The estimated total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 14.03.25: personnel: about 891 660 (+1 410) persons tanks: 10 313 (+6) troop-carrying AFVs: 21 443 (+11) artillery
ISW has observed no geolocated evidence to indicate that Russian forces have encircled a significant number of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast or elsewhere along the frontline in Ukraine. Russian President
️ The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation continue the special military operation. In Kharkov direction, the Sever Group of Forces inflicted damage on a mechanised brigade and a motorised infantry brigade of the AFU near
personnel: about 890 250 (+1 200) persons tanks: 10 307 (+1) troop-carrying AFVs: 21 432 (+2) artillery systems: 24 409 (+19) MLRS: 1 314 (+0)anti-aircraft systems: 1 103
Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected the ceasefire proposal that the United States and Ukraine recently agreed upon in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and offered an alternative proposal that undermines US President
In Kharkov direction, units of the Sever Group of Forces inflicted fire damage on formations of one mechanised brigade, and one motorised infantry brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine close to Kazachya Lopan, Novaya Kazachya,
The estimated total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 12.03.25: personnel: about 889 050 (+1 130) persons tanks: 10 306 (+3) troop-carrying AFVs: 21 430 (+7) artillery systems: 24 390 (+44)
— Kursk counteroffensive: The Ukrainian military lost significant territory in the Russian region of Kursk, threatening to deprive Kyiv of key leverage in talks to end the war. — Moscow’s air war: Russia launched
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov offered a vague response on March 12 to the US-Ukrainian 30-day ceasefire proposal.Peskov responded to a question about Russia’s response to the joint temporary ceasefire proposal,
The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation continue the special military operation. In Kharkov direction, the Sever Group of Forces inflicted fire damage on units of a mechanised brigade of the AFU and three territorial
Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!
At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.
The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.
Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.
It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.
