With Ukraineʼs return of occupied territories, the question arises for the authorities and society about how to treat the residents of these places. Brian Milakowski, an expert on economic development and sustainability, writes about it in an essay on Foreign Affairs. Earlier in October, Volodymyr Zelensky said that people who did not serve the occupiers have nothing to fear, but Milakovsky writes that the spectrum of guilt can be very ambiguous ― from passive acceptance of the new government to its active support. Ukraine will have to decide on the balance of punitive and reintegration measures, particularly in Donbas. After 2014, Russian propaganda achieved strong anti-Ukrainian sentiments in the so-called "L/DPR", while pro-Ukrainian sentiments increased in the southeast of the territories controlled by Ukraine. Putin did not expect this, believing that the occupiers would be welcomed there. When this didnʼt happen, the Russian troops used an approach previously tested in Chechnya ― killing and torturing the disloyal local population and simultaneously rewarding supporters of Russia. Milakowski writes that among the residents of the temporarily occupied territories, the number of Russia supporters varies depending on the region, but they do exist. In particular, open support for Russia is rare in Kherson, while in Luhansk and Donetsk regions pro-Russian locals are quite numerous, especially after their opponents have evacuated or been detained. Some residents who supported Russia are now fleeing for fear of persecution from Ukraine. Currently, according to Ukrainian legislation, cooperation with the occupiers is punishable by criminal liability, except for doctors and public utility workers. Others, including teachers and social workers, may be prosecuted. At the same time, many people stayed at work not because of ideological beliefs, Milakowski writes: for example, some social workers, for example, continued to work with victims of domestic violence or rape. It will be extremely important for Ukraine to conduct the search and identification of collaborators in a transparent and accountable manner, as well as not to rush into quick decisions, giving suspects the opportunity to challenge them. This is how Ukraine will demonstrate the power of the rule of law in the territories that have undergone nihilistic Russian occupation.
Wired writes about an investigation that revealed at least $4 million in cryptocurrency donations to the Russian military. The recipients of the money include Russian paramilitary groups, mercenaries and arms manufacturers. Moreover, over time, the flow of money for them increases: if in the previous five months the amount of transfers amounted to $2.2 million, in the last two months Chainalysis tracked transfers of $1.8 million. According to the investigation, the collection of donations often took place through crowdfunding, in particular on the Telegram messenger. The article details those who collect donations in cryptocurrency: they include both pro-Russian groups like Save Donbass and the Russian arms manufacturer Lobaev. Ukraine, in cooperation with companies such as Binance and Chainalysis, aims to detect and block this activity, the article says. If it is easy to track payments, then the blocking mechanism is not easy, because most of the funds are withdrawn through Russian fraudulent exchanges.
The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal criticizes the way Joe Biden talks about the nuclear threat. A Democratic fundraiser was held on Thursday, during which Biden gave a speech that focused on the prospect of "Armageddon" due to the Russian nuclear threat. In particular, he talked about the search for "exit ways for Putin" ― and this may lead the Russian president to think that the USA and Europe will be ready to sacrifice a large piece of Ukrainian territory for the sake of peace. The WSJ still writes that although there is a risk of nuclear escalation, itʼs insignificant, because it carries serious consequences for Putin ― in particular, the loss of his last allies. If Joe Biden really thinks the risks are high, he should talk about them to US citizens, not at a cocktail party, writes the editorial board. After all, an important part of the deterrence policy is the publicʼs readiness for possible complications. Instead, Bidenʼs speech only scared people, and perhaps undermined the policy of containing Russia.