2014.

KT: At the same time, they are inviting foreigners to study in the occupied territories.

AD: It’s not a very widespread phenomenon yet. Recruiting foreigners is a bit of a gray scheme.

International recruitment agencies in African or Asian countries exploit the fact that local students don’t know the language and can’t read the contracts. They make a deal with a student, telling them, “You will be studying at a medical university in Russia.” They promise them Rostov, for instance, but bring them to Luhansk. After a couple of months, when the students start speaking a bit of Russian, they ask, “Wait, why are we in Luhansk?” And they reply, “Well, you signed the contract. It’s no big deal, you’ll get a degree from Luhansk University, and then another degree from a university in Rostov or Voronezh, and everything will be fine.” By the way, there are a lot of students from India right now.

KT: What could be the long-term consequences of this ethnic engineering?

AD: I believe total assimilation is still a long way off. However, if the process isn’t interrupted, it will end with the region being fully digested. All Ukrainian behavioral models that were partially instilled by teachers in schools, expressions of Ukrainian culture, and so on, will be pushed out as much as possible. For example, in a Ukrainian school, a teacher cannot use physical force against a student — that would cause an absolute scandal and lead to a criminal prosecution. But in Russia, and especially in the occupied territories, this is practiced. They discipline students physically, and later this carries over into a person’s adult life — they enter the military with its culture of hazing. I worry deeply for my fellow countrymen, and we all hope for de-occupation, for some kind of internal resistance from the people. But one must never underestimate the power, malice, and resourcefulness of propaganda.

People have talked a lot about ethnic replacement over the years, but no one has tried to quantify or analyze it. We did. We are showing this process as it stands in 2026. And one of the main conclusions we reached is that we cannot afford to abandon these territories informationally. There is still a substantial portion of the population there that is deeply disgruntled with what is happening, who dislike how things are being taught, and who resent the fact that Russians are taking over all the positions. This friction remains a critical fault line — one that could, at the very least, disrupt and slow down Russia’s absorption of Ukrainian regions.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post Education as a Weapon: How Russia Forces Ethnic Displacement in Occupied Territories appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

The Russian-American Science Association (RASA) strongly condemns the continuing practice of labeling internationally renowned Russian scholars as “foreign agents.” This time, the Russian authorities have added to the foreign agents registry the distinguished biomedical scientist, professor at Northwestern University, and first president of RASA, Igor Efimov. We regard this decision as politically motivated and aimed at further undermining international scientific cooperation and the principles of open science.

Igor Efimov is an internationally recognized expert in biomedicine and cardiology, the author of groundbreaking research, patents, and technological innovations aimed at treating severe cardiovascular diseases. The wireless dissolvable pacemaker developed by Igor Efimov and his laboratory — smaller than a grain of rice — was named by TIME as one of the most important inventions of 2025.

Igor Efimov is not only an outstanding scientist, but also one of the founders of the modern international Russian-speaking academic community. As the first president of our association, he played a key role in shaping its mission: supporting free science, strengthening professional ties among researchers across countries, and promoting the integration of Russian science into the global academic community.

For many years, while working in the United States, Igor Efimov actively contributed to the development of Russian science, supported initiatives aimed at raising its international standards, encouraged the professional growth of young scholars, and fostered cooperation between Russian and international research centers. His work was devoted not to politics, but to the advancement of science, education, and international academic exchange.

Attempts to exert pressure on scholars such as Igor Efimov discredit the governing system itself and make the Russian authorities appear absurd both domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, these short-sighted actions also inflict lasting damage on the future of Russian science. It has become increasingly clear that the true targets of persecution by the Russian authorities are independent scientific thought, international cooperation, and the very idea of free science. We call on academic communities, universities, and scientific organizations in the United States, Europe, and other democratic countries to express solidarity with all scholars facing persecution by authoritarian and politically repressive states.

The post RASA Statement in Support of Professor Igor Efimov appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

A bill pending in the U.S. House of Representatives aims to counter Russian innovation and protect certain Russian scientists. T‑invariant examines whether it will ever pass and, if so, who might actually benefit from it.

Measures introduced by the U.S. State Department after the start of the war in Ukraine have effectively cut off Russian scientists working in mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, computer science, and other STEM fields from participating in U.S. scientific collaboration. Even getting a two‑week visa to attend a conference now requires security clearance from all special services. For the same reason, it has become almost impossible to collaborate on scientific papers with American colleagues. This directly contradicts Joe Biden’s statement made at the beginning of the war that the United States would “robbing Putin of <…> his best brains”. In reality, over the past four years the situation has only worsened. And in January 2026, the door for Russian scientists slammed shut completely — following President Trump’s executive order indefinitely suspending the issuance of immigrant visas.

Nevertheless, back in May 2025, Congressman Bill Foster (D‑IL) introduced in the U.S. Congress H.R. 3536, titled “A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide certain nationals of Russia with special immigrant status, and for other purposes” (also known as the “Countering Russian Innovation and Protecting Select Scientists Act”).

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T‑invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

The bill would grant special immigrant status to up to 3,000 scientists from Russia working in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.

“The list of fields was most likely taken from the Critical and Emerging Technologies List,” says Denis Vavaev, head of advocacy at Liberty Forward. “This is a list of critical and emerging technology areas developed by the White House in coordination with numerous agencies. For the bill, this is undoubtedly a strength that could help it pass. As for the number — 3,000 people — I have two theories. The first is based on recent statistics showing that U.S. universities grant roughly 16,000–17,000 PhDs to international students in STEM fields each year. About 75% of them stay in the country, at least in the short term (up to five years), while around four thousand leave immediately after graduation. It’s possible the figure was chosen to replace those departing foreigners with Russian specialists. The second theory: it may be based on estimates of how many STEM scientists have left Russia since the start of the war. I haven’t seen such estimates myself, but I can’t rule out that U.S. authorities obtained these numbers somehow.”

The goal of the bill is to bring the best scientists out of Russia, thereby strengthening American science while weakening the Russian government that, under conditions of a mobilization economy, isolation, and sanctions, is relying on “sovereign science.” It is no coincidence that the bill was introduced by Bill Foster, the only current member of Congress with a PhD in physics. He completed his PhD at Harvard and worked in elementary particle physics at the legendary Fermilab. Since 2008, he has been active in Democratic Party politics.

Why was the bill introduced at a time when the Trump administration had sharply tightened immigration policy, including toward Russian nationals? “Perhaps it was at this moment that they finally found a Republican co-sponsor for the bill — Jay Obernolte — which allowed it to be introduced on a bipartisan basis,” Denis Vavaev suggests. “Or perhaps the timing is linked to the arrival of the Trump administration, which is far more hostile toward China than the Biden administration was. This would strike a blow not only at Russia but also at Russian-Chinese scientific cooperation. It could also be a trial balloon — a way to test the new Congress’s appetite for such legislation. Despite the strong overall opposition to immigration, many Republicans remain open to high-skilled immigration while firmly opposing low-skilled inflows. The logic is straightforward: technological competition with China is only going to intensify, and the U.S. cannot afford to fall behind.”

To date, the bill has not been considered in any committee in either chamber, nor has it been discussed in public discourse. This may be because brain drain from Russia is not currently a priority for either Democrats or Republicans, says Evgeny Roshchin, a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis and visiting scholar at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

“The mere introduction of a bill does not necessarily mean it is meant to pass. Such bills are fairly common. They are introduced, one might say, to signal a position. Then they sit in committee for years. This seems to be the case here. It doesn’t even matter that Trump was in power in 2025. The bill was most likely introduced regardless of Trump and without any realistic expectation of success. Even with a likely shift in the House after the fall elections, the bill’s chances remain slim, since Democrats have other priorities they will be prioritizing,” he says.

This view was indirectly confirmed by the congressman’s own office.

“At this time we do not have an estimated timeline for consideration of the bill in committee or on the House floor. Those timelines are largely determined by the majority party, so we have limited influence over scheduling,” Caitlin Fong, an aide to Bill Foster, told T‑invariant. Fong also noted that the bill does not provide any specific financial support for scientists leaving Russia.

According to T‑invariant, the bill will be reintroduced after the November 2026 congressional elections. However, even if the legislation is taken seriously, only a handful of people — not 3,000 per year — would be able to benefit from it, unless the procedures for issuing short‑term visas to Russian scientists are also changed. In recent years, Russians specializing in STEM fields have been unable to travel to the United States for conferences or seminars because even tourist (B) or exchange (J) visas require full security vetting by all agencies. This vetting process can take years and has no fixed timeline. Moreover, U.S. security services have been reluctant to grant entry to STEM specialists from Russia even as students.

“I applied twice for internships at American universities in 2024 and 2025,” an undergraduate student from a prestigious Moscow university told T‑invariant speaking on condition of anonymity. “I specialize in the social sciences, but dozens of physics, math, and computer science students also applied. They were all denied visas. Historians, journalists, and political scientists got them.”

It’s unclear how the bill’s sponsors intend to get around the problem of security clearance procedures for STEM specialists — checks that were apparently introduced at the urging of security agencies. “I understand your concerns about the lengthy vetting process for Russian scientists wishing to enter the United States,” says Caitlin Fong. “Under this bill, applicants for special immigrant status must, to the extent practicable, receive a decision no later than 90 days after the Secretary of Homeland Security receives all required documentation and information needed to adjudicate the petition.”

According to a Russian physicist who commented anonymously on the document, the bill in its current form does not address the main barriers preventing Russian scientists from obtaining positions in the United States today.

Up‑to‑date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and livestreams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T‑invariant YouTube channel!

“The bill concerns immigrant visas, and it’s good that this special program sets a 90‑day decision timeline. However, to apply for it, applicants first need a job offer. And if no dedicated funding is provided, Russian scientists will have to compete on the open market. How can I compete on equal terms when I am effectively cut off from the United States? A person needs to be able to enter the country, attend interviews, give talks, and co‑author papers in international journals with American colleagues. I don’t have that opportunity now. Today, for a Russian STEM scientist to come to the U.S. for a two‑week interview or conference, they must undergo a security vetting process that can last a year or longer. I’m not even sure which group of people this program is targeting. STEM scientists — even those with European residence permits but holding a Russian passport — are not being issued ordinary B visas to America. Getting one from inside Russia is even more difficult. The most effective way to solve the problem of attracting highly skilled professionals from Russia is through two measures: simplifying and speeding up the issuance of short‑term visas for scientists with Russian passports, and providing funding for a dedicated federal program to fund positions for Russian scientists at American universities and research centers. This would not be a large sum for the U.S. federal budget. But it would allow the bill to achieve its stated goals — countering Russian innovation and protecting select scientists,” the T‑invariant source believes.

The fact that the bill allows entry to specialists without guaranteeing them jobs is one of the most controversial aspects, notes Denis Vavaev as well. “Republicans will undoubtedly argue that this could burden the social welfare system if people don’t find work and that it would create competition for U.S. workers. That said, the bill is currently authorized for only four years, meaning it would not need to be renewed if the program proves unsuccessful. Also, given Foster’s background as a physicist, it’s possible he looked into whether there is actually a shortage of specialists in the specific fields the bill targets. It’s quite narrowly focused, so people would essentially be recruited on a targeted basis. In addition, this would give the U.S. time to train its own workforce,” Vavaev says.

[[socialnetworks]]

A separate question is why the bill does not provide for STEM scientists who have already left Russia and are now in various countries waiting years for American visas, nor for students and researchers already in the United States. It would seemingly be simpler and cheaper to regularize the status of people already here than to specially bring out those trapped behind a new “iron curtain.”

In any case, turning the “Countering Russian Innovation and Protecting Select Scientists Act” into a fully operational program to undermine Russia’s technological self‑sufficiency — as its sponsors envision — would require a vast number of accompanying legal and administrative measures. Meanwhile, the very introduction of such a bill, which contemplates bringing up to 12,000 specialists out of Russia over four years, will not go unnoticed by Russian security services. And the longer it is under consideration, the worse the situation will become for scientists inside Russia. “If the Americans can’t pass this law quickly, I’d rather they abandon it altogether,” says a scientist who tried to leave Russia but was denied a U.S. visa because of his affiliation with a sanctioned university. “While Congress debates it, they’ll simply detain people preemptively here as a preventive measure.”

Support T‑invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post Brains Won’t Drain Themselves. What’s Wrong with the U.S. Bill for Scientists from Russia appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

The Director of the MSU Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Katerina Tikhonova, now oversees a significant portion of AI education, research, and development in Russia. The Kremlin has long been working to consolidate this industry into a single system, and “control over it” can only be entrusted to a select few. However, these technologies are sovereign only on paper and in officials’ speeches. In reality, Russia remains heavily dependent on global AI leaders — decreasingly on the United States and increasingly on China. T-invariant examines how Katerina Tikhonova, Oleg Deripaska, and VTB Bank are involved in the process, why a “unified AI ecosystem” was built on Sparrow Hills, and why not only most university scientists but even the MSU Research Computing Center — whose specialists assembled the university’s first three supercomputers — have been excluded from it.

Previously on T-invariant

Punished for a Prompt: How the State Plans to Control AI in Russia

“Sunny Peak” of Sparrow Hills. How Big Computational Science at Moscow State University Became Secret and What Putin’s Daughter Has to Do With It

“Sovereign” Means Military. How Russia Militarized AI, Drone, and Cryptography Industries

State Corporation “Unified Perimeter”. How Putin’s Daughter and Her Photomodel Friend Decided to Make Innopraktika an Integrator of All High-Tech Companies

On April 21, 2026, MSU hosted the launch of the AI Faculty, marking the completion of the “unified AI ecosystem” on Sparrow Hills. Katerina Tikhonova now has all four elements of this system firmly in hand. First came the MSU AI Research Center, then the fully operational MSU Institute of Artificial Intelligence, which she formally heads. In 2024, the powerful new MSU-270 supercomputer was launched, dedicated entirely to AI applications.

Center, Institute, Faculty

The AI Faculty is led by Ivan Oseledets, who holds a Doctorate in Physical and Mathematical Sciences and is a Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and CEO of the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (AIRI). His deputy for research is Anton Konushin, who holds a Candidate of Sciences degree (equivalent to PhD) in Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and is a scientific supervisor of the MSU AI Research Center. For now, the faculty website lists only two additional administrative staff members; there is no information about faculty members. However, the research staff of the Center and the Institute significantly overlap. Most likely, they will form the core teaching staff.

“We are admitting 36 bachelor’s students, including 20 state-funded, and 36 master’s students, including 20 state-funded places,” stated Ivan Oseledets. Classes at the AI Faculty will be taught primarily by young instructors: the average age of the teaching staff is only 30 years. Tuition for paying students is about 500,000 rubles [7000 USD] per year.

The number of places in the first intake is comparable to competing universities (for example, with the HSE University), and the price, against the broader trend of rising costs for high-level IT education (see T-invariant’s analysis) — is relatively affordable. The reason may lie with the sponsors.

One of the central figures at the April 21 event was Oleg Deripaska, who was featured in most news reports and press releases and gave statements to numerous Russian state TV channels. Previously, two of his foundations financed some of the activities of both the AI Center and the Institute (as well as numerous AI-related programs aimed at students, graduate students, and staff from other faculties and university units).

Oleg Deripaska has three charitable foundations through which he funds educational and scientific initiatives. Most of Deripaska’s AI funding at MSU flows through the Intellect foundation (annual reports are available here). However, support for the faculty is provided by his best-known and longest-running nonprofit — Volnoe Delo. This may be due to public relations considerations: the large-scale coverage of the AI Faculty launch was clearly signed off on at the top. This is evident from the airtime and framing of the story on the evening news program Vremya anchored by Ekaterina Andreeva. Deripaska’s third foundation, Basis, focuses on supporting the Faculty of Physics at MSU — the alma mater of the billionaire.

Deripaska is not the only financial partner in the MSU AI ecosystem. VTB Bank plays a significant role as well. Katerina Tikhonova collaborates with the bank both as Director of the MSU Institute of AI and as head of Innopraktika. It is hard to distinguish between these two roles. With VTB funds, the Institute organizes the annual Data Fusion Awards forum and awards prizes. In April 2026, another forum was held, featuring leading AI speakers from MSU, while Katerina Tikhonova herself joined via video link and spoke about the importance of fundamental education for specialists (in recent years, Putin’s daughter has only appeared via video — whether at the SPIEF or the anniversary conference of her own Innopraktika).

China and Processors

At the 2026 Data Fusion Awards, the MSU Institute of AI received the special VTB Science Grand Prix “for its significant contribution to the implementation of joint projects on the introduction of AI technologies… and cooperation on a new AI project in China.” Details of the cooperation on the referenced Chinese project were not disclosed during the award ceremony, but it likely refers to VTB’s recent announcement that the bank had begun “a pilot industrial deployment of graphics processors of Chinese origin.”

Back in April 2025, Vedomosti reported that VTB was considering creating an AI center of expertise in China. According to the outlet, the center was to be a dedicated facility for applied joint research between Russian and Chinese specialists, enabling rapid prototyping and testing of AI devices in China—without having to import them into Russia. It is notable that in 2025 the emphasis was not on processors at all. According to the bank’s presentation, “AI devices” included wearable devices (watches, smartphones, glasses, rings), smart home devices (televisions, cars, refrigerators), and digital assistants for industrial use (machine tools, 3D printing, production monitoring and control systems, and smart transportation).

[[socialnetworks]]

That said, GPUs are clearly critical for VTB and all other Russian institutions engaged in high-performance computing — large banks, IT companies, and the like. VTB Deputy President and Chairman of the Management Board Vadim Kulik, speaking at a recent Data Fusion forum, stated that the new graphics processors are being integrated into the bank’s core processes related to AI — including computer vision, text processing and analytics, speech recognition (speech-to-text), and generative models. The first installations of these GPUs began in March 2026. “Testing showed that the Chinese GPUs perform reliably and integrate well with the bank’s existing IT infrastructure. Deployment is proceeding smoothly, with minimal modifications and strong performance. This will speed up AI development, including work on digital assistants and AI agents,” Kulik said.

“Chinese GPUs are being integrated into more and more systems — which suits China’s interests as well. But there are, of course, difficulties with adapting software. Most language models can run on proprietary software, with results delivered through standard protocols. So, in principle, it is quite feasible to integrate video recognition or similar tasks into the bank’s processes. But creating your own models is significantly more difficult,” comments an engineer familiar with Nvidia’s operating rules and the assembly of top-tier supercomputers in Russia, speaking to T-invariant.

T-INVARIANT REFERENCE

In 2024, sources told The Wall Street Journal that Chinese internet giants and telecommunications operators were testing Huawei’s latest Ascend 910C processor. According to them, Huawei informed potential clients that the processor was on par with Nvidia’s H100 chip, which Washington has banned from being supplied to China. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, all Nvidia supplies to Russia have also been banned, although gray imports continue. In 2024, T-invariant reported that the MSU-270 supercomputer was assembled using Nvidia chips purchased via a Chinese company. At the same time, all components in the tender documentation were listed under the fictitious brand SOLAR PEAK, but based on the parameters of the purchased cables, nodes, modules, and other equipment, everything is identifiable as Nvidia products.

Drones, Robot Dogs, and Gait Analysis

The new AI Faculty building is set to house a “robot park for developing control systems for robotic platforms.” “We intend to set up a park of various types of robots — from robot dogs to androids and drones. We already have a list prepared,” said Konushin (quoted by TASS). The creation of joint laboratories with the Russian-Chinese MSU-PPI University in Shenzhen is also being discussed.

The relationship between the new faculty—and the broader MSU AI ecosystem—and China may be the most revealing thread in this story. “Chinese colleagues visited our department yesterday. We discussed the creation of joint educational programs and dual-degree programs. We will certainly do this,” Konushin said.

Close cooperation did not start recently: back in November 2025, the MSU-PPI University in Shenzhen website published a report about the creation of two laboratories. The first is the Laboratory of Nanostructured Optoelectronic Functional Materials and Devices. “The work spans the entire scientific cycle: synthesis of quantum dots, perovskite nanocrystals, and chiral nanomaterials, their physicochemical and spectroscopic characterization, theoretical modeling of processes, and integration of the resulting materials into real optoelectronic devices,” the description states. The second — the Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Their Applications — fits squarely into the “unified AI ecosystem” at MSU — especially given that the people pictured are, in fact, the same individuals.

T-INVARIANT REFERENCE

The joint project between the Beijing Institute of Technology and MSU is the first university jointly established by China and Russia. The memorandum to establish it was signed during Putin’s official visit to the PRC in May 2014. Instruction began at the university in September 2017. The number of students is expected to reach 5,000 in 2026.

Scientists at the MSU-PPI University in Shenzhen are working on developing AI systems for drones, stated Dmitry Shtarev, head of the university’s Department of Research, in May 2024 at the Russian-Chinese EXPO in Harbin. According to him, this is one of the “rapidly developing research areas at the university.” “At the EXPO we showcased several drone models that we are developing. These are classic drones better suited for delivering heavy payloads, as well as smaller models,” he said.

Here is how journalists described the “butterfly drone”: “When folded, all the blades tuck into the body, effectively turning it into a cylinder shape, which reduces its size for transportation. It is launched in an unconventional manner — by being thrown upward.”

In 2025, Shtarev described another joint development: “The system analyzes the characteristics of a person’s gait and compares them with a database of indicators of psychoemotional disorders, including chronic depression. Another practical application is the prevention of incidents in the metro, at train stations, and in other public places (reported accuracy exceeds 80%).”

Latest updates on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — follow the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

Who Is the “Ecosystem” For?

Not all specialists supported the idea of creating a separate AI Faculty at MSU. “Does it really make sense to carve AI out as a separate field when students can be taught within the Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics or the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics? Why create a new faculty instead of a department? It is unclear to me. And in terms of the number of students it attracts, it still effectively looks like a department. This looks like a turf war — staking out a niche, a domain, perhaps even an entire industry,” reflects a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences familiar with the situation.

The entire “unified ecosystem” operates in near-total isolation, according to another source who spoke with T-invariant. “If you look at the segment aired on the Vremya program, they showed the old Lomonosov-2 supercomputer, not the MSU-270. This suggests the film crew was not allowed inside. And the Lomonosovs have nothing to do with Tikhonova’s operations. There is a clear division. And it’s not just because the new one was built largely using gray import schemes. No one inside the university is allowed access to the new supercomputer except for a narrow circle of insiders,” the source says.

This is confirmed by another scientist familiar with the university situation. “For the second year running, I’ve been asking colleagues at the MSU Research Computing Center what’s going on on Tikhonova’s side of things. They just shrug — they are not allowed access. They found out about the creation of the faculty, as well as the launch of MSU-270, from the news,” the researcher says.

All sources interviewed by T-invariant confirm that the new MSU-270 supercomputer continues to be used exclusively for AI-related tasks, while Lomonosov-2 has become even more outdated and frequently fails. “Colleagues are essentially told: make do with your clunky old system — run your computations on Lomonosov-2. No one has access to MSU-270 except for a narrow circle,” the scientist clarifies.

Identifying People by Their Gait

”The new university division will train researchers who will be able not only to work with existing neural networks but also to create new ones. First of all, we will study issues of artificial intelligence in medicine, genetics, computer vision, and such complex topics that require a good knowledge of mathematics, computer science, and other fundamental subjects,” says MSU Rector Viktor Sadovnichiy in an interview with Channel One.

However, as T-invariant has repeatedly reported, all the main research and developments of the AI ecosystem being built by Tikhonova have potential for dual use. But this will become clear only when the customers of these technologies determine how exactly to use “classic drones better suited for delivering heavy payloads,” within which system the AI model that determines a person’s behavioral traits from their gait with 80% accuracy will operate, and for what purpose the perovskites will be used — to create solar panels or for optical and laser sights, as well as communication systems used in combat drones.

Whatever the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense ultimately decide, the infrastructure for secrecy is already in place: first and foremost, a centralized system, controlled by the FSB, for vetting all civilian research. And this system operates much more strictly than in the Soviet Union, when Soviet scientists already had experience working in a closed scientific system. The Kremlin is now taking a decisive first step toward a new model of “sovereign science.”

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post “Sovereign” AI on Chinese Chips. Putin’s Daughter Completes the Creation of a Closed AI Infrastructure at MSU appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Russia is currently discussing a draft law on the regulation of artificial intelligence (the AI Law), which may come into force on September 1, 2027. Major market players and legal experts are taking part in the discussion, but it is already clear that the central issue is not technological development. It is control over what users ask and what machines answer. T-invariant explains how the state intends to effectively legalize censorship in the AI sphere, how this mechanism would work, and who may end up taking the blame.

AI Censorship

Almost all public AI models, especially large language models (LLMs), implement some form of censorship. Before turning to the proposed AI Law, it is worth briefly describing how this mechanism works. Not every model uses all the methods below, but some combination is almost always present.

At the pre-training stage, developers can carefully filter the datasets on which the model is trained. This is the most effective method of censorship. In this case, the model simply knows nothing — for example, about the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989 or about Russia’s “foreign agents.” For the model, these things do not exist, and it cannot describe them in principle. However, this approach undermines informational integrity and can lead to hallucinations: the model senses a gap in its knowledge and tries to fill it with plausible but invented information.

Latest news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

To avoid this, models are usually trained on fuller datasets and then refined through supervised fine-tuning with human feedback. The model generates answers, which human evaluators mark as “good” or “bad.” “Good” answers are reinforced; “bad” ones are down-ranked. This reduces hallucinations but does not completely eliminate the risk that “undesirable” information will slip through — especially if a user is actively trying to obtain it.

For this reason, developers usually add an output filter as well. Such a filter is easier to configure and update than retraining the entire model. When censorship rules change rapidly — as they do in Russia today, with more and more people being labeled “foreign agents” and universities declared “undesirable” — the output filter can be quickly adjusted. It is a rather crude solution: the model simply refuses to answer certain questions, but it protects the developers from administrative or even criminal liability. This is how filters currently work in most Russian AI models.

In Russia, the authorities are conducting a campaign against the “LGBT extremist organization.” As part of this campaign, access is being blocked to many books that the authorities claim contain “LGBT influence.” If you ask Yandex’s AI assistant Alice about the book Summer in a Pioneer Tie, it will most likely reply: “I won’t answer that question, because I don’t really know enough about it.” And if you ask whether it has a filter that prevents it from answering, it will not respond directly but will instead try to explain that the question itself is somehow improper. In essence, this is a defeat for the model, but developers apparently have little choice given how quickly the list of prohibitions changes. Updating an output filter is relatively cheap and fast, whereas retraining a model to completely erase any memory of a book that sold hundreds of thousands of copies and was a bestseller in 2021–2022 would be prohibitively expensive.

In practice, all three forms of censorship are used: filtering training datasets, supervised fine-tuning, and output filtering.

Users and Developers

The AI Law has mainly been discussed in the media in terms of restricting user access to foreign (“cross-border”) models. Most popular foreign models — ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Claude (Anthropic), and others — are already inaccessible from Russian IP addresses. Russian users typically access them via VPNs. Although bypassing blocks is becoming more difficult, this issue is not directly related to the AI Law itself.

Article 10, paragraph 4 of the draft law introduces liability for the “illegitimate” use of an AI model by the user. It requires users to “use artificial intelligence services and models for purposes that do not contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation” and “not to perform actions aimed at circumventing built-in security and control mechanisms in violation of the established operating parameters of AI systems.”

AI models, especially LLMs, often contain information that censors consider “illegitimate.” For example, Alice knows perfectly well about Summer in a Pioneer Tie. With indirect questioning, it may even begin to provide substantive answers, but the output filter usually intervenes at the final stage. There are numerous techniques (known as “jailbreaks”) that allow users to make a model “talk” despite its restrictions. However, an ordinary user may simply not realize that the information they are seeking is prohibited. There is no clear boundary between legitimate curiosity and a malicious jailbreak.

The law therefore introduces liability for an “improper” query. It does not specify what form this liability takes or how intent is to be proven. Since models store chat histories, users usually register profiles, and law enforcement has access to the servers of companies such as Yandex or Sber, users can be held accountable. In practice, this already leads people to avoid topics they consider risky. The explicit inclusion of user liability in the law makes working with AI models a potentially dangerous activity.

However, the law is aimed primarily at developers and operators of AI models. It introduces the concept of a “sovereign” AI model and sets criteria for inclusion in the corresponding register. Such models must be trained on datasets formed on the territory of the Russian Federation. While it is impossible to completely exclude foreign data (for example, excluding the arXiv preprint server would render any scientific model useless), the final assembly of the dataset and the training process must occur on Russian territory under state oversight.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

“Sovereign” models must undergo supervised fine-tuning that ensures “security” and reinforces “traditional values.” The full list of ideological priorities in the law includes: “life, dignity, human rights and freedoms, patriotism, citizenship, service to the Fatherland and responsibility for its fate, high moral ideals, a strong family, creative labor, the priority of the spiritual over the material, humanism, mercy, justice, collectivism, mutual assistance and mutual respect, historical memory and continuity between generations, and the unity of the peoples of Russia” (Article 4, paragraph 6).

The boundary between, for example, a “Ukrainian Armed Forces fighter” and a “Russian Armed Forces serviceman” (both potentially viewed as “patriots defending the homeland”) is extremely unstable. Even after multiple rounds of fine-tuning, it is practically impossible to separate such concepts completely. Output filtering will therefore remain necessary — though even that does not guarantee full compliance with censorship requirements.

The law also introduces the concept of a “trusted” AI model. “Trusted” and “sovereign” are not the same thing. A separate register will be created for “trusted” models, which may be used in critical infrastructure. Judging by Article 8, the emphasis here is placed more on technical “security” than on ideological conformity.

When Liability Begins

Of course, there are also specialized models. For example, a model trained to detect lung cancer in X-ray images is unlikely to “discredit the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” (though if it uses a natural-language interface, that possibility cannot be ruled out).

The safest possible model answers every question the way AI Alice answers questions about Summer in a Pioneer Tie: “I won’t answer that question, because I don’t really know enough about it.” But such a model would be useless to anyone.

[[socialnetworks]]

Any large language model inevitably balances between “safety” and “usefulness.” Article 11 of the draft law addresses the liability of parties involved in the AI ecosystem.

Paragraph 2 reads as follows: “The developer of an artificial intelligence model, the operator of an artificial intelligence system, and the owner of an artificial intelligence service shall bear liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation for a result obtained through the use of artificial intelligence that violates the legislation of the Russian Federation, provided that the said persons knowingly knew or should have known of the possibility of obtaining such a result through the use of the model, system, or service of artificial intelligence of which they are the developer, operator, or owner, unless the contrary is proven in the course of investigative actions” (emphasis by T-invariant).

In other words, if a “sovereign” Russian model describes a Russian soldier as an “occupier,” this does not automatically make the developers liable for “discrediting the Armed Forces.” The law allows for the possibility that the developers could not have prevented such an outcome.

Paragraph 3 confirms this: “The developer of an artificial intelligence model, the operator of an artificial intelligence system, and the owner of an artificial intelligence service shall be exempt from liability under paragraph 2 of this article if they have taken exhaustive measures to prevent the obtaining of such a result and have complied with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation in developing the model, operating the system, and providing access to the artificial intelligence service” (emphasis by T-invariant).

Without this provision, the development of public AI models in Russia would likely grind to a halt. However, it remains unclear how this will work in practice. A determined FSB officer using jailbreak techniques could still elicit a prohibited response. Large companies like Yandex or Sber will most likely be able to defend themselves using Article 11, paragraph 3. Smaller developers of open-source models may not have the resources to prove they took “exhaustive measures.”

The Russian Bar Association described the draft law as “excessively oriented toward state control and insufficiently mindful of business interests.” This is a fair assessment — though hardly surprising.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post Punished for a Prompt: How the State Plans to Control AI in Russia appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

The Russian-American Science Association (RASA) strongly condemns the decision of the Russian authorities to declare our colleague, former president of RASA, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an outstanding chemist professor Alexander Kabanov a “foreign agent.” This step is yet another manifestation of a policy pursued by the Russian leadership that runs against the interests of its own people. It is, however, incapable of stopping the scientific and humanistic work of people like Alexander Kabanov.

Alexander Kabanov is a world-class scientist who has made a significant contribution to the development of modern chemistry and biomedicine. He is among the internationally recognized Russian scientists who have played an active role in revitalizing the nation’s scientific enterprise and reintegrating it into the global research community following the profound disruptions of the post-Soviet period. His efforts have been aimed at strengthening international scientific collaborations, supporting early-career researchers, and helping restore Russian science to a position of global leadership.

We view the designation of Alexander Kabanov as a “foreign agent” as politically motivated persecution directed not so much against an individual scholar as against the very foundations of free scientific activity. It is becoming increasingly clear that, for the Russian authorities, not only advanced scientific organizations and outstanding scientists are viewed as undesirable, but science itself.

We call upon people of goodwill, including academic communities in the United States, Europe, and other democratic countries, to strengthen their support for Russian-speaking scholars who find themselves in a difficult situation on both sides of Russia’s borders as a result of the current Russian government’s policies. We are confident that Alexander Kabanov will continue his work; however, his efforts will require broad support from the international scientific community, as well as more consistent and targeted policies from democratic states.

The post RASA Statement in Support of Professor Alexander Kabanov appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

The Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology has a new rector, a new Kremlin-appointed overseer, and a new mission. In the fifth year of the war, little remains of the old Skoltech — once a calling card of the Medvedev-era thaw and a small but successful innovation university. T-invariant analyzed the data: of the 358 researchers working there in 2021, only 141 still hold a Skoltech affiliation today. The transformation of this unique institution has been far from smooth: the rector post nearly went to Artem Oganov (a scientist known for his provocative public statements), then almost ended up with a close associate of Putin’s daughter. In the end, the university was entrusted to Yulia Gorbunova — dean of the Faculty of Fundamental Physicochemical Engineering at Moscow State University and a full member (academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Her task will be to put Skoltech on a new track — no longer as Russia’s premier globally oriented research center, but as a key pillar of “technological sovereignty.” That sovereignty, judging by the new development program, rests on three pillars: AI, robotics, and drone technologies. T-invariant takes a closer look at why Skoltech was folded into VEB.RF (Russia’s state development corporation — T-invariant), how its leadership was replaced, and what new objectives have been set for it.

In 2026, Skoltech turns fifteen. It was conceived as a new model of the university in Russia, and for all those years it was exactly that. But the state’s vision of what a “new model” should look like has shifted — and the war was decisive in that shift. It transformed the “small innovation university” and “Medvedev’s favorite toy” (as former staff jokingly called it) into an instrument for countering the technological and scientific isolation imposed by the West. The Russian government — perhaps for the first time in the entire post-Soviet era — now knows precisely what it needs science and universities for: survival. And Skoltech will be the testing ground for whether it is possible to produce cutting-edge research and train highly qualified specialists while engaging only with the East and operating under the direct management of the state through VEB.RF.

Sanctions and transformation: how Skoltech has changed over four years of full-scale war

In 2021, several months before the invasion of Ukraine, Skoltech celebrated its tenth anniversary and took stock of its achievements. By that point it had managed to claim 65th place in the Nature Index ranking of young universities — the best result among all Russian institutions. The university’s board of trustees reported record revenue of nearly 250 billion rubles. Skoltech had become home to more than three thousand companies and had generated over 4,500 patents in ten years (including 864 in 2021 alone, of which 262 were filed in foreign countries). Despite Russia’s isolationist and anti-Western course, Skoltech remained a university with internationally recognized standing. It also occupied an unusually strong financial position among Russian universities. While the standard professor’s salary at Moscow State University and the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT) was 150,000–200,000 rubles, at Skoltech it started at 500,000 rubles. And while graduate students at MSU and MIPT received stipends of 5,000–10,000 rubles, at Skoltech it ranged from 75,000–90,000 rubles.

The start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine ended cooperation definitively between Russian and Western institutions. On February 26, 2022, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a statement announcing the termination of its contract with Skoltech in response to “unacceptable military actions against Ukraine.” Shortly thereafter, Skoltech was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ukraine; Australia, Switzerland, and Japan followed a year later. Today, Skoltech — alongside MIPT — operates under one of the harshest sanction regimes of any Russian university.

The inevitable consequence of the sanctions was a brain drain — among both visiting professors and Russian researchers who were unwilling to remain affiliated with a sanctioned institution. T-invariant analyzed the career trajectories of Skoltech’s staff and examined how the institute’s standing on the international academic stage has evolved.

In 2020–2021, at least 358 researchers were working across Skoltech’s nine Centers for Science, Innovation, and Education. That figure includes junior researchers and postdocs as well as tenured professors. By 2026, only 141 of them still hold a Skoltech affiliation. 121 have moved to foreign institutions, while another 63 continue to work in Russia but at other organizations. Six individuals hold dual affiliations — one at Skoltech and one at a foreign university. Researcher Alexei Buchachenko died in 2023. The current affiliations of 26 people could not be identified.

Latest news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

The most common destination for departing researchers was the United States (28), followed by Germany (17), the United Kingdom (15), France (13), Canada (11), and Israel (10). As sanctions have tightened in the fifth year of the war, it has become extremely difficult for a researcher with a Skoltech affiliation on their CV to find employment in Europe or the U.S. Even in Israel, physics and computer science departments now routinely exclude such Russian researchers from work deemed sensitive to the country’s technological defense capabilities.

Interestingly, when researchers are grouped by nationality — Russian and non-Russian — the disparity between those who left and those who stayed is stark. Of the 51 foreign Skoltech staff members in the early 2020s, 37 left Russia. Among the remaining 307 Russian researchers, only 84 departed. In relative terms, foreign nationals left Skoltech at nearly three times the rate of Russians. This disparity most likely reflects that Russian researchers face greater difficulty finding equivalent positions on the international academic market. The pattern is especially visible in the Center for Hydrocarbon Recovery: none of its 36 staff members are foreign nationals, and only seven have moved to foreign affiliations (three in Saudi Arabia and one each in the UK, U.S., Canada, and Switzerland). Russia’s heavy dependence on hydrocarbon-sector research has kept those researchers in place.

The university, which had an informal reputation as a “flagship of Russian science,” was strongly embedded in international academic networks. In the pre-war year of 2021, Skoltech maintained 54 international cooperation agreements. Its former partners included some of the world’s leading research universities — among them the Technical University of Munich, KU Leuven, and the National University of Singapore. Nearly all of those agreements were either terminated unilaterally by the foreign partners or allowed to lapse at expiration. Many of Skoltech’s former partner institutions have since become new homes for researchers who once held Skoltech affiliations.

Over the years of war, Skoltech has adapted to operating under sanctions and to forge new connections, though it has had to shift its geographic focus — and the new partnerships are fewer and less robust than the old ones. As of April 2026, Skoltech has signed 31 agreements, none of which involve Western countries; more than half (17) are with Chinese universities. None of those Chinese partners appear in the top 100 of either the QS World University Rankings or the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The list also includes India, Vietnam, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, the UAE, Brazil, Israel, and Oman. The new Skoltech will likely stop losing Russian staff — for whom leaving has become far harder than in the early years of the war — and will instead recruit from Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.

[[socialnetworks]]

Thus, the story of Skoltech as a university integrated into the global academic market and connected to international technology corporations has come to an end. And the final chapter of that story was a change of rector.

No exit, no return: facts and speculation

On November 10, 2025, Skoltech’s board of trustees approved a new development strategy through 2030. It was already known that the university would be implementing the strategy under new leadership: ten days earlier, incumbent rector Alexander Kuleshov had told colleagues he would be stepping down in December, though he planned to remain at the university in a different capacity. He showed no sign of concern at the announcement. Kuleshov had led Skoltech for ten years, having succeeded the institute’s first president — American Edward Crawley — in 2016. He had tried to resign several times even before the war. And after Skoltech was hit with sweeping sanctions from the U.S. and Europe, his desire to leave the helm of a struggling institution was entirely understandable. Several candidates were considered to replace him. Among them was Skoltech honorary professor Artem Oganov — one of the institute’s most visible public figures, known less for his research than for his political commentary.

At one point, the decision-makers nearly settled on Denis Kuzmin — director of the Phystech School of Biological and Medical Physics at MIPT and author of the Telegram channel “Kuzmin and School.” The young scientist’s academic and administrative credentials were so far out of line with those of his predecessors — and with the scale and significance of Skoltech itself — that rumors began to circulate: only a very well-placed hand could have put his résumé on the desk of those with signing authority. Whether that hand belonged to Maria Vorontsova (Putin’s daughter) — who interacts regularly with Kuzmin while sitting on various scientific councils — or to Andrei Fursenko, who manages the pipeline of young talent for science administration, remains unclear. It is equally hard to determine whether there is any connection between Vorontsova’s working visit to Skoltech — and her initiative to establish a vivarium there (which was to be followed by an expansion of research directions and increased funding) — and the reasoning that an undertaking of that kind would only be entrusted to someone enjoying unconditional trust.

In any case, a young scientist who had only recently struggled to defend his dissertation would have seemed out of place in the role. In April 2025, Kuzmin managed to defend his doctoral thesis at the All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology — with difficulty, and not on the first attempt: a preliminary defense at the MSU Biology Department had failed, forcing him to seek out a different committee. In the end, though not without some dissenting votes, the doctoral degree was awarded. The Higher Attestation Commission (VAK — Russia’s national body that ratifies doctoral degrees — T-invariant) still needed to ratify it. Two months later, however, Kuzmin was called before the VAK in connection with the case of his co-author and doctoral student Sorokin, who had defended in the same committee in January 2025. A week before Kuzmin’s own defense — back in April — the deputy minister of science and education had signed an order annulling Sorokin’s degree. Kuzmin’s and Sorokin’s dissertations closely resembled each other; both were defended before the same committee, a few months apart. For Kuzmin, the VAK review concluded successfully: his doctoral degree was confirmed. After all that, the only way to explain Kuzmin’s presence on the shortlist for one of the most prominent rector posts in the country was influential patronage. That said, many who know Kuzmin personally speak positively about him — describing him as someone who “has a realistic sense of his own place in the academic landscape” (as one of T-invariant’s sources put it). So his appointment was expected as something nearly inevitable — but not, in most eyes, as something to dread.

Kuzmin was expected to begin his transition into the role in January, but after the new year Kuleshov was still running the university — his contract had been extended for another year. Then, suddenly, on February 13, 2026, it was announced that his authority had been terminated and that senior vice-president Alexander Safonov — Kuleshov’s longtime deputy — had been appointed acting rector.

For a moment it seemed as though Kuleshov might be employing the classic “successor gambit” — where a seasoned, well-connected leader steps back into the background and continues managing his former domain from behind the scenes, leaving a loyal protégé as the figurehead. He had done something like this before, when he left the Institute for Information Transmission Problems (IITP) to move to Skoltech — and it ended in a major scandal (T-invariant covered it in detail here). But on February 20, the former rector sent colleagues a farewell letter (a copy of which is on file with the editors).

“Dear friends, I write with sadness to announce that my ten years of work at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have come to an end. I am proud of what we accomplished during this time. In my very varied life, these may well have been the best ten years. I am grateful to everyone — the professors, students, researchers, and of course the wonderful administrative staff — for what we built together. A single number captures what Skoltech is today: in 2025, there were 31,450 applications for 248 places. We are not simply — or even primarily — a teaching university; we are a ‘technology factory,’ and modern technology is impossible without world-class science. And we managed to achieve exactly that: to combine fundamental science with cutting-edge technology. I won’t turn a personal letter into a technical report, but let me share just one figure: in December alone, more than 1,000 5G base stations were deployed based on our documentation.

I don’t yet know what comes next for me, but I am quite certain I still have enough energy and intellect to start my fifth life. The first four I lived beautifully.

I wish Skoltech as a whole — and its graduates and students — every success. Believe me: a good life awaits you.

Yours, AK

P.S.

My deepest thanks go to our founders, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev and Viktor Felixovich Vekselberg. Without them, none of this would have been possible.”

The letter was interpreted differently by different people at Skoltech. Some saw in it signs of frustration and resentment over unfair treatment. Others saw the opposite — relief: a sense that “I’ll be fine, now you figure it out without me.” But what stunned everyone was that a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences who had successfully led first an academic institute and then an innovation university had apparently been given no position after his departure. And yet Kuleshov had never left institutions in decline in his wake. In 2015 he left IITP, which under his leadership had become one of the leading interdisciplinary academic institutes in the Russian Academy of Sciences — covering mathematics, biology, and information technology. By 2026, despite severe economic and scientific sanctions from the Western academic community, he had managed not merely to keep Skoltech operational but to develop it. And yet he received nothing — no honorary presidency to provide oversight and guidance, no advisory post with a lifetime pension supplement, not even his own “little domain” in the form of a technology center. That was unexpected.

All of this indicated that something had happened between the November academic council meeting — when Kuleshov announced his upcoming departure along the lines of “I’m leaving, but this isn’t goodbye” — and the February board of trustees meeting. The scenario that many had anticipated, including Kuleshov himself — an outside appointee takes the top job while the senior local academic stays on — had evidently been rejected at the highest level. Which meant the role of that senior heavyweight was now open. And it was offered to Yulia Gorbunova — a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and dean of the Faculty of Physicochemical Engineering at Moscow State University. She was to become Skoltech’s vice-president for research.

What followed over the next month and a half is described by Skoltech staff themselves as “chaos.” Dividing responsibilities between Gorbunova and Kuzmin in a way that didn’t shortchange either party — while still producing a workable management structure — proved almost impossible. It fairly quickly became clear that this was an unworkable arrangement, at which point Denis Kuzmin withdrew his own candidacy and withdrew from the running. He could only have done so if someone influential had promised to protect him from the Skoltech board of trustees. In the academic world today, very few people hold that kind of influence. Whether it was Kuzmin’s direct superior — MIPT rector Dmitry Livanov — or Maria Vorontsova herself, will likely become clear in the near future. If Kuzmin stays at MIPT, the behind-the-scenes actor was almost certainly Livanov. But if his career suddenly accelerates through other institutions, the speculation about Vorontsova’s role in Skoltech’s leadership transition may turn out to be more than speculation.

None of T-invariant’s sources, however, supports the claim in which Vorontsova personally orchestrated Kuleshov’s removal. The decision to push Kuleshov out of Skoltech entirely is attributed to Dmitry Medvedev, who was presented with a dossier on Kuleshov. Whether that dossier contained financial materials — potentially connected to the Audit Chamber’s recent visit to Skoltech — or was purely ideological in character (Kuleshov had been insufficiently enthusiastic in his support for the government’s policies, made critical public statements, and notably did not sign the letter from Russian rectors in support of the war) — no one knows for certain. One thing was clear: it would likely be difficult for Kuleshov to launch his “fifth life” using whatever “energy and intellect” he mentioned in his farewell letter — say, in France, where his family lives and of which he is a citizen. He has not been personally sanctioned by the U.S. or the EU (no asset freezes or travel bans), but the UK and Ukraine have imposed personal sanctions on him, and with that background he cannot work professionally with U.S. or EU organizations. He had evidently been planning on living his “fifth life” inside Russia — and that is what he ultimately received.

On April 3, 2026, Skoltech’s website announced that the institute had a new rector: Russian Academy of Sciences full member Yulia Gorbunova. The announcement also noted: “Yulia Gorbunova has succeeded Alexander Safonov, who served as acting rector following the end of the term of academician Alexander Kuleshov, who led Skoltech from 2016 and will now take up the position of chief engineer of the institute.”

At the last moment, a man who had already been forced to say his goodbyes was brought back. The key role in this, according to T-invariant’s sources, was played by Viktor Vekselberg. The position of “chief engineer” had not previously existed at Skoltech. Indeed, it is an unusual position title for any Russian university. Only a handful of institutions have introduced it in recent years — such as Irkutsk National Research Technical University or Siberian Federal University. But in those cases, the people who hold the title are twenty or thirty years younger than Kuleshov, who turns 80 on May 2, 2026. This suggests that his “fifth life” has little chance of resembling the one he was living back around 1983, when he served as chief engineer at the NPO Kibernetika research production association.

What, then, might Skoltech become?

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

The chessboard, flipped

On March 27, VEB.RF chairman Igor Shuvalov announced: “We are currently relaunching Skoltech’s capabilities. You will soon hear about the appointment of a new rector — and that new rector has ties to Moscow State University.” Just a week later, it emerged that the new rector would be carrying out the relaunch under Shuvalov’s own supervision: he became the new chairman of the institute’s Board of Trustees. The previous chairman, Viktor Vekselberg, became his deputy. This was not a repetition of the situation five years earlier, when Shuvalov replaced Vekselberg as chairman of the Skolkovo Foundation’s board of directors. It signaled the beginning of a new chapter for Skoltech — one in which the institute’s role within the Skolkovo Foundation ecosystem is being significantly redefined and is becoming central. What does this mean in practice?

Until now, Skoltech was formally an autonomous university and a part in the Skolkovo Foundation ecosystem — their relationship officially described as a partnership. In practice, it was far from that. The Foundation controlled the university through key mechanisms of control. The primary decision-making body at Skoltech — the Board of Trustees — approves the development strategy, decides on the appointment of the rector, and controls the budget. Its composition changed periodically, but representatives from the Skolkovo Foundation always played a central role. The Foundation also provided significant funding to the institute. Now Skoltech will become a considerably more influential organization within the Skolkovo ecosystem — but far more directly accountable to the state. And Shuvalov’s appointment as chairman of the Board of Trustees clarifies the vague phrase “relaunching Skoltech.” What it effectively means is integrating the institute into the mobilization economy and maximizing output from it. The new board chairman himself put it in more measured terms, announcing that Skoltech faces “an overhaul of its educational model and closer integration into the efforts to achieve the country’s technological leadership.”

From Skoltech’s Development Strategy through 2030:

“Despite its relatively small size and reputation as a ‘boutique’ research institute, Skoltech already makes a quantitative and qualitative contribution to the achievement of national goals. <…> In the national projects aimed at ensuring technological leadership (including ‘Unmanned Aviation Systems’ and ‘New Atomic and Energy Technologies’), Skoltech is a key project executor and sits on expert groups developing roadmaps.”

The policy documents set out the following new priorities:

• Technological sovereignty: developing critically important domestic technologies across the entire pipeline — from scientific concept to serial production of competitive products.
• Developing “Engineering AI”: launching a large-scale program to create foundational and generative models, multi-agent systems, and elements of artificial general intelligence for industrial applications.
• Integrating with the Russian Academy of Sciences and industry: strengthening coordination with RAS institutes and the country’s leading universities, while creating conditions in which technology transfer to business can become a natural extension of scientific research.
• Developing new industry leaders: under the 2026–2030 strategy, the plan is to grow, together with VEB.RF, between 5 and 20 technology companies capable of competing globally and setting new standards.
• Attracting talent (brain gain): Skoltech is expected to become a “magnet” once more for leading scientists and talented researchers from around the world, offering them high-status positions and world-class working conditions.
• New scientific priorities: advanced research in photonics, life sciences, new materials, and energy efficiency.

The state had never before explicitly dictated the research agenda of a specific university. That had never happened in Skoltech’s history either. From the institution’s earliest years, its Board of Trustees had included leading international figures — among them former CIA Director (1995–1996), chemist, MIT professor, and Citigroup board member John M. Deutch; former president of the German Research Foundation and head of the European Science Foundation, biochemist Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker; and MIT professor, expert in systems engineering and space systems design, Edward Crawley. After the first year of the war, the board shrank by half and was reduced to a list of six names: Alexander Kuleshov, Irina Okladnikova, Alexander Vedyakhin, Anastasia Rakova, Dmitry Peskov — chaired by Viktor Vekselberg.

It is obvious that such a composition did not significantly strengthen Skoltech’s international standing. In 2026, two foreign nationals were added to the board: former president of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and mathematician Tony F. Chan, and technology executive Simon Bradley, who spent 13 years in various senior roles at Airbus and served as global head of cybersecurity at Siemens. Yulia Gorbunova joined the board as rector.

Foreign and Russian colleagues alike describe Gorbunova as a true scientist — a person of deep academic integrity and strong ethical convictions. And yet, even five years ago, the appointment of her to this post would have seemed inconsistent with the spirit of Skoltech, which in choosing its leadership had always placed priority on international experience in universities, corporations, and engineering centers. Gorbunova has spent her entire career within the structures of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State University, where the approaches and practices are quite different. But in the new political and economic reality, many colleagues see her appointment at Skoltech as the best thing that could have happened to the university at the time of its “relaunch” — at a moment when the state has decided to take a hands-on role in the substantive and operational aspects of scientific work. Her job will be to serve as a buffer in that process. And this role will impose new ethical demands on her, because science is no longer a refuge where one can wait out a dark era. The institutional experience of the Brezhnev years and the post-Soviet period is becoming increasingly less useful for working within a state that intends to operate under siege. Skoltech offers a vivid illustration of how, for the first time, the Russian government has seriously considered what it actually needs science for — and why it needs to be integrated into a new economic model under conditions of prolonged war and sanctions. If before 2022 Skoltech had no real engagement with the defense sector, it will now need to develop one. Staff who were directly involved in Skoltech’s procurement processes before 2022 told T-invariant that nothing resembling defense work was evident there. Agreements with Rostec and Uralvagonzavod, according to those sources, were largely framework arrangements that produced no tangible results. In that sense, Kuleshov was being completely candid with his 2022 comments on the sanctions imposed on Skoltech:

“We have nothing to hide — everything here is open. The only true statement in the State Department’s announcement is the first one: that Skoltech creates critically important technologies for the Russian economy. Everything about defense contracts and specific companies — Uralvagonzavod and the rest — is entirely unfounded.”

He repeatedly stated that Skoltech was an open civilian institution with many foreign professors on staff (which made classified defense research effectively impossible), and that the real aim of the sanctions was to accelerate the “depletion of Russia’s intellectual potential.”

This was partially corroborated by Skoltech professor Igor Krichever:

“Skoltech was sanctioned because it launched with significant publicity — not because any defense contracts were being run there. I chaired the committee responsible for hiring professors, and I can say confidently that never did I see anything defense-related at the institute. There were no defense contracts at Skoltech either.”

Now there will be. Otherwise it will be impossible to maintain Skoltech’s exceptional financial position among Russian universities. In the pre-war era, that position was driven by the need to stay competitive on the global academic market. Now different arguments are needed — and the only one that is persuasive is the ability to serve the Russian government’s core survival needs. That is why no one is likely to ask Skoltech’s new rector about the reasons for the sanctions. The answer to that question will be obvious.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post From Boutique Research Institute to Science Strike Force: How Igor Shuvalov Is Relaunching Skoltech appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

On September 1, 2026, right after the summer vacation season, Federal Law No. 43-FZ and Government Decree No. 750 take effect, regulating the transfer of human genetic data outside Russia. Authorities describe the new rules as a measure to protect national security and “genetic sovereignty.” Many scientists, however, see them as a serious blow to international scientific cooperation — fearing new bureaucratic barriers, difficulties publishing in leading scientific journals, and even the risk of criminal prosecution.

Genetics Under Control

One of the law’s chief proponents, State Duma Deputy Speaker Irina Yarovaya, justifies it on national security grounds. “Strict control is necessary, since there have been documented cases of research on biological samples from Russian citizens in foreign ‘secret laboratories,’” she explains. State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin also argues that such a law is needed to “provide additional protection for citizens’ genetic biomaterial.” According to him, this information is of enormous interest to both commercial companies and fraudsters, and the state is obligated to act preemptively by erecting barriers to the uncontrolled transfer of data abroad.

In effect, the new law places genetic information about Russian citizens on par with information of special state significance and imposes strict restrictions on transferring it to foreign citizens, organizations, and states. To be precise, transferring individual genetic data abroad is still allowed, but only for narrowly defined purposes: providing medical care to a specific patient, developing or manufacturing medication for that patient, or international scientific cooperation.

Where the transfer of biomaterials and genetic data was previously governed in many cases by institutions’ internal protocols, confidentiality agreements, or standard export licenses, it now falls under direct state control. Any transfer of human genetic data outside Russia now requires state review and approval from authorized government bodies.

The decree pays particular attention to data obtained through population genetics and immunological studies. The law frames this as safeguarding “genetic sovereignty” — the state’s control over information on genetic traits considered distinctive of large population groups living in Russia. Transferring such datasets to foreign laboratories or international databases will now become significantly harder.

The document specifies that data transfers are strictly prohibited if they pose a threat to Russia’s national security (a clause that, as the hypersonic scientists’ case demonstrated, can be stretched to cover even textbook-level data) or if the declared purpose of the transfer doesn’t match the aims stated in the research or medical program (again, largely a matter of the reviewer’s interpretation). The restrictions apply both to organizations — research institutes, universities, and commercial laboratories — and to individuals: scientists and researchers.

The decree also sets out specific rules for transfers that aren’t outright prohibited. Researchers or institutions must now file a detailed notification and application explaining the purpose of the data transfer abroad, who the final recipient is, how the data will be protected on the receiving end, and — if the transfer is meant to support a journal publication — what value it holds for the academic community.

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

For Russian geneticists and anthropologists who had managed to preserve a few channels of scientific cooperation with foreign colleagues — sending samples or sequencing data for joint publications, for instance — this document erects a new “iron curtain”: conducting international genetics research without approval from the relevant ministries and security services is now effectively impossible.

The law also references the National Genetic Information Database. Starting from the date it takes effect — September 1 — state corporations, companies with government ownership stakes, and budget-funded and other public institutions are required to submit their existing genetic data to the National Genetic Information Database by the end of 2027.

Science Without Publications

It turned out that as soon as the law was adopted, many research institutions urged their staff to submit papers on their latest findings to journals as quickly as possible and do everything they could to get them published before the law took effect. It’s easy to understand why.

All the leading international journals (Nature, Science, Cell, PLOS, The Lancet) follow FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which requires authors to deposit raw whole-genome data (FASTQ/FASTA files) in open international repositories (GenBank, SRA, GISAID, ENA) before publication and to cite a unique accession number. Without this, reviewers will not accept the manuscript. Once the law takes effect, Russian researchers will be barred from transferring such data abroad.

But even if authors manage to find a journal that doesn’t require depositing raw data in international repositories, they’ll still have to go through an approval process with a government commission. For aggregated, anonymized data, the commission only needs to be notified — if there’s no response within 15 business days, publication can proceed. Publishing individual genetic data, however, requires the commission’s explicit permission. The law also allots 15 business days for that approval, though the deadline extends by another ten days if the commission requests additional materials.

T-invariant‘s sources believe these changes will seriously complicate publishing Russian research in leading international journals. Andrei (the names of our sources have been changed throughout for their safety), who spent many years at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics and now works at a university in Central Europe, points out that the research itself can still be done without foreign collaborators — but the inability to publish results would be devastating for the field.

“If you look at the key papers in human genetics published in high-impact journals, you’ll see that Russia’s contribution was most often limited to providing samples,” says Andrei. “For example, in Svante Pääbo‘s projects [Pääbo won the Nobel Prize in part for discoveries made in Siberia, referring to the Denisovan hominin found in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains — T-invariant], the DNA extraction and analysis weren’t done in Russia at all: all the samples were analyzed in Germany by a large team of highly skilled specialists. Russian participants undoubtedly made a real contribution, but it was limited to finding the material and handing it over.”

According to Andrei, preparing a DNA library isn’t a problem today. Sequencing is easier and cheaper abroad — at BGI in Beijing, for example, or other foreign facilities. It’s possible in Russia too, but significantly more expensive and slower. The real bottleneck is high-quality bioinformatics analysis: there are teams around the world that have been doing this at a high level for decades — the bioinformatics group at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, for instance, for whom it’s routine work. Such analysis can be done in Russia as well — at greater cost and lower efficiency, but it’s possible.

But then another question arises: suppose scientists obtain a significant result — how and where can they publish it? Under the new law, that result won’t be able to reach the global scientific community, because it will end up “closed.”

Andrei’s grim conclusion follows from this: the law will set back the development of Russian human genetics for years to come.

“Partly because the international scientific community won’t be able to assess the quality of Russian geneticists’ work, and studies will end up published in some closed-off journals,” he says. “That will turn the field into something provincial and isolated. Nothing good comes of that.”

Another of our genetics experts offers a concrete example of how the added layers of approval have already affected research.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

“When the COVID-19 pandemic started, right in that first summer, colleagues from several institutes got together and put out a really elegant piece of work on the phylogeny of coronavirus strains and their spread across Russia,” Alexander recalls. “At the time, it was one of the first studies of its kind in the world. But we couldn’t publish it for a long time, purely because of data issues. We weren’t allowed to upload the genomes to the international GISAID database, where the world’s COVID statistics were being collected. The negotiations dragged on for a painfully long time. In the end, we managed to arrange publication of the data on an alternative platform, where it was technically accessible but not in the main database. The whole approval process took a year and a half. As a result, a paper that would once have been snapped up by Nature, or at least Nature Communications, ended up published in the far more modest PLoS ONE. Because by then, the moment had passed. If it had come out on time, it would have been a landmark publication. But a year and a half later, dozens of other groups around the world had already done similar research. That’s a perfect example of us cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

Another source draws our attention to a different aspect of the law — the workings of the interagency commission responsible for approving or blocking data transfers for publication.

“Both the law and the decree look very strange. According to them, even anonymized information has to be submitted to the interagency commission,” explains Vitaly. “If the study is a population or immunological one — meaning it contains anonymized, aggregated data on allele frequencies — the process is just a notification. But ever since the decree was published, I’ve been trying to put myself in the commission members’ shoes. Say I’m a population geneticist. The document says one ground for rejection is ‘submission of incomplete information or inaccurate information.’ How would you even verify the completeness or accuracy of that data? Who’s going to do that, and how? I honestly can’t picture it.”

Vitaly also points to another ground for rejection — “the presence of risks to the rights and lawful interests of Russian citizens” or “the presence of risks to Russia’s biological security”:

“We already have a law on biological security. I studied it closely, and it’s entirely about infections. How that connects to population or medical genetics, I don’t understand. The law takes effect in a month, and the interagency commission still hasn’t been formed. When it will be formed is unknown, and who’ll be on it is just as unclear. If it ends up with even a few real professionals, I already feel sorry for them. There’s a huge number of papers on human population genetics, plus dissertations on top of that. Are they seriously going to review all of it? I don’t believe it.”

Vitaly admits the new law brings back unpleasant associations with the “hypersonics case.” “Even back when the hypersonics case was unfolding, I suspected geneticists would be next. There was too much talk about biological weapons being developed against Russia. I can easily picture how, after a paper clears every approval and every commission, someone will suddenly ‘discover’ that it damages Russia’s biological security or reveals a state secret. There will always be a way to claim the authors disclosed classified information that the West is now using to develop biological weapons,” he says.

Bioweapons as a Political Argument

The most common explanation for the new law is a desire to prevent leaks of biomaterial and genetic data that could allegedly be used to create a new kind of genetic weapon. The idea of a bioweapon that selectively targets specific ethnic groups is far from new.

As far back as May 2007, then-FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev presented Vladimir Putin with a classified report claiming that Western research centers were developing “genetic and biological weapons aimed at the population of Russia.” Shortly afterward, the Federal Customs Service imposed a strict ban on exporting any biomaterials belonging to Russian citizens.

In September 2015, Mikhail Kovalchuk, head of the Kurchatov Institute, attempted to provide a scientific basis for this dubious idea. In a lecture at the Federation Council, he claimed that the West was creating “a fundamentally new subspecies of human — the service human,” and was collecting biological material to develop “a genetic weapon that selectively targets a specific ethnic group.”

Starting in 2017, Russia’s president began publicly promoting this idea as well. In October of that year, at a meeting of the Human Rights Council, Vladimir Putin uttered what became a famous line: “Did you know that biological material is being collected across the entire country? And by ethnicity, from people living in different geographic parts of the Russian Federation. So the question is: why is this being done so professionally and systematically?” The remark was prompted by a U.S. Air Force research program collecting synovial fluid and RNA samples for musculoskeletal studies.

“This is a continuation of an old story that started with claims that numerous biological laboratories developing weapons against Russian citizens had supposedly been found along Russia’s borders,” says Vitaly. “For the most part, these were former Soviet anti-plague stations [Soviet-era public health facilities established to monitor and contain plague and other highly dangerous infections — T-invariant]. After the collapse of the USSR, they were left without funding, and the U.S. provided money to keep them running, understanding what could happen without epidemiological monitoring. When Russian troops occupied these stations in Ukraine, they naturally found protocols for destroying bacterial cultures. And they concluded that the cultures themselves had been destroyed while the paperwork was simply forgotten in the rush. But these were just ordinary logbooks: the alphanumeric codes in them let you trace the origin of every culture. Funnily enough, those documents showed that most of the samples had actually come from Russia.”

Victor, however, believes there’s at least a minimal scientific basis for such fears.

“These kinds of examples have long been standard textbook material. Take the ability to digest milk in adulthood. It’s determined by two different mutations — one common in Europe, the other in Africa. From there, lactose intolerance rises as you move east. Among Central Asian populations, the frequency of the relevant allele is 87%; in southern Siberia, 90.6%; and in northeastern Siberia, 92.9%. So when Soviet schoolchildren in Yakutia started getting two free glasses of milk a day, most of the kids ended up in the bathroom. It’s a good example of how ignorance of a population’s genetic characteristics can produce exactly the opposite of the intended result,” he says.

Andrei believes there has always been far more talk on this subject than actual scientific grounding:

“There’s always been more speculation than substance here — from Lev Gumilev [a Soviet historian known for his controversial theories of ethnic origin and “passionarity” — T-invariant] onward, through endless arguments about who’s ethnically related to whom. Those arguments continue today because we still lack good reference databases. In Siberia and European Russia, the population has been in constant flux: there were never populations that stayed fully isolated long enough to show up as “pure” on genetic tests. Hence the endless debates: who the Bulgars really were, what trace the Vikings left in Russians, whether the people around Moscow are assimilated Finno-Ugric populations or predominantly Slavic. But the main takeaway — beautifully laid out in David Reich’s book Who We Are and How We Got Here — is that our ancestors have been constantly moving and mixing with one another throughout history. The defining trait of humanity is genetic fluidity. Fully isolated communities were extremely rare.”

That’s precisely why, in Andrei’s view, creating a genetic weapon that would affect only members of a specific ethnic group is practically impossible:

“Looking for unique genetic traits rigidly tied to modern ethnic groups — Russians, Ukrainians, and so on — is usually just pointless. Genetic markers do exist, but we’re talking about statistical differences, not sharp boundaries. For example, a study of the Czech population found that only about 35–40% of men carry haplogroup R1a, which is commonly labeled ‘Slavic.’ Another 30–35% belong to R1b, loosely ‘Western European,’ and the rest fall into other major groups. The same goes for the Balkans: there’s no isolated genetic component unique to Serbs, Bosnians, or Macedonians — it’s all one blend with minor regional variation, and genetically these populations turn out to be fairly close to, say, Austrians.”

In other words, modern ethnic groups have no single genetic “key” that would set them apart from their neighbors — which means there’s no target a selective weapon could theoretically be aimed at.

What’s more, everyone we spoke with points out that even if you assume that creating a genetic weapon were possible in principle, you wouldn’t necessarily need to obtain material directly from Russia to do it.

“Every serious scientist has long treated this idea with irony,” says Andrei. “If you think about it logically, there are millions of ethnic Russians living outside Russia today — that’s already a huge, perfectly representative sample. If it were hypothetically possible to create a ‘genetic weapon’ — and it really isn’t — no special data from Russia would even be needed. Among these people you’ll find recent émigrés, descendants of several generations of emigration, and their relatives — study them all you want. The argument that centuries of population mixing make it biologically impossible to build a weapon against a specific ethnicity is convincing to scientists and to anyone who thinks critically. But the people making the decisions seem to be working from a different logic: ‘Better to ban everything and play it safe, even if it hurts science.’”

That said, our sources acknowledge that genetic data privacy concerns are real.

“There are serious debates in the West too about the privacy of genetic information,” Alexander notes. “But there, they’re purely about protecting personal privacy. If I publish my genome, I automatically reveal roughly half of my brother’s genome — and he might not want that at all. So the concern is real. Eight years ago now, there was a good study showing how much you can learn about a person who has never published their own genome, just from the public data of their relatives.”

We couldn’t find a single geneticist or physician who believed the new law would improve their working conditions, or that restrictions like these were overdue. Asked who actually needed this law and why, most of our sources suggested we direct that question to the lawmakers who passed it. Many of our experts believe it emerged from years of talk about “genetic weapons,” political ambition, and a desire to align with the current state agenda.

Valery Panyushkin, a journalist with the investigative outlet Sistema, believes the law’s real purpose lies elsewhere — funneling genetic data from civilian healthcare to the military through the National Genetic Database.

“First, the board overseeing this database includes President Putin’s daughter, Maria Vorontsova,” Panyushkin writes in an article for RFE/RL’s Radio Svoboda. “Second, the genetic database is needed mainly by the military, at minimum to identify the dead and wounded. Third, if labs are required to submit client information to the National Genetic Database — which isn’t currently the case — that would open the door to a new level of surveillance over citizens. Fourth, closing off genetic information rules out the possibility of identifying, inside Russia, war criminals who committed sexual violence in Ukraine, Africa, and other conflict zones where Russian troops have served or will serve. Fifth, the law rules out cooperation between Russian healthcare institutions and foreign ones — at minimum, it rules out international clinical trials of new drugs. And finally, all of this has been made possible by the paranoid, anti-scientific, but unshakable belief among Russian authorities in the possibility of creating a ‘genetic weapon.’”

[[socialnetworks]]

Commenting on the reasons behind the new law, Alexander offers a few more possible explanations.

“It might really just be the product of stoked-up ignorance,” he says. “Or it could be political reasons, or economic ones. The simplest explanation: this is a great way to request substantial funding to build a database, start filling it in somehow, and then announce, ‘Look, now we have our own, domestic genomic database.’ And then everything traces back to the same Mikhail Valentinovich [Kovalchuk — T-invariant]. He’s like Rome for us — all roads lead to him. But most likely, it’s a combination of different factors.”

What Will Change for Russian Science?

Whatever the law’s real motivations, starting September 1 our sources, along with thousands of other specialists, will have to work under the new rules. Most scientists directly involved in human genome research, when first asked about the law, simply sighed heavily: “This is really bad.” Where they differed was only in how much damage they expected it to do to different areas of research.

Andrei suspects that once the law takes effect, some research will only continue, if at all, on a “commissioned” basis — behind closed doors, the way some virus-related work already operates. It’s even possible a dedicated classified structure will be set up for this purpose.

“But that’s a dangerous path, like any closed-off field,” he stresses. “Sure, you can keep getting interesting results. But where will these people publish? You’d have to build closed databases, stew in your own literature, cut off from the international community, with nobody assessing it, criticizing it, or peer-reviewing it. In isolation, pseudoscience, cronyism, and corruption start to flourish almost immediately. Once openness and international peer review disappear, all hell breaks loose.”

Liliya Gumerova, chair of the Federation Council Committee on Science, Education, and Culture — one of the principal authors of the law on the National Genetic Information Database — takes the opposite view. In her words, creating a closed national database is a mechanism for protecting intellectual property and a competitive advantage for Russian science:

According to the logic of the law’s authors and ideologues, making the database sovereign is supposed to give Russian scientists a one-sided advantage: they’ll supposedly be free to use open international repositories while also getting exclusive access to a closed domestic dataset. Our experts disagree with that assessment. Alexander pushes back:

“First, access to international databases from Russia is already severely restricted because of sanctions, and this could only make things worse. And in any case, the Russian database will only ever be a tiny fraction of what’s available worldwide. Second, in science, what matters isn’t just data — it’s the ability to actually discuss your results with people who genuinely understand the subject. Sure, you could lock yourself inside ‘Russian genetics’ and stew in your own juices with a pinch of unique closed-off data in your pocket. But you’ll only have two other people to discuss it with. It’ll turn into provincial science producing provincial research. And finally, people will treat our science accordingly: even if there are some interesting results, nobody will find out about them, because publishing in a real international journal requires the data to be accessible.”

The geneticists we spoke with have little hope the law will be substantially revised before it takes effect. They might have taken some comfort in the old saying that “the harshness of Russian laws is offset by how selectively they’re enforced” — if not for the recent hypersonics case.

“I know two people who wrote negative reviews of the law regulating genetic engineering activity. Their objections didn’t change anything,” says Vitaly. “Something similar happened in 2023, when they passed a law banning registration on Russian websites through Google and other foreign services. I run a journal myself, and we get submissions from abroad too. The law offered three ways to register: through a Russian phone number, through Gosuslugi [Russia’s state online services portal — T-invariant], or through your own site-owner identification system. Luckily, we already had such a system. But at first, no penalty was written into the law for non-compliance. Only recently did Article 13.55 appear in the Code of Administrative Offenses — “Failure to fulfill the obligation to authorize users of the ‘Internet’ network when providing access to information.” We’re in a similar situation now: who will oversee enforcement of the new law, what the penalty is, who’ll sit on the commission — none of that is clear yet. The worst part is that the situation could change at any moment, and it would be very hard to take down an article that’s already been published. You’d end up with an ongoing violation you could be prosecuted for at any time.”

Still, some more cautiously optimistic assessments can be heard as well.

“I was at a discussion attended by the people this law affects most directly,” Alexander admits. “A representative from one of the major genetics companies said they’re actively working to make sure the implementing regulations end up being reasonable. And anyway — as long as we’re alive, there’s always hope.”

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post They Came for the Geneticists? Why Scientists See the New Genetic Data Law as a Threat to Russian Science appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Next to rubble and pictures of the deceased, people in Gaza are still getting married. Athar Abu Samra reports on why couples are refusing to delay their nuptials. With so much already lost, and so much still under threat, families in Gaza are seizing moments of joy wherever they can. Marriage ceremonies are no longer what they once were—nor do they express hope in quite the same way—but they have become powerful testaments to resilience.

As I worked on this story, I came to understand that the war has not only transformed weddings in Gaza. It has transformed people’s relationship with time itself. Before the war, marriage followed a familiar sequence. People finished their education, found work, built or rented a home, saved enough money and only then began planning a wedding. Families often postponed marriages until those expectations had been met. But now no one has that luxury — the luxury of time.

I spoke with one mother who had lost several of her children during the war, yet hurried to arrange the marriage of her youngest son. She told me she had always dreamed, like any mother, of watching all of her children grow up, get married, and fill her home with grandchildren. The war had taken much of that dream away, but she was determined not to lose what remained.