18 May 22
We are “Reader Supported News” that’s how we do it, and we do it well. We answer to you. You Like that. We raise money from our readers to pay the bills. You don’t like that. You can’t have it both ways.
If you hang out, chip in. (And we need that now.)
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
17 May 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
How the Russian occupation transformed life in Melitopol.
The attack was directed at a military base for the Ukrainian Air Force’s 25th Transport Aviation Brigade. In recent years, the unit’s aircraft have flown in support of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and to deliver fuel to a Danish-run scientific station in Greenland. Russia wanted to seize the base and fly in personnel and equipment for its ground campaign. Cruise missiles crippled the control tower and a fuelling station. Ukrainian pilots scrambled to get their planes airborne before they could be destroyed. Within minutes, an aviation technician was killed as a blast hit the IL-76 transport plane he was preparing for takeoff.
At daybreak, a hundred or so men went to the local branch of the Territorial Defense Forces, a volunteer military corps, to join up. A Ukrainian commander took out his pistol and laid it on the table. “This is the only weaponry we have,” he said, and sent the volunteers home. That afternoon, the 25th Brigade was ordered to pull out of Melitopol entirely, a tactical retreat. “It was painful,” Marina Rodina, one of the unit’s medics, told me. “We knew the city was counting on us.” But the brigade’s mission is transport logistics; the five hundred or so airmen at the base had no heavy weaponry, just Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades. Rodina and the others could only hope that, if Ukrainian forces evacuated, Melitopol would be spared further assault.
Fedorov, who had gone to his office at city hall, was informed about the pullout by phone. “Imagine the situation,” he told me. “I’m a mayor of a city with a hundred and fifty thousand people, three hundred thousand if we include the surrounding region. It’s four in the afternoon and already getting dark. Russian tanks are at the entrance to town and all I have are five garbage trucks, three tractor trailers, and, I don’t know, a metal shovel. That’s it. There’s not a single armed person left.”
The next morning, Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers were in the streets. Soldiers seized city hall, the regional administration building, and the headquarters of the Ukrainian security service, the S.B.U. “Russian units were on the march and, without encountering any resistance, entered Melitopol,” the Russian Defense Ministry declared. The troops posted flyers around town, which included a message from Vladimir Putin to the citizens of Ukraine: “Today’s events relate not to the desire to curtail the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people but to the defense of Russia itself from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are using it against our country and its people. I call for your coöperation so that we can quickly turn this tragic page and move forward together.”
Russian troops also distributed leaflets with instructions on how locals should behave during the “special military operation.” Ukrainians were told to keep away from Russian soldiers and their armored vehicles, to give them the right of way on the street, and to remain unarmed. To avoid “propaganda and disinformation from Kyiv,” the leaflets said, Melitopol’s residents should tune in to Russian state television, and to the Telegram channel of one of Moscow’s most famous and bombastic propagandists, Vladimir Solovyov. People driving around town discovered that the local radio airwaves had been taken over by Russian broadcasts, including one that aired a speech by Putin over and over.
Melitopol is an agricultural center, known for its honey and deep-red cherries, and its population is largely Russian-speaking. But in recent years, Fedorov told me, as the city attracted funding from the European Union and unveiled a series of urban-renewal projects—a new ice rink and public swimming pool, a state-of-the-art infectious-disease clinic—its identity had become less and less tied to Russia, let alone to the long decades of Soviet rule. Fedorov himself, a triathlete with a boyish smirk, close-cropped brown hair, and jutting ears, embodied a new generation of democratic leaders in Ukraine. He won a seat on Melitopol’s city council in his early twenties; in 2020, at the age of thirty-two, he was elected mayor. “People stopped living in the past and started to believe in the future,” he said.
Now Russia had occupied the city. A little more than a hundred miles away, Russian forces were pummelling Mariupol, destroying whole residential districts; in Melitopol, the offensive was nowhere near as savage but still all-encompassing. The city was effectively blockaded: there were no shipments of food or medicine, except from areas already under Russian control, and no cash for A.T.M.s. Russian soldiers were everywhere, patrolling the streets and questioning people at random. One afternoon, Serhii Pryima, the head of Melitopol’s district council, was driving near the outskirts of the city when he was stopped at a checkpoint. Pryima asked one of the Russian soldiers, who looked no older than twenty, what he was doing there. “We’ve come to liberate you,” the soldier replied. “From whom?” Pryima asked. The soldier had no answer.
After the Russian Army invaded, Fedorov set up temporary headquarters in the Soviet-era House of Culture, on Melitopol’s main square. The occupation had put him in an odd position. Russian troops controlled the city, but he was still mayor. Initially, they told Fedorov that he’d be left alone to run city business. He was summoned at gunpoint to a meeting with a group of senior Russian officials. He told them, “You won’t be here for long.” One replied, “We’re here forever.” Another said, “You carry out your functions, we’ll carry out ours.”
Fedorov began recording daily video addresses for his constituents, rattling off locations where they could find groceries and access cash. When city buses stopped running, he called on residents to give rides to medical workers. Much like the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, who, in the early days of the Russian assault, rallied people across the country with defiant videos posted to social media, Fedorov tried to project an upbeat spirit. On March 1st, he filmed himself at a social-services center that offered free food and clothes to people in need. “Melitopol did not surrender,” he said. “Melitopol is temporarily occupied.”
When Putin set out to invade Ukraine, he expected an easy victory. Many experts predicted that, within a week, his fearsome army would overcome all resistance; arrest or, if necessary, assassinate Zelensky; and establish a pro-Russian puppet regime in Kyiv. Instead, with the help of Western arms and intelligence, the Ukrainian military fought back and inflicted heavy losses on Russia.
And yet the Russian military has made advances in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, and, with its naval superiority, threatens to form what amounts to a land bridge to Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed in 2014. It has also occupied a number of cities and towns in the southeast, Melitopol among them. In Berdyansk, on the Sea of Azov, Russian troops took control of the port and began docking their own naval vessels. During a short but fraught battle in Enerhodar, missile and rocket fire came perilously close to the city’s nuclear power plant, the largest such facility in Europe; after Russia captured the city, the plant’s managers were informed that they now worked for Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear-power company. Kherson fell on March 2nd, the first major city to be seized, with a population of two hundred and eighty thousand. Andrey Turchak, the head of the main pro-Putin party in Russia’s parliament, recently visited Kherson, where he declared, “Russia is here forever. There should be no doubt about this.”
The cities of southeastern Ukraine, by dint of geography and history, tend to be overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. But their vulnerability had little to do with cultural ties. The proximity to Crimea meant that Russia could efficiently transport armor and equipment into the region, with few of the logistical barriers it faced in the north. And the landscape, which is dominated by steppe, made it harder for Ukrainians to mount the kind of ambushes that so mangled Russian forces around Kyiv. In Kherson as in Melitopol, Ukrainian commanders retreated rather than risk losing units with little chance of victory.
“If Russian troops had come to Melitopol in 2014, they would indeed have been welcomed with bread and salt,” Fedorov told me, using a Russian expression that means to be greeted with hospitality. Putin’s acts of aggression since then have changed public attitudes. Melitopol was once a hub for visitors headed to Crimea, but that connection was all but severed following Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. The war in the Donbas, where Russia stoked a separatist conflict for eight years, further soured residents’ feelings toward their neighbor. “We didn’t want to see Melitopol become a banana republic,” Vlad Pryima, Serhii’s twenty-two-year-old son, who works in I.T., said. “And it became clear that’s what one should expect under Russian rule.”
The first mass protest against the Russian takeover of Melitopol was held on March 2nd. Several hundred people gathered in Victory Square, in the center of the city, chanting “Melitopol is Ukraine!” At first, Russian troops “seemed confused, as if they hadn’t been expecting such a situation,” Evhen Pokoptsev, a Melitopol resident who participated in the protest, told me. But, as protesters marched on the S.B.U. headquarters, soldiers positioned inside fired warning shots. One protester was struck in the leg. The following day, Russian armored vehicles drove along Melitopol’s central avenues with loudspeakers blaring, “The military-civilian administration of Melitopol, in order to prevent law-breaking and to insure public order, temporarily prohibits rallies and demonstrations.” A curfew was declared from 6 P.M. to 6 A.M.
The protesters were undeterred. They gathered every day at noon to march around the city, singing the Ukrainian anthem and calling on the invaders to leave. Russian soldiers responded by firing off smoke grenades and chasing people through the streets. Pokoptsev told me of a day when, amid the chaos, Russian soldiers grabbed a dozen protesters from the crowd, then drove them fifteen miles out of town and left them in an open field. “The goal was to maximally frighten people,” Pokoptsev said.
Fedorov was heartened by the protests but worried for the well-being of those who took part. “I know perfectly well how the Russian Federation reacts to protests and those who attend them,” he told me. In one of his video addresses, Fedorov appealed to the city’s residents to remain peaceful and not confront the soldiers. “Our task is to save your life,” he said.
Every few days, Russian officials came to Fedorov’s office to demand that he stop the demonstrations. It was a case of projection: protests in Russia are either nonexistent or imagined to be the work of outside forces. But in the modern political culture of Ukraine, Fedorov said, demonstrations are “part of our DNA.” If a person doesn’t like her President, or her mayor, for that matter, she takes to the streets and says so. “They couldn’t believe that I wasn’t organizing these protests and paying for them,” Fedorov told me. “They said, ‘Stop the protests!’ And I answered, ‘I can’t.’ ”
On the afternoon of March 11th, two weeks into the occupation, Fedorov was sitting at his desk in the House of Culture when a dozen Russian soldiers carrying Kalashnikovs, their faces covered by balaclavas, burst into his office. They tied his hands behind his back and put a black bag over his head. He was told that a criminal case had been opened against him in the Luhansk People’s Republic, a Russian-backed territory in the Donbas. He was accused of financing Right Sector, a nationalist faction that often serves as a bogeyman in Russian propaganda—the “Nazis” of Kremlin legend.
“Are you joking?” Fedorov asked.
“We’re not joking,” one of the soldiers told him. They dragged Fedorov outside and into a waiting van.
As they sped through town, Fedorov kept track of how many turns they made, and when. “I know the city well,” he said. Even with his eyes covered, he guessed that he’d been brought to police headquarters, which Russian forces had taken over on the first day of the occupation. When the soldiers removed the bag from his head, he found himself alone in a jail cell. “Ten steps in one direction, four in the other,” he recalled.
The next day, the local Russian military command named an interim mayor, a city-council deputy named Galina Danilchenko. Danilchenko had been a close aide to a local pro-Russian politician named Evgeny Balitsky, who was famous for wearing a Soviet military uniform around town. (In May, Russian authorities made Balitsky the region’s governor.) Danilchenko recorded a video address for the residents of Melitopol. “Our main task now is to adapt all mechanisms to the new reality so that we can begin to live in a new way as soon as possible,” she said. In an oblique reference to the protests, she added, “Despite all our efforts, there are still people in the town who try to destabilize the situation. I urge you, please, be sensible and do not fall for these provocations.”
Few listened. Later that day, more than a thousand people gathered in front of the regional administration building, chanting “Freedom to the mayor!” By then, the Russian troops in town had been joined by a contingent from the riot police and the state security service, the F.S.B. One guard confided to Fedorov, “After every single protest, we get it upside the head from Moscow.” As Fedorov explained, “In their picture of the world, if there are rallies, they should be in support of Russia.”
Two days after Fedorov was imprisoned, eight armed Russian soldiers came to the home of Serhii Pryima and accused him of organizing the protest. Pryima had been expecting such a visit, telling his family, “They’ll probably come for me, too.” The soldiers searched the apartment. They told him to gather a change of clothes, his personal documents, and his cell phone, which they promptly confiscated. Then they tied his hands behind his back, put a bag over his head, and drove him away in a military van.
For more than a month, Pryima’s wife, Natalia, visited the police station, city hall, the regional administration building—anywhere that had been taken over by Russian forces—in search of her husband. “Write a missing-persons claim,” she was told. She did so, many times, but got no reply. After a week, one of the Russian soldiers in the mayor’s office told her to give up writing her appeals. “We’re sick of reading them,” he said.
Natalia was eventually granted an audience with the newly appointed Russian military commandant of Melitopol. He introduced himself as Saigon, a nom de guerre, and told Natalia that his troops had nothing to do with her husband’s disappearance. “This is a matter for those higher up,” he said.
Natalia also reached out to her husband’s former deputy in the district council, Andrei Siguta, who had switched sides and was now working with the occupying administration. In fact, he had taken Pryima’s job as head of the council; Pryima’s son, Vlad, called Siguta a “pure collaborator.” Siguta came to the courtyard of the family’s apartment building to meet with Natalia. He began by saying that he had tried to warn Pryima, telling him that he needed to have a “not so aggressive” attitude toward the Russian forces in town. “I made the right choices, and look, everything is fine with me,” he said. “But Serhii did not make the right choices, and now he’s in a cellar.” Siguta could offer only a vague assertion: “The decision about when and how to release him has not yet been made.”
Back at the police station, Fedorov endured long interrogation sessions. His captors pushed him to resign and transfer his authority to Danilchenko. Fedorov took the opportunity to ask what they were doing in his city. They had three explanations, he remembers: to defend the Russian language, to protect Ukrainians from Nazis, and to stop authorities from mistreating veterans of the Second World War. “It was all funny and absurd,” Fedorov said. He told the soldiers guarding him that ninety-five per cent of Melitopol’s residents speak Russian; that he has lived in the city all his life and has never seen a Nazi; and that, by his count, thirty-four veterans live in Melitopol, and he knows just about all of them personally, has their numbers saved in his phone, and tries to visit them often. But his captors seemed to take their imagined picture of an anti-Russian, fascist-ruled Ukraine seriously. “They repeated it like a mantra, over and over, as if they were zombies,” Fedorov told me.
An air of menace, even violence, was never far away. At night, Fedorov could hear the screams of people being tortured. The Russian soldiers said that they were Ukrainian saboteurs who had been captured in the city after curfew. At one point, Fedorov listened as a man in an adjoining cell shouted in agony; it sounded as if someone was breaking his fingers. “This was happening one metre away,” Fedorov said. “What would stop them from coming to my cell and doing the same thing?”
But after a couple of days the tenor of his interrogations changed. Among Ukrainians, Fedorov had become a symbol of oppression and resistance, an example of courage in the face of invasion. In a video address, Zelensky declared, “The seizure of the mayor of Melitopol is a crime not only against a specific person and not only against a particular city and not only against Ukraine. It’s a crime against democracy as such.” Fedorov sensed that his captors were aware of the uproar: now, instead of pressuring or threatening him, they asked about practical matters of administering the city. “They realized they had created a problem for themselves that they wanted to get rid of,” he told me.
On the evening of March 16th, as darkness was settling over Melitopol, Russian soldiers came to Fedorov’s cell. He was being freed in a prisoner exchange. A soldier put a bag over his head and led him to a waiting jeep. He was driven to the village of Kamianske, near the front line where Russian and Ukrainian forces were battling for control of the Zaporizhzhia region, and let out of the jeep. An officer from the S.B.U. stepped forward to identify him. As Fedorov was led back to Ukrainian-held territory, nine Russian prisoners of war walked in the other direction—the price the Zelensky administration had agreed to pay for Fedorov’s freedom.
Kidnappings have become a hallmark of the invasion. In Melitopol alone, at least three hundred people have been detained by Russian forces. “The aim is to extract a certain benefit from this person while frightening the local population, to send the message that ‘We are the power now, we decide all questions,’ ” Olena Zhuk, the head of Zaporizhzhia’s regional council, said. Zhuk has tried to keep track of those who are kidnapped or go missing, but she is certain the Ukrainian authorities are aware of only a fraction of such cases. “We didn’t understand what was going on in Bucha until Russian forces left,” she said, referring to the suburb of Kyiv where, in the wake of Russia’s withdrawal, in early April, evidence surfaced of torture, rape, and the summary execution of hundreds of people. “We will only know the real scale of atrocities and violence when we get our territory back.”
In Melitopol, the primary targets for arrests and kidnappings have been elected officials, activists, business owners—anyone seen as influential or capable of shaping local opinion. Pryima was eventually released, at the end of April, but others haven’t been as lucky. The owner of a grocery store, for instance, was arrested after handing out free food; the distribution of humanitarian aid was considered the prerogative of the Russian military. Soldiers seized his car and the keys to his store. A month and a half later, he remains missing.
The occupiers seem especially interested in local military-recruitment offices, where they have gathered the names of veterans who they fear might pose a threat. “All you have to do is find a janitor and order him or her at the barrel of a gun to unlock the room where the records are kept,” Zhuk said. In Melitopol, the records were even easier to access. A Ukrainian officer at the city’s recruitment office switched sides and gave the Russian soldiers lists with hundreds of names.
A local veteran of the war in the Donbas, who asked to be called Oleksa, told me that, after Melitopol was occupied, he felt certain that his military service would make him a target. “If southern Ukraine stays under their control,” he recalled thinking, “I won’t survive.” He hid at the homes of friends and relatives, until he could secure a ride out of town. But, as he was fleeing, the car was stopped at a checkpoint manned by troops from the Donetsk People’s Republic, another Russian-backed territory in the Donbas. They ordered him out of the car at gunpoint.
The soldiers marched him to their nearby base, where they slapped and kicked him, and fired a gun next to his ear. They brought him out to a field, handed him a shovel, and told him to dig a grave. Once he was several feet deep, a soldier shot him in the leg. Another soldier slammed him in the head with a rifle butt, knocking him to the ground in the pit he had dug. He briefly lost consciousness.
After he came to, he was brought to the former base of the 25th Brigade, in Melitopol. Russian soldiers there were carrying out a process known since the Chechen wars of the nineties as “filtration,” a dark euphemism for separating prisoners into categories, with varying degrees of violence applied to each. As Oleksa remembered, interrogators at the airbase were intent on sniffing out anyone they considered a Ukrainian nationalist. Prisoners from Ukrainian military units such as Azov, which has attracted fighters with far-right sympathies, were subjected to regular beatings and torture. Some were locked in a metal safe until they lost consciousness and had to be revived by Russian Army doctors. Oleksa got off relatively lightly: a Russian officer told his soldiers that Oleksa’s head was already smashed in, and not to hit him too hard.
After about a week, Oleksa was driven east to a Soviet-era prison colony outside the city of Donetsk. He was held there with dozens of Ukrainian soldiers who had been captured during fighting; he also met a man who had been detained while driving to Mariupol to pick up family members trapped in the siege. His car had caught the attention of Russian forces, who arrested him and kept the car for themselves. Oleksa spent several days there before he was moved again, this time across the border into Russia, where he was deposited at a military jail in the Rostov region. This was perhaps the harshest stop of all, he said: “They beat us during interrogations. They beat us because we were standing the wrong way. They beat us for pleasure. They beat us just because.”
Oleksa’s captors broke his ribs and rendered his feet so bruised and swollen that they wouldn’t fit into his boots. His journey continued to a prison in Voronezh, a Russian city nearly four hundred miles away. There, he was given forms to fill out, with questions ranging from his political allegiances (“Nationalist/Patriotic/Indifferent”) to what he thought of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Finally, a Russian official showed him another document, which was dense and complicated but with a clear enough conclusion: a tribunal that Oleksa had never heard of had convicted him of war crimes and sentenced him to thirty years in prison.
But just as quickly Oleksa’s fate shifted again. He and a number of other imprisoned Ukrainians were hustled aboard a military transport plane and flown to Sevastopol, a port city in Crimea and the site of a major Russian base. The next day, he was driven two hundred and thirty miles to a bridge in Kamianske, the same spot where Fedorov, the mayor, was freed, and let go in a prisoner exchange.
Svetlana Zalizetskaya is a one-woman media institution in Melitopol, a gadfly and a muckraker who has worked as a journalist in the city for two decades. She’s been a television news anchor and the editor-in-chief of a local newspaper, and, for the past nine years, has overseen her own news site, RIA-Melitopol, which reports on everything from local crimes to the cherry harvest.
RIA-Melitopol has also become the main source for news on the occupation. When Russian troops first took over the city, Zalizetskaya tried to figure out their intentions. “No one explained anything—they basically just stuck to themselves,” she said. The site has since tracked who among the local population has agreed to collaborate with the Russian-installed administration, and exposed multiple cases of corruption and theft, such as the three million Ukrainian hryvnia—around a hundred thousand dollars—that Russian troops carted away from a post office in April.
Before Danilchenko was announced as interim mayor, she invited Zalizetskaya to a meeting. Danilchenko seemed eager to aid the Russian military command. “The old city administration didn’t give me a chance,” Danilchenko said. She also told Zalizetskaya to think about collaborating with Russia: “If you join us, you’ll have a brilliant career. You can rise all the way to Moscow.” Zalizetskaya balked. “I love Ukraine,” she said. Nevertheless, Danilchenko replied, Zalizetskaya should meet with the Russian commandant, who wanted to see her. “If I entered that meeting, I would not have come out,” Zalizetskaya told me. “I understood it was time to leave.”
Zalizetskaya slipped out of Melitopol unnoticed, decamping to a Ukrainian-controlled city that she asked me not to name. She has managed to keep RIA-Melitopol going, scanning social-media posts and relying on a network of sources in Melitopol. But even from a distance Russian authorities moved to silence her. On March 23rd, a week or so after she left town, Russian soldiers showed up at her parents’ apartment, ransacked the rooms, confiscated the couple’s cell phones, and arrested her father. At around ten that evening, Zalizetskaya got a call from him. She asked where he was. “In some basement,” he answered.
Zalizetskaya could hear the voice of a man with a Chechen accent. (Many of the Russian troops in Melitopol are Kadyrovtsy, so named for their allegiance to Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, and known for their violence and brutality.) “Tell her that she should be here,” the Chechen said. Zalizetskaya was terrified, but also furious. “You are holding a pensioner in ill health,” she said. Her father had a heart condition and had recently suffered a stroke. “I won’t come back and I won’t collaborate with you.” The Chechen hung up the phone.
Two days later, Zalizetskaya got another call from her father. He started to recite what sounded like a prepared text: “Sveta, no one is beating me here, they treat me well, everything is fine.” She asked if he had access to his medication; he said no. She pleaded with his captors to release him. She heard a soldier in the background saying, “Tell her not to write any more nasty things.” Later that evening, she got a call from a man who introduced himself as Sergey. From the tenor of his questions, Zalizetskaya assumed he was from the Russian secret services. He was interested in the workings of her news site: who owned it, what interests it represented, and who her sources of information were. Sergey said that Zalizetskaya should coöperate with Russian forces or, barring that, hand over the site to them. “You know that what you are writing about Russian soldiers is not true,” he told her. “They’re not like that.”
Finally, Sergey offered a compromise: if Zalizetskaya wrote a public post saying that the site did not belong to her, her father would be released. “The site belongs to Ukraine, then and now,” Zalizetskaya told me. “I didn’t coöperate with the occupiers, and don’t plan to.” But she wrote the post, and thirty minutes later she got a text message asking where she wanted her father delivered. Home, she answered. The next morning, Zalizetskaya received a photo of her father standing in his front garden.
By early April, as Russia’s occupation of Melitopol stretched into its second month, Danilchenko was trying to project an air of normalcy, reopening the ice rink and resuming municipal services. In an interview with a Crimean news outlet, she thanked the Russian Army for entering the city “so gently and carefully” and freeing it from the “Kyiv regime.” She often spoke to residents in a tone that resembled a parent trying to sound sensible and convincing to her children. In one video address, she announced that the city was replacing Ukrainian television channels with Russian ones. “These days, we feel an acute shortage of access to reliable information,” she said. “Reconfigure your TV receivers and get accurate information.”
Nearly all supermarkets were closed, not to mention cafés and restaurants. Pharmacies were running low on drugs. Ukrainian authorities tried to dispatch humanitarian convoys with food and medicine, but Russian soldiers intercepted them and seized their contents. An open-air market still operated every day, offering fresh meat and produce, but access to cash was almost nonexistent, a particular problem for pensioners who get their monthly payments on bank cards. Danilchenko promised a transition to Russian rubles, but little of the currency was available in town. Gasoline was scarce and expensive; Russian soldiers and speculators moved to corner the black market, selling cannisters of fuel by the side of the road.
Local businesses, especially those in the city’s agricultural sector, began to report significant theft. Russian troops broke into the showroom of one company, Agrotek, and made off with more than a million euros’ worth of farm equipment, including two advanced combines, a tractor, and a seeding machine. A few days later, G.P.S. trackers showed that the stolen items were in a rural part of Chechnya. According to Fedorov, the new authorities have been forcing grain producers to give up much of their harvest, and moving it across the border to Russia by the truckload.
Communications slowed. Mobile service cut in and out. Residents took to standing with their phones outside long-closed cafés whose Wi-Fi connections were still active. One afternoon, I reached Mikhail Kumok, the publisher of a local newspaper called the Melitopol Vedomosti. He, too, had been held briefly by a contingent of armed Russians. He was taken from his apartment to the Russian military headquarters for a talk with officers from the F.S.B. “They asked me for ‘informational coöperation,’ ” he remembered. For the next several hours, the F.S.B. officers pushed Kumok to use his newspaper to produce “favorable coverage of events” in town. He declined. “I don’t see anything favorable going on here,” he said. “And you won’t allow me to write about what is actually happening.” Rather than publish lies, he closed the paper down. “They made it clear that, whatever I thought was going on now, things could get even worse for me,” he said.
Days later, the Russian occupiers began printing counterfeit copies of Kumok’s paper, which they used to distribute propaganda around town. One issue featured a portrait of Danilchenko on the front page. “Melitopol is getting used to peaceful life,” she said in an accompanying interview.
The occupying authorities devoted particular attention to the city’s schools, which had been closed for in-person classes since the first day of the invasion. Many students and their families had left town; others were studying online, joining lessons conducted elsewhere in Ukraine. The basements of a number of schools had been turned into bomb shelters. Reopening the facilities would be a way to signal to Melitopol’s residents that life was returning to normal. It would also provide a forum for a central aspect of the invasion—namely, installing Russia’s preferred version of Ukrainian history and ideology.
Artem Shulyatyev, the director of a performing-arts school in Melitopol, told me that he was visited by an officer from the F.S.B., who introduced himself as Vladislav. The conversation began politely enough. “You are governed by fascists,” Vladislav told him. “They oppress Russians. But this is wrong, and we are Slavic brothers.” Shulyatyev replied that he didn’t think there were any fascists in Melitopol. “You don’t understand anything,” Vladislav said. “You don’t know about the global plans of fascists.” He then asked if the school had a library, and whether it carried the collected writings of Lenin. “These are very important works,” he said. Shulyatyev said that there wasn’t any Lenin on hand, but, then again, why should a performing-arts school have his works? “Lenin didn’t dance or sing.”
Vladislav moved on to his main point: it was imperative that the school resume in-person classes. Shulyatyev said that this wasn’t possible—it wasn’t safe, and many families had left. Vladislav grew frustrated. “It doesn’t interest us what you want,” he said. “What matters is what we want.” Vladislav urged Shulyatyev to think about the proposal: “We will be waiting for you to inform us of your decision.” Shulyatyev, his wife, and their two children packed their things and left Melitopol.
Danilchenko appointed Elena Shapurova, the head of a local technical college, as Melitopol’s education chief. In late March, Shapurova assembled the city’s school principals for a meeting at the college. The educators who attended had conferred beforehand and decided to submit their resignations—none of them were willing to work with the city’s occupying authorities. From the building’s front steps, Shapurova implored them to resume classes and repeatedly motioned for them to come inside. The principals refused. Suddenly, Danilchenko appeared, trailed by men in masks carrying Kalashnikovs, and tried to herd the group inside the building.
“We just turned around and left,” one of the principals told me. This seemed to enrage Danilchenko. She chased after them and, as the principal remembered, yelled, “Then we’ll have you all sent the fuck out of town!”
The educators planned to meet the following day to decide how to respond. “We were in shock,” the principal said. But, the next morning, news went around: four of the principals had been taken from their apartments. One of them later told me that they were held in an unheated garage, where they could hear the sounds of a man being beaten through the walls. After two nights, they were driven twenty miles outside of town. “You refused to coöperate with us, so therefore you are punished,” a military officer told them. “You are deported from Melitopol and prohibited from returning.”
In the end, Danilchenko got her way, at least to a degree: Melitopol’s schools were officially reopened in April, but only a few of them have actually held any classes. Attendance levels have been paltry. Shulyatyev said he heard that around twenty students are coming to his school these days, compared with more than five hundred before the invasion. Meanwhile, Danilchenko has announced that “pseudo-historical books propagating nationalist ideas” would be removed from Melitopol’s central library, and only “books that tell the true version of history will appear on the shelves.” In a segment that aired on pro-Russian propaganda channels, Shapurova’s husband, a onetime powerlifter who had been appointed head of a grade school, held up a copy of “Ukraine Is Not Russia,” written by the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, as an example of the kinds of books that should be banned.
By most estimates, nearly half of Melitopol’s population has left the city. “I understand those who are leaving perfectly well,” Fedorov told me. “We are used to living in a different city, with a different mentality, and a different set of freedoms and values. And they are trying to force new ones on us.”
For those who flee, the first destination is the city of Zaporizhzhia, a regional capital eighty miles north of Melitopol. Since the start of the war, an Epicenter—a Ukrainian big-box store specializing in home improvement and gardening supplies—has served as a one-stop welcome-and-processing center for those coming from occupied territories in the south. Volunteers hand out tea and snacks, medics help the sick and injured, and police roam among the new arrivals, looking for pro-Russian collaborators and saboteurs.
Leaving cities under Russian occupation has been a tricky affair. From Mariupol, where as many as ten thousand people have been killed, Russian forces guarantee safe passage in only one direction: to Russia. Those travelling to Ukrainian-held territory are forced to brave roads under constant shelling, with Russian troops frequently shooting in their direction. I saw a number of cars arrive at the Epicenter parking lot with shattered windshields and bullet holes strafing the sides. But even the route out of Melitopol passes through the front line, with tank shells and rocket fire occasionally striking cars. At each checkpoint, Russian soldiers make male passengers lift up their shirts, looking for nationalist tattoos and bruises from the recoil of a Kalashnikov.
While hanging around the Epicenter’s parking lot, I met the members of a convoy of buses and cars that had managed to depart Melitopol. Space on the buses was so limited that some people rode in the cargo holds of tractor trailers. Just about every car was stuffed with more people than it could sensibly fit; parents had held their children in their laps as they jostled along the road. Many drivers had taped handmade signs reading “CHILDREN” to the windows.
Bogdan and Yulia Shapovalov, who made the drive with their two kids, were initially from Donetsk, but in 2014, after the Russian-backed militias took over, they fled to Melitopol. They came to like the city’s parks and schools, its European feel. “We didn’t want to leave, but it became hard to breathe,” Yulia told me. They were now planning to head to western Ukraine. “We’re ready to go back to Melitopol,” Yulia said. “But only if it’s part of Ukraine.”
Nearby, I came across two mothers and their teen-age daughters, drinking tea and having a bite to eat. I asked what made them decide to leave. “It’s like the nineties have returned,” Larisa, one of the mothers, said. Instead of driving to the supermarket, she hauled bags back from the open-air market. Lines were everywhere. She had adopted a nickname for the armored vehicles that Russian soldiers drove around town, often with a big letter “Z”—the symbol of the Russian invasion—painted on the side: zalupa mashiny, or “dickhead mobiles.” “We understood that it won’t be like this for one or two months, but for much longer,” Larisa said. For three days they had tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a checkpoint on the outskirts of Melitopol. Finally, on their fourth try, soldiers let them through.
Fedorov had also made his way to Zaporizhzhia. He set up an office at the headquarters of the regional administration, a concrete Soviet-era structure on the main square. Inside, I found him in a vast ministerial office, plain and bureaucratic, with a Ukrainian flag standing in a corner. He hadn’t done much to make the space his own; he was only going to be there a short time, he insisted. “Our next interview will be in Melitopol—Ukrainian Melitopol,” he said, a mantra that sounded not all that dissimilar to the traditional prayer from Passover Seder: “Next year in Jerusalem.”
In a way, Fedorov spends his days as he previously did. There are meetings with the water department, the gas company, local business leaders, concerned citizens—only now they take place by phone or videoconference. Hundreds of city employees still technically report to him; a number of municipal expenditures require his signature. And yet keeping up services in Melitopol, without aiding the occupation, he said, is a peculiar challenge: “We do everything we can so that our enemies don’t ever feel comfortable, but so that regular people, who aren’t guilty of anything, don’t suffer.”
Fedorov continues to record video addresses to the residents of Melitopol, sharing news of the city’s occupation and the wider war effort. The Ukrainian Army has managed to recapture some villages near occupied Kherson. In Melitopol, as many as a hundred Russian soldiers have been “liquidated” by partisan fighters, Fedorov claimed, citing the Ukrainian intelligence service. But, given the geography and the military realities of the region, it may be some time before a full-scale operation is mounted to retake the city.
Russian forces and their local proxies, meanwhile, have tried to entrench their hold on Melitopol. In advance of Victory Day, which commemorates the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany, Danilchenko announced, with great fanfare, that the Ukrainian flag on the main square would be replaced with a Soviet Red Army flag. Red Army stars appeared on buildings in the city center; a banner declaring “Glory to the Victors” went up on the city’s historic archway. The aim, Danilchenko said, was to undo Ukraine’s policy of “de-Communization,” in which, following the outbreak of fighting in the Donbas, Soviet emblems, monuments, and street names were removed from cities across the country. “The Nazi Ukrainian regime has sabotaged our ability to celebrate this holiday,” she said in a video address. “Everything that we loved and held dear—they have destroyed it. But we will restore it all again to how it was.”
On the morning of Victory Day, May 9th, Danilchenko, accompanied by a camera crew, brought a bouquet of white roses to the city’s memorial for the Second World War. During a brief speech, she told Melitopol’s residents, “I wish you joy, happiness, and a peaceful sky above your head.” Later that day, the city held an “Eternal Regiment” procession, in which hundreds of people marched with portraits of their relatives who fought in the war. Soviet flags in the crowd were interspersed with the Russian tricolor; many attendees wore an orange-and-black St. George’s ribbon, originally a symbol of the Soviet victory over Nazism, which, in recent years, has been co-opted as a talisman for Russian nationalism and militarism. That evening, residents were treated to a fireworks salute. Once again, the sound of explosions echoed across Melitopol’s dark sky.
White demonstrators in South Boston protested federal court-ordered busing of black students to all-white neighborhood schools, 1975. (photo: Spencer Grant/Getty Images)
White supremacy is not defined by acts of outlandish violence. It is inflicted on America’s non-white population every day
The 14th amendment, which ended slavery, gave Black Americans more freedom while simultaneously spawning the imperfections of Jim Crow and a need for a civil rights movement. While this foundational goal of a more perfect union has served as a mission statement for some and an excuse for others, the rights of most Americans have gradually expanded. For the most part, America has slowly moved forward.
We are currently not in the most part.
On Saturday, an 18-year-old white supremacist traveled more than 200 miles to target Black residents of Buffalo, New York, in an attack inspired by the “great replacement theory” – the increasingly popular notion that America’s white majority is being intentionally replaced by a multiracial, multi-ethnic population.
While more Americans are becoming aware of the theory, it is not new. It is the same concept that once made interracial marriage illegal, spawned Jim Crow and motivated southern segregationists to switch to the Republican party. At its foundation lies the desperate attempt to preserve and maintain control based on nothing more than being born into whiteness. It is about white power. Unfortunately (for the white majority), the only way to preserve white power is to stop moving forward.
It is easy to frame a lone gunman’s brazen act of lawlessness and the fearmongering ethnonationalism that produced it as a prototypical but rare act of white supremacy. But that narrative obscures a variety of legally sanctioned acts of violence inflicted upon America’s non-white populace every day.
The fight to create a less perfect union isn’t just reflected in white extremist terrorism and Fox News’s primetime lineup. It is an all-encompassing strategy bent on rewinding progress to a time when whiteness was synonymous with purity and perfection. Not since Reconstruction has this country so blatantly sought to reverse progress and strip away the most fundamental rights, including the right to vote, a woman’s right to control her body, and even the right to exist as a full and equal human being.
The leaked brief detailing the US supreme court’s draft ruling to overturn a woman’s right to choose is another expression of this great American moonwalk. If true, the institution that once decided that Black people “have no rights which the white man was bound to respect” will soon hand over the authority to decide whether or not women must carry a pregnancy to full term to 50 separate overwhelmingly white, male-dominated state legislatures.
The goal is to weaponize whiteness at the expense of everyone else’s freedom in the hopes of protecting white sovereignty.
Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has been pushing legislation that makes the American education system less perfect by criminalizing critical race theory and antiracist literature. By painting Black history as a “woke agenda” that could turn white babies into progressive thinkers, Republicans don’t have to worry about their children’s past being erased by the fragility of the majority. At worst, the pro-racist movement has simply condemned their children to the same uninformed-but-palatable potion that has always aided America’s ability to stomach the sins of the past. For them, learning the truth of American-style racism is too treacherous a step forward. Still, this erasure confirms the essential premise of white supremacy: Black children’s history is less important than white children’s comfort.
Though we may all bemoan the rise of Trump-style authoritarianism, the end of democracy is theoretical only to white voters. For Black voters, it is a return to the imperfect past. In a country where Black voters wait longer, travel further and are less likely to have their vote counted, 19 states have more restrictive voting laws – nearly all of which will disproportionately affect the Black electorate. Studies, investigations and judicial rulings have concluded that the specific intent of voter ID laws, poll closures and gerrymandering is to restrict access for voters of color. In September, three North Carolina judges ruled that the state’s photo ID law “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters”.
Yet in February, the supreme court reversed a lower court ruling that required Alabama to redraw its congressional districts. The justices didn’t disagree with the lower court’s assessment that “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress”, they simply decided that redrawing the maps would confuse voters and burden the state legislators. Again, the court essentially determined that the comfort of white voters is more important than Black voters’ political will. Perhaps there is no better metaphor for the concept of white supremacy. And I know what you’re thinking. But what happened in Buffalo – while tragic – is not an example of white supremacy.
White supremacy is not defined by the outlandish violence that enraptures racial extremists. This white domestic terrorism is the result of the belief that white people are entitled to the superior position that they enjoyed for most of this country’s history. While becoming a more perfect union has always been our publicly stated goal, the US has always been engaged in the preservation of white power. But that started at a time when the slaveowners and slavery apologists who penned America’s founding document couldn’t possibly fathom the idea that white men wouldn’t have perpetual possession of America’s reins. When they said “we the People”, they meant “white people”. They just want to make sure it stays that way. But I understand …
Nobody’s perfect.
State Rep. Summer Lee, speaks to supporters before being endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, May 12, 2022. (photo: Rebecca Droke/AP)
ALSO SEE: Tuesday's Primaries Could Say a Lot
About the Future of Both Parties
With the progressive state rep. ahead in the polls, the “pro-Israel” lobby’s PAC has dished out attack ads ahead of Tuesday’s race.
For Irwin, a former Republican U.S. Senate staffer, it would take something of a miracle to turn numbers like that around in the six weeks that remained. But ahead of Tuesday’s contest, Irwin’s backers have attempted to close the gap with something else: a tsunami of outside spending, funneled through two major pro-Israel organizations that have made it their mission to undermine progressive Democrats in contested primaries.
In less than a month, the United Democracy Project — the political action committee for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC — poured more than $1 million into ads in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. The bulk of the messaging attacked Lee, though just over $100,000 went to materials supporting Irwin. In total, United Democracy Project has spent more than $2.3 million on the race so far.
Lee is one of several progressive House candidates who have come into the crosshairs of AIPAC and its counterpart Democratic Majority for Israel, which AIPAC’s operatives launched in 2019. The groups justify their spending with a hard-line stance opposing any criticism of the Israeli state — even as the Israel Defense Forces relentlessly attack Palestinian civilians, journalists, and mourners. In reality, this stance enables the pro-Israel lobby to attack progressives on any number of fronts.
“When you look at who DMFI has spent money attacking,” says a new video released Monday by Organize for Justice, a sister organization of Justice Democrats, which recruited Lee to run, “they [also] just so happen to want to hold Israel, the biggest recipient of U.S. aid, accountable for how they spend billions of American tax dollars.”
Lee tweeted last May that the indiscriminate use of the phrase “‘Israel has the right to defend itself” is standard fare for the justification of atrocities committed against marginalized people. At the time, Israeli police had recently attacked worshippers at the Al Aqsa Mosque. “As we fight against injustice here in the mvmnt for Blk lives, we must stand against injustice everywhere,” Lee wrote. “Inhumanities against the Palestinian ppl cannot be tolerated or justified.”
While the Jewish Chronicle questioned Irwin about his challenger’s tweets six months later, claiming that they had been “understood by some as anti-Zionist and antisemitic,” Pittsburgh’s WESA noted that the Chronicle did not identify anyone who had made that claim. “Even some Irwin supporters seem wary of accusing Lee of antisemitism,” the news station pointed out.
AIPAC’s United Democracy Project ran an April 22 ad that suggested that Lee isn’t really a Democrat. Two days prior, the group had released a slate of endorsements including more than 100 Republican candidates who voted to overturn the 2020 election results. “Groups like AIPAC and DMFI don’t have much name recognition even amongst Democratic primary voters, and even amongst high-level operatives and journalists,” Justice Democrats spokesperson Waleed Shahid told The Intercept. “Some of the people at the highest levels of Democratic Party politics have no idea what these groups are, what their political goals are.”
Bipartisan criticism had been mounting for over a month, when some of the endorsements were released. In a March letter to its members, AIPAC defended its growing slate, writing: “This is no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends.”
Rep. Mike Doyle, the longtime Pennsylvania Democrat who Lee and Irwin are competing to replace, wasn’t shy to pick sides in the contest that quickly pitted progressives against the local party machine. Doyle and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., weighed in on the same day: While Doyle announced his support for Irwin, Sanders endorsed Lee.
“You don’t get anything done being Bernie Sanders or the Squad,” the congressman said last week.
Irwin, who led a division at his Pittsburgh law firm offering services in “union avoidance,” has been buoyed by almost $3 million in outside spending — most of it from political action committees associated with DMFI and AIPAC. Progressive groups including Justice Democrats, Working Families Party PAC, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC have spent just over $1.7 million to support Lee’s campaign. The PAC for J Street, a nonprofit that advocates for progressive foreign policy toward Israel, made a joint endorsement of Lee and Dickinson in April.
Last month, AIPAC sent a fundraising email with the subject line “Act Now: Anti-Israel Forces Want to Silence You” that attacked Lee and two other congressional candidates in North Carolina, Erica Smith and Nida Allam — both also progressive women of color — as “anti-Israel candidates.” Mark Mellman, the head of DMFI, claimed to The Intercept last month that criticism from the U.S. left emboldens the Israeli right. “The anti-Israel far left has propped up the Israeli right and done tremendous damage to the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said.
After AIPAC’s United Democracy Project released its April ad scorning the notion that Lee “calls herself a Democrat,” several party members backing Lee’s campaign, including State House Democratic Minority Leader Joanna McClinton and Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey, condemned the messaging and called on Irwin to denounce it, Pittsburgh’s TribLive reported. “As Democrats from across the commonwealth, we find it shameful that you would team up with a corporate super PAC that has endorsed over 100+ pro-insurrectionist Republicans to attack and smear our Democratic colleague, state Rep. Summer Lee, as not a Democrat,” the group wrote. “When you are literally on the same side as insurrectionists, I guess the only way to defend yourself is to attack the lone Black woman in the race that has done more to expand and turn out our electorate for Democrats than anyone in this race.”
Irwin’s campaign told the outlet that while the candidate cannot control super PAC spending or messaging, the ads “appear to be true.” A spokesperson pointed to Lee’s criticism of Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential primary, including an observation of the then-candidate’s “casual racism,” and said, “In the scheme of things, Rep. Lee has far more explaining to do.” (Like many of the president’s left-leaning critics, Lee later went on to campaign for Biden.)
Irwin’s campaign did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.
If she wins on Tuesday and again in November, Lee will be the first Black woman elected to Congress from Pennsylvania. She has led efforts to end cash bail at the state level, and she is running for federal office on a platform that includes the Green New Deal, Medicare For All, and the promotion of labor unions. Beyond Sanders and Justice Democrats, she has earned endorsements from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and the sitting members of the House Squad.
The idea of having “a Black woman as a congressperson, on its face, is very attractive,” Irwin said in March at a town hall held by the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. Though he “supported [Lee] when we first met,” Irwin said, “I know how she’s worked with other people in the community, I know how she’s worked with people in business, I know how she’s worked with people in the House and government, and I can tell you that it does not indicate that it would be as conducive to getting things done.”
Responding in a tweet, Lee said the comments were evidence of “misogynoir” facing “COUNTLESS qualified Blk women who threaten white male hegemony. And as we see it doesnt just come from Republicans.” Irwin’s campaign did not respond publicly to the criticism.
“We are once again seeing what happens when Republican-backed corporate power is threatened by a working class Black woman fighting to bring people-powered leadership to her community,” Justice Democrats candidate communications manager Usamah Andrabi said in a statement to The Intercept. “Almost $3 million was spent trying to stop Pennsylvanians from electing their first Black Congresswoman — imagine if that money was instead being used to protect Democrats’ majority in November.”
Dickinson, meanwhile, has called on Irwin to drop out of the race for unrelated reasons: TribLive reported in March that one of the people who circulated petitions for his campaign forged several hundred signatures, though he likely would have qualified for the ballot anyway. Lee criticized the campaign for approving the forged petitions but did not call on him to drop out. The same month, the AFL-CIO declined to endorse his campaign after learning of his “labor avoidance” role, leaving union support split in the race.
The money, however, is with Irwin. Lee’s campaign has raised just over $700,000, Dickinson’s almost $700,000, and Irwin’s $1.2 million. The influx of outside spending from DMFI and AIPAC on Irwin’s side, and from Justice Democrats and WFP on Lee’s, comes on top of that reserve.
“Every single member of the Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as President Obama, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus and 20 members of the House Progressive Caucus have been endorsed by AIPAC,” Irwin’s spokesperson reminded TribLive. “Steve Irwin is proud to stand up for the Jewish state of Israel and America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Canton, Mississippi, in July 2019. (photo: National Archives and Records Administration/Picryl)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has become known for both mass deportations and unmarked-van snatchings of peaceful protesters. ICE also turns out to be operating a vast intelligence system that tracks the movements of hundreds of millions of Americans.
That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology, which argues that through contracts and partnerships with private data brokers, utility companies, DMVs, and other government bureaucracies, ICE has quietly built a system that lets it peer into and track the personal lives of all Americans on a never-before-seen scale. Titled American Dragnet: Data-Driven Deportation in the 21st Century, the report paints a picture of an agency that’s crossed ethical lines, dodged legal restrictions, and radically expanded the scope of its activities with little to no public oversight or debate.
“ICE has created a surveillance infrastructure that enables it to pull detailed dossiers on nearly anyone, seemingly at any time,” states the report.
The numbers involved are staggering. According to the report, ICE has used facial-recognition technology to scan the driver’s license photos of roughly a third of US adults, can access the driver’s license data of three-quarters of adults, and can track the movements of cars in cities that make up 70 percent of the adult population. In at least five of the seventeen jurisdictions where undocumented people can apply for licenses, ICE can search state driver records without a warrant.
ICE’s partnership with data brokers who collect information from utility companies gave it access to data on more than 218 million utility customers in every state, allowing it to automatically find out the new addresses of three in four adults when they connected their electricity, gas, internet, or phone. The agency is swimming in so much data, states the report, that it works with half a dozen contractors to sort through and understand it all. One of those companies, Peter Thiel’s Palantir, is the third-largest company it contracts with overall.
The proliferation of personal records has been a boon to ICE, which has tapped these vast reserves of data to track down and deport undocumented immigrants. That includes not just records from DMVs and utility companies, but geolocation data and employment and health care records as well as call records. The agency has not only spent $96 million on biometrics from 2008 to 2021; its access to credit headers from all three major credit reporting agencies gives it the names, addresses, phone numbers, and more of vast swaths of the population with real-time updates. It also means that when public outrage or government action forces the agency to end its relationship with one data broker, it simply moves on to another.
ICE doesn’t just draw on others for data but does surveillance on its own. The agency spent around $389 million on telecom interception over the 2008–2021 period, states the report, using the equipment it’s bought to track in real time individuals’ phone calls and internet use, as well as hoover up and store their email and social media activity.
To make sense of this colossal haystack, ICE has spent around $569 million on data analysis over the same period, with wiretap translation services and storage contracts making up half of its telecom interception spending. The agency has given $186.6 million to Palantir alone, whose programs linking various databases allow ICE to “access and visualize an interconnected web of data pulled from nearly every part of an individual’s life.”
It’s all been very effective for the agency, which is able to track down and arrest long-residing undocumented residents who have had no run-ins with the law and no reason to bring suspicion upon themselves. DMVs have often been more than willing partners in this. “We’re going to have to make you an honorary ICE officer!” one ICE agent emailed a DMV employee particularly helpful in sharing information about potential targets.
You don’t need to be a migrant to find this alarming. As the report points out, ICE’s surveillance system is an indiscriminate dragnet without limits or checks. Congress has never held an oversight hearing on it, nor has it authorized such sweeping bulk collection of records, which is ripe for all kinds of potential abuse. Congress passed an entire law in 1994 regulating the sharing of DMV records out of concern for privacy, yet any ICE agent, it turns out, can easily get their hands on the same records without any sort of oversight and barely even leaving a paper trail. And it’s an open question which other entities are drawing on the same company and data broker records and for what purpose, given there’s little stopping them.
“Most states lack any meaningful privacy protections for the data generated by customers of gas, electric, water, telephone and cable companies,” the report states.
The news that ICE is now effectively a domestic surveillance agency collecting and accessing records on most adults in the country is even more alarming given the way the agency has more and more branched out beyond its mission of immigration enforcement. In the last few years, ICE has surveilled protesters and helped create a database of journalists, activists, and attorneys it deems worthy of extra scrutiny, and it arrests and detains documented residents, including full US citizens, with shocking regularity. At one point, the agency’s acting director called for politicians supporting sanctuary cities to be charged with crimes.
In other words, there’s no small risk that unless it’s, at minimum, rolled back and severely curtailed, the massive domestic spying apparatus ICE currently operates could one day be turned on the American public as a whole. Just think back to the summer of 2020, when the Department of Homeland Security — the enormous national security bureaucracy rushed into existence after the September 11 attacks — was deployed against protesters by then president Donald Trump as an almost military-style security force, going so far as to snatch demonstrators off the street in unmarked vans.
It’s not a far-fetched idea. ICE has already begun tentatively surveilling and sweeping up political dissidents and citizens, and as this most recent report demonstrates, it’s radically expanded its powers despite having no legal or congressional authorization to do it. If ICE’s mission creep carries on at the same pace, eventually it may not just be undocumented immigrants trying to live their lives in peace who have to fear an agent knocking on their door or trawling through their personal data, but protesters, journalists, and anyone else critical of the government, too.
People stand in line outside Trader Joe's in Kips Bay amid the Coronavirus pandemic on March 19, 2021, in NYC. (photo: Noam Galai/Getty Images)
The grocery workers are the latest to join the revitalized labor movement, along with workers at Amazon, Starbucks, and Target.
Though it’s just the latest high-profile union effort, the roots of the campaign at Trader Joe’s—and the company’s opposition to its employees forming a union—go back more than two years, as workers said in the letter.
In their letter to Trader Joe’s CEO Dan Bane, workers at the Hadley, Massachusetts, store referenced a March 2020 letter Bane wrote to employees calling then-nascent unionization efforts a “distraction” and that unions “drive discontent” at companies. In the letter, Bane wrote he was “convinced that any Crew Member who critically considers the question will conclude that being a Crew Member at Trader Joe's beats being a ‘member’ of a union.” (Unionized employees would be both.)
At the time, Trader Joe’s workers across the country were speaking to media outlets and alleging the company was not doing enough to keep workers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. But although representatives from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) spoke with employees in 2020, the New York Times reported at the time, no store ever filed for an election.
Until now.
“Since that letter arrived in our mailboxes, Trader Joe’s has continued to slash our benefits as our wages stagnate and our safety concerns go unaddressed,” the workers wrote to Bane. The workers said they “organized ourselves,” using “the same instinctive teamwork we use every day to break pallets, work the load, bag groceries, and care for our customers.”
Workers at the store are organizing under the banner of Trader Joe’s United, an independent union.
“If nothing else, we know how to work hard,” the workers wrote. “We understand teamwork and how to get things done. This union will be no exception.”
The announcement comes during a period of resurgence for the labor movement led by workers at Starbucks and Amazon. During the first half of the 2022 fiscal year, union filing petitions increased by 57%, according to the National Labor Relations Board.
Less than six months after the first Starbucks store, in Bufifalo, voted to unionize, 70 more Starbucks stores have voted to unionize, even as the company has stepped up its anti-union efforts following the return of Howard Schultz as CEO. And in March, workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island voted to unionize with the independent Amazon Labor Union, becoming the company’s first unionized warehouse in the U.S.
Workers at Apple retail locations in three states have also filed for union elections, and last week, workers at a Target store in Virginia filed for a union election seeking representation with the Industrial Workers of the World.
Trader Joe’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The chain, which was founded in California in the 1960s, had more than 530 locations nationwide and drew in more than $16 billion in revenue as of 2020, according to Supermarket News.
“I feel like a company that I love so much has strayed so far from their core values, and they are bleeding veteran crew members,” Sarah Yosef, who has worked for Trader Joe’s for nearly two decades, told the labor outlet More Perfect Union this weekend. “I would like to help bring us back.”
A bus passenger is searched by a police officer at a checkpoint in San Salvador, El Salvador, May 1, 2022. (photo: Jose Cabezas/Reuters)
ALSO SEE: El Salvador's Gang Crackdown
Drives 'Arbitrary' Arrests of Innocents
Police say 30,506 arrests carried out in less than two months since ‘state of exception’ invoked after deadly violence.
Salvadoran police said on Twitter on Monday that 30,506 arrests had been carried out “since the start of the war against the gangs”, including “536 terrorists” who were arrested on Sunday alone.
El Salvador’s Congress approved a “state of exception” in late March after a weekend of gang-related violence left more than 80 people dead, spurring widespread fears among residents in the Central American nation.
The order, under which the authorities have been able to suspend certain civil liberties, was renewed for another 30 days in late April.
Bukele has defended his government’s push against gang members, warning Salvadoran parents to keep their children away from gangs or risk “prison or death”.
But local and international human rights groups, as well as United Nations experts, have raised concerns about reports of the use of excessive force during arrests and amendments to the criminal code that allow authorities to impose increased prison sentences for gang membership.
Under the new rules, convicted gang lords will now be sentenced to 40 to 45 years in jail, compared with six to nine years previously, while other gang members will be sentenced to 20 to 30 years, up from three to five years earlier.
The two main criminal groups in the country, Mara Salvatrucha – more commonly referred to as MS-13 – and Barrio 18, have an estimated 70,000 members between them, and several thousand are already in Salvadoran prisons.
Human rights organisations have said the detentions carried out during the “state of exception” include arbitrary arrests of non-gang members and abuses of authority.
“Over the last 30 days, President Bukele’s government has trampled all over the rights of the Salvadoran people,” Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, said in a statement on April 25.
“From legal reforms that flout international standards, to mass arbitrary arrests and the ill treatment of detainees, Salvadoran authorities have created a perfect storm of human rights violations, which is now expected to continue with the extension of the emergency decree.”
A makeshift memorial for the victims of the Buffalo shooting in New York. (photo: Usman Ukalizai/AFP/Getty Images)
Buffalo suspect allegedly calls himself ‘eco-fascist’ and blames migration for harm to the environment in document posted online
The attack, that left 10 people shot dead and three wounded, has been described as a “hate crime and a case of racially motivated violent extremism” by the FBI.
The 18-year-old suspect allegedly began firing his weapon in the car park of the Tops supermarket in Buffalo, before entering the store and continuing his murderous rampage inside, streaming the attack live online.
Authorities believe the killer chose the supermarket due to the surrounding area’s sizable Black community, with an 180-page manifesto believed to have been written and posted online by the suspect referencing his desire to “kill as many Blacks as possible” and his belief in the “great replacement theory”, which holds that white people are at risk of losing their status and traditional culture because of immigrants.
The manifesto, also, however, includes theories on the environment that are similar to screeds espoused by other recent mass murderers.
The Buffalo suspect calls himself an “eco-fascist” and blames migration for harm to the environment in the document posted online.
“For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs,” the Buffalo manifesto states. “The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue.”
This invocation of eco-fascism, or green racism, echoes that of a white nationalist who killed 51 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
“The invaders are the ones over-populating the world,” the Christchurch murderer wrote in his own manifesto. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”
Just a few months after the New Zealand attack, a gunman killed 23 people in El Paso, Texas, leaving behind a note that also blamed overpopulation for causing pollution. “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable,” he wrote.
Studies have repeatedly shown that migration itself does not cause an increase in carbon emissions or other pollution – indeed, American-born people are far larger consumers of resources than new immigrants – and that voracious consumption, rather than population per se, is the primary driver of the climate and ecological crises that currently grip the world.
However, the latest shooting shows that a dangerously warped vision of environmentalism is now becoming an increasingly common animating force for rightwing extremists, according to Betsy Hartmann, an expert in the environment and migration at Hampshire College.
“It’s extremely frightening,” she said. “Eco-fascism has always been a part of white supremacy, even going back to Hitler, but it would seem to me in white supremacist circles it’s becoming a more accepted part of the ideology. It’s not an outlier any more.”
Hartmann said the rise of Donald Trump and Republicans’ embrace of anti-immigrant rhetoric is fueling the spread of so-called eco-fascism, as well as growing alarm, particularly among younger people, over the climate emergency.
“For younger people, the more apocalyptic images of climate change can fit into the white supremacist view of apocalypse, too,” she said.
“It’s scary how much this person is taking from the Christchurch and El Paso killings, how he’s inspired by those things. It shows how powerful this has become, given how explicit it is now.”
A recasting of environmental concern in a racist context has been embraced by several prominent figures in the US, such as the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has called immigrants “unclean” and a threat to America’s environment, and the Republican attorney general of Arizona, who has called for a border wall to be erected to avoid migrants not just arriving in the US via Mexico but allegedly worsening climate change.
Meanwhile, several rightwing political parties in Europe have resorted to what academics call “ecobordering”, where restrictions on immigration are touted as vital to protect the nativist stewardship of nature and where the ills of environmental destruction are laid upon those from developing countries, ignoring the far larger consumptive habits of wealthy nations and that impact on other countries, creating climate refugees.
In an analysis of 22 far-right parties in Europe, researchers found this thinking was rife and “portrays effects as causes and further normalizes racist border practices and colonial amnesia within Europe”.
Special Coverage: Ukraine, A Historic Resistance
READ MORE
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.