View previous stories
	The use of drones to target civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law by UN News, OHCHR, agencies   May 2025   The use of drones to target civilians is a violation of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law. (UN News)   Russian drone attacks against civilians in the Kherson region of Ukraine constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes, independent UN-appointed human rights investigators have concluded in a new report.   “Russian armed forces have committed the crimes against humanity of murder and the war crimes of attacking civilians, through a months-long pattern of drone attacks targeting civilians on the right bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Province,” the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine said.   Attacks have been carried out since July 2024 in Kherson city and 16 localities stretching over more than 100 kilometres in riverfront areas under Ukrainian Government control.   They are ongoing and nearly 150 civilians have been killed and hundreds more injured to date, according to official sources.   “The recurrence of these attacks for over 10 months, against multiple civilian targets and in a wide geographic area, demonstrates that they are widespread and systematic and have been planned and organised, requiring the mobilisation and allocation of necessary resources,” the report said.   The Commission examined over 300 publicly available videos of attacks and over 600 text posts on Telegram channels and, where possible, identified victims. Over 90 residents from affected areas were interviewed, including victims, witnesses, local authorities and medical personnel.   Civilians were targeted “in various circumstances, mainly when they were outdoors, both on foot or while using any type of vehicles” the report said. Most victims were men, but women and children also were affected.   A woman from Poniativka village recounted that in September 2024, she was walking home with her husband and suddenly heard a drone. It was already above their heads and immediately dropped an explosive, giving them no time to seek shelter. Both were injured.   “My husband died in my arms, bleeding to death, because the ambulance did not arrive on time. I tried to stop the bleeding with a T-shirt, but it was not enough,” she said.   Russian forces mostly used civilian drones that are widely commercially available, which were then modified.   “The weaponized versions of these drones allow their operators, via an embedded camera, to remotely track, aim, and drop explosives on targets. They can return to their point of origin to be reused,” the report said.   “Occasionally, perpetrators employed suicide drones that are also equipped with cameras but that explode upon impact on their targets.”   Hundreds of the video feeds have been regularly disseminated on Russian Telegram channels, some of which have thousands of subscribers.   “The video footage that they posted displays the attacks and the resulting death, injury, damage, or destruction, and is styled like video games, often accompanied by background music and threatening text,” the report said.   Furthermore, ambulances also have been targeted and struck by drones to prevent them from reaching victims, and some have died because they could not get to a medical facility in time.   “A 45-year-old man from Stanislav village recounted that in November 2024, a drone dropped an explosive near him as he was riding a moped, badly injuring his leg. An ambulance arrived, and while he was receiving first aid, a drone dropped two explosives on the ambulance,” the report said.   The Commission stressed that the use of drones to target civilians and civilian objects is a violation of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law as such attacks may only be directed at military objects.   “The Commission therefore concludes that Russian armed forces perpetrated the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians in Kherson Province,” it said, while “posting videos of civilians being killed and injured amounts to the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity.”   The drone attacks have spread terror among residents of the affected areas. Many wait for cloudy days to go out, or seek cover under trees, where possible.   “Drones were attacking everything; minibuses, cars, pedestrians…every time you went out of the house, you had to check the sky and look out for a buzzing sound and, in any case, run,” a man from Antonivka settlement told the Commission.   Moreover, fear is further induced by frequent messages posted on Telegram, such as “Get out of the city before the leaves fall, you who are destined to die.”   “The recurrent drone attacks, the widely disseminated videos showing them, and numerous posts explicitly exhorting the population to leave suggest a coordinated state policy, on the part of the Russian authorities, to force the population of Kherson Province to leave the area,” investigators said. They concluded Russian forces may have committed the crime against humanity of forcible transfer of population.   The commission is mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law and related crimes in the context of the aggression against Ukraine by Russia. The Commissioners serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including the UN.   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163781 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-commission-concludes-russian-armed-forces-drone-attacks-against-civilians http://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/iicihr-ukraine/index http://ukraine.un.org/en/296381-kyiv-suffers-deadliest-attack-almost-year-un-human-rights-monitors-say http://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/people-ukraine-should-not-have-take-cover-shelters-night-after-night-enruuk http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164486   http://dppa.un.org/en/msg-sc-9924-usg-dicarlo-ukraine-29-may-2025 http://www.unocha.org/news/bombs-do-not-stop-trauma-does-not-subside-ukraine-ocha-tells-security-council http://plan-international.org/news/2025/05/28/not-a-target-children-in-ukraine-must-be-protected-from-attacks/ http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/horrific-strikes-ukraine-reportedly-kill-three-children-injure-least-13 http://www.savethechildren.net/news/ukraine-air-raid-sirens-halted-one-every-five-lessons-school-year   May 2025   In Mariupol, Ukrainians must become Russian citizens to keep their homes and access basic services, by Kathryn Diss, Anna Nemtsova, Anna-Maria Tesfaye for ABC News.   Russian forces captured the city of Mariupol on Ukraine's Black Sea coast in the early stages of the war. Life there has changed significantly for the residents who remained.   To keep their homes and access to basic services — including health care — Ukrainians have been forced to become Russian citizens.   Accurate accounts of what life is like inside Mariupol today are scarce, with many people terrified that speaking the truth will draw recriminations from their new Russian rulers. Some have chosen to do it anyway.   Larisa spoke to ABC News through a third party. Some details about her life and family, including her last name, have not been included in this story to protect her identity. She said the only way to survive in Mariupol now was to become Russian.   "To save our property, we have to receive a Russian passport. We cannot receive any medical treatment without it," she said. "We cannot work, have jobs and receive salaries without Russian passports."   She described Mariupol as "now part of Russia" and said there were "ears and eyes everywhere", which made it very dangerous to criticise Mr Putin or the Kremlin.   "Many new people are coming from Siberia or even the Far East. They buy the real estate that once used to be the property of Ukrainians," she said.   The siege of Mariupol in the early days of the war is seared into the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. Just days after Russia's invasion on February 24, 2022, the port city was under relentless shelling and found itself surrounded by Kremlin forces. Russia has controlled Mariupol for about three years.   Ukrainians still living in the city say they have been cut off from the outside world due to Russia's censored media environment.   When Mariupol was under siege, 49-year-old Natalia and her family lived in their basement using fire to cook their food and radiators to source hot water. They escaped in late March 2022 but returned a year and a half later to care for stranded elderly relatives.   They took Russian passports in 2023 because without them they couldn't access health care, medicine or take possession of their own home.   "There are a lot of newcomers of different nationalities in Mariupol these days," Natalia says.   Natalia also said Russia was holding "patriotic demonstrations" in the city and that in schools, students were being taught the Russian language and history.   "There are lots of events in town meant to bring up patriots. They constantly play adverts on TV on recruiting contract soldiers for the army, and schools have many events teaching lessons of historical glory," she said.   She said the Young Army Movement — an organisation set up by presidential decree 10 years ago and designed to give Russia's youth military training — was active in the community, working with schools and sporting groups to promote Moscow's messaging.   Natalia is trying to sell her apartment but is finding it difficult to secure the documents needed to comply with the laws Russia has imposed.   ⁠"There is no future in Mariupol. I don't see it. If we manage to sell our property, we'll move," she said. "For now, we're still registering our documents. We don't know how long it will take."   An estimated 350,000 residents fled Mariupol to escape Russian occupation, leaving their homes and possessions behind. But millions of Ukrainians are still living in territories occupied by Kremlin forces.   Far from the front line, Moscow is fighting a very different skirmish. After destroying villages and cities during its invasion and the battles that followed, it's now using social media influencers to fight its propaganda war from inside occupied territories like Mariupol.   An online video, posted by a young influencer and liked more than 20,000 times, promotes Russia's rebuilding of Mariupol. The man says, sarcastically: "Oh God, what are Russians doing with Mariupol! Take a look, it's a house being built, not demolished! They are building houses."   In his account biography, the man references the Donetsk People's Republic, which was an illegitimate state created by Russian-backed paramilitary groups in south-eastern Ukraine in the years before they were invaded.   Another video on Instagram provides a tour inside a new apartment building in Mariupol, spruiking a new borough Moscow claims to have built in the city. "Amazing flats, wonderful houses, stunning backyards, plenty of playgrounds, sportsgrounds — you have everything you need," the man filming it says.   Elina Beketova, from the Centre for European Policy Analysis, has created a database tracking what goes on inside occupied parts of Ukraine, including how homes are being seized by Russian authorities.   "So how is Moscow doing it? The scheme is simple. They label housing as ownerless and nationalise it," she said. "To prevent this, property owners must first obtain a Russian passport and then confirm ownership of the property in person.   "Without this confirmation, the property is transferred to municipal ownership before being auctioned, rented or given to local citizens who are loyal to the occupation forces."   Ms Beketova has discovered that the scheme offers Russian citizens very cheap loans of 2 per cent to encourage them to populate the captured territories. The scale of the property transfer is believed to be more than 5,000 in Mariupol and some reports suggest it tallies up to hundreds of thousands across all Russian captured territories.   Andrii Pazushko and Liudmyla Zavaliei are among the thousands of Ukrainians finding out their home could be seized. The couple fled Mariupol with their two children on March 16, 2022, deciding it was no longer safe to stay. With nothing but a tiny suitcase full of their most valuable treasures, they passed through 21 Russian checkpoints to reach safety.   "We witnessed a disaster. We were forced to leave Mariupol. We wouldn't peacefully live with Russians since we were part of the pro-Ukrainian volunteer movement," Liudmyla said. "Our lives would be at risk. That's why we had to leave."   Their home was partially destroyed when their neighbourhood came under heavy shelling. Now living in Kyiv, the couple are worried their home could be taken. "After the Russians rushed into Mariupol, they started claiming all the housing as theirs. They started changing ownerships and appropriating the housing," Andrii said.   Liudmyla's father is currently living in their home, but she fears it will soon be confiscated. "I can't get the house back, 'legalise it', as Russians say, and prove it as my property despite my father living here right now," she said.   She said because her Ukrainian documents weren't accepted, she had to present them to a Russian consulate outside her country or return to Mariupol, which she feared would lead to her detention.   "It's not just confiscation, it's also theft. They steal people's property, refusing to return and threatening their lives, blackmailing them," Liudmyla said.   Moscow is also using various forms of so-called "Russification" to erase Ukrainian culture.   "They are militarising education, creating different camps that are very militarised, ideological, propagandist camps … to force teenagers to believe that they are with the Russian world, that their motherland is Russia," Ms Beketova said.   She said Moscow had allocated more than $1 billion this year to "patriotic education" in Russia and that much of that was being spent in schools within occupied Ukrainian territories.   "They want to control the local population, they want to control teenagers," Ms Beketova said. "They basically take kids and teenagers from occupied territories, they bring them to Moscow and St Petersburg, they show them some local museums, cultural centres. "But it's all done with the aim to erase their Ukrainian identity."   Ms Beketova said between 55,000 and 60,000 Ukrainian men from the occupied territories had been "forcibly mobilised" into Russia's military.   "At this point, we don't know what the real number is, but I found the data from also National Resistance centre that said some of the villages and small towns in the Donetsk Oblast didn't have any men left because they [Russia] conscripted them all," she said.   While Ukraine and Russia are in the early stages of ceasefire negotiations, the future of the occupied territories remains a significant point of contention. The idea of Mariupol being returned to Ukraine as part of some sort of peace process appears unlikely.   For those who fled the city, an end to the war can't come soon enough, but not at all costs. "This whole concept of the territory being recognised as Russia's is more than just painful, but unacceptable," Andrii said. "Many people admitted that they will perceive this as a defeat and a betrayal by their state." Visit the related web page
	Greenpeace must pay at least $660m over Dakota pipeline protests, says jury by Climate Action Network, agencies   Mar. 2025   A jury in North Dakota has decided that the environmental group Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the pipeline company Energy Transfer and is liable for defamation and other claims over protests in the state nearly a decade ago.   Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn, had sued Greenpeace, alleging defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, claiming the organization “incited” people to protest by using a “misinformation campaign”.   Greenpeace, which had denied the claims, said in a statement after the verdict that lawsuits like this were aimed at “destroying the right to peaceful protest”; constitutional rights experts had expressed fears that the case could have a wider chilling effect on free speech.   The nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota, found in favor of Energy Transfer on most counts after more than two days of deliberations. It awarded Energy Transfer at least $660m, according to calculations from Greenpeace.   The environmental group, which had expressed concerns before the trial about getting a fair hearing in oil and gas country, said that a loss and an enormous financial award could bankrupt their US operation. Energy Transfer sued three Greenpeace entities, claiming that they are a single organization rather than independent members of the Greenpeace network. Greenpeace will appeal the decision, the organization said.   The case has been closely watched by the wider non-profit community and first amendment experts amid concerns over how it could affect activism.   “What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser.   “We should all be concerned about the future of the first amendment, and lawsuits like these aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone,” Padmanabha said.   Greenpeace International was one of the three entities sued by Energy Transfer. Its general counsel, Kristin Casper, said the organization’s fight would continue: “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-Slapp [strategic lawsuits against public participation] lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands. We will not back down, we will not be silenced.”   Energy Transfer thanked the judge and jury in a statement, saying: “While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law..”   During jury selection, potential jurors appeared to largely dislike the protests, and many had ties to the fossil fuel industry. In the end, more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most had negative views of anti-pipeline protests or groups that oppose the use of fossil fuels.   “Today’s verdict is not a reflection of wrongdoing on Greenpeace’s part, but rather the result of a long list of courtroom tactics and propaganda tricks that Energy Transfer used to deny Greenpeace its right to a fair trial,” said Kirk Herbertson, a New York attorney and the US director for advocacy and campaigns for EarthRights International. “We hope that the North Dakota supreme court will question why this case ever made it to trial in the first place.”   Concerns over finding an unbiased jury plagued the case even before it began, given the rightward political leanings of Mandan, North Dakota, and the distaste for the protests among local residents. Mysterious rightwing mailers, made to look like a newspaper called “Central ND News”, that contained articles slanted against the pipeline protest or in favor of Energy Transfer were also sent to residents in recent months, which Greenpeace alleged could taint the jury pool.   Greenpeace sought to move the trial to another venue in North Dakota multiple times, but was shot down by the county court and the North Dakota supreme court. The judge, James Gion, who was brought in to preside over the case after all Morton county judges recused themselves, denied requests for livestreaming, which the state supreme court also denied.   Legal sources have said the case is a classic example of a Slapp – a form of civil litigation increasingly deployed by corporations, politicians and wealthy individuals to deliberately wear down and silence critics including journalists, activists and watchdog groups. These cases, even when the entities suing lose, cause significant legal costs for defendants and can have a chilling effect.   The five-week trial saw Energy Transfer attempt to tie a host of misdeeds or disruptions caused by the protests to Greenpeace, which has maintained that its involvement was small and at the request of the Standing Rock Tribe.   Standing Rock released a statement after the trial began affirming it had led the protests and claiming the tribe had had ongoing issues with getting safety information from Energy Transfer. The pipeline company was “frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voice supporting Standing Rock. The case is an attempt to silence our Tribe about the truth of what happened at Standing Rock, and the threat posed by DAPL to our land, our water and our people. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,” the tribal chairperson, Janet Alkire, wrote.   In the final days of the case, Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer’s billionaire founder and a major donor to Donald Trump, said in a video deposition that his company had offered financial incentives – including money, a luxury ranch and a new school – to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to stop the protests, which the tribe declined, according to a group of monitors attending the trial because of concerns over its fairness. Warren claimed he believed the tribe refused the offer because it was offered more by Earthjustice, which has served as a legal representative of the tribe.   The trial-monitoring committee released a statement after the verdict saying that the trial had been “deeply flawed” and denied Greenpeace the ability to present a full defense. The committee monitored every part of the trial and concluded the jury had been biased in favor of Energy Transfer and the judge lacked full legal knowledge of the complex issues at hand.   Marty Garbus, a longtime first amendment lawyer who is part of the monitoring group, said: “In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace that just ended in the courts of North Dakota … Greenpeace has a very strong case on appeal. I believe there is a good chance it ultimately will win both in court and in the court of public opinion.”   The trial came after Energy Transfer first filed a Rico lawsuit in federal court in 2017. The federal racketeering case was dismissed on 14 February 2019, but seven days later Energy Transfer refiled a virtually identical suit in North Dakota state court.   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/73572/jury-delivers-verdict-finding-greenpeace-entities-liable-for-more-than-660-million-in-energy-transfer-slapp-trial/ http://www.commondreams.org/opinion/greenpeace-verdict-attack-on-advocacy http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/usa-verdict-against-greenpeace-sets-damaging-precedent/ http://climatenetwork.org/2025/03/20/energy-transfer-sinister-attack-on-greenpeace-climate-action-network-member/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories