I am going to miss our friendship of 57 years

 

"The Supreme Court Gut-Punched Us"

 

[Yesterday] afternoon, the Supreme Court told us that it will hear Trump's presidential immunity appeal. After sitting on it for two and a half weeks, they've issued a brief grant of certiorari, scheduling argument for the week of April 22. It’s a major disappointment for people who believe justice can be done and presidents are not above the law. And understand, this is not about politics. This is not about using a criminal prosecution in an unfair way against a candidate for office. This is about seeking justice and accountability, the core functions of our criminal justice system. “Justice delayed is justice denied” is the earworm that’s burning through my brain tonight...

There are two important things to take note of:

·       The timeline: Instead of the quick briefing schedule that we saw on the 14th Amendment case or the fast action in Bush v. Gore, the Court won’t hear argument in this case until April 22. Trump’s brief is due on March 19. The government’s response is due April 8. Trump’s reply is set for April 15. The issues have already been fully briefed before both the district court and the court of appeals, which means that the parties are essentially prepared to file their briefs in the Supreme Court. The case could have been handled much more quickly, especially because the issue before the Court isn’t difficult: either presidents can commit crimes to stay in office or they can’t. The timeline here was a choice, made by the Justices. They chose to give Donald Trump at least two more months of delay. We don’t know how a specific Justice votes on a cert grant. But we do know that at least five Justices voted to hear this case because while it only takes four votes to grant cert, it take five to grant a stay, and the Court’s order, above, continues the stay in the trial court while the appeal is underway.

·       The Court, as it does, specified the precise issue it will consider. The question is “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” Rather than considering whether the indictment charges acts that were outside the scope of Trump’s official duties, the Court is looking at whether he can be prosecuted for “official acts,” which lines up with the way the Court of Appeals decided the case. The distinction between Trump’s official conduct as president and other conduct, for instance, work done by candidate Trump in the course of running for office, is one the government has raised in several other contexts, arguing that Trump’s election interference was not official conduct, so it cannot be cloaked in presidential immunity. That line of argument seems to be off the Court’s plate based on how they phrased the issue. But put a marker down on this point—we may see it resurface in briefs or elsewhere.

What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean? It’s increasingly unlikely we’ll have a trial, let alone a verdict in this case, before the election. SCOTUS may ultimately—and certainly should—rule against Trump, but they've given him a huge win on the clock, unless they decide the case as soon as it’s argued.

Could they decide the case immediately following oral argument? Sure, anything is possible. But it took the Court 16 days just to grant certiorari here. Writing an opinion, which can involve a majority opinion, concurrences, and dissents, is infinitely more complicated. The Supreme Court can move quickly, but it has shown little desire to in this matter. It could have heard this case directly on appeal from the district court—the Special Counsel asked them to, and they declined. They could have expedited the briefing schedule here and put it on a much tighter timeline. But they didn’t. Nothing here has happened particularly fast.

And in the meantime, everything in the district court is on hold. That stay means that no progress is being made on discovery, pre-trial motions, and rulings that need to be made before this case can go to trial. Judge Tanya Chutkan has promised to restore something like 88 days for Trump to complete his trial preparation after the appeal is decided and the case is remanded to her, restoring the time he’s lost between when the case was stayed and when it was supposed to go to trial so he’s not prejudiced. We can all do that math on what that means for when this case makes it to trial.

In a typical year, the Supreme Court issues its opinions by the end of June, often saving the most important cases for the last few days of the term. On occasion, they go into July. Allowing for some time for the mandate to issue and a case to be returned to the trial court, and accounting for the fact that many states have early voting that begins as far as forty-five days out (Minnesota), forty-three (Pennsylvania) forty-two (Virginia), thirty-nine (Michigan), twenty-four (Arizona), or nineteen (Georgia), people will probably be casting their votes before they learn whether Donald Trump has been convicted on the election interference charges. 

In some of the most closely contested states, voting begins well in advance of the November 5 general election date. Jack Smith has suggested his case would take about three months to try, although that may slim down in practice—prosecutors tend to err on the side of overestimating to avoid having an angry judge if the trial takes longer than estimated. Nonetheless, the clock is running out.

Americans deserve a trial before the election. The chances we will get it are slipping away. Nothing about the Supreme Court’s pace so far suggests they're in a hurry or will be when it comes to issuing an opinion.

This isn't a hard case. The substantive argument Trump makes—that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for anything they do in office and more specifically, for trying to steal an election—has to be a loser. As we’ve discussed before, if it’s not, our claim to be a democracy is no longer viable. Presidents would be forever above the law. 

There’s always a chance the Court could decide the appeal quickly and the case could be tried in advance of the election, but there are no guarantees, and I'm not here tonight to be a Pollyanna. Yes, there’s a path that gets us there in time, and it is so clearly what justice demands. But it’s important to be realistic and to look objectively at the tea leaves the Court has given us to read about the lack of urgency it feels to decide this appeal quickly.

Some folks have suggested that the Special Counsel could ask Judge Chutkan, once the case is back in front of her, to give Trump less than the 88 days she previously committed to for trial preparation. That’s a dangerous strategy. It could set up an argument that Trump could use successfully on appeal if he’s convicted unless there’s a sound justification for forcing him to trial with insufficient time to prepare based on the Judge’s initial assessment of what he needed. 

If there’s anything that would be worse for the country than not having this trial before the election, if would be a conviction that is reversed on appeal. Trump would burn the country down, exacting retribution and demanding a do-over for an election that was “stolen” from him. The right path forward is for the Supreme Court to do its job and decide this appeal promptly. Unfortunately, they don’t seem inclined to do so.

Here’s where the Supreme Court has left us: People in some of the key states are likely to be finalizing decisions about who to vote for while a trial is still ongoing or perhaps even before it begins. A verdict could happen only after some or all of the country votes. The Supreme Court’s message to us is, “Hey voters, we’re leaving this up to you.”

We can hope for the best—a fast decision on immunity and a timely trial—but we should take the Court’s message seriously. This election may well be up to us, the voters, without any input from a jury as to whether Donald Trump criminally interfered with the 2020 election. But we did get it done in 2020. We need to get ready to do it again.

In January, I wrote to you: “Donald Trump will end American democracy if he’s reelected. He will corrupt our country for his own benefit. He has not made a secret of it. The only question is whether enough of our fellow citizens will be aware of what the 2024 election means for the future and care enough when we go to the polls to prevent Trump from returning to power. The small steps that we take during the next few months will pay big dividends.” 

Today, Liz Cheney said in an interview on the Today Show that Trump will never leave office if he's elected president again and that Republicans need to “do whatever it takes to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in 2024," including potentially voting for Biden.

Many of you have given up on friends and family who continue to support the former president. I think now is the time to reengage, to have respectful conversations about their views in hopes they’ll let you share some of yours. We can choose carefully. Sometimes, it’s enough to plant seeds of doubt that can grow further on their own. I’m seeing that happen with more frequency. 

A friend who has always voted Republican, who twice voted for Trump, now says that not only will he not vote for Trump again, instead of just staying home he’s going to vote for Biden because he’s realized he cares more about the country than he does about the Republican party.

Sometimes, people are quietly paying attention to you all along. Different issues resonate with different people, but Trump provides us with a full deck of options for exposing how unsuitable he is to lead the country. Take your pick: lying, cheating, stealing nuclear secrets. So let’s get going. Yes, the Supreme Court gut-punched us today. Let’s get right back up and get to work.

Were in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

There Are Foreign Troops in Ukraine

 

“Nothing should be ruled out,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in comments that triggered a mini continental uproar. Macron was briefing reporters on the sidelines of a Monday meeting with 25 European leaders in Paris on their continued support for Ukraine as it resists Russia’s invasion. Kyiv has suffered recent battlefield setbacks as it grapples with shortages in munitions and workforce.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, whose views are more sympathetic to the Kremlin than many of his peers, had earlier suggested that there were European countries “prepared to send their own troops to Ukraine” — a revelation that was put to other European officials in attendance.

Officials from the United States, Germany, Poland, Spain, the Czech Republic and a number of other NATO countries all dismissed the suggestion that they were considering sending troops.

But Macron chose “strategic ambiguity” and stressed the importance of not allowing Russia to win the war. “I remind you that two years ago, many around this table were saying: ‘We’re going to offer sleeping bags and helmets,’” he told reporters at the Paris meeting. “Today they’re saying: ‘We’ve got to go faster and harder to get missiles and tanks.’ They have the humility to realize that we have often been six to 12 months behind schedule. That was the aim of tonight’s discussion. So anything is possible if it helps us achieve our goal.”

Kremlin authorities seized on Macron’s remarks, arguing that NATO troops in Ukraine would prefigure a direct armed confrontation with Russia. “In this case, we would need to talk not about its likelihood, but about its inevitability,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, referring to the prospect of a wider war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin still casts the conflict as a proxy battle with the West that Moscow claims is propping up Kyiv. But Western governments have been at pains to maintain a plausible distance from the war, no matter their robust support for Ukraine’s defense. 

Leaked documents last year confirmed that some NATO countries — including the United States, Britain and France — had deployed small numbers of special forces and military advisers to Ukraine in unspecified roles probably related to logistical support work and training. The United States’ CIA has funded and partially equipped a sprawling network of spy bases across Ukraine that aid Kyiv’s efforts to track Russian troop movements and target the Kremlin’s prized military assets.

Whatever these footprints, the deeper reality of the war in Ukraine is that there already are plenty of foreign fighters on both sides. After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago, thousands of sympathetic volunteers — largely from the West and post-Soviet states — enlisted under Kyiv’s banner.  The international legion that emerged has been deployed across the front lines and in some of the war’s most grinding battles. It comprises a motley cast of ideological die-hards, grizzled warriors and mercenaries for hire. Some have earned social media fame for their impassioned dispatches from the war zone. At least 50 American citizens — the majority former U.S. military veterans — have been killed in Ukraine.

Though official numbers are a bit murky, some 20,000 foreigners from over 50 nationalities make up Ukraine’s international legion, according to Ukrainian officials. Last week, amid mounting concerns over troop shortages, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a decree allowing foreign nationals legally residing in the country to enter the National Guard, the military branch of the Ukraine’s interior minister.

He also proposed legislation last month making it easier for foreign nationals defending Ukraine to receive citizenship. Other volunteer brigades fighting for Ukraine include detachments of Belarusian fighters opposed to the Putin-backed dictatorship in Minsk, anti-Kremlin Russians and ethnically Turkic nationals from Russia, and post-Soviet states like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Russia, despite a massive demographic advantage, has faced its own workforce challenges over the course of the conflict. Its waves of mobilization pooled in unprepared conscripts from far-flung regions of the country and hardened convicts from its jails. Infamously, soldiers from the Wagner organization, a state-backed mercenary company, participated in what was a short-lived putsch last June amid internal anger over the management of the war.

Last month, Putin issued a decree fast-tracking citizenship for foreign nationals who signed military contracts to fight in the “special military operation” in Ukraine. Russian authorities have allegedly carried out police raids on Central Asian migrant homes in various cities, where those detained are sometimes pressured to enlist, according to the Associated Press.

Russia has reached out much further afield to boost its ranks. Nationals from Syria, Cuba, Nepal and India have all reportedly been deployed on the Russian side of the war. Some of these people were duped by human traffickers; others joined the war out of sheer desperation to help their families make ends meet. 

Their presence belies the constant state propaganda produced by the Kremlin, detailing accounts of Russian forces capturing or “eliminating” foreign mercenaries fighting for Ukraine in a bid to underscore the supposed illegitimacy of Kyiv’s government.

A number of recent stories chart the tangled, tragic global fault lines of the war. Reuters traced the journeys of Cubans from Havana’s depressed environs who encountered recruiters on social media, and then left for Russia and later Ukraine. The Nepali government has asked Russia to send back hundreds of Nepali nationals recruited to fight for them in the war. 

According to officials in Kathmandu, more than 200 Nepalis have gone to Ukraine’s battlefields and at least 14 have been killed, while a number of others are in Ukrainian custody. Other analysts say the real number of Nepalis sent to fight for Russia in Ukraine is much higher, perhaps in the thousands.

For poor Nepalis, the prospect of a salary at $2,000 a month and potential access to a passport with more possibility for mobility than their own is a strong sell. But returning fighters have detailed horror stories where they and other foreigners were sent into battle as cannon fodder.

“I didn’t join the Russian military for pleasure. I didn’t have any job opportunities in Nepal,” Ramchandra Khadka, 37, who returned to Nepal after sustaining injuries in Ukraine, told CNN. “But in hindsight, it wasn’t the right decision. We didn’t realize we would be sent to the frontlines that quickly and how horrible the situation would be.”  

The Hindu, a leading Indian newspaper, documented how at least 100 Indians were recruited by the Russian military as “army security helpers.” Some had no idea the contracts they signed would place them in the firing line; a group of Indians digging trenches for Russian troops in the Donetsk region were it by a Ukrainian missile strike last week, killing at least one Indian national.

Speaking to the BBC, a man from Indian Kashmir described injuring himself while training near the occupied city of Mariupol with 10 people from India, Nepal and Cuba. “I had never touched a gun,” he told the British outlet. “It was extremely cold, and with the gun in my left hand, I ended up shooting my foot.”

Ukraine has also seen a surge in fighters from the Global South. The Associated Press delved into how numerous former soldiers in Colombia, which maintains one of the largest standing armies in Latin America, have entered the international legion.

Their deployments lack the ideological zeal of the foreign legionaries who flocked to Ukraine in the early months of the war. “They’re like the Latin American migrants who go to the U.S. in search of a better future,” a Colombian ex-combat medic who has trained departing mercenaries told the AP. “These are not volunteers who want to defend another country’s flag. They are simply motivated by economic need.”

-Ishaan Tharoor & Sammy Westfall, Washington Post
 

"Either step it up and make Ukraine win, or let it lose – and prepare to fight on your soil"

 

We all have come a long way since that morning of Feb. 24, 2022. From the initial shock of waking up to the sound of air strikes on our cities, through the sense of immense pride encouraged by the victories of 2022, to the gloomy days of two difficult winters and the failed counteroffensive of 2023.

Some things have remained unchanged. Ukrainians still want to fight till the end. The accumulated exhaustion, loss, and pain haven’t converted into the desire to surrender.

Russia’s goal of exterminating the Ukrainian nation has also gone unchanged. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin continues to say that Ukraine’s existence is a mistake. This leaves Ukrainians with no other choice than to fight for their survival in a war they never wanted.

Let’s get one thing clear. When we write “Russia” we don’t just mean the Kremlin or Putin’s regime. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russians who support his war. They fight in it, they pay for it, they make weapons for it, and in March they will once again vote for Putin to continue to lead them.

The view of the Russian people as an oppressed nation forced to fight is absurdly incorrect. There is plenty of sincere support for Putin’s policies toward Ukraine. But there are some things that, two years in, aren’t so certain anymore. The most important of them is this: How serious the West is in its support of Ukraine.

Since February 2022, Ukraine’s Western partners have held back on delivering certain types of military assistance to Ukraine, apparently out of fear of Russian escalation. They would then relent and announce they would provide the weapons. Those delays are measured in the lives of Ukrainians gone forever.

Reluctance turned into obstinance in 2023 as aid for Ukraine became politically weaponized in Europe and North America — where critically needed aid for Kyiv to the tune of $61 billion is still tied up in the U.S. Congress.

Germany refuses to send Ukraine its long-range Taurus missiles on grounds that remain elusive to those of us paying attention.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian soldiers are literally running out of ammunition on the battlefield. The recent loss of one of Ukraine’s major strongholds in Donetsk Oblast, Avdiivka, is highly likely the result of Ukrainian forces’ inability to achieve parity with Russian troops in ammunition.

All of this leads to the painful question, but one we must ask: Could the West let Ukraine fall – if not on purpose, but due to sheer neglect and breakdown of their resolve – and face the consequences of the whole world order collapsing?

There is no question of the Western allies' capabilities. Their military and economic resources dwarf Russia’s. If they got behind Ukraine 100%, truly doing all they could, the war could have been over by now.

The West needs to snap out of the myth of “Russia can’t be defeated,” and stop seeing Russia as a giant whose fall would be too dangerous for everyone. Russia has proven time and time again that it is already a danger to everyone.

All these arguments may sound familiar, and indeed they aren’t new – we all have heard them, or said them, many times in the past two years. What’s changed is that we can’t afford to not hear them anymore.

Two years ago, we saw the abyss. Today, we are standing on its edge. Make no mistake, Ukraine isn’t standing there alone. Yes, it might be the closest one to the edge, but its fall will indubitably have a chain effect that will drag everyone else down with it.

There is still a way to stop it, but it requires brisk, decisive actions from Ukraine’s friends around the world. The West has already helped Ukraine a lot, but instead of dwelling on past achievements, Ukraine’s allies need to face the reality that they were only half-measures, and now is the time to rectify it.

• The U.S. Congress must finally bring the $61-billion Ukraine aid for a vote, even if one presidential candidate opposes it.
• The West needs to provide all the game-changing weapons that Ukraine needs – particularly more long-range missiles, jets, and advanced air defense. There isn’t a minute to lose. The West's inability – or unwillingness – to provide these key systems in time is what has led us to this point, where cities like Avdiivka begin to fall because basic shells are running out.
• NATO allies must provide a clear pathway to Ukraine's accession to the alliance.
• The West must come to an agreement on allocating frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Europe and the U.S. can tap the immobilized assets to help Ukraine. It is clear that it is a question of lack of political will.
• The West has imposed a host of sanctions against Russia, but they have largely failed to make a difference. Russia’s economy still has plenty of resources to wage an indefinite war against Ukraine. It needs to expand and strengthen the enforcement of sanctions.
• In a recent interview with the Kyiv Independent, Josep Borrell said that the EU sanctions are not extraterritorial and can't be applied to third countries not members of the union. That should be changed. Existing rules and practices, established in the time of peace, can’t be used as justification for inaction. A rule that is hindering peace and enabling Russia must be changed. European companies should be banned from operating in Russia.
• Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and isolated. All trade with the country should be ceased. There must be clear sanctions for the countries who choose to continue trade with Russia, such as a ban on doing business with the two largest economies in the world. The U.S. and the EU, alone, account for over 50% of the world's economy. That kind of economic power can go a long way with enough political will.  

·       The U.S. and the EU have enough weapons to win this war, and then some. Providing these weapons will save lives, end the war, boost the West's economic output due to an increase in production, and what is crucial for many will make sure that NATO member states won't see their people die on the battlefield next.

·       And crucially, Western leaders need to lead by example. It often seems that the West lacks resolve and those in power are scared to do the right thing when it requires them to exit their decades-built comfort zone.

·       "As long as it takes" doesn't mean anything when the support provided is only helping Ukraine hang on by a thread – and if it doesn’t change, even hanging by a thread isn’t guaranteed. Western leaders need to set the record straight – Ukraine must win, Russia must lose. It’s possible. This goal needs to have a clear plan and a timeline; “as long as it takes” is neither.

·       In its turn, the Ukrainian leadership must step up its game, both in terms of governing and communication. Optimism can lift spirits, but not when it sharply contrasts with reality. Ukrainians can handle the tough truth about the war. Someone must take responsibility to clearly communicate the country’s plan for mobilization, ending the mess and uncertainty.

·       More importantly, Ukrainian leadership needs to steer away from playing politics and looking for opponents inside the country. Things like pressure on business and attacks on journalists play into the West’s fears that Ukraine is becoming more authoritarian. The messy firing of Valery Zaluzhnyi as commander-in-chief didn’t give the country any points, either.

·       All these steps can turn the course of events in favor of Ukraine and the free world. The time of statements and piecemeal support is gone. Helping Ukraine survive isn’t helping anymore. Either step it up and make Ukraine win, or let it lose – and prepare to fight on your soil.

The Kyiv Independent Editorial

A bombshell report reveals that taxpayers spent billions developing medicines that drugmakers say shouldn’t face Medicare price negotiations

 

As the government begins its first-ever price negotiations for a handful of medicines under Medicare, the pharmaceutical industry has launched an all-out legal and PR assault on this meager attempt to control out-of-control drug prices for the country’s most vulnerable. Big Pharma reasons that the government has no place setting prices for the drugs developed by private companies. 

But the government, and by extension taxpayers, heavily subsidizes the development of drugs in this country. Now a bombshell new report reveals that Americans funded the development of all 10 drugs up for price negotiations, shelling out a total of $11.7 billion on their research. In 2022 alone, Big Pharma made $70 billion selling those same drugs — and now they want to keep their prices sky high.

According to the new study out of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University, which has not yet been published, the 10 selected prescription drugs received anywhere from $227 million to $6.5 billion in funding from the government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) for crucial, foundational research. 

“When the average taxpayer is paying for the drug, it’s not just what’s being paid at the pharmacy,” said Fred Ledley, professor of natural and applied sciences at Bentley and senior author on the study. 

These drugs, which are covered by Medicare’s prescription drug benefit plan, are taken by 7.7 million enrollees, most of them elderly, to treat conditions including blood clots, heart failure, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, and chronic kidney disease. In 2022, Medicare patients spent $3.4 billion out of pocket on these medications, a number that increased by 116 percent over a four-year span. 

From 2018 to 2022, out-of-pocket costs for Medicare enrollees climbed for nine of the 10 drugs. The average annual out-of-pocket cost for Stelara, an injectable drug that treats autoimmune conditions, rose the most from $709 per enrollee to $2,058. For non-Medicare U.S. patients, Stelara can be considerably more expensive, especially since drugmakers charge far higher prices in this country than they do elsewhere. A 2019 report found that the regular price for Stelara was $16,600 per dose in the United States, compared to $2,900 per dose in the United Kingdom. 

According to the new report from Bentley University, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that developed Stelara received $6.5 billion in taxpayer funding for it — by far the most of any of the medicines up for price negotiations.

Total Medicare spending to pay for enrollees’ use of these vital drugs more than doubled from about $20 billion in 2018 to $50.5 billion in 2023. Paying for these particular drugs accounted for roughly 20 percent of all Medicare spending on prescription drugs between summer 2022 and spring 2023.  

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the pharmaceutical industry’s main lobbying group, said it could not comment on the specifics of a study it has not reviewed. 

Sarah Ryan, PhRMA’s senior manager of public affairs, added in an email to The Lever that “while the NIH plays a crucial role in fostering basic research, private industry contributions, both financial and technical, are instrumental in turning discoveries into fully developed therapies for patients. There is a rich body of research documenting the nature of these complementary roles, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the private sector invests significantly more and takes on far greater risk in drug development than the government.”

After finalizing negotiations with the drug manufacturers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees all federal health programs, will publish the agreed-upon drug prices by Sept. 1, 2024, and the new prices will go into effect starting Jan. 1, 2026…

 

---

Source URL: https://portside.org/2024-02-24/americans-paid-11-billion-drugs-you-cant-afford

Saturday Marks Two Years Since the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

On the evening of 23 February 2022, I was in Kyiv eating dinner at the home of the Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov. Andrey cooked Borscht. He was optimistic; I wasn’t. I thought a terrible storm was coming. At 11pm we hugged and said farewell. Out on the street, in the ancient centre of the capital, I took a call from a well-placed Ukrainian contact. He told me: “the invasion will begin at 4am.” At 4:30am, a colleague called to say Russian tanks had crossed the international border and were heading our way. There were explosions in the distance. We went to the hotel’s bomb shelter. At breakfast, I donned my “PRESS” flak jacket and walked down to Independence Square. Thousands were already fleeing to the border. It felt like a moment in history and a dark turn for our century. What happened in Bucha still haunts me. I visited the city in April 2022, days after the Russians pulled out. Russian troops had gone from house to house, detaining, torturing and executing men. Their bodies were left on the street and in basements. The soldiers raped women and shot a female mayor. It’s hard to see so much destruction. In January 2022 I travelled to Mariupol, just before the invasion. Some of the people I met there disappeared. Russia laid waste to the city and has killed between 20,000 and 100,000 people. Nobody knows the exact figure. We’ve seen nothing like this since the second world war.

We travel in a team in a Land Cruiser: I am with our Ukrainian driver Oleg, security guard Jake and my photographer colleague Alessio Mamo. Within shelling distance we wear helmets, flak jackets and ballistic glasses. We have a special bond.

The war, I fear, won’t finish anytime soon. But I don't think we should be too doomy. Two years ago most people believed Russia would occupy Kyiv and topple Zelenskiy’s government. That didn’t happen and Ukraine has fought back. It has liberated half of its territory and has driven Russia’s fleet from the Black Sea. Last year’s Ukrainian counter-offensive failed and Russian troops are moving forward. Last week they captured the city of Adviika. So far, though, Ukraine has prevented large-scale enemy advances. Much depends on the provision of weapons to Kyiv by the US, EU and UK. Often we meet civilians living close to the frontline who carry on their lives amid the booms and thumps. But society is pretty united. People want Ukraine to be a member of the EU and Nato and a decent, ordinary, progressive, democratic country. They believe in victory, even though this seems far off. They are paying a huge price for freedom and the right to live the way they want. Luke Harding Senior international correspondent The Guardian

 

"In the past two years of war, we have all died a little" - Andriy Lyubka

 

Where were you that morning when the great war began?

Here's my story: The war spoke to me with the distant rumble of explosions outside the window, but I didn't believe it, thinking I was living a dream. Then, on the second floor of my friends' house near Kyiv, the door slammed shut, and slippers clattered down the stairs.

"The war has started, the airspace has been closed," said Katia, the owner of the house.

She mentioned the airspace because I was supposed to fly to Vilnius two hours later to present the translation of my novel. Her voice, after sleep, seemed rough and masculine, hoarse and smoky. But in reality, it was the sound of primal fear. A large dog stood in the kitchen in front of the window, looking into the dark sky, barking nervously, listening to the sounds of rockets and warplanes.

Every Ukrainian will forever remember the dark morning of Feb. 24, 2022, when the full-scale invasion began. Some woke up to explosions, others to frightened calls from their families – but everyone remembers that second to the last detail. It's a memory that pierces through our entire lives. The commonality of this experience makes us not just one people, but a closer, more intimate community – something akin to a family. Because we experienced that moment together.

Afterward, there were many different moments, alarms and tears, pain and anger, but those first seconds remind me of a freeze frame. As if in a 3D program, I can recall all the details around me: the air temperature, the glasses on the table from the previous night's gathering, the clock hands above the door, the smell of the dog in the room, the cool tiles on the floor.

It was the most important moment of my life, after which everything went awry and all plans were disrupted. Perhaps, I’ll remember just as piercingly and deeply the moment when I hear that the war is over — if I live to see that moment, of course.

Two dreadful years have passed since then. What has changed within us and around us? The most significant change is that we have become accustomed to war — it is part of our lives, our daily routine. This is the scariest change because we have acclimatized to something absolutely abnormal and horrific. We have learned to live without paying attention to it.

Now, when the air raid siren sounds in Kyiv, almost no one rushes to find the nearest shelter – people continue to go about their usual business without haste. Death has acquired the features of an ancient Greek tragedy where it is now governed by fate and destiny. You have almost no influence over it — it may happen that a missile will hit your house today, fall on the café where you order your cappuccino, or destroy the station where you meet your friends.  It's practically impossible to protect yourself from this, so we have to accept it as a daily possibility. “Thy will be done,” as we atheists say.

There is a lot of death around. In the spring of '22, when the first coffins of soldiers killed at the front were brought to my city, each death was felt as a personal tragedy. As the hearse moved through the streets, people on the sidewalks dropped to their knees, laying flowers on the pavement, and crowds gathered at the funerals.

Now, there's a whole section of military graves in the city cemetery, each adorned with the Ukrainian flag. Relatives, colleagues from civilian life, and front-line comrades accompany the coffin — it's usually a small procession. People on the streets pause in respect, but they no longer cry or kneel. In general, it's more comfortable for them to look away or rush into the nearest store to avoid a personal encounter with the death of someone who sacrificed their life for our right to live in the relatively peaceful rear.

Don't rush to judge these people – they're not cynical or callous. It's just that there's been so much death, pain, and grief in these past two years that tears have been shed, the emotions have faded, and the shock of each new tragic news story paralyzes us, only to quickly dissipate. Because you have to gather all your strength and keep living — it's easy to go mad from the onslaught of emotions and experiences. Sometimes I feel like we've all collectively gone mad.

I'm not exaggerating, believe me. In Kharkiv, after a Russian shelling, an entire family perished – two parents and three children. The Russians attacked an oil depot, causing a fuel leak that flowed down the street and ignited dozens of houses in the residential area. It was a literal hell on Earth; people burned alive.

The father and one son were in the hallway attempting to escape. The mother and her other two children in the bathroom. The youngest son, Pavlo, was seven months old. His mother held him close when they died. The baby was so badly burned during the fire that nothing remained, not even his bones – just ashes.

Can one not go mad after such a reality? Can one not go mad after such a reality? And have I truly gone mad if my first thought was that it would have been better if it were a missile, so that everyone would perish instantly? Because in the fire, everyone endured fear and pain.

A Ukrainian soldier, who only returned from Russian captivity on Jan. 31 after enduring humiliation and torture for two years, was fatally struck by a truck at an intersection on Feb. 8. After returning from captivity, he didn't even get the chance to see his daughter, Valeriia Halkina, who now lives as a refugee in Lisbon.

She wrote on her Instagram: "Today my dad passed away. He wasn't killed by war, nor by a bullet, nor by two years in captivity. He was just crossing the road and was hit by a car. It's surreal. I can't believe this is real. I'm sorry for everything. I waited for your call, as you promised, but I can't wait anymore…"

These are not the most striking stories from the war – just two pieces of news from the morning as I write this piece. This is what everyday life has looked like for two consecutive years – 730 mornings in a row. Every day, civilians die – defenseless, innocent, completely ordinary people, killed by Russia in a supermarket, on the street, in their own homes.

Not only random civilians are dying – Russia kills our soldiers every day. The world has accepted the idea that military deaths are normal, that they are just statistics of war. But aren't soldiers humans, too? Can they simply be killed by invading our country? Who decided that killing soldiers is not a crime, and when?

Especially considering that the Ukrainian army mainly consists of civilians, people who voluntarily went to defend their country or were mobilized under state conscription. These people had no military training before the invasion and were managers in offices, city bus drivers, pizza chefs in trendy restaurants — just like you, reading these lines now.

Consider my friend Maksym Plesha, a 32-year-old artist whose lifestyle embodied that of a hippie — a true free spirit. He earned his living by painting portraits of people on the streets and restoring paintings in temples. He went to war as a volunteer, although he had no military background. He was wounded twice and survived battles in Bakhmut last winter. After his injuries, we joked that he had nine lives, like a cat.

These extra lives saved him more than once, but when the war continues every day for two consecutive years, not even nine lives are enough to survive. Maksym was killed last year, and his handsome body was brought to his funeral in a closed coffin because it was badly mutilated. Is killing such a soldier a crime or not?

And now let's answer together the question that I am asked very often in different countries: "Are you currently writing fiction?" The answer is obvious.

We live every day amid such a whirlwind of stories that writing fiction capitulates to reality. No novel can compete with the stream of everyday plots from the lives of ordinary Ukrainians. I am not writing anything fictional and, in general, I do not think about literature today as something imaginary or detached from life.

Because the only function of Ukrainian literature today is to witness, to describe fates, to document crimes. When I wrote about Maksym, his relatives thanked me for the fact that, this way, the memory of him will live a little longer and more people will learn about his life. Literature becomes a kind of psychotherapy, helping to endure the greatest losses, giving hope that all this is not in vain, that we will be heard.

These are not empty words: During the war, in the midst of a deep economic crisis, the circulation of Ukrainian books doubled, and the book market remained one of the few profitable ones in the country. It's a paradox, but only at first glance — in times of turbulence and uncertainty, people need books. The demand for books has increased because they're about people, about human and intimate matters.

To be a writer in these times is both honorable and immensely challenging because literature today does not entertain, but helps and saves. However, it also poses a certain danger: If you have a large paper library in your apartment, then during a missile strike, your dwelling will burn much faster than others — firefighters may not have time to rescue you.

But this cannot be predicted. Over two years of war, as it has already been said, we've learned to rely on fate and destiny. We've grown accustomed to the deaths around us and accepted the possibility of our own sudden demise. We no longer react as vehemently as we did before to terrible news — our emotional skin has thickened. Or perhaps it has simply gradually withered away because, with each day of horror, which our lives have turned into, we all slowly died, too.

What makes us human and normal has withered away within us. Everyone has become a victim of the war – both those it has killed and those who have (so far) been lucky enough to survive. Over two years, we've grown accustomed to war and tragedies, and have started to consider it the new normal, a part of our everyday lives.     

And that's the scariest part of it all.  

-Andriy Lyubka is a Ukrainian poet, essayist, and translator.