Maria Andreeva, whose husband has been fighting in Ukraine for more than a year, is also fighting a struggle in Moscow: she is trying to bring him back home without his being killed.

No one else is with her. A growing number of Russian women are requesting that President Vladimir Putin’s order to mobilize their husbands, sons, and brothers in September of the previous year bring them home from the front lines.

The movement first pledged its allegiance to what the Kremlin refers to as its “special military operation” (SVO), but what they see to be the little reaction they have gotten is making some of their ideas more rigid.

Two brief visits to see his wife and little daughter have been the only times Andreeva’s husband has been to the country since he was called up for military service and sent to Ukraine a year ago. According to his wife, this is not enough for a soldier fighting beside him in combat.

“We want our men to be demobilized so that they can return home because we think that for over a year they have done everything they could have—or even more,” Andreeva, who is 34 years old, said in an interview with Reuters in Moscow.

“For me, it is not only a struggle to ensure that my daughter has a father, but it is also a struggle for my marriage.”

Regarding dealing with the movement, the Kremlin is in a fragile position.

In previous conflicts, Moscow has permitted more outstanding death tolls than would be politically acceptable in Western nations. In February 2022, Moscow dispatched tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine. Additionally, Moscow has tolerated higher death tolls in prior wars.

The increasing movement of Russian women, on the other hand, highlights the inherent inequity and difficulty of maintaining so many men at war for such a long period while still allowing many more men of fighting age to remain at home.

When the Soviet Union was falling apart, groups of mothers of Russian troops campaigned for improved living circumstances for their sons who were serving in the military. This effort continued after their boys returned from fighting in the Chechen area of Russia.

According to the authorities, Russian society is unified behind the war effort; nonetheless, it is too soon to evaluate the magnitude of the movement of Russian women or the influence it will have. Additionally, women in Ukraine have demanded that their husbands be allowed to return from the front lines.

When Andreeva was asked about the risks associated with speaking out in Russia during the conflict, she responded, “I want you to understand: it is no longer scary because it is just not possible to put up with all of this any longer.” It is just an excessive amount.”

The news agency Reuters did not seek out or get any information from Andreeva that may be considered military or potentially sensitive. She requested her spouse’s identity.

Is it loyal?
In September 2022, when Putin issued an order for a partial mobilization of 300,000 reservists, hundreds of thousands of young men fled Russia. Millions of people did not evacuate, and some served in the military.

Since then, Russia has used the promise of high salaries to entice hundreds of thousands of contract soldiers to join its various military units in the regions. The fact that Russia has already recruited 452,000 contract troops this year demonstrates Russia’s numerical edge over Ukraine, as stated by Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of Russia who is currently the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council.

According to Andreeva, the ladies have had very little engagement from the Russian defense ministry, and the petitions that were sent to get their men have received absolutely no reaction.

An inquiry from Reuters for a comment was not met with a response from the ministry.

According to Andreeva, the absence of a reaction has caused some women to alter their perspectives on the dispute and cease acting like “good girls” in response to their requests.

“Our position at the start was: Yes, we understand why it is needed; we support it; we occupy a rather loyal position,” according to her. “But now the position, including mine, is changing because we see how we are being treated and how our husbands are being treated.”

We could not obtain permission from the authorities to proceed with the demonstrations that the ladies had planned. Andreeva stated that the ladies have been accused of having been supported by opposition groups and dissidents headquartered in the West, which are accusations that have no basis in reality.

Twenty-three thousand people are members of their “Way Home” Telegram channel.

Are you saying, “GOOD GIRLS”?

Last month, two ladies bombarded politician Vitaly Milonov with direct questions regarding the return of their men. The bluntness of their questions pierced his attempts to brush away their inquiries with words about his patriotism.

“We are all Russian here,” one person said in an online video clip. “When will the mobilised be changed over?”

“There will, of course, be a changeover,” the speaker said. We shall emerge triumphant for all of us.” As Milonov put it,

“Oh, we have heard all of that before,” the woman remarked through interjection.

One of the most significant complaints that Andreeva, along with other spouses, mothers, and sisters, has is that the weight of war is not distributed fairly. At the same time that expensive restaurants in Moscow will be serving good wine and truffles over the New Year holiday season, some guys are in trenches at the front, fighting for their lives.

“We have 1 percent of the population taking on the whole burden of the SVO at the front while the other 99% are preparing for New Year and having some fun.” According to Andreeva,

“Having fun is not what is in store for our boys or our families.”

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will announce its verdict over whether or not the government is allowed to move forward with its plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. This decision might have far-reaching implications for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his administration.

At hearings in October, government attorneys argued that the highest court should reverse a verdict that said the plan to transport thousands of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles (6,400 km) to East Africa was unconstitutional because Rwanda was not a safe third nation. The proceedings took place in response to a ruling that found the plan to deport the asylum seekers to be unlawful.

Sunak harbors the expectation that the Rwanda plan would be able to halt the flow of migrants crossing the Channel from Europe in tiny boats, allowing him to fulfill one of his most crucial policy commitments and revitalizing his flagging leadership in front of an election that is slated to take place the following year.

With his Conservative Party trailing by almost 20 points in the polls and immigration being a big worry for some people, the government would latch on to a victory in the Supreme Court as a sign that it was getting to grips with the immigration issue. This is because immigration is a primary concern for sure voters. The loss would be regarded as yet another unsuccessful attempt.

After Sunak upset some on the right of his party on Monday by firing Suella Braverman, a vocal critic of the treaty, from her position as the minister in charge of the issue, the decision of the court could also magnify calls from some Conservative lawmakers for Britain to pull out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This is especially true after Sunak upset some on the right of his party by firing Suella Braverman from her position as the minister in charge of the issue.

The Supreme Court has handed down several significant decisions that have gone against the government in recent years, the most notable of which is the conclusion that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson violated the law when he suspended parliament in 2019.

On Wednesday, at 1000 GMT, the court’s five most senior judges, including Robert Reed, who also serves as its president, will hand down their verdict.

IMPERATIVE REQUIREMENT

Hearings lasted for three days, during which government attorneys spoke before the justices and asserted a “serious and pressing need” for the Rwanda program.

They said Rwanda was “less attractive” to individuals coming to Britain, which is why the program would be a deterrent. At the same time, the pact negotiated with the East African country would ensure that the human rights of migrants deported there would be safeguarded.

“There is a strong public interest in deterring illegal, dangerous, and unnecessary journeys from safe third countries to the UK while ensuring that those who continue to make such journeys are removed to a safe third country,” the researchers stated.

Rwanda has clarified that it intends to provide British migrants with the option to start over in a secure environment.

However, attorneys representing asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, and Sudan who face the possibility of being deported to Rwanda contended that it was illegal to send individuals there because it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and put them in danger of being repatriated to their home countries despite having legitimate asylum claims.

In addition, they claimed that those seeking asylum in Rwanda suffered inhumane or humiliating treatment. The United Nations organization in charge of refugees supports this assertion.

In April 2022, while Boris Johnson was still Prime Minister, he agreed with Rwanda to discourage asylum seekers from making the dangerous trek over the Channel. Sunak has made ending the flood of refugees one of his top five goals as he works to turn his and his party’s fortunes around.

James Cleverly, who has since replaced Braverman as Interior Minister, announced X, once known as Twitter. “We will stop the boats,” he stated.

After a record 45,755 individuals were found to have illegally entered the country in 2022, more than 27,000 people landed in Britain on small boats without authority this year.

The plan was put on hold in June of the previous year after the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction at the eleventh hour, preventing the first planned flight. That directive is no longer valid at this point.

Following an incident in south Lebanon that claimed the lives of three children and their grandmother, a politician for Hezbollah declared on Tuesday that the militant Lebanese organization would retaliate “double” to any Israeli attacks on civilian targets.

The comments are a reflection of the unstable situation along the Israeli-Lebanese border, where Israel is invading the Gaza Strip, and fatal skirmishes between Israeli soldiers and rebels supported by Iran are stoking worries of a more significant regional conflict.

At the burial of the four Lebanese martyrs in the south on Sunday, Ali Fayyad declared, “The resistance will respond double to any aggression that targets civilians.”

He made reference to the significant organization that Iran supports by saying, “It hasn’t shown all its weight yet.” He didn’t go into detail.

According to Lebanese authorities, an Israeli attack hit the family’s car on Sunday. The Israeli military claimed that it was investigating claims that people may have been inside a car that its forces had “identified as a suspected transport for terrorists” and that they had engaged the vehicle in Lebanon.

During the funeral, the family sobbed over four caskets covered in the flags of a nearby scouting group and Lebanon. The three girls, who were between the ages of ten and fourteen, carried a banner with the Hezbollah logo, claiming to be martyrs.

In reaction to an Oct. 7 Hamas onslaught on Israeli communities, Israel has been bombarding Hamas, the Palestinian affiliate of Hezbollah, in Gaza, resulting in the bloodiest violence along the Lebanese-Israeli boundary since 2006.

According to Israeli data, Hamas was responsible for 1,400 murders of Israelis. Ten thousand Palestinians have died as a result of Israel’s assault on Gaza, according to enclave health authorities.

On Monday, Israel declared that it had hit Hezbollah sites in retaliation for a heavy rocket bombardment directed into Israeli cities in the north.

Lebanese security authorities report that around 60 Hezbollah members and 10 civilians have been killed in the conflict along the border with Lebanon. One civilian and at least seven Israeli troops have died.