WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russian missile strike kills 9, injures 29 in Ukraine's Kryvyi Rih

A Russian ballistic missile strike on Ukraine's southern city of Kryvyi Rih on Wednesday killed nine people and injured 29, including five children, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said.

The deadliest attack in weeks damaged an administrative building and an apartment block, Ukraine's military command said on the Telegram messaging app.

Klymenko said recovery work was now complete.

"Every day and every hour, Russian terror proves that Ukraine, together with its partners, should strengthen air defences," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said, commenting on the attack. Kryvyi Rih is his hometown.

In video shared by Zelenskiy, one man was shown being carried out of the rubble on a stretcher. Firefighters battled blazes and rescuers heaved a block of concrete in the ruins.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Battlegroup Dnepr inflicts defeat on two Ukrainian military brigades

Battlegroup Dnepr has inflicted a defeat on two brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, with the enemy’s losses amounting to 80 troops, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"The Battlegroup Dnepr units have inflicted a defeat on the military personnel and equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces’ 128th mountain assault brigade and 35th marine brigade near Kamenskoye, Pyatikhatky, Stepovoye in the Zaporozhye Region and Lvovo in the Kherson Region," the statement said.

The Defense Ministry said that the Ukrainian military had suffered losses of up to 80 troops, three vehicles, a US-made 155-mm M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer and two US-made 155-mm M777 howitzers.

Ukrainian army lost over 500 servicemen from Battlegroup West operations

The Ukrainian armed forces lost over 500 servicemen over the day from operations of the Russian Battlegroup West, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"The Ukrainian army lost over 500 servicemen, three pickup trucks, a 155 mm Braveheart artillery unit produced by the United Kingdom, a 152 mm 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled artillery unit, a 152 mm D-20 cannon, two 122 mm 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled artillery unit, and a 105 mm M101 howitzer of the US make," the ministry said.

"Tactical aviation, unmanned aerial vehicles, rocket troops and artillery of battlegroups of the Russian Federation Armed Forces engaged concentrated manpower and materiel of the adversary in 113 areas, the ministry added.

Russian Air Defense downed 61 drones, 9 ATACMS missiles over day

The air defense systems shot down nine ATACMS missiles and 61 drones over the day, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"Air defense assets over the day shot down: nine ATACMS tactical missiles of the US make, two Hammer guided air bombs of the French make, three Olkha rocket projectiles, and 61 unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry informed.

According to the ministry, 613 airplanes, 276 helicopters, and 25,620 unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed from the start of the special military operation.

Reuters/Tass

Each time a country goes through minimum wage negotiation, you can take it for granted that the argument to put politicians on that same salary scale will come up. It is a common argument, one that the Victorian Socialists Party in Australia included in their campaign promises. Granted, they were an upcoming party—the equivalent of the many political parties in Nigeria that exist through their press releases until elections are around the corner—and were unlikely to win anyway. Still, asking politicians to feel what they dish out is a universally resonant sentiment. In 1816, when the United States Congressmen voted to increase their salaries to $1500 a year (from the cumulative $900), a significant number of them were promptly voted out! Such reactions show how much people have always resented their delegates living above the majority of the people they are supposed to represent.

In Nigeria, we have repeatedly heard versions of the argument as the Nigeria Labour Congress slugs it out with the Federal Government on calibrating the pay scale. The NLC started out with N615,000, a rather outrageous sum even for a negotiation starting point. They revised their offer to 495,000 and are now down to N250,000. The Federal Government, meanwhile, is offering them N62,000. In bargaining, the union leaders justify their figures by comparing the sum with politicians’ income. To enhance the moral legitimacy of their stance, the breakdown of lawmakers’ income has been circulated in the media along with the payslip of a prominent media aide. If they could earn that much, the workers too should be able to up their demands. While we know it is highly improbable that our politicians would ever legalise such a proposal, it is a discussion still worth having. The Nigerian political class earns a high income. If placed on a minimum wage, will it make a difference?

Arguments in favour of the proposal assert that politicians are public representatives and their realities should not be distant from the society they purportedly administer. Besides, politics is not a profession one should embark on for the salaries but for the prospect of making a social impact. This line of argument is not entirely without provenance. Until the 20th century, lawmakers in Britain (the country that colonised/modernised half of the world) were unpaid. In those times, it was not a full-time job but a partial vocation for propertied men who could afford to take some time off to deliberate for society.

Several analysts suggest a correlation between the income we pay politicians and the quality of governance. They argue that better salaries induce better people into politics, which is good for the system. The standard reference point for those who take this position is Singapore. Their lawmakers are officially the highest paid in the world earning about $900,000 per year (for comparison, US congressmen earn about $178,000). Singaporean ministers earn around $1.1m, while their president earns about $1.7m (the US president earns $400,000). Other countries, especially in the Middle East (like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait) and Europe (Monaco, Norway, and Sweden), also have leaders earning humongous salaries. What do these countries have in common? Good governance, high quality of life, minimal corruption, and leaders who demonstrate public accountability.

Now, as even an elementary analyst knows, correlation is not causation. The fact that higher salaries have something to do with better governance elsewhere does not necessarily make it the defining reason those countries enjoy good leadership. Nigeria is a fantastic example of higher salaries not making any difference in leadership quality. In fact, all the arguments advanced for paying politicians higher salaries fall apart in Nigeria. They say politics is an elite enterprise and if you want to draw the best minds in your society, you must pay them well above—or at least the equivalent of—what they would have earned if they worked for wealthy private corporations. People who get into power should enjoy a high quality of life to free them from pursuing other enterprises that will expectedly bring them money. That idea does not quite hold up here because the meritocracy that selects people in those societies is still largely alien to us. People frequently get into power in spite of—not because of—merit.

That explains why, except for a handful, Nigerian politics is mostly populated by a category that does not even represent the quality of minds that freely litter its landscape. Looking at those who represent us in power, you would never quite know that Nigerians are brilliant people who excel in parts of the world where they are allowed to thrive. Our politics is skewed in such a way that the worst of us mostly tends to represent the best of us. Ironically, some analysts use African countries such as Nigeria as an exemplar of the low-quality governance you get when you underpay your public administrators.

Nigerian lawmakers earn as much as their US counterparts, but they do not compare favourably. Listen to our lawmakers debate an issue, and you will understand that they themselves are a problem that higher salaries simply cannot fix. For instance, the quality of their “debate” over the re-introduced national anthem was beneath the level of what you will get at a newspaper stand where the Free Readers Association members converge to argue everything from world politics to sports. The discussants did not come across as if they did any homework on the subject; their contributions were mostly extempore and hardly insightful. I have witnessed agboolé meetings where the old men who mediate conflicts demonstrate far better rhetorical and oratorical skills. So where exactly is the elitism that is supposed to distinguish them from the rest of us and justify their pay?

They also confound the idea that if politicians earned enough, they would look away from bribes. Nigeria serially defies abstract postulations in this respect. Someone like Orji Uzor Kalu was not a pauper before he got into politics, yet he once went to jail on allegations of corruption. His story is not even unique. Governors steal and steal while they are in office, and when they are leaving, they will still get the lawmakers to sign them unconscionably fat pensions. Then they will go to the Senate where they will continue to steal. Nothing is ever enough for them, no matter how much they manage to amass.

To be fair to them, the nature of public office in Nigeria induces stealing, especially if you already lack a strong moral core. The average politician is always hustled by the mass of beggars who throng their abode in search of kobo tokens of survival. Such demands on public leaders push them to steal to augment their earnings. Still, that does not change the argument that in our society, our politicians are the same breed of hustlers whether rich or poor. There are hardly any distinctions between them when it comes to corruption. Paying people who have no such self-awareness higher salaries will not raise their standards. It will only widen their already wide mouths.

If more money has not allowed them to create the space necessary to develop themselves intellectually and ideologically, paying them less (by putting them on a minimum wage) will not make much difference either. No reasonable person thinks there is any path to that proposal ever getting actualised, but we bring it up because it is a good argument that at least reminds our out-of-touch politicians to stay level-headed. In the ongoing context of wage negotiation in Nigeria, it is funny seeing people pointlessly arguing against the idea. There is no path to ever paying politicians minimum wage, but bringing it up is also not an entirely futile exercise. Leaders who determine our lives need such occasional reminders to be—hopefully—empathic.

Punch

Hint: Effective communication isn't just about talking.

With the increase in flexibility in how and when individuals work, people are reporting higher levels of burnout and difficulty in finding work-life balance.

To combat this, leaders and employees alike will have to focus on increasing their empathic social skills. One skill, in particular, increasingly separates average leaders from great ones: Active listening.

Activating Your Active Listening Skills

Effective communication isn't just about talking; it's having the ability to listen intuitively to the other person's story, ask questions and search conversations for depth, meaning and understanding with their needs in mind. This is active listening at its best.

With technology and social media ruling our lives, we are becoming less opportunistic in developing our active listening skills and less socially aware of its effect on business as a competitive advantage. As you develop professional relationships, leverage active listening by being able to understand what's happening on the other side of the fence.

This is a key differentiator of great leaders – listening to understand. It's also fast becoming a rare and forgotten leadership skill. The great ones, you'll notice, don't dominate the conversation by talking only about themselves or the task at hand.

In meetings, huddles, or one-on-ones, they listen and reflect back on what they heard to clarify ("What I hear you saying is ...") and they ask questions to probe the other person's feelings or opinions on a task or direction a project is heading. That can be as simple as: "Tell me how you feel about this".

The listening has one overarching goal: To find ways to connect with and help the other person succeed. Having your employees' best interests in mind gives leaders the edge in building trust when it matters most.

People underestimate the power of the great leadership skill of active listening. When a person feels that they are listened to, it goes directly to their self-worth. When someone demonstrates that they care about what concerns them and that the other person really understands their perspective, it validates that individual.

As you identify future leaders to promote to higher ranks within your organization, pay attention to the ones who listen with the intent to help each team member be the best person they can be. This is someone worthy of being in the esteemed role of a leader.

Inc

When former President Olusegun Obasanjo addressed the nation during his inauguration on May 29, 1999, he embodied the hope and promise of a new era. His words reflected the aspirations of millions of Nigerians yearning for a break from the past and a leap into a future filled with economic prosperity, security, and democratic governance. "Together, we shall reach the Promised Land," Obasanjo declared, igniting a flame of optimism across the country.

Twenty-five years later, as Nigeria marks a quarter-century of constitutional democracy, the reality starkly contrasts with the high hopes of 1999.

Each successive administration—Obasanjo's own, followed by those of Umar Musa Yar’adua, Goodluck Jonathan, Muhammadu Buhari, and now Bola Tinubu—has faced a complex web of challenges, some inherited, others self-inflicted. The collective legacy is a tale of unfulfilled promises and growing disillusionment.

Obasanjo's Era: The Dawn of Disappointment

Obasanjo's tenure, despite initial efforts at reform and reconciliation, quickly encountered obstacles. His administration grappled with corruption, poor economic management, and persistent security issues. While he did succeed in securing debt relief and laying the groundwork for telecommunications and banking sector reforms, the broader vision of a transformed Nigeria remained elusive. The hope of a better life for ordinary Nigerians was soon overshadowed by the realities of graft and inefficiency.

Yar’adua and Jonathan: Flickers of Hope, Shadows of Regression

President Umar Musa Yar’adua's brief term brought a glimmer of hope with his Seven-Point Agenda, which aimed to improve infrastructure, the power sector, and the Niger Delta situation. However, his untimely death meant that many of his initiatives never came to fruition. Goodluck Jonathan's presidency continued some of Yar’adua's policies but was marred by significant challenges, including widespread corruption and the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency. His tenure ended amid declining public confidence and economic instability.

Buhari's Promise of Change: An Unmet Aspiration

Muhammadu Buhari's ascent to power in 2015 was marked by the promise of change. Nigerians hoped for a break from the past, with Buhari's campaign focusing on anti-corruption, security, and economic revitalisation. However, his administration struggled to deliver on these promises. Despite some efforts to combat corruption, the scale of systemic rot proved overwhelming. Economic policies failed to spur significant growth, and security deteriorated, with widespread violence and insurgency persisting.

Tinubu: A Year of Pain and Uncertainty

One year into President Bola Tinubu’s tenure, the cautious optimism that accompanied his inauguration has dissipated. His controversial economic policies, including the removal of fuel subsidies and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, have triggered a severe economic downturn. Hyperinflation, joblessness, and a depreciating naira have left many Nigerians in dire straits. The World Bank's report of 104 million citizens living in poverty underscores the depth of the crisis.

Under Tinubu, Nigeria's security situation has continued to deteriorate. The country's landscape is marked by abductions, killings, and a general sense of lawlessness. The economic and social policies of his administration have yet to provide the relief and development that Nigerians desperately need.

The Verdict: Unfulfilled Promises, A Nation in Need

As Nigeria reflects on 25 years of democracy, it is clear that the journey has been fraught with missed opportunities and unfulfilled promises. While there have been pockets of progress—such as improvements in telecommunications, banking, and some infrastructure projects—the overarching narrative is one of decline. The aspirations articulated by Obasanjo in 1999 remain largely unachieved, and the socio-economic status of Nigerians has not significantly improved.

The current administration must urgently address these challenges. There is a need for a compassionate and strategic approach to governance that prioritises the welfare of the people. Tinubu's government must focus on security, economic stability, and the implementation of policies that genuinely benefit the populace. The promise of democracy should be more than just the right to vote; it should translate into tangible improvements in the quality of life for all Nigerians.

Conclusion

The past 25 years have shown that democracy alone is not a panacea. Effective governance, visionary leadership, and genuine commitment to the public good are essential to realising the potential of Nigeria. As the nation commemorates this milestone, it is imperative to recommit to these ideals and work towards a future where the hopes of 1999 can finally be fulfilled. The road ahead is challenging, but with collective effort and responsible leadership, Nigeria can still reach the Promised Land.

Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest person, announced a delay in petrol supply from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery, now set to commence in July. Dangote made this announcement on June 9 during the inauguration of the Dangote Sinotruk West Africa’s completely knocked-down (CKD) plant in Lagos.

Previously, on May 18, Dangote had stated that the refinery would start producing petrol in June, eliminating the need for Nigeria to import the product. However, providing an update, Dangote indicated that the refinery is now expected to begin supplying petrol to the downstream market by July 15.

“We had a bit of delay, but PMS will start coming out by the 10th to 15th of July. We want to keep it in the tank to make sure it settles,” he said. “So by the third week of July, we’ll be able to come out to take it into the market.”

On June 3, Dangote also mentioned that some international oil companies (IOCs) were experiencing difficulties in supplying crude to his refinery. In response, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) stated on June 5 that discussions were ongoing with the IOCs to ensure they meet their domestic crude oil supply obligations.

Nigeria's state firm NNPC has signed an agreement with Golar LNG to deploy a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessel off the coast of its oil-rich Niger Delta, NNPC said on Tuesday.

Nigeria, Africa's top oil producer, holds the continent's largest gas reserves of more than 200 million trillion cubic feet and is seeking investments to boost output.

NNPC spokesperson Olufemi Soneye said the Project Development Agreement (PDA) will utilise about 500 million standard cubic feet of gas per day, producing LNG, propane and condensate.

"The agreement aims to monetise vast proven gas reserves from shallow water resources offshore Nigeria," Soneye said in a statement.

Soneye said NNPC and Golar LNG have agreed to achieve a Final Investment Decision (FID) on the project before the end of the year with production expected to start in 2027.

The deal is the second floating LNG accord the NNPC has signed with partners in the past year and follows two other LNG agreements with investors to increase its domestic supplies and exports.

Nigeria, which still flares excess gas produced due to inadequate processing infrastructure, launched a national gas expansion programme in 2020 to end flaring by increasing local use of gas.

Reuters

After operating in Nigeria since 1950, Guinness’ core investor has announced its departure from the Nigerian market, citing the adverse economic climate.

The company plans to sell its controlling shares to Singaporean conglomerate Tolaram Group.

Between July 2023 and March 2024, Guinness Nigeria recorded a significant loss of N61.9 billion after tax. This financial downturn followed President Bola Tinubu’s decision to float the naira to unify its value across official and parallel foreign exchange markets, a move that backfired and severely impacted multinational companies, including Guinness. The brewery's N61.7 billion loss after tax in Q3 starkly contrasted with the N5.9 billion profit reported in the same period the previous year.

Diageo, Guinness' parent company, likely decided to sell its 58.02% majority stake to Tolaram Group due to the naira's continued depreciation. According to a statement from the company, "Under the terms of an agreement signed today, 11 June 2024, Tolaram will acquire Diageo’s 58.02% shareholding in Guinness Nigeria, along with royalty agreements for the continued production of the Guinness brand and its locally manufactured Diageo ready-to-drink and mainstream spirits brands."

Guinness Nigeria Plc, a publicly listed company on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, was established on April 29, 1950, initially importing Guinness Stout from Dublin. With Tolaram's acquisition expected to conclude by 2025, Guinness will have spent 75 years in Nigeria.

The company’s statement also mentioned that the transaction is anticipated to be completed in fiscal 2025, pending necessary regulatory approvals in Nigeria. Abidemi Ademola, Guinness’s legal director, emphasized that Diageo’s exit from Nigeria will not affect its ownership of the Guinness global brand, which will continue to be licensed to Guinness Nigeria.

Diageo’s departure is part of a broader trend of multinational companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline and Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, etc, exiting Nigeria due to the challenging economic environment.

Hamas responds to Gaza cease-fire plan seeking some changes. US says it's 'evaluating' the reply

Hamas said Tuesday that it gave mediators its reply to the U.S.-backed proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza, seeking some “amendments” on the deal. It appeared the reply was short of an outright acceptance that the United States has been pushing for but kept negotiations alive over an elusive halt to the eight-month war.

The foreign ministries of Qatar and Egypt — who have been key mediators alongside the United States — confirmed that they had received Hamas’ response and said mediators were studying it.

“We’re in receipt of this reply that Hamas delivered to Qatar and to Egypt, and we are evaluating it right now,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters in Washington.

Hamas spokesman Jihad Taha said the response included “amendments that confirm the cease-fire, withdrawal, reconstruction and (prisoner) exchange.” Taha did not elaborate.

But while supporting the broad outlines of the deal, Hamas officials have expressed wariness over whether Israel would implement its terms, particularly provisions for an eventual permanent end to fighting and full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in return for the release of all hostages held by the militants.

Even as the U.S. has said Israel accepted the proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given conflicting signals, saying Israel will not stop until its its goal of destroying Hamas is achieved.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been in the region this week trying to push through the deal — his eighth visit since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel ignited Israel’s campaign in Gaza. On Tuesday, he continued pressure on Hamas to accept the proposal, saying that the U.N. Security Council’s vote in its favor made it “as clear as it possibly could be” that the world supports the plan.

“Everyone’s vote is in, except for one vote, and that’s Hamas,” Blinken told reporters in Tel Aviv after meeting with Israeli officials, hours before Hamas announced its reply. He said Netanyahu had reaffirmed his commitment to the proposal when they met late Monday.

In a joint statement announcing that they had submitted their reply to Qatar and Egypt, Hamas and the smaller Islamic Jihad militant group said they were ready to “deal positively to arrive at an agreement” and that their priority is to bring a “complete stop” to the war. A senior Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen television that the group had “submitted some remarks on the proposal to the mediators,” without elaborating.

The proposal has raised hopes of ending an 8-month conflict in which Israel’s bombardment and ground offensives in Gaza have killed over 37,000 Palestinians, according to Palestinian health officials, and driven some 80% of the population of 2.3 million from their homes. Israeli restrictions and ongoing fighting have hindered efforts to bring humanitarian aid to the isolated coastal enclave, fueling widespread hunger.

Israel launched its campaign, vowing to eliminate Hamas, after the group and other militants stormed into Israel on Oct. 7, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 250 hostage. Over 100 hostages were released during a weeklong cease-fire last year in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

Later Tuesday, Blinken attended a Gaza aid conference in Jordan, where he announced over $400 million in additional aid for Palestinians in Gaza and the wider region, bringing the total U.S. assistance to more than $674 million over the past eight months.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told the gathering that the amount of aid flowing to the United Nations in Gaza for distribution has plummeted by two-thirds since Israel launched an offensive in the territory’s southern city of Rafah in early May.

Guterres called for all border crossings to be opened, saying, “the speed and scale of the carnage and killing in Gaza” is beyond anything he has since he took the helm of the U.N. in 2017.

In a separate development, the U.N. human rights office said Israeli forces and Palestinian militants may have committed war crimes during the deadly Israeli raid that rescued four hostages over the weekend. At least 274 Palestinians were killed in the operation, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Blinken, who was in Cairo on Monday, was also expected to visit Qatar — where talks would likely focus on the next steps in the push for a deal.

On Monday, the U.N. Security Council voted overwhelmingly to approve the proposal, with 14 of the 15 members voting in favor and Russia abstaining. The resolution calls on Israel and Hamas “to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition.”

The proposal, announced by President Joe Biden last month, calls for a three-phased plan that would begin with an initial six-week cease-fire and the release of some hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas and Palestinian civilians would be allowed to return to their homes. Hamas is still holding around 120 hostages, a third of whom are believed to be dead.

Phase one also requires the safe distribution of humanitarian assistance “at scale throughout the Gaza Strip,” which Biden said would lead to 600 trucks of aid entering Gaza every day.

At the same time, negotiations would be launched over the second phase, which is to bring “a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.”

Phase three would launch “a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families.”

The militant group embraced a similar proposal last month that was rejected by Israel.

Biden presented it as an Israeli proposal, but Netanyahu has publicly disputed key aspects of it, saying there were parts left out by Biden. The conflicting signals appear to reflect Netanyahu’s political dilemma. His far-right coalition allies have rejected the proposal and have threatened to bring down his government if he ends the war without destroying Hamas.

A lasting cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza would likely allow Hamas to retain control of the territory and rebuild its military capabilities.

But Netanyahu is also under mounting pressure to accept a deal to bring the hostages back. Thousands of Israelis, including families of the hostages, have demonstrated in favor of the U.S.-backed plan.

The transition from the first to the second phase appears to be a sticking point. Hamas wants assurances that Israel will not resume the war, and Israel wants to ensure that protracted negotiations over the second phase do not prolong the cease-fire indefinitely while leaving hostages in captivity.

Blinken said the proposal would bring an immediate cease-fire and commit the parties to negotiate an enduring one. “The cease-fire that would take place immediately would remain in place, which is manifestly good for everyone. And then we’ll have to see,” Blinken said.

AP

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia launches missile and drone attack on Kyiv, Ukraine's military says

Russia launched a missile and drone attack on Kyiv early on Wednesday with preliminary information showing there were no injuries or damage in the Ukrainian capital, Ukrainian military said.

Ukraine's air defence systems destroyed all air weapons on their approach to the city, Serhiy Popko, head of Kyiv's military administration said on the Telegram messaging app.

He added that according to preliminary information, Russia used a combination of cruise and ballistic missiles as well as drones in its attack. The size of the attack was not immediately clear.

Reuters could not independently verify what weapons were used, but Reuters witnesses said that several blasts that sounded like air defence systems at work were heard in and around Kyiv.

It was not immediately known whether there was any damage in the Kyiv region, which surrounds the capital and which is a separate administrative entity.

Air raid alerts lasted several hours across all of Ukraine, starting soon after 0000 GMT and including in regions bordering NATO-member Poland.

Polish and allied aircraft have been activated as a precaution, the Operational Command of the Polish armed forces said on the social media platform X. That is often the case when Russia launches an air attack on Ukraine's western regions.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russian troops liberate two communities in Ukraine operation — top brass

Russia’s Battlegroup West liberated the settlement of Artyomovka in the Lugansk People’s Republic and the settlement of Timkovka in the Kharkov Region over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on Tuesday.

"In their active operations, Battlegroup West units liberated the settlements of Artyomovka in the Lugansk People’s Republic and Timkovka in the Kharkov Region," the ministry said in a statement.

Reuters/Tass

Campus leftists in the West and nationalists in the global south never tire of pointing out the evils of imperialism. Yet few include the Soviet Union on their list of villains. This is odd: the Soviet empire stretched over 11 time zones, oppressing its vassal states so egregiously that all declared independence the moment they had the chance.

Airbrushing this history makes it harder to understand the present, when the man with the world’s fourth-largest army is trying to reassemble a version of that empire, minus the Marxism. When Vladimir Putin described the liberation of the Soviet Union’s former subjects as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”, he was expressing a worldview shared in previous centuries by Spanish conquistadors and ruffians of the British East India Company: that strong nations should rule weaker ones, regardless of the wishes of those who live there.

Two new books offer first-hand accounts of how that feels for the colonised. In “The Language of War”, the author himself is the eyewitness: Oleksandr Mykhed is a Ukrainian writer who lived through Russia’s invasion of his country and is now serving in the Ukrainian army. In “Revolusi”, the author is a historian who gets his boots dirty. From remote Asian islands to Dutch nursing homes, David Van Reybrouck has tracked down eyewitnesses to Indonesia’s colonial period, producing the definitive account of a neglected epoch.

Both books demolish the simplistic takes that dominate debate on social media today. Imperialism was not, as some on the left argue, simply a Western sin. But, contrary to the splutterings of the nostalgic right, it was a grave one.

The colonial history of the archipelago that is now Indonesia is convoluted. From the 1500s the Portuguese ruled parts of it, then the Dutch, France, Britain and the Dutch again. After the Nazis occupied the Netherlands, Japan “liberated” its colony and proceeded to enslave, starve and behead the locals. When Japan surrendered, the Dutch assumed they would take back control, but their former subjects had other ideas. In August 1945 Indonesia was the first of a wave of ex-colonies around the world to declare independence.

For four years the newly liberated Dutch fought to keep their colony subjugated, sending boatloads of conscripts to face an army of guerrillas wielding sharpened bamboo sticks and looted Japanese rifles. The Dutch used what Mr Van Reybrouck calls ‘“the Westerling method”, which involved rounding up villagers, asking them where the local guerrillas were hiding, and shooting them if they failed to provide useful intelligence.

Dutch pride in the imperial past is still strong. As recently as 2006 a conservative Dutch prime minister urged a revival of the can-do “mentality” of the Dutch East India Company, a slave- and spice-trading outfit. In a YouGov poll of eight ex-colonial powers in 2019, the Dutch were the most likely to say that their former empire was “more something to be proud of than ashamed”, with 50% agreeing and only 6% expressing the opposite view.

Mr Van Reybrouck offers evidence that such pride is misplaced. He chronicles brutal plunder in the 17th century, forced labour in the 19th and a racial caste system in the early 20th. He tracks down perpetrators, such as Goos Blok, a conscript who describes having to inflict electric-shock torture on teenagers. Indonesians explain how at first they welcomed the Japanese, until they saw them behaving even more viciously than the Dutch. As one of them concluded: “Colonialism is colonialism.”

Mr Mykhed’s book is more personal. He lived in Hostomel, a suburb of Kyiv with an airport that Russian special forces tried to capture at the start of the invasion. Thus Mr Mykhed’s block was overrun on day two, by Russians who forced people from their homes, pointing guns at their heads. He and his wife managed to escape.

“The Language of War” brims with horror. Girls are pulled out of a basement by their hair and raped. A 96-year-old survivor of Nazi concentration camps is killed during the supposed “denazification” of Ukraine. The deliberate murder of 50 Ukrainian prisoners of war is made to look like an errant mortar.

Mr Mykhed wields a skilful, angry pen. He sees motorcycles melted by the heat of battle, “like puddles of solidified metal left over from the evil T-1000 robot from ‘Terminator’”. He describes how soldiers look forward to haircuts, just to “feel the warmth and care of a woman’s hands”. He records how Russian invaders, like the crudest burglars, habitually defecate on the beds of homes they loot.

The author’s rage against the invaders is entirely justified. But he spreads it too broadly. He says no Russian film, book, artwork or TV show should be shown, sold or streamed. “Russia must be silenced,” he writes, regardless of whether the writers and artists are anti-war, anti-Putin or long dead. A Russian acquaintance, who hates Mr Putin and fled, texts Mr Mykhed’s wife to ask how he can help. She tells him that he, too, is responsible for the war. “You are all guilty,” Mr Mykhed says.

This is myopic. Russians who choose exile because they do not want to be drafted to kill Ukrainians share an obvious common interest with Ukrainians who do not wish to be killed. The same goes for Russians who yearn for a democratic, post-Putin Russia. To refuse to make common cause with such people may be emotionally satisfying, but it is strategically daft. The notion that guilt is collective, regardless of individual actions, is a recipe for unending strife, and not just in Ukraine.

Yet Mr Mykhed’s testament is valuable, since Mr Putin fights with lies as well as bullets. One of the first things Russian forces do when they occupy a town is to purge libraries of “harmful” books and dismantle any monument to Soviet-era crimes, such as those marking Stalin’s starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. As Mr Mykhed puts it, “My faith in the power of literature is being restored by the…occupiers’ fear of our books.”

The Economist