Social Items

TPQ
Dixie Elliot ✊Writing in March after the London civil case against Gerry Adams.


The arrogant disdain Gerry Adams has shown towards The Dark can be matched only by that shown by Donald Trump towards anyone who would dare question him. 

During his evidence, he was questioned repeatedly on various statements and interviews given by Mr Hughes, also known as ‘The Dark’, who was the former officer commanding of the Belfast brigade of the IRA and the leader of the 1980 hunger strike. Mr Hughes died in 2008. 

At one point, Mr Adams called Mr Hughes a “disappointment” and a “sorry figure who was alcohol dependent”. 

However, he said he still retained a fondness for the senior republican, whom he was in prison with in the 1970s in Long Kesh. “I also had, and still have, that photograph,” said Mr Adams, when questioned over the image of him alongside Mr Hughes in Long Kesh. 

“Brendan, disappointingly, was against the Sinn Fein strategy, the peace process, and sided with those who formed anti-peace process armed groups.
(He) said publicly on occasions that I should be shot, and was quoted once that he would indeed shoot me himself. I see all of that in the context of what he endured during his H-Block imprisonment and the hunger strikes.
He ended up as a sorry figure who was alcohol dependent, and I still retain a fondness for him. 
Even though he was a disappointment, he was also a victim of what was happening in our country."

Shortly after Mr Adams’ comments were reported, Mr Hughes’ daughter, Josephine Hughes, took to social media to hit out at the former West Belfast MP. “Gerry I hope my father’s face haunts you the rest of your days, to stand in a British court and basically call my father a liar. I hope everyone sees through you like my daddy did. I couldn’t be prouder of my daddy,” she wrote, and shared the photograph of Mr Adams and Mr Hughes in Long Kesh..."  

There's a lot I could write about the IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes, who always led from the front, and Gerry Adams who led the IRA to defeat, but I'll stick to one thing which is of importance if we are to understand the lengths Adams has gone to try and smear the name of Brendan. In a 2009 interview with the Irish News Adams said:

. . . In December 1980 the republican leadership on the outside was in contact with the British who claimed they were interested in a settlement. But before a document outlining a new regime arrived in the jail the hunger strike was called off by Brendan Hughes to save the life of the late Sean McKenna. The British, or sections of them, interpreted this as weakness . . . 

Adams knew how that hunger strike ended from the moment he read the comm sent out to him by Bobby Sands, which he had written on the night it ended. In that comm Bobby mentioned nothing about any document. He didn't say that 'The Dark had fucked up,' (as Laurence McKeown claimed Bobby had said in the documentary 66 Days.) He didn't say that The Dark had been outmanoeuvred by the British. More importantly he made no mention of The Dark calling off the hunger strike to save the life of Sean McKenna. (Although that was correct in that he knew if he let Sean die it would have been for nothing as that hunger strike was falling apart anyway)

I recently came across this comm when searching through Bobby's biography, Nothing But An Unfinished Song for something else. Bobby's own words tears apart the the false narrative put out there by Adams and Morrison, the intention of which was to blame The Dark for the second Hunger strike, had he let Sean die then there would have been no second hunger strike. 

This false narrative became fact in the minds of many Republicans, some who should know better, and it is still being spread to this day. Bobby wrote in that comm to Adams:

I don't believe we can achieve our aims or recoup our losses in the light of what has occurred, I mean not only the boys breaking but perhaps our desperate attempts to salvage something.

Bobby was referring to that hunger strike falling apart as Sean McKenna was nearly dead. It was for that reason that he changed tactics in the second hunger strike so that it was staggered out instead of a single group going on it together. He would go first as he knew that the British would let men die and he would be the first to do so. Bobby's comm to Adams:



Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.
Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

The Trumpian Arrogance Of Gerry Adams

People And Nature ☭ Written by  Simon Pirani.


Russia’s political prisoners are “outcasts in their own land,” Sergei Dudchenko, a biker tortured and framed by the security services, told his trial judges this month before being handed a seven-year prison sentence.

Those arrested for opposing the war on Ukraine had “fewer rights than a stray dog, and on top of that they bear the humiliating brand of ‘terrorist’ – and all this for their active civic stance.”

Sergei Dudchenko. Photo: Mediazona / social media

Dudchenko and his friend Nikolai Murnev, who received the same sentence, were arrested with others in October 2022 in Stavropol, southern Russia.

While in detention on minor charges (petty hooliganism and drug possession) they were brutally tortured. A case was put together that they were preparing a “terrorist act” — setting fire to a military recruitment office. Another of the group died in pre-trial detention, one fled the country and one turned state’s witness.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 “split life into before and after, it divided the world into black and white”, Dudchenko told the court.

Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Turkmens, Jews and others had “paid an unimaginable price” to resist Nazism in World War II. How, decades later, could “so much hatred and anger” be directed against Ukraine?

Within days of the invasion, Dudchenko made a solo protest – a motorbike ride with the Ukrainian flag. In court, four years later, he said: “When I sped along, with the banner of the oppressed streaming behind me, past an astonished crowd of militarists, I felt the human in me come into bloom.”

Dudchenko is one of dozens of wartime protesters who have exercised one of the few constitutional rights that remains accessible: to say a “final word” before sentencing.

Some who exercise this right, like Dudchenko, are citizens whose anti-war protest was their first political action. Some, like the powerlifting champion Yulia Lemeshchenko, are Russians who joined the Ukrainian armed forces. She told her trial, in November last year: “I am not a citizen of the country for which I decided to fight, but for me, Ukraine is home.”

Some are political activists, like Anna Arkhipova, one of six members of the Vesna protest network sentenced at a show trial in St Petersburg last month. “When the war began, it was my conscience that would not let me stand idly by”, she stated.

Try Me For Treason: anti-war protesters’ speeches in Russian courts, an English-language film featuring readings of speeches, was released on YouTube yesterday. (Watch it here.)

The title comes from a speech by Andrei Trofimov, who is serving ten years for pro-Ukrainian statements on social media — plus three for ending his “final word” to a closed court by saying: “Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a dickhead.”

At the second trial, before getting the three extra years, Trofimov scorned the charges of “discrediting the armed forces” and “justifying terrorism”, and invited prosecutors to charge him for deserting to Ukraine’s side. “Try me for treason. I betrayed your deranged state”, he told the judges.

The fifty-minute documentary was put together on a zero budget by a group of actors in the UK, to make the Russian anti-war movement more visible internationally.

Maya Willcocks, the actor-producer who reads a speech by Darya Kozyreva, said:

These are not well-known political leaders, they are people who have taken a stand against the state. I felt it was very important to have their words translated into English and out there for people to hear – to send the message that occupation is a crime, whether in Palestine or in Ukraine.

Tony Aldis, the videographer, said: 

What I found compelling about these stories is that the beginning of any fightback is very often when people stand up against an apparently unassailable power.
These people are not organised. It’s a raw push against something that they don’t believe they can beat, but they think they have to take a stand anyway, in solidarity with someone else who is being attacked and murdered.
That idea is very important to us in the west, given what we face here in the UK, and in the USA, with the rise of the far right.

As one of a small group of translators that helped prisoner support groups, I worked on the script, and on the book Voices Against Putin’s War from which it derived.

Having travelled to Russia and Ukraine since Soviet times, I was struck by the political depth and heterogeneity of anti-war protest, even as it is constrained by state terror to individual acts of defiance.

Those punished with long sentences range from pacifists who quote Tolstoy, to Soviet-era dissidents who ooze contempt for the judges and Russians who go out of their way to justify Ukraine’s defensive military action.

It would be easy – and stupid – to dismiss the “final words” as atomised cries into a dark authoritarian night. Rarely are they pleas to judges or government; more often, they are consciously crafted appeals to society.

The “last words” often try to situate those who say them historically. Sergei Dudchenko, born in 1987, said in court that “people like us will always keep emerging, to pick up the fallen banner of good and reason” … and recalled the seven protesters arrested on Red Square in 1968 for opposing the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Noteworthy, too, is the infrastructure of support for political prisoners, comprising established human rights organisations such as Memorial: Support Political Prisoners, OVD-Info and Mediazona, newly-formed groups such as Fires of Freedom and Solidarity Zone, a web site featuring “last words” going back to the 1950s, and Telegram groups caring for individual prisoners.

From California to the Caucasus, dozens of informal groups of Russians in exile gather and write letters to prisoners.

All these organisations support lawyers and activists in Russia who visit prisoners, send parcels and support relatives – themselves now risky activities.

Ukrainian human rights groups including Zmina, the Crimea Human Rights Group and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group have a challenge of a different order, in supporting Ukrainian civilian prisoners in Russian jails.

Bohdan Ziza, who features in our film, has family and friends who know where he is. (He is serving fifteen years for throwing blue and yellow paint (the colours of the Ukrainian flag), and a petrol bomb that was quickly extinguished by a security guard, at a municipal council office in Crimea.) So do many Crimean Tatar activists victimised by Russia’s racist, Islamophobic crackdown in the peninsula in 2017–19.

But hundreds, possibly thousands of Ukrainians are at unknown locations in Russia’s 21st-century gulag.

The Ukrainian government today counts 90,000 people as “missing”: many are soldiers, imprisoned or killed, but at least 16,000 are civilians, according to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Many are victims of abductions, widespread in the territories occupied by Russia.

Ukrainian lawyers and human rights activists have compiled a register of more than 5,000 “enforced disappearances”, in addition to the widely-publicized cases of kidnapped children.

Long prison sentences, imposed with little or no pretence of legal procedure, and savage torture – especially of those suspected of sympathising with Ukrainian resistance – are ubiquitous in the occupied territories. The indefatigable Kharkiv human-rights group’s website reports a stream of life-destroying sentences for peaceful activities deemed dissident.

Doing all we can to provide practical support for political prisoners, and engaging with their compelling articulations of their motives, is central to international solidarity.

☭ Republished from Jacobin, with thanks

☭ Watch Try Me For Treason here

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Russia’s Anti-War Prisoners 🪶Outcasts In Their Own Country

Dr John Coulter ✍ June is traditionally the month for commemorations for the famous D-Day landings in Normandy in 1944 which heralded the end of Hitler’s Nazi Third Reich.

But another political D-Day will take place next month with the high profile Makerfield Westminster by-election, which could eventually decide the future, not just of current PM Keir Starmer, but also of the entire Labour Government.

Flying the red flag for Labour is the popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, with many pundits suggesting winning Makerfield would be a convenient stepping stone to get Red Andy back into the House of Commons so that he can launch a leadership bid against Starmer.

But why the nickname Red Andy? His campaign team are branding him as being on the so-called Soft Left of Labour. Right-wing political commentators like myself view Burnham as being on the Hard Left of the party; he’s just very clever - unlike a former Labour boss Jeremy Corbyn - at hiding his extreme socialist beliefs.

However, all this talk of leadership plots and coups may be a tad premature. Red Andy is not 100 per cent guaranteed of winning the Makerfield seat!

The constituency - as we approach the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum - is viewed as a solidly ‘Leave’ region, as demonstrated by the surge in the anti-EU Reform UK vote in the local government elections earlier this month.

If Red Andy wants to ‘do a King Canute’ and hold back the Reform party tide, he will have to distance himself from the political gossip that Labour wants to renegotiate a closer post-Brexit relationship with the EU at the least; at worst, wants to hold another referendum aimed at getting the UK to rejoin the EU.

That sort of political chit-chat will not sit well with the pro-Brexit voters in Makerfield and could hand the Commons seat to Reform on a silver platter. Like the fallers at the first fence at the famous Grand National horse race, Red Andy could potentially face the embarrassment of not becoming an MP and being pipped at the post by a buoyant Nigel Farage party.

Likewise, we should not assume that a Red Andy victory in Makerfield will automatically signal the end of the Starter regime in 10 Downing Street. Labour, like the Ulster Unionist Party in 1998 in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement, is a party at war with itself.

Given the almost apocalyptic results in mainland Britain in May’s elections, many Labour MPs could be looking over their shoulders at what a potential General Election could hold for them.

Would a change of PM followed by a snap General Election be enough to hold their seats rather than waiting a couple of years until the present mandate ends?

Would there be those in the Starmer camp, who when facing the prospect of certain defeat in a leadership election, could trigger a situation where the country is instead sent back to the polls in the General Election rather than a simple transition of power within Labour in Downing Street?

If May’s election results were replicated in a General Election within the next 12 months, for example, the impressive current Labour majority would politically evaporate and Nigel Farage would be handed the keys of 10 Downing Street.

Is the present Labour civil war so bitter that some would rather see Farage in power rather than allow Red Andy to succeed Starmer? And as for Northern Ireland, how would unionism, nationalism and others react to a Red Andy-led Labour Government?

Unlike the Conservatives, Labour has consistently refused to contest elections in Northern Ireland, preferring instead to see the moderate nationalist SDLP as its sister party. But how many working class Unionist socialists would actually vote for the SDLP?

With some predictions saying the next General Election could throw up a hung parliament, and with 18 seats up for grabs in Northern Ireland, could a Red Andy administration be tempted to cast aside Labour’s refusal to run candidates and decide to go head to head with Ulster-based parties?

After all, Sinn Fein refuses to take its seats in Westminster, so potentially there’s half a dozen seats up for grabs for Labour.

And with Northern Ireland being left behind the rest of the UK in the Brexit outcome, could a more pro-EU Red Andy Government get a better deal from Brussels for the Province, given that Northern Ireland voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum?

The Burnham camp will also have to deal with how it sees off the threat from the Green Party, which also made significant gains in the mainland Britain elections. The Greens’ decision to portray themselves as the protest party of the Left worked tactically with many voters.

At the moment, Makerfield is shaping up to be a political two-horse race between Red Andy and Reform UK. But there can only be one winner. And that winner could ultimately decide who becomes, or remains, PM.

If Sir Keir had a vote in Makerfield, I wonder in the privacy of the voting booth, who he could cast his vote tactically for? If I was a Starmerite, the last person I’d want in the Commons is Red Andy!
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Can Red Andy Really Stop The Reform Surge?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty Two

 

A Morning Thought @ 3156

Cam Ogie ✍ Britain and the EU frequently portray Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping as symbols of authoritarianism, aggression and contempt for democratic values. 

There is substantial evidence supporting many criticisms directed at those leaders. Russia has imprisoned opposition figures, restricted independent journalism and invaded Ukraine in violation of international law. Russian teams were rapidly suspended from international sport following the invasion.

Yet the moral certainty projected by Britain and the EU begins to fracture when their own actions — and those of their allies — are judged by the same standards. The issue is not whether Putin, Xi or Trump deserve criticism. The issue is whether Britain and Europe apply their proclaimed principles consistently. Increasingly, the evidence suggests they do not.

The treatment of journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey exposed this contradiction within Britain itself. The two Northern Irish investigative journalists were arrested after producing No Stone Unturned, a documentary examining alleged collusion surrounding the Loughinisland massacre. Their homes and offices were raided by police. An Investigatory Powers Tribunal later ruled that police surveillance of the journalists had been unlawful.

Britain cannot convincingly condemn Russia or China for suppressing dissent while elements of its own state apparatus have targeted journalists investigating alleged state wrongdoing.

That perception of selective enforcement deepened further with the British government’s treatment of Palestine Action. In 2025, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper moved to proscribe the organisation under terrorism legislation, arguing that its activities justified designation as a terrorist group. Critics, including civil-liberties organisations and legal experts, warned that the move blurred the distinction between violent terrorism and political direct action.

In 2026, the UK High Court ruled that the proscription of Palestine Action had been unlawful and disproportionate, concluding that the government had failed to apply legal standards consistently and that the ban represented a serious interference with freedom of speech and assembly.

For critics, the ruling reinforced the perception that Britain increasingly applies the language of extremism and counterterrorism selectively and politically. Governments that condemn authoritarian states for suppressing dissent were themselves attempting to criminalise support for a domestic protest movement opposing British arms sales and Israeli military actions in Gaza. The contradiction was difficult to ignore. Britain condemned Russia and China for restricting political expression yet attempted to use some of the most severe powers available under British law against activists challenging Britain’s strategic relationship with Israel.

Britain’s moral authority is weakened further by its long resistance to accountability for historic abuses in Kenya and Northern Ireland. In Kenya, the British government spent decades resisting compensation claims relating to torture and abuse during the Mau Mau uprising before eventually settling with victims after previously undisclosed colonial files emerged.

In Northern Ireland, investigations and court rulings repeatedly identified evidence of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces alongside obstruction and investigative failures. Critics argue that the British state continues to prioritise institutional protection over accountability. That criticism intensified with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which sought to restrict prosecutions and inquests linked to Troubles-era killings while offering conditional immunity to participants in the conflict. Parts of the legislation were later ruled incompatible with human-rights law.

The same selective morality is evident in Britain and Europe’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman. A declassified United States intelligence assessment concluded that the Crown Prince approved an operation to capture or kill journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Yet despite the global outrage surrounding Khashoggi’s murder, Britain and many European governments continued arms sales, defence cooperation and strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia. The same governments that speak passionately about press freedom and human rights when condemning Russia or China adopted a far more restrained tone when dealing with an allied state central to Western security and economic interests. Critics argue that this demonstrated that geopolitical alliances and arms contracts outweighed proclaimed moral principles.

The same selective morality is evident in Britain and Europe’s relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government. Western leaders routinely condemn aggressive nationalism, inflammatory rhetoric and collective punishment when associated with rival powers, yet many continue to support Netanyahu’s government despite repeated warnings from human-rights organisations, UN experts and international courts regarding Israeli conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Members of Netanyahu’s cabinet have used extreme language about Palestinians that would provoke outrage if spoken by officials from Russia, Iran or China. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated in 2023 that the Palestinian town of Huwara should be “wiped out.” National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly advocated hardline measures against Palestinians and was previously convicted in Israel for incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organisation.

Meanwhile, violence and displacement in the West Bank have intensified. The United Nations and major human-rights organisations have documented repeated killings of Palestinians, settler violence, expansion of settlements considered illegal under international law, and the demolition or seizure of Palestinian homes and land.

Critics argue that if another state engaged in comparable settlement expansion, population displacement and demographic engineering, Britain and the EU would likely describe it as annexation, ethnic persecution or even ethnic cleansing. When Myanmar carried out military operations against the Rohingya people involving village destruction, forced displacement and mass expulsions, Western governments condemned the actions as ethnic cleansing and imposed sanctions. When China was accused of mass detention, cultural repression and coercive assimilation policies against the Uyghurs, Britain, the EU and the United States described the actions as crimes against humanity, with some governments and legislatures referring to genocide.

Similar moral language was used regarding the violence in East Timor following the Indonesian occupation and the destruction carried out by pro-Indonesian militias after the 1999 independence referendum. Western governments condemned the killings, displacement and devastation, eventually supporting international intervention and accountability measures. Yet critics note that Britain and other Western states maintained diplomatic and military relations with Indonesia for years during the occupation, including periods of arms exports and defence cooperation despite longstanding allegations of abuses in East Timor.

Likewise, during the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009, the large-scale killing of Tamil people civilians prompted allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity from the United Nations and human-rights organisations, leading Britain and European states to demand investigations and accountability from Sri Lanka. However, critics argue that Western governments largely maintained normal diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka after the war and that international pressure never approached the scale of sanctions and isolation imposed on states viewed as strategic adversaries.

Despite this, Britain has maintained diplomatic, military and economic cooperation with Israel. Senior Israeli figures continued to be welcomed in London even amid growing allegations of war crimes in Gaza. Critics pointed particularly to the reception given to Israeli President Isaac Herzog by Downing Street while Gaza was under sustained bombardment and humanitarian catastrophe deepened. Opponents argued that officials associated with policies under international investigation should have faced diplomatic isolation rather than ceremonial welcomes.

The genocide issue must be stated carefully. The International Court of Justice has not issued a final ruling determining that Israel has committed genocide. However, the Court found South Africa’s case plausible enough to impose provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent genocidal acts and improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Israel strongly denies genocide allegations and argues that its operations are acts of self-defence following the Hamas attacks of October 7.

Yet despite the severity of the allegations and mounting civilian casualties, the EU refused to suspend its Association Agreement with Israel despite calls from some member states and human-rights groups to review the agreement under its human-rights clauses. Economic and diplomatic ties remained largely intact.

Germany in particular maintained some of the strongest support for Israel throughout the conflict. Chancellor Olaf Scholz repeatedly reaffirmed that Israel’s security formed part of Germany’s “Staatsräson” — a core national responsibility rooted in the legacy of the Holocaust. Critics argue that Germany therefore applies a very different standard to Israel than it applies to Russia in Ukraine.

Britain’s position regarding Israel, Gaza and the broader confrontation involving Iran further illustrates this contradiction. British governments frequently portray themselves as restrained or neutral actors seeking de-escalation in the Middle East, yet Britain remains deeply integrated into American and Israeli military strategy in the region.

Britain allows the United States to operate from British-controlled bases such as RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and has historically provided logistical and operational support for American military actions in the Middle East. During the 2003 Iraq War — regarded by many legal scholars, diplomats and critics as illegal because of the absence of explicit UN Security Council authorisation — Britain presented itself as acting in defence of international security while simultaneously participating directly in regime-change warfare. The Chilcot Inquiry later heavily criticised the basis upon which Britain entered the Iraq War.

Critics argue that Britain continues the same pattern today regarding Israel and Iran: publicly presenting itself as cautious and balanced while privately enabling military operations through intelligence sharing, arms exports, logistical cooperation and diplomatic cover. Britain has continued approving military export licences to Israel and maintaining close security cooperation even while publicly calling for restraint and humanitarian protection.

This allows Britain to occupy two contradictory positions simultaneously. Domestically and diplomatically, it presents itself as a neutral actor seeking peace. In practice, however, it continues to facilitate and support one side militarily and strategically. Critics argue that neutrality becomes meaningless when one continues supplying intelligence, military components, diplomatic protection and access to strategic bases.

The contrast with Russia is impossible to ignore. Russia was subjected to sweeping sanctions, sporting exclusion, cultural boycotts and near-total diplomatic isolation within weeks of invading Ukraine. Israel, despite ongoing investigations, allegations of war crimes, mounting civilian casualties and immense destruction in Gaza, continues to receive diplomatic protection, military cooperation and preferential trade arrangements from many of the same governments presenting themselves as defenders of a rules-based international order.

When Russia bombs civilian areas, it is described as barbarism, collective punishment and possible war crimes. Western leaders rightly condemn attacks on civilian infrastructure and the deaths of non-combatants in Ukraine. Yet when Israel devastates Gaza, destroys civilian neighbourhoods and causes mass civilian casualties, many of those same leaders retreat into the language of “Israel’s right to defend itself.”

The inconsistency is not confined to Israel. Russia has repeatedly been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity for attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine. Yet when Ukrainian strikes hit civilian areas inside Russia — including attacks reported on apartment buildings, border towns or civilian infrastructure — Western reaction is often muted, qualified or framed as part of Ukraine’s legitimate military resistance rather than through the same moral and legal language applied to Russia. Critics argue that civilian deaths are either unacceptable in principle or they are not; their moral status should not depend solely upon which side carried out the strike or whether the government responsible is allied with the West.

That selective outrage creates the perception that international law is being applied politically rather than universally. Civilian suffering committed by adversaries is elevated into evidence of barbarism, while similar suffering caused by allies is softened through language, context and strategic justification.

This is the central hypocrisy of modern Western foreign policy. Britain and the EU do not consistently oppose repression, unlawful killings, collective punishment or attacks on civilians as universal principles. Rather, those principles are applied selectively depending upon whether the state committing the act is an ally or an adversary.

When China suppresses dissent, it is authoritarianism. When Britain obstructs investigations into abuses committed by its own forces in Northern Ireland or Kenya, it becomes “reconciliation” or “drawing a line under the past.”

When Putin uses nationalism and militarised rhetoric, he is condemned as dangerous. When members of Netanyahu’s cabinet use dehumanising language about Palestinians while settlements expand across occupied territory, Britain and Europe largely continue diplomatic business as usual.

When adversaries violate international law, sanctions and isolation quickly follow. When allies are accused of comparable violations, strategic interests, military alliances and trade relationships suddenly override moral principle.

None of this absolves Putin, Xi or Trump of criticism. But it does expose the fiction that Britain and the EU occupy a uniquely virtuous moral position. Their foreign policy, like that of every major power, is shaped less by universal principles than by strategic interests, alliances and selective morality.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

The Hypocrisy of Western Moral Superiority 🪶 The Hague for Thee, Handshakes for Me

Ukraine Solidarity Group ✊ A Digest of News from Ukrainian Sources ⚔ 17-May-2026.

In this week’s bulletin

⬤ More evidence of Russian torture and war crimes.
⬤ New report on the criminalisation of life under Russia’s occupation.
⬤ New UN report on forcible transfer and forced displacement.
⬤ The plight of Russian prisoners.

News from the territories occupied by Russia

Mystery ‘treason’ charges against abducted 63-year-old Oleksandr Osadchy for supporting Ukraine in occupied Crimea (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 15th)

Russia passes effective life sentence against 61-year-old Crimean for a video of zero interest (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 14th)

Valeriy Vakulenko sentenced to 18 years for destroying a Russian invaders' tank in March 2022 (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 12th)

Weekly update on the situation in occupied Crimea (Crimea Platform, May 12th)

News from the front

Putin launches massive attacks after signalling war’s end (Counteroffensive, May 14th)

Ukrainian drones crashing in Lativia trigger a government crisis as the nation’s defense minister resigns (Meduza, May 12th)

News from Ukraine

The Ukrainian Parliament Adopts an Appeal on the International Recognition of the Crimean Tatar Genocide (Crimea Platform, May 14th)

300 people protested against the draft of the new Ukrainian Civil Code (Facebook, May 11th)

Report: Ukraine proposes splitting military recruitment offices, setting fixed service terms (Meduza, May 11th)

Boy versus Russian drone (Washington Post, May 2026)

War-related news from Russia

Russia’s Antiwar Prisoners Are Outcasts in Their Own Land (Jacobin, May 16th)

Russia’s biggest nationalist group is funded by a pro-Kremlin analyst and a billionaire linked to the son of a former FSB chief, BBC investigation finds (Meduza, May 15th)

Brutal raid on woman's birthday party highlights rise of Russian vigilante group (BBC, May 15th)

“Day and night I am tormented by my own powerlessness”. Human rights activist Nina Litvinova, 80, has taken her own life over the war and the plight of political prisoners (Mediazona, May 15th)

The conservative turn of Russian rap (Posle Media, May 13th)

Russian director Alexander Sokurov withdraws from Venice Biennale after activists’ open letter calls his participation a staged performance (Meduza, May 11th)

Analysis and comment

The tale of Yermak: how Zelensky’s former right-hand man ended up under arrest on corruption charges (The Insider, May 16th)

The Cards (Russian Reader, May 16th)

How the “methane” reform could help Ukraine move closer to EU and generate revenue (Razom We Stand, May 15th)

Kremlin-style colonialism: Russian propaganda is actively preparing Africans for military service in Ukraine (The Insider, May 15th)

Taxes, costly credit, and labor shortages: Why private businesses in Russia are shutting down en masse (The Insider, May 14th)

Improving the Social Protection Reform Implementation in Hromadas of Ukraine: Cedos Launches a New Project (Cedos, May 14th)

Digital threats and Russian disinformation: ZMINA highlighted challenges facing civil society within the OSCE framework in Vienna (Zmina, May 13th)

Russia remains the greatest threat: ZMINA highlighted Ukrainian civil society at the OSCE SHDM in Vienna ((Zmina, May 12th)

Strait to stagnation: Why not even soaring oil prices can offset the decline of the Russian economy (The Insider, May 11th)

Anatomy of a purge: Cleanup at the Ministry of Defense and the future of Putinism (Russian election Monitor, May 11th)

Mindich, Denmark, nationalisation – and US$7 billion: we unpack the main controversies surrounding Fire Point (Ukrainska Pravda, May 7th)

The main problem with Ukraine's corruption prevention watchdog (Kyiv Independent, May 4th)

Four years of “prevention”. What problems remain in the practice of holding individuals accountable for collaborative activity in 2025? (Zmina, April 2026)

Research of human rights abuses

France arrests pro-Russian militant for war crimes over torture of Ukrainian hostages at Izolyatsia prison in occupied Donetsk (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 15th)

In Brussels, the Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children presented new mechanisms reflecting the civil society statement (Zmina, May 14th)

Help to #FreeIrynaHorobtsova - seized by the Russians on her birthday, sentenced to 10.5 years for Ukrainian patriotism (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 13th)

Yevhen Zakharov: ‘In no country have I seen such an awareness and vocal support for Ukraine as in Sweden’ (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 12th)

Handing over lists of political prisoners, meetings with officials and the Crimean Tatar diaspora: outcomes of ZMINA’s visit to Türkiye (Zmina, May 11th)

ECHR orders Russia to pay compensation to Crimean Tatars arrested and prosecuted for peaceful protest (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 11th)

Only one Mother’s Day wish after almost 9 years of torture – Free my son, Victor Dzytsiuk! (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 11th)

Documenting war crimes and supporting victims: human rights defenders meet with British official Alex Davies-Jones (Zmina, May 11th)

ZMINA at United for Justice: the accountability system for international crimes requires a comprehensive policy approach (Zmina, May 8th)

Forced displacement from territory of Ukraine occupied by the Russian Federation: forcible transfer and deportation, barriers to return, and the rights of internally displaced persons, 24 February 2022 – 31 December 2025 20 March (UNHCHR, May 2026)

International Solidarity

Vestochka (A Way to Write Letters to Russian Political Prisoners) (Russian Reader, May 14th)

Upcoming events

USC meeting: Truth Under Siege: How Russian Disinformation Fuels the Far Right

Wednesday 20th May, 7:30pm Register here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/how-russian-disinformation-fuels-the-far-right-and-how-we-can-fight-back-tickets-1989210067861 Chair: John McDonnell MP. Speakers: Steve Lacey – Researcher and analyst specialising in far‑right movements, populism, and Russian disinformation. Thomas Brayford – Activist and commentator active in Ukraine solidarity campaigning and political affairs. Sian Norris – Writer and investigative journalist covering far‑right extremism, gender politics, and the war on Ukraine. Yuliia Bond – Ukrainian refugee and community campaigner advocating for displaced people and solidarity with Ukraine.

Voices Against Putin's War: An Evening in Solidarity with Ukraine

Tuesday, 26th May 2026 : 19:00 - 20:15, Lighthouse Bookshop, 43-45 West Nicolson Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DB. More information here.

Voices Against Putin's War with Dr Simon Pirani & Fellow Readers | 27th May @ 7pm More details here.

🔴This bulletin is put together by labour movement activists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance. More information at Ukraine Information Group.

We are also on twitter. Our aim is to circulate information in English that to the best of our knowledge is reliable. If you have something you think we should include, please send it to 2U022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.


We are now on Facebook and Substack! Please subscribe and tell friends. Better still, people can email us at 2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com, and we’ll send them the bulletin direct every Monday. The full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine is going into its third year: we’ll keep information and analysis coming, for as long as it takes.

The bulletin is also stored on line here.

To receive the bulletin regularly, send your email to:
2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.
To stop it, please reply with the word “STOP” in the subject field.

News From Ukraine 💣 Bulletin 196

National Independent Republican Commemoration 🎤 to be will be held this weekend.

Date: 7-June-2005

Time: 2pm.

Venue: Bodenstown.

Assembly Point: Sallins, Co Kildare.

Chair: John Crawley.

Speaker: Ruan O'Donnell.

Main Speaker: Brian Arthurs.


Wolfe Tone Commemoration 2026

The Independent ðŸ“° Written by Andrew Feinberg.

Trump has never won California’s electoral votes but nonetheless insists that his losses in the state are due to elections fraud

President Donald Trump on Wednesday repeated his easily disprovable claim to have won California’s electoral votes as he suggested that a Republican ex-reality television star running for mayor of Los Angeles could have trouble winning because of “dishonest” elections in the Golden State.

Trump made the bizarre comments to reporters before boarding Air Force One en route to Connecticut and a planned commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Asked about GOP mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, Trump said he’d like to see the former The Hills star “do well” and called him “a character” and a “big MAGA person” before pivoting to unsubstantiated accusations about California’s elections.

“if you have a rigged vote out there, that's the problem. The votes are rigged. You have a really rigged vote in California. You have all the mail in ballots, everything else. Very hard to win because the elections are very dishonest,” he said.

'If we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes, I would have won California . . . '

Continue @ The Independent.

Trump Calls On Jesus Christ To ‘Come Down And Count The Votes’ In Rigged-Election Rant Over Reality Star’s Run For Office

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Kyle Mantyla.

During Friday's episode of her "Jenna Ellis In The Morning" radio program, former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis declared that only Christians are entitled to religious freedom in the United States.

In 2020, Ellis was plucked from obscurity to serve as an attorney for President Donald Trump as he fought to overturn the results of the presidential election. As a result of her efforts, Ellis found herself facing a variety of legal troubles and saw her law license suspended.

Now, Ellis hosts a morning radio program on American Family Radio, where she interviews antisemitic figures like British cleric Calvin Robinson, who was stripped of his license to serve as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church after he closed out his remarks at the National Pro-Life Summit in 2025 by delivering a Nazi-like salute.

Ellis interviewed Robinson about his forthcoming book "The Silent Jihad: Exposing The Islamification Of The West," which is being published by an imprint run by racist, antisemitic, and deeply misogynistic theocratic fascist Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbon. During the conversation, Ellis insisted that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom only applies to Christians.

Continue @ RWW.

Jenna Ellis Says Religious Freedom Only Applies To Christians

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)