The number of casualties will be acknowledged only once the conflict is over, Vadim Pristaiko said | Ukraine will reveal the extent of its “horrible” losses once its conflict with Russia is over, Vadim Pristaiko, Kiev’s ambassador to the UK, said in an interview released on Friday. Asked by British tabloid the Daily Express to comment on casualties among Ukrainian military personnel and civilians, Pristaiko said “it has been our policy from the start not to discuss our losses.” “When the war is over, we will acknowledge this. I think it will be a horrible number,” he added.Pristaiko dismissed any possibility of talks between Moscow and Kiev – at least until Russia withdraws its troops from the territories Ukraine claims as its own. “So, we have to fight to the very last of them or, very unfortunately, the last of us as well,” the envoy said.

■ Ukraine will 'disappear' – Medvedev (RT.com)

Maria Sakharova | The Nazis are in full swing: "Podolyak, advisor to the office of the president of Ukraine: "You want to talk in Russian. You want to read Dostoevsky and Yesenia, or you want to go to Russian movies; this is not about Crimea; this is not about how you should live on the territory of the state called Ukraine. We have to completely shut down everything about Russian cultural space. There will only be a Ukrainian cultural space or a global cultural space. There must not be any "Russianness" there. And we should not have a dialogue about whether a person has the right to use Russian or not. Use it at home, but it is not an element of pressure, protest, or blackmail."" — The Nazis are in full swing. And they did the same thing until 2022, and the West nodded approvingly and brought them weapons.

■ ‘Everything Russian’ must be eradicated in Crimea – Zelensky aide (04/07/23)

Helsinki’s accession to the US-led bloc sees its leaders embrace Cold War euphoria 30 years too late | The return of the reality of war has shaken all of Europe. In Sweden and Finland, the decision to abandon non-alignment and join NATO was taken immediately, and public opinion was turned on its head. Remarkably, there was almost no discussion of whether neutral status was a more reliable way of ensuring national security; membership of the military bloc was seen as the only option. Before that, non-participation had long been considered the most sensible approach. So, why the sudden change? There are several reasons for this, but one is worth highlighting. There is a term known as ‘securitization’ – where a security dimension is given to everything: economic, cultural and even humanitarian processes. There is now a counter-experience, with the issue of classical security taking on a value-based form. That is, belonging to a particular ideological and ethical group, and being openly opposed to others, is seen as a more effective way of protecting oneself than remaining aloof from confrontation. This is a psychological rather than a military-technical phenomenon. Put simply, the desire for a sense of security (belonging to a powerful community) overrides the practical considerations of avoiding danger (the prospect of becoming a target or a battlefield).