From Frigid Cells to Mystery Injections, Prison Imperiled Navalny’s Health

The New York Times

From Frigid Cells to Mystery Injections, Prison Imperiled Navalny’s Health

Paul Sonne and Ivan Nechepurenko – February 18, 2024

FILE – Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny appears via a video link from the Arctic penal colony where he is serving a 19-year sentence, provided by the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service during a hearing of Russia’s Supreme Court, in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. Russia’s prison agency says that imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny has died. He was 47. The Federal Prison Service said in a statement that Navalny felt unwell after a walk on Friday Feb. 16, 2024 and lost consciousness. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko,)

Alexei Navalny portrayed himself as invincible, consistently using his hallmark humor to suggest that President Vladimir Putin couldn’t break him, no matter how dire his conditions became in prison.

But behind the brave face, the reality was plain to see. Since his incarceration in early 2021, Navalny, Russia’s most formidable opposition figure, and his staff regularly suggested his conditions were so grim that he was being put to death in slow motion.

Now his aides believe their fears have come true.

The cause of Navalny’s death in prison at 47 has not been established — in fact his family has not yet even been allowed to see his body — but Russia’s harshest penal colonies are known for hazardous conditions, and Navalny was singled out for particularly brutal treatment.

“Aleksei Navalny was subjected to torment and torture for three years,” Russian journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dmitry Muratov wrote in a column after his death was announced Friday. “As Navalny’s doctor told me: the body cannot withstand this.”

More than a quarter of Navalny’s incarceration since 2021 was spent in freezing “punishment cells” and he was often denied access to medical care. He was transferred to ever crueler prisons. And at one point, he said he was being given injections but was prevented from finding out what was in the syringes. His team worried he was again being poisoned.

What specifically led to Navalny’s death Friday at a remote prison above the Arctic Circle may remain a mystery. The Russian prison service released a statement Friday afternoon saying that Navalny felt sick and suddenly lost consciousness after being outside.

Russian state media reported that he had suffered a blood clot. But the story changed Saturday, when Navalny’s mother and lawyer arrived at the prison. They were told he had suffered from “sudden death syndrome,” which appeared to indicate sudden cardiac arrest, according to Ivan Zhdanov, director of Navalny’s anti-corruption foundation.

Investigators told a lawyer for Navalny that a repeat examination was being conducted and the results would be released next week. Navalny’s staff called for the body to be released immediately so that his family could order an independent analysis, accusing Russian authorities of lying to conceal the body.

According to his aides, Navalny had been put in a punishment cell at the Arctic prison in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region on Wednesday, two days before Russian authorities announced his death.

His spokesperson, Kira Yarmysh, said that marked his 27th time in such an inhumane space, usually a roughly 7-by-10-foot concrete cell with unbearable conditions — cold, damp and poorly ventilated. His latest round of punishment, had he survived, would have taken his total period in such a cell to 308 days, more than a quarter of his time in incarceration, according to Yarmysh.

Once a day at 6:30 a.m., prisoners in the punishment cells at the Arctic facility are allowed into a coffin-like concrete enclosure open to the sky through a metal grate, Navalny said in a message from the facility this year. It appeared to be after such a session Friday that Navalny lost consciousness, according to the Russian prison service’s account. It was about minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside.

In a letter from prison last month, Navalny described how he could walk a total of 11 steps from one end of the open-air space to the other, noting that the coldest it had been so far on one of his walks was minus 26 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Even at this temperature, you can walk for more than half an hour, so long as you have time to grow a new nose, ears and fingers,” he wrote. “There are few things as invigorating as a walk in Yamal at 6:30 in the morning. And what a wonderful fresh breeze blows into the yard, despite the concrete enclosure, wow!”

While walking there on a recent day, he said he was freezing and thinking about how Leonardo DiCaprio climbed into a dead horse to escape the cold in the wilderness survival movie “The Revenant.” A dead horse would freeze in that part of Russia within 15 minutes, Navalny surmised.

“Here we need an elephant — a hot, fried elephant,” he said.

Navalny often employed such wit in the face of his inhumane treatment. But it had become increasingly clear, over his three years of incarceration, that he might not survive.

“The cumulative treatment of Navalny over several years in prison — in a way you could say it was driving him close to death,” Mariana Katzarova, the United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Russia, said in an interview Saturday. “We don’t know yet. We need an investigation.”

For a time, Navalny did seem almost invincible.

In August 2020, he fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow, after being poisoned with a nerve agent from the Russian-made Novichok family. He was put into a medically induced coma for two weeks during treatment in Germany — and survived.

The U.S. government later attributed the poisoning to Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the FSB.

Despite the assassination attempt, Navalny returned to Russia in early 2021 to continue his fight against Putin, who denied Russia’s involvement in the poisoning, and quickly found himself imprisoned. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately.

In March 2021, he complained about severe back pain that later turned into a problem with his leg.

He demanded that prison authorities provide him with proper medical care and give him medication. Instead, they subjected him to sleep deprivation, he said. At the end of March 2021, he declared a hunger strike over his treatment, and Russian doctors and Hollywood stars took up his cause in open letters to Putin.

About three weeks later, Navalny was examined by an independent panel of doctors. The tests by the doctors found that, “soon enough, there won’t be anyone to treat,” Navalny said in a message posted to Instagram.

Last year, Navalny wrote from prison that his jokes about the punishment cell shouldn’t normalize the environment.

He lamented that a fellow political prisoner, who had spoken out against the war in Ukraine, had been put in a punishment cell, despite being disabled and missing part of a lung.

Navalny described dire health conditions in prison, where he said many inmates suffered from tuberculosis. He also complained early last year about the administration in his former prison placing a mentally unwell person in a cell opposite his, as a form of torment, and an ill prisoner in his small cell.

At the time, his lawyer, Vadim Kobzev, said the prison deliberately infected him with a respiratory illness, refused to give him medicine and then “treated” him with huge doses of contraindicated antibiotics. Navalny suffered severe stomach pain and lost more than 15 pounds as a result, Kobzev said.

“These actions can’t be regarded as anything other than an open strategy to destroy Navalny’s health by any and all means,” Kobzev said in a statement at the time. “Obviously, the prison wouldn’t risk engaging in this level of demonstrative unlawfulness without approval from Moscow.”

Kobzev has since been arrested on extremism charges for associating with Navalny — part of a broader roundup of the opposition leader’s attorneys late last year.

Navalny suffered a dizzy spell and was put on an IV drip in an unexplained medical episode in early December. But Russian authorities still transferred him later that month from a prison in the Vladimir region, about 130 miles east of Moscow, to the “special regime” penal colony in the Arctic where he died.

Several doctors contacted after his death, including one who was involved in his initial treatment in the Siberian city of Omsk, said his death was likely unrelated to his poisoning more than three years earlier, given his robust recovery.

But he faced many other health hazards since then.

“A Russian prison is a place where you have to be prepared to die every day,” Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Russian tycoon who spent a decade in prison after challenging Putin, said Friday.

In the interview, Khodorkovsky, who was released in 2013, said a prisoner must find a way to treat the burden as a test in order to survive mentally, and Navalny had done that. But even then, he added, “this will not protect you from being killed.”

Putin feeling the pressure: Times Putin has referenced the UK as Russia ‘threatens London attack’

Yahoo! News

Times Putin has referenced the UK as Russia ‘threatens London attack’

Ellen Manning – February 18, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a video address to mark the 31st anniversary of the founding of the National Energy Giant Gazprom at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence, outside Moscow, Russia, on Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
Putin has referenced the UK several times in recent years, with reports of threats against the west. (AP)

Russia has reportedly threatened to unleash its “entire arsenal” on London if it loses the war in Ukraine, also threatening to launch nuclear weapons at the US and Germany.

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, reportedly warned of “total war” if Russia was forced to return to its 1991 borders established at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He is said to have written on Telegram that attempts to return Russia to the “borders of 1991” would “only lead to one thing”, adding: “Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington.”

The latest threat is not the first time the UK has been referred to by Putin, or Russia, with several reports of threats against the west in recent years. The escalating situation involving Russia – which most recently saw the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny – saw the UK government last month warn of a more than one in four chance that Russia will attack another British ally within the next two years.

A National Risk Register, which analyses the biggest threats facing the UK over the next two years, ranked the likelihood of a Russian attack on a non-Nato ally, with which Britain has a mutual security pact, at more than 25%.

Yahoo News UK looks at some of the key times Russia has referenced the UK or suggested an attack on the west in recent years.

Recommended reading

February 2024

In a lengthy interview with Tucker Carlson, Putin blamed Boris Johnson for the war in Ukraine, accusing him of encouraging ongoing fighting.

The Russian president said: “It’s very sad to me… we could have stopped these hostilities with war a year and a half ago already.” During the interview, he said: “Prime Minister Johnson came to talk us out of it and we missed that chance. Well, you missed it”.

He added: “The fact that they obey the demand or persuasion of Mr Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous. Where is Mr Johnson now? And the war continues.”

January 2024

During a New Year’s Day visit to injured troops, Putin issued what appeared to be a warning to the UK and other Western countries, saying he will “deal with” them.

The Russian President said: “Ukraine itself is not our enemy” but appeared to take aim at the West, saying: “They are our enemy. They are solving their own problems with their hands. That is what it is all about. This has been the case for centuries, unfortunately, and continues to be the case today.”

Ukraine Army recruits take part in a training session called
Putin has hit out at the West for helping Ukraine. (Getty)
September 2023

Putin delivered a long rant over Western help to Ukraine, threatening Rishi Sunak as he accused the UK of being behind a failed plot on a Russian atomic facility.

Speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, he said his country’s forces had apprehended Ukrainian ‘saboteurs’ planning to damage power lines at the facility, adding that they were instructed by British secret services.

He said: “Do [the British] understand what they are playing with, or not? Are they provoking our response at Ukrainian nuclear sites, nuclear stations, or what? Does the British leadership, or the Prime Minister [of the United Kingdom. Rishi Sunak] know what their special services are engaged with in Ukraine?”

May 2023

The UK was threatened with a “military response” by Russia after pledging to send long-range missiles to Ukraine.

Following the announcement by defence secretary Ben Wallace that Storm Shadow missiles would be provided to Ukraine’s military, Moscow said the move would require an “adequate response from our military”.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during a joint press conference with Prime Minister of Estonia and Secretary General of NATO at the Tapa Army Base on March 1, 2022 in Tallinn, Estonia. - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on a visit to Poland on March 1, that the West would keep up sanctions pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime indefinitely after it invaded Ukraine (Photo by Leon Neal / POOL / AFP) (Photo by LEON NEAL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Boris Johnson said Putin threatened him in a phone call weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Getty)
January 2023

Boris Johnson said Putin threatened him with a missile strike in an “extraordinary” phone call in February 2022, just weeks before the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying the Russian president told him it “would only take a minute”.

Johnson told the BBC that he warned Putin that invading Ukraine would lead to Western sanctions and more Nato troops on Russia’s borders, and also tried to deter him by saying Ukraine would not join Nato “for the foreseeable future”.

The former PM said: “He threatened me at one point, and he said, ‘Boris, I don’t want to hurt you but, with a missile, it would only take a minute’ or something like that. Jolly. But I think from the very relaxed tone that he was taking, the sort of air of detachment that he seemed to have, he was just playing along with my attempts to get him to negotiate.”

The Kremlin denied the comments, calling them either a “deliberate falsehood” or a misunderstanding by Johnson.

Putin feeling the pressure: Medvedev again threatens nuclear war amid more deaths in Ukraine

dpa international

Medvedev again threatens nuclear war amid more deaths in Ukraine

DPA – February 18, 2024

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, speaks at a council meeting in Moscow. -/Kremlin/dpa
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, speaks at a council meeting in Moscow. -/Kremlin/dpa

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has once again threatened the West with an all-out nuclear war if Russia is pushed back to its internationally recognized 1991 borders after the war in Ukraine.

In a Telegram post on Sunday, the current deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council reiterated his well-known position that “nuclear powers never lose a war” as long as they defend their homeland.

In a short thought experiment, he discussed the case of Ukraine’s success in this war. In his opinion, the return of Ukraine to its old borders would contradict the Russian constitution, especially as the conquered territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea had already been annexed as integral parts of Russia.

The 1991 borders are the common, internationally recognized border lines of Russia and Ukraine before the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Moscow in 2014 and before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

“And now to the main question: Do these idiots [in the West] really believe that the Russian people would accept such a disintegration of their country?” wrote Medvedev.

On the contrary, the Russian armed forces would deploy their entire arsenal and attack Washington, Berlin or London in addition to Kiev.

He said that these and other “beautiful historical places were entered long ago as targets of [Russia’s] nuclear triad,” referring to the configuration of land-based intercontinental missiles, submarine-launched missiles and strategic bombers with nuclear bombs.

During his time in office as president from 2008 to 2012, Medvedev was regarded as a liberal, moderate politician. Since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine almost two years ago, he has turned into an extremist and is now one of the West’s harshest critics.

There are no concrete indications that Russia’s leadership is actually planning to use nuclear weapons.

Despite several setbacks during the war ordered by President Vladimir Putin, Russia continues to occupy around a fifth of Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula, and currently sees itself on the path to victory.

Putin on Sunday also commented on the war, Russia considers the situation in Ukraine to be “vital.”

For the West, on the other hand, it is just a question of tactics, Putin said on Sunday in an interview on state television, quoted by the state-run news agency TASS.

While the West was taking tactical positions on Ukraine, for his country it was “a matter of fate, a matter of life or death.” If the West had not intervened, “the war would have ended a year and a half ago.”

“We switched from initially peaceful measures to military instruments and tried to end this conflict peacefully,” Putin claimed. Further, Russia is still prepared to negotiate a peaceful solution.

Moscow’s and Kiev’s positions on a possible peace solution are far apart. While Kiev insists on the return of all occupied territories, including the Crimean peninsula, Russia wants to keep the conquered territories that it has already integrated into its national territory.

On the ground in Ukraine, at least three people have been killed in Russian drone and missile attacks in eastern Ukraine, local leaders said on Sunday.

Two bodies have been recovered so far from the rubble of a residential building in the city of Kramatorsk that was struck by a missile overnight, said Vadym Filashkin, the military governor of the Donetsk region, on Telegram.

The rescue operation is continuing and further victims are suspected to be under the debris, he said.

Oleh Syniehubov, the head of the military administration in the neighbouring Kharkiv region, reported one dead and five injured in an attack on a two-storey residential building in the front-line city of Kupiansk.

Russia attacked its neighbour overnight with six S-300 anti-aircraft missiles that were converted to strike land targets, three Ch-22 cruise missiles and a Ch-59 air-to-surface missile, according to the Ukrainian Air Force.

The Russian military launched 14 Shahed combat drones, 12 of which were destroyed before reaching their target. The air-to-surface missile was also intercepted and a Russian fighter jet was shot down, the air force said.

British intelligence officials believe that Russia could have replaced the head of its Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Viktor Sokolov, likely because of “Ukraine’s success in sinking various ships under his command.”

In its daily intelligence update on the war published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in London on Sunday, said various “Russian pro-war commentators” had reported on Sokolov’s removal from his post, which has so far not been confirmed by the Russian Defence Ministry.

One such report had been published on the Rybar Telegram channel, considered to be close to the ministry in Moscow.

According to the MoD update on X, “Sokolov has likely been replaced by his now former deputy, Vice Admiral Sergei Pinchuk as acting commander until an internal investigation of the 15 February 2024 sinking of the Ropucha-class Caesar Kunikov landing ship is concluded.”

The MoD in London has been publishing daily intelligence reports on the war since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Moscow accuses London of spreading misinformation.

Putin feeling the pressure: Russia’s Medvedev threatens to nuke US, UK, Germany, Ukraine if Russia loses occupied territories

The Kyiv Independent

Russia’s Medvedev threatens to nuke US, UK, Germany, Ukraine if Russia loses occupied territories

Alexander Khrebet – February 18, 2024

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, on Feb. 18 threatened to use nuclear weapons against the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and Ukraine if Moscow loses all occupied Ukrainian territories.

Medvedev, who is also a former president of Russia, has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons but the threats have so far failed to materialize. His critics say that his statements are bluff rather than Russia’s genuine plans and are intended to scare the West into making concessions.

Medvedev had previously portrayed himself as a liberal but has become one of Russia’s most aggressive pro-war hawks since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022. He has increasingly played the role formerly filled by the late politician Vladmir Zhirinovsky, famous for his flamboyant and aggressive buffoonery.

“Attempts to restore Russia’s 1991 borders will lead only to one thing – a global war with Western countries with the use of our entire strategic (nuclear) arsenal against Kyiv, Berlin, London, and Washington. And against all other beautiful historic places that have long been included in the flight targets of our nuclear triad,” Medvedev said in a reference to the triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers with nuclear weapons.

In the fall of 2022, Russia annexed Ukraine’s four oblasts – Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson – after sham referendums in the occupied parts of these regions took place.

In his latest post, Medvedev said that a potential defeat of Russia in the war against Ukraine and the “disintegration of the country” may trigger a nuclear war.

Medvedev, a close ally of Putin, has regularly regularly threatened Ukraine and NATO with a nuclear attack. However, he has been ridiculed since his numerous nuclear threats have failed to result in any actions.

In May 2022, he said that by sending weapons and training Ukrainian soldiers, NATO “increases the likelihood of a direct and open conflict between NATO and Russia.”

Since then, thousands of Ukrainian troops have been trained in the NATO countries, and the allies have delivered different types of weapons, including long-range missiles, main battle tanks, and artillery systems.

Putin feeling the pressure: Medvedev threatens Berlin, London and Washington with nuclear retaliation if Russia is to return to 1991 borders

Ukrainska Pravda

Medvedev threatens Berlin, London and Washington with nuclear retaliation if Russia is to return to 1991 borders

Ukrainska Pravda – February 18, 2024

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation's Security Council. Photo: TASS
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation’s Security Council. Photo: TASS

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation’s Security Council, has threatened the United States and Europe with nuclear war if Russia is returned to its recognized borders from 1991.

Details: Medvedev wondered what would happen if Russia lost the war against “neo-Nazis along with their Western sponsors” and returned to its 1991 borders.

He speaks to this outcome as “the irreversible collapse of present-day Russia, which under the Constitution includes new territories”. Medvedev believes that after that, a “civil war with tens of millions of victims” and “the death of the future of Russia” will begin.

Quote: “And now for the main question: do these idiots truly believe that the Russian people will simply swallow such a consequential partitioning of their country? That we will all think:

‘Unfortunately, it happened. They won. Russia as we know it today no longer exists. It is unfortunate, of course, but we must continue to live in a country that is collapsing and dying, because a nuclear war is far worse for us than the death of our loved ones, children, Russia…’?

And that the state’s leadership, led by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces, would be hesitant to make difficult decisions in this case?

Hear me out. It will be totally different. The collapse of Russia will have far worse consequences than the outcome of a conventional, even long-term war. Because attempting to return Russia to its 1991 borders will only lead to one outcome. To a global war with Western countries, utilising our entire strategic arsenal. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, and Washington. For all other beautiful historical sites, which have long been included in our nuclear triad’s attack goals.

Will we have enough guts for this if a thousand-year-old country, our great homeland, is on the verge of extinction, and the sacrifices made by the Russian people over the centuries are in vain?

The answer is obvious.”

What continued drone strikes on Russian oil refineries could mean for war with Ukraine

CBC

What continued drone strikes on Russian oil refineries could mean for war with Ukraine

CBC – February 18, 2024

Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz shared a photo of oil tanks burning on Telegram on Feb. 19 after a reported drone attack on a facility in Klintsy, Russia. Analysts say the attacks show Ukraine may have an increased ability to strike targets deeper inside Russia.  (Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz/Telegram/The Associated Press - image credit)
Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz shared a photo of oil tanks burning on Telegram on Feb. 19 after a reported drone attack on a facility in Klintsy, Russia. Analysts say the attacks show Ukraine may have an increased ability to strike targets deeper inside Russia. (Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz/Telegram/The Associated Press – image credit)

Hostile drones have been winding their way across the Russian landscape this winter, striking refineries and related oil and gas infrastructure all the way from the Baltic Sea in the northwest to the Black Sea in the southwest.

Drones attacked both the Ilsky and Afipsky refineries in Russia’s Krasnodar region, east of occupied Crimea, on Feb. 9, less than a week after another refinery in Volgograd, the largest in southern Russia, was hit. Further attacks have struck other refineries and oil depots near the Ukrainian border, as well as much deeper into Russian territory.

Though Ukraine does not typically confirm its actions outside its borders and Russia has not officially acknowledged drones were the cause of these incidents, media reports have identified Kyiv’s hand in the attacks occurring with regularity as Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine nears the two-year mark.

Analysts say the drone attacks are demonstrating that oil and gas targets of economic significance are not out of reach, even far from the front lines of the war.

Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz/Telegram/The Associated Press
Bryansk Gov. Alexander Bogomaz/Telegram/The Associated Press

“This is where strikes are intended to hurt,” said Sergey Radchenko, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He sees a distinction between these types of targets versus strikes that have drawn attention but had less strategic impact.

He says Ukraine has gradually been able to send drones “further and further inside Russia,” and in doing so, may be aiming to make Russia think twice about its actions on the other side of the border.

Russia, oil and revenues

Late U.S. Senator John McCain once derisively described Russia as being “a gas station masquerading as a country” — a jibe underlining the critical importance of oil and gas products to Moscow.

Dmitri Lovetsky/The Associated Press
Dmitri Lovetsky/The Associated Press

Indeed, Russia draws heavily on its resource reserves to support the state. The International Energy Agency says Russia’s oil and gas export revenues accounted for 45 per cent of its federal budget in 2021.

Over the course of the war, as the West capped the price of Russia’s oil, it turned instead to China, India and other markets.

As Radchenko points out, these exports contribute “significantly” to Russia’s earnings, allowing it to use those funds to import goods and support the war effort.

A January attack on a Novatek facility in Ust-Luga halted gas processing operations there for several weeks. The plant processes gas condensate into various fuel products that are exported to customers in Turkey and Asia, according to Reuters.

Sergey Vakulenko, a former strategy executive at Gazprom Neft, a subsidiary of the larger Russian energy firm, believes the Ust-Luga episode may illustrate a bigger problem for Russia than a temporary disruption to production at a single facility.

In a recent analysis published online, Vakulenko reasoned that if small drones can get all the way to Ust-Luga, which is hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, there are some 18 Russian refineries at risk of being targeted, and they account for more than half the country’s refinery production. He’s not the only analyst noticing this concern for Russia’s refineries.

And while the drones being used in these attacks may be small, they can still cause problems.

“With a bit of luck, they can damage not just pipelines, but also compressors, valves, control units, and other pieces of equipment that are tricky to replace because of sanctions,” Vakulenko wrote in the analysis.

The Russian government has taken steps to deal with the problem.

Maxim Starchak, an independent expert on the Russian defence and nuclear industry, says regulations have been put in place to restrict drones from flying close to “the most significant fuel and energy sector facilities” and operators are using electronic warfare systems to defend against drone threats.

But Starchak said Russian energy firms must foot the bill for expenses related to defence of their facilities.

“Moscow will not specifically help,” he said, noting Russian authorities may hold firms accountable for not putting measures in place to protect their facilities.

A familiar threat for Ukraine

On the other side of the border, Ukraine has seen the deadly impact drone strikes can have — including in Kharkiv last weekend.

Sergey Bobok/AFP/Getty Images
Sergey Bobok/AFP/Getty Images

Regional governor Oleh Syniehubov said at least 10 incoming drones were involved in the assault, with eight of the devices shot down — but one hit an oil depot, which then caused a fuel leak. The ensuing fire burned down 15 homes and killed at least seven people.

Ukraine has faced attacks on various forms of infrastructure since the launch of the Russian invasion, including its energy gridport facilities and railway stations.

As Ukraine continues to fight to repel Russian forces from its lands, its military leaders have signalled drones and related technology will be needed to win the war that seems to have no end in sight.

“Only changes and constant improvement of the means and methods of warfare will make it possible to achieve success on this path,” said Col.-Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, the newly minted Ukrainian army chief, in a recent Telegram post.

Cheney urges Johnson to act: Don’t do what Trump and Putin want you to do

Politico

Cheney urges Johnson to act: Don’t do what Trump and Putin want you to do

Kelly Garrity – February 18, 2024

Andy Kropa/Invision/AP

Former Rep. Liz Cheney on Sunday urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to call the House back from its recess and introduce the bill that would send desperately needed aid to Ukraine — even if it means risking his speakership.

“He ought to understand that it is worth it if he has to lose his speakership in order to make sure that freedom survives, in order to make sure that the United States of America continues to play its leadership role in the world,” the Wyoming Republican said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The Senate last week advanced a $95 billion aid package that included roughly $60 billion in aid for Ukraine as it works to fend off Russia’s invasion, a cause Republicans once broadly backed.

But Johnson, who has a razor-thin majority in the House, has been critical of the bill in the face of pressure from former President Donald Trump, and resisted taking it up before he adjourned the House for a two-week recess. “The mandate of national security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid around the world,” he said.

Cheney, who was ousted from her position in the GOP House leadership after refusing to waver in her criticism of Trump following the Jan. 6 insurrection, urged Johnson not to give in to outside pressure.

“He’s going to have to explain to future generations to his kids, to his grandkids whether or not he did what was right, whether or not he was a force for good and aided the cause of freedom, or whether he continued down this path of cowardice and doing what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin wanted him to do,” Cheney told host Jake Tapper, tying their rhetoric together through the death of Putin foe Alexei Navalny.

“When you think about Donald Trump, for example, pledging retribution,” she said, “what Vladimir Putin did to Navalny is what retribution looks like in a country where the leader is not subject to the rule of law, and I think that we have to take Donald Trump very seriously.”

Cheney warns of a ‘Putin wing of the Republican party’

The Hill

Cheney warns of a ‘Putin wing of the Republican party’

Sarah Fortinsky – February 18, 2024

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), an outspoken critic of former President Trump’s, warned of the emergence of a “Putin wing” of the Republican party and stressed the importance of preventing its return to the White House.

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Cheney sharply criticized Trump’s recent comments suggesting he would not defend NATO allies in the wake of an attack from Russia and his recent silence following the death of the anti-corruption, pro-democracy opposition leader in Russia, Alexei Navalny.

“I think that we have to take Donald Trump very seriously,” Cheney said on Sunday. “We have to take seriously the extent to which you have now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party.”

“I believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the West Wing of the White House,” she continued.

In the interview, she did not make any presidential endorsements and said she has not yet decided whether she would enter the race herself. She made clear, however, that she would do whatever she could to prevent Trump’s return to the White House.

“Donald Trump, as you pointed out, said just a few days ago that he had told a NATO ally that he would encourage Putin to do whatever he needed to do, whatever he wanted to do,” Cheney told CNN anchor Jake Tapper.

“He’s basically made clear that, under a Trump administration, the United States is unlikely to keep its NATO commitments. And I think that Republicans who understand the importance of the national security situation who continue to support him are similarly going to be held to account,” she said.

Pressed later about Trump’s NATO comments, Cheney said, “It’s disgraceful. I can’t imagine any other American president of either party since the establishment of NATO saying such a thing. And it’s completely uninformed and ignorant and dangerous.”

Cheney also drew a connection between Trump’s frequent suggestions that he would investigate his political opponents in a second term and Navalny’s death.

“When you think about Donald Trump, for example, pledging retribution – what Vladimir Putin did to Navalny is what retribution looks like in a country where the leader is not subject to the rule of law,” Cheney said.

‘March for democracy’ draws multitudes in Mexico

Politico

‘March for democracy’ draws multitudes in Mexico

Associated Press – February 18, 2024

MEXICO CITY — Thousands of demonstrators cloaked in pink marched through cities in Mexico and abroad on Sunday in what they called a “march for democracy” targeting the country’s ruling party in advance of the country’s June 2 elections.

The demonstrations called by Mexico’s opposition parties advocated for free and fair elections in the Latin American nation and railed against corruption the same day presidential front-runner Claudia Sheinbaum officially registered as a candidate for ruling party Morena.

Sheinbaum is largely seen as a continuation candidate of Mexico’s highly popular populist leader Andrés Manuel López Obrador. He’s adored by many voters who say he bucked the country’s elite parties from power in 2018 and represents the working class.

But the 70-year-old president has also been accused of making moves that endanger the country’s democracy. Last year, the leader slashed funding for the country’s electoral agency, the National Electoral Institute, and weakened oversight of campaign spending, something INE’s head said could “wind up poisoning democracy itself.” The agency’s color, pink, has been used as a symbol by demonstrators.

López Obrador has also attacked journalists in hours-long press briefings, has frequently attacked Mexico’s judiciary and claimed judges are part of a conservative conspiracy against his administration.

In Mexico City on Sunday, thousands of people dressed in pink flocked to the the city’s main plaza roaring “get López out.” Others carried signs reading “the power of the people is greater than the people in power.”

Among the opposition organizations marching were National Civic Front, Yes for Mexico, Citizen Power, Civil Society Mexico, UNE Mexico and United for Mexico.

“Democracy doesn’t solve lack of water, it doesn’t solve hunger, it doesn’t solve a lot of things. But without democracy you can’t solve anything,” said Enrique de la Madrid Cordero, a prominent politician from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in a video posted to social media calling for people to join the protests.

The PRI held uninterrupted power in Mexico for more than 70 years.

Marches were organized in a hundred cities across the country, and in other cities in the United States and Spain.

Still, the president remains highly popular and his ally Sheinbaum appears set to coast easily into the presidency. She leads polls by a whopping 64% over her closest competition, Xóchitl Gálvez, who has polled at 31% of the votes.

López Obrador railed against the protests during is Friday morning press briefing, questioning whether the organizers cared about democracy.

“They are calling the demonstration to defend corruption, they are looking for the return of the corrupt, although they say they care about democracy,” he said.

Presidential greatness is rarely fixed in stone – changing attitudes on racial injustice and leadership qualities lead to dramatic shifts

The Conversation

Presidential greatness is rarely fixed in stone – changing attitudes on racial injustice and leadership qualities lead to dramatic shifts

George R. Goethals, University of Richmond – February 18, 2024

A statue of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, sits in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Historians consistently have given Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, their highest rating because of his leadership during the Civil War. <span>Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images</span>
A statue of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, sits in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Historians consistently have given Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, their highest rating because of his leadership during the Civil War. Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Every American president has landed in the history books. And historians’ assessments of their performance have been generally consistent over time. But some presidents’ rankings have changed as the nation – and historians themselves – reassessed the country’s values and priorities.

Historians have been ranking presidents in surveys since Arthur Schlesinger Sr.’s first such study appeared in Life magazine in 1948. The results of that survey categorized Presidents Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. RooseveltWoodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as “great.”

At the other end of the ranking, Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Warren Harding were labeled “failure.”

There have been numerous surveys ranking presidents since then, including a 1962 survey by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., which showed Jackson dropping into a “near great” category.

Changing views shift rankings

While the surveys point to Americans’ evolving social attitudes, with implications for our electoral politics and governance, they don’t always ask historians the same questions. Some simply ask them to rank presidents. Others ask them to also judge specific aspects of leadership, such as economic policy or international diplomacy.

Despite the relative stability of the ratings across surveys – especially at the top, where Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt consistently hold sway – there have been some dramatic changes. C-SPAN’s four surveys on presidential leadership, for example, show some shifts in historians’ ranking of presidents over time.

Since 2000, the cable network has polled prominent historians every time there has been a change in administrations. So, C-SPAN conducted surveys in 20092017 and 2021 as well.

The surveys offer not only an overall ranking of presidents, but also rankings in each of the following 10 categories: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision and agenda setting, pursuance of equal justice for all, and performance within the context of the times.

While Lincoln has ranked at the top of each survey, the two presidents who served right before him – Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, both sympathetic to slavery – and his immediate successor, white supremacist Andrew Johnson, have consistently ranked at the bottom. Donald Trump debuted in C-SPAN’s 2021 survey near the bottom. He was ranked 41st of 45 presidents.

A suited man, with ear-length hair, sits with his left hand resting on a side table.
Andrew Johnson was Abraham Lincoln’s vice president and successor. As president, he vetoed legislation designed to help African Americans during Reconstruction. The Print Collector/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images
What is a good leader?

As a social psychologist and leadership scholar at the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Leadership Studies, with long-standing interests in presidential leadership, I believe these surveys can be best understood in terms of psychologist Dean Keith Simonton’s model of evaluating presidents.

He maintains that historians generally view leaders, including presidents, positively to the extent that they fit a deeply ingrained image of someone who is strong, active and good. And that image comes to mind when they think of attributes and events linked to a president that suggest he was a good leader. Examples include how long he served, whether he was a war hero and whether he was assassinated, and in that sense, was a martyr.

On the other hand, historians also easily recall scandals, such as Richard Nixon’s Watergate and Harding’s Teapot Dome. These detract from these presidents’ “good” image, as evidenced by Nixon’s and Harding’s rankings of 31st and 37th, respectively, in C-SPAN’s 2021 survey.

Race matters

In recent years, presidents’ positions on race and racism have been important factors in historians’ evaluations of their records. For example, Wilson’s rather startling efforts to segregate federal offices and the military are becoming more widely known as scholars explore that aspect of his presidency.

His actions in that regard may overshadow his international idealism, which favored morality over materialism and has been viewed positively. He is no longer considered one of our “great” presidents. In Schlesinger Sr.’s 1948 survey, he ranked fourth of 29 presidents. But in 2021, historians ranked him 13th of 45 for C-SPAN.

Jackson dropped the most in C-SPAN’s surveys, from 13th in 2000 to 22nd in 2021. His commitment to Indian removal from Southern and Midwestern states, not unique for the time, and the resulting Trail of Tears – the forced and violent relocation of Native Americans from their homelands – are important topics in today’s political discussions.

A suited man stands with a top hat in his right hand as his left hand rests on a side table dressed in a table cloth.
President Grover Cleveland, in office from 1885 to 1889 and 1893 to 1897, opposed efforts to integrate schools or give African Americans, whom he considered inferior to white people, voting rights. Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Several other presidents who lost ground, including James PolkZachary TaylorRutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland, were associated with efforts to extend slavery or with failure to protect African Americans following Reconstruction.

Then there is the case of Grant. Ranked at the bottom as a failure in the mid-20th century, he had the largest ranking change of any president in the C-SPAN surveys. He jumped 13 places from 33rd in 2000 to 20th in 2021. He had already moved up from second-to-last place in the 1948 and 1962 Schlesinger surveys to somewhere in the bottom quartile in 2000, to a position in 2021 where more presidents ranked worse than he did.

The 2021 C-SPAN survey ranks Grant sixth on “pursued equal justice for all,” behind only Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Given the centrality of equal justice, which may overshadow whatever connection Grant may have had to scandals in his administration, such as Crédit Mobilier and the Whiskey Ring, Grant rises in historians’ overall evaluation.

Moral authority

This all suggests historians have quite simple ways of evaluating presidents. We have an image of the ideal leader. Just a few pieces of information relating to that ideal make a big difference in whether we view presidents as fitting or not fitting that image. This is particularly true of our perception of how good they were. Presidents’ moral commitments speak loudly to whether or not we view them as good.

Interestingly, on the quality of “moral authority” in the C-SPAN surveys from 2000 to 2021, Grant’s ranking rose 14 rungs, from 31st to 17th, even more than it did on “pursued equal justice for all,” where it rose 12 rungs, from 18th to sixth. Wilson and Jackson dropped 13 and 18 places, respectively, on “moral authority.”

Clearly, moral judgments loom large in historians’ assessments of presidential leadership.

A bearded man, dressed in a suit, sits with his right leg crossed over his left. His left hand rests on a book, atop a side table.
Ulysses S. Grant, once ranked poorly by historians, now gets high marks. His advocacy for African American voting rights stands out among his efforts for the freedmen during Reconstruction. Print Collector/Hulton Archive via Getty Images